# Preferred Crankset for Road-Riding? (2011 Edition)



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Last did a poll on this summer of '010. Curious to see how (or if) things have changed.

New poll'll be up in a minute. 
.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Last year's poll*

As I am sure others will be curious, here is a link to last year's poll:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/components-wrenching/preferred-crankset-road-riding-221743.html


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

(I just wonder when Salsa's gonna rush in and tell everyone to HTFU?) :idea:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, it's early days yet, but looks like compact is off to a good start.


/ whoa... but standard double is hangin' in there...
.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Chose standard double basically because I'm getting along. Unless there's a serious grade coming, my young legs don't look for a compact.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

I think too many riders make the mistake of valuing gear range over gear step, and end up with choppy gearing that they only use a small portion. 

53x39s and reasonable cassettes (13-28, 12-25) are good for most of North America on light road bikes. Traditional gearing shifts better up front and lasts longer. It is being increasingly overlooked for the compact system which most people don't even understand.


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Standard Double, with a cup of HTFU on the side for me.

I suck at climbing hills because I'm horridly out of shape compared to last year at this time, due to lack of any substantial bike riding this year. I'm finally getting some miles in during the fall. Well, that and false flats...but mostly I'm just out of shape.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> (I just wonder when Salsa's gonna rush in and tell everyone to HTFU?) :idea:


No need, you all already know it


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

For a long time, I thought I liked "wimpy" gearing because I try not to let pride or image get in the way of me having the gears I like.

Turns out I spin 110 rpm pretty routinely, and my best power output for longer than a minute or so is when I sit and crank out maybe even a little faster cadence. So that explains why I both like small gears and don't suck at climbing.


----------



## boneman (Nov 26, 2001)

*50th outer ring*

I think I participated in the poll last year. Have not changed my setup.

Standard Campag 10 spd 135 BCD 170mm, 50/39 rings. I use it with a 13-26 10spd cassette. One cog steps from 13-19 which works for me on most rides and if there's any hills, I can get up most of them with the 39 and the balance of the cassette.

My racing days are long over. What little power I had is going as I get near 60 so I rely on supplese and fast cadence. I rarely spin out in the 50/13 combo on the flat.

I though about going compact but for Campag, there's no need. If you're going with something like Shimano where the outer ring in some respects determine if you are or are not going compact, I would then go compact and change out the inner ring.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Kontact said:


> I think too many riders make the mistake of valuing gear range over gear step, and end up with choppy gearing that they only use a small portion.
> 
> 53x39s and reasonable cassettes (13-28, 12-25) are good for most of North America on light road bikes.


Those are only reasonable cassettes 

1) With 11 cogs which Shimano and SRAM riders don't have (18 is a very nice cog and it'll be missing with fewer.)

2) For riders facing the Rocky Mountain or California grades who weigh as much as they did as high school seniors (35 pounds of middle-age spread means you want a 30 cog instead of a 25, or a 32 ring instead of a 39).

(I'm ignoring that 53x13 is a 33.5 MPH cruising gear and 50x13 still nets 31.5 MPH with 40 MPH sprints possible in either combination and that pretty much everyone not racing doesn't need to go faster; although that's where the market and SKU reducing manufacturers are at. 53-39x14-28 or 53-39x13-25 would be excellent for most of us and fit into just 10 cogs with one tooth jumps to the 19)



> Traditional gearing shifts better up front and lasts longer.


A triple with 52/42/32 rings shifts better than a 53/39 double. A 46/36 shifts better and lasts longer (when you spend more time on the big ring with 2-3 more teeth on equivalent cogs versus the 39).


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2011)

> I think too many riders make the mistake of valuing gear range over gear step, and end up with choppy gearing that they only use a small portion.
> 
> 53x39s and reasonable cassettes (13-28, 12-25) are good for most of North America on light road bikes. Traditional gearing shifts better up front and lasts longer. It is being increasingly overlooked for the compact system which most people don't even understand.


If the goal is to prioritize gearing steps over gearing range, why not take it a step further and go for a triple setup with a really tightly spaced rear cassette? 

seems like an ideal setup (nearly a CVT) would be a 52/39/30 with 12-21 10speed cassette (all single tooth jumps) -- this would give nearly the same top and bottom speeds as your examples, but with even finer gear spacing for both front and rear shifts.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

Standard 53-39.

I aspired to a 42 till recently but it won't happen easily since I bought another 12-23 cassette (bargain price, with 18 tooth cog). 

Way back when I cheerfully rode heavy steel with 27 x 1 1/4 steel rims and 52-42 with 7-speed 12-21, is history.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PhotonFreak said:


> If the goal is to prioritize gearing steps over gearing range, why not take it a step further and go for a triple setup with a really tightly spaced rear cassette?
> 
> seems like an ideal setup (nearly a CVT) would be a 52/39/30 with 12-21 10speed cassette (all single tooth jumps) -- this would give nearly the same top and bottom speeds as your examples, but with even finer gear spacing for both front and rear shifts.


I think triples are a great idea - I just don't think that most riders in the US require them on racing bikes. But for very low geared bikes they make much more sense than compacts with enormous cassettes. They would be my 2nd choice in the poll.

I don't see the utility of the gearing you describe. It would just cause you to have to shift the front AND rear more often.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> No need, you all already know it


So what are you going to race with next year?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Standard for sure.

53/39 with a 12-23 for rolling hills or 12-27 for climbing are all that I need.

And I don't consider myself strong, I am a regular, middle aged rider with 5 kgs excess weight, and with that gearing I can ride to all heights on my region ( Swiss pre-Alps close to Zurich ). 

I did my share of suffering, panting and cursing, until I developed quads, hams and gluteus that allow me to do that not going out of my "comfort" ( read masochistic ) zone.

I am pretty sure that I would need a much higher dose of HTFU now to do transalpine climbs, but that's not because the legs can't but because my ageing heart don't like to beat so fast nowadays.

I still think people who find all sort if excuses to justify their need of lower gearing to ride the little hills around home, need really to HTFU or get a skirt.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Kontact said:


> I think triples are a great idea - I just don't think that most riders in the US require them on racing bikes. But for very low geared bikes they make much more sense than compacts with enormous cassettes. They would be my 2nd choice in the poll.


With just 10 cogs in back in order to get great spacing on a standard crank people need to be able to spin a 39x21, 39x23, or 39x26 up anything they'll encounter depending on whether they're starting with an 11, 12, or 13 cog respectively.

Most people aren't content with a 53x13 high gear and want something lower than 39x23.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

There's a new kid in town: 52/36 mid-compact cranks are being spec'd on many 2012 bikes.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I think a lot of people won't give up their highest ratios for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they need them.

I'm taking my old-school triple, 52-42-30, new-school, 50-39-30, when I get a chance to run down to my shop. I barely use my 12t cog as it is. I'll be curious to see if I find I want an 11t cog, or if I stick with the same cassette.


----------



## MoPho (Jan 17, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Standard for sure.
> 
> 53/39 with a 12-23 for rolling hills or 12-27 for climbing are all that I need.


And a 50/34 with an 11-23 pretty much has that covered without having to change cassettes for the conditions :idea:


----------



## LC (Jan 28, 2004)

I have always been ahead of the curve so I road a compact 110 BCD way before it became generally available and still like it on my racing bikes. I am not working on the sub-compact 94 BCD five arm double for off road and touring. I use a 46/32 rings for touring but it can go as low as 44/29 for off road or very heavy loads.


----------



## IBOHUNT (Oct 10, 2011)

Note to overweight self that I am. 
Never ride with these guys that can crank a 50 sprocket


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I still think people who find all sort if excuses to justify their need of lower gearing to ride the little hills around home, need really to HTFU or get a skirt.


Oh, sure. Yer a regular superhero in your 39x27, Sals. Meanwhile, a fixie rider is pulling up next to you and asking what color your thong is. :smilewinkgrin:

Be cautious with the insults. Remember what happened in that HTFU Lounge thread?:

.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

oh hai System Shock ! is that you on the white big blouse ? rrr:


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2011)

Kontact said:


> I think triples are a great idea - I just don't think that most riders in the US require them on racing bikes. But for very low geared bikes they make much more sense than compacts with enormous cassettes. They would be my 2nd choice in the poll.
> 
> I don't see the utility of the gearing you describe. It would just cause you to have to shift the front AND rear more often.


The gearing in my last post is close to what I have on my hybrid bike, which I use for loaded commuting and errands (eg store trips). My hybrid has a MTB triple (48/36/26) with 8spd 12-23 road cassette, so it has similar gear spacing as my hypothetical gears inn my last post, just a lower range overall (lower low gears and lower high gears).

During commuting I wear street clothes and like to be able to spin very efficiently and go moderately fast without working up too much of a sweat (the antithesis of HTFU). I usually use the whole cassette on the middle ring (I almost could be happy with the bike as a 1x8) but use the big ring when riding with no cargo on level ground, or if sweating is not a problem -- for example if I'm riding my bike to a gym to go work out. I use the small ring when climbing with more than the usual amount of cargo. I suppose this application isn't really comparable to intense road riding or racing with lots of frequent pace changes etc.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> oh hai System Shock ! is that you on the white big blouse ? rrr:


Yup, and I'm giving you a wedgie with your thong. :lol:

Can we be serious now?
.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

I have a Question.

Back in 2006 I was hit by a car and in the accident my crankset was ruined. When I went shopping for a replacement crankset is when I found out that the "standard" went from 42x52 to 39x53.
When did the change take place and was there a gnashing of teeth about weak kneed cyclists needing a 39 tooth chainring to do their climbing in?

For the record I'm running compacts these days.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Another question: Some pro riders have been running compacts (successfully) in the mountain stages of big tours, such as the Giro. Are they guilty of being weak and/or needing dresses? :confused5:

I can picture it now... Salsa calling Contador a 'weakling' for riding compact, while Contador drops Salsa like a bad habit on the Zoncolan... :lol:

The pros are open to going with 'whatever works', and IMO, so should recreational riders.

Perhaps in the end, cranksets and gearing are just a means to an end, i.e. a tool, and as in carpentry or auto maintenance, ppl should just use the tools that work best for them.

If that's a standard double, great. If that's a compact, that's great too. 

Heck, put a mountain double on your road bike and do the cha-cha if it fits your needs/usage pattern. Why give two craps what the poseurs think? They're not riding your bike for you, or buying your cranks for you. 
.


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

53x39 with 11x28 shimano ultegra.

i love it. i. love. it. the 28 has definitely helped make me a better climber. i was riding a 25 before and the steep climbs would leave me screwed. now i feel like i can get over just about anything with that 28.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think a lot of people won't give up their highest ratios for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they need them.
> 
> I'm taking my old-school triple, 52-42-30, new-school, 50-39-30, when I get a chance to run down to my shop. I barely use my 12t cog as it is. I'll be curious to see if I find I want an 11t cog, or if I stick with the same cassette.


I've been riding with a 50x13 big gear for the last fifteen years (50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 in the 8 speed era, 50-34x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 with nine cogs) and found it to be enough even though I spent a decade of that living in Boulder, CO and riding in the Rocky Mountains.

It's a 31+ MPH cruising gear and 39+ MPH sprinting gear which is enough except for a small range of descents where it spins out, a bigger gear wouldn't, and pedaling adds more speed than you loose due to the poorer aerodynamics. I just tuck in those situations and be happy. It's also not enough for east bound commutes with a Chinook although commuting at 30 MPH on flat ground is fast enough for me.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I can picture it now... Salsa calling Contador a 'weakling' for riding compact, while Contador drops Salsa like a bad habit on the Zoncolan... :lol:


What can we say... Telling people to HTFU while not racing is a great way to stay in shape, eh?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Here we go again, the zoncolan and "racer" with no results nonsense 

Guys there is no need to regurgitate the same excuses, we all know it by heart by now


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Here we go again, the zoncolan and "racer" with no results nonsense
> 
> Guys there is no need to regurgitate the same excuses, we all know it by heart by now


Had results this year. However, my results are a topic I still will only discuss with racers, not people who don't race and tell racers to HTFU.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Good for you, congratulations for those results!

Maybe is time now to move up and start racing on a standard and then getting more results .


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Good for you, congratulations for those results!
> 
> Maybe is time now to move up and start racing on a standard and then getting more results .


Says the guy who doesn't race at all.
.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Good for you, congratulations for those results!
> 
> Maybe is time now to move up and start racing on a standard and then getting more results .


If you raced you _might_ understand that there's a lot more to it than taking pictures of bikes in high gear and making sure the saddle to bar drop is better than your friends'. I have always had a standard on my TT bike and don't spend that much time in my 53x11. To be perfectly honest, I could achieve roughly the same speeds with a compact and spin a few RPMs faster. Just because I have a lower gear ratio doesn't always mean I'm using it and hills aren't always attacked like it's the final km of a hilltop finish.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

I just wish the OP would let this die. Don't you understand that it's a matter of preference? There's different riding styles, rider weight, physical fitness, and terrain that will all affect these decisions ultimately? So what's the point of arguing it over and over and over, when everyone's opinion is the correct one?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Peanya said:


> I just wish the OP would let this die. Don't you understand that it's a matter of preference? There's different riding styles, rider weight, physical fitness, and terrain that will all affect these decisions ultimately? So what's the point of arguing it over and over and over, when everyone's opinion is the correct one?



Gosh, Peanya... it's like you don't read my posts at all or something:



SystemShock said:


> The pros are open to going with 'whatever works', and IMO, so should recreational riders.
> 
> Perhaps in the end, cranksets and gearing are just a means to an end, i.e. a tool, and as in carpentry or auto maintenance, ppl should just use the tools that work best for them.
> 
> ...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, we're at 150 votes so far, aaaaand.... it's close.
.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I have a 53-39/13-29 combo on one bike and a 50-34/12-25 combo on the other. Apart from the sizes of the cogs and rings, they both pretty much work the same. I'll ride one bike for a few days, and the other one for a few days. Same routes. Wherever I may be on the routes, I'll be at or near the same chain position with either bike -- say, big ring/third cog from the dropout. Yes, the standard chainwheels make for smoother, more elegant shifts, but in the end....they're like Mike and Ike. True, when I'm on the heavier of the two bikes, I often find myself in a slightly lower gear, but this only happens on the steeper grades.

BTW, I like having low gears. Every once in a while, I feel like hitting those 20% hills near my house. When I cramp up (every once in a while), it's nice to put the bike and my legs in Power Saver mode.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

velodog said:


> I have a Question.
> 
> Back in 2006 I was hit by a car and in the accident my crankset was ruined. When I went shopping for a replacement crankset is when I found out that the "standard" went from 42x52 to 39x53.
> When did the change take place and was there a gnashing of teeth about weak kneed cyclists needing a 39 tooth chainring to do their climbing in?
> ...


In the 1996 Campagnolo catalogue Record had these gearing choices:
Cranksets: 39/52, 42/52, 39/53, 42/53, 30/40/50, 30/42/52, 32/42/52
Cassettes (8 sp): 11-21, 12-19, 12-21, 12-23, 12-25, 13-21, 13-23, 13-26, 14-26.

I do not know what gearing choices were available in the "Super Record" era, but I do know that Fausto Coppi's legendary ride on Passo Stelvio in the 1953 Giro was done on 48x18 (and The Bomb :ihih.

When I got my first road bike (in '94) they put me on 8 sp Shimano 105 42/52 and 12-23. "You'll be ok as you get stronger". Did some mashing up hills with that bike.


----------



## harmony (Aug 4, 2011)

Has anyone changed out a 34 chainring for a 38 or 39 on a compact crankset?
Just got a new bike with Ultegra compact and 11-28 cog, and the step from 50 to 34 is to big.
If so are the after market 110 bc rings compatible with Ultegra, and do I have to be concerned
about odd or even count teeth.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

I find a regular chainring set works fine for pretty much any terrain. Maybe if I did the Zoncolan or Angliru I'd choose a compact. But for pretty much all the racing I do, a 53/39 works fine.

My rear cassette changes depending on the course, but the largest I have is a 12-27 for those really tough mountain passes. Most of the time I race/ride with an 11-25.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Should be fine.

The small chain ring doesn't really need a lot of stuff to facilitate shifting. So any aftermarket ring that's the right width and orientation should drop right in. That said, stay away from a purpose-built singlespeed ring, and pay attention to width. Some of the inexpensive ones from QBP have been reported to be a little wide for use with 10-speed chains. I wasn't especially happy with the last FSA ring I had on a high-mileage bike, so I'd probably try the SRAM option unless it was a lot more expensive.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

harmony said:


> Has anyone changed out a 34 chainring for a 38 or 39 on a compact crankset?
> Just got a new bike with Ultegra compact and 11-28 cog, and the step from 50 to 34 is to big.
> If so are the after market 110 bc rings compatible with Ultegra, and do I have to be concerned
> about odd or even count teeth.


FSA, Specialites TA and Stronglight make good rings. and for 110 BCD Shimano they are many avaliable.

now for Campagnolo they are somewhat special as one of the holes has 112 BCD.

I bought a NOS C50, for a great price and it came with a Compact Crankset, instead of buying a new crankset I did buy Specialites TA rings 52/39 and they work great.

If you only swap the inner ring there is no issue, but if you also swap the 50 for a 52 or 53 then you'll need a longer chain ( one link longer ) or be careful and avoid the big-big combinations.












The Specialites TA rings for Shimano 110BCD are named ZEPHIR or SYRIUS ( CNC ) and they have new rings named ULTRA that are special for Ultegra 6700 cranksets


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Representative sample?*

After watching this thread develop a couple of things occur to me:

1. I realize that this is intended to be an informal (non-scientific) poll. That said, the sample is probably not representative of the market in general. The very fact that the poll is taking place in this forum skews the sample toward the harder core end of the cycling population. Does anyone have any information regarding the total market? Something like industry statistics regarding number of bikes sold with various crank configurations? This would be an interesting comparison with "our" sample.

2. I appreciate the lively discussion as much or more that the average person. However, it is tiring to see any discussion of this topic always seems to bring out two themes. First, crank choice as some sort of cycling correctness holly war. Second, the "butcher than thou" declarations of the sort that anyone using a compact or a triple needs to HTFU.

3. Local terrain has as much to do with people's choice as fitness level. People living in areas where the biggest hill is a freeway overpass have very different needs that those who live where "categorized " climbs are the norm. Just sayin.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Stodaguy -- I have a sense that if you did get contributors to the poll from outside the enthusiast community, leading the way would be "I have no idea."


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*I agree*

I agree that non-enthusiast responders would not even understand the poll. What I am wondering is if there is any industry market research documenting actual sales of "serious" road bikes segmented by crankset specs. "Serious" would be determined as bikes retailing for above a certain price, say $1500. I am sure that the marketing departments of all the major manufactures track this type of stuff. 

Does anyone in the RBR community have access to this information? If yes, would they like to/are they at liberty to share it? I would suspect that individual bike companies would view this as proprietary business information and not want to make it public.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Stogaguy said:


> I agree that non-enthusiast responders would not even understand the poll. What I am wondering is if there is any industry market research documenting actual sales of "serious" road bikes segmented by crankset specs. "Serious" would be determined as bikes retailing for above a certain price, say $1500. I am sure that the marketing departments of all the major manufactures track this type of stuff.
> 
> Does anyone in the RBR community have access to this information? If yes, would they like to/are they at liberty to share it? I would suspect that individual bike companies would view this as proprietary business information and not want to make it public.


One easy thing you can do is look at how many models of road bike in a given manufacturer's line-up are spec'd with std dbls, compacts, road triples, etc. 

That alone obviously does not tell you how much of each bike is being sold, but if more and more of a manufacturer's bikes are being spec'd a certain way over the years, you can spot trends. Perhaps especially meaningful/industry-wide ones if it's a large/big-selling manufacturer you're looking at , i.e. Trek, Specialized, Giant, Cannondale.
.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

Looks like compacts are pulling out a lead. Never owned one. When I used to race I could climb a 12-15% grade in a 42x23. Now 25 years later, I can do a 8-10% climb easy enough but in a 39x25. Breaks the heart that I gotten that slow. My next bike wont have one either. Guess I just have to just go out and ride more.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

My first good road bike (i.e. used, and back in the '80s) was a 52/42 with a 14-32 6-spd freewheel in the back.

I found I did _not_ enjoy the huge jumps between gears. Especially while doing the Davis Double Century 

Next bike, shortly thereafter, was a 52/39 with a 14-26 6-spd in the back. I later changed that out for a 13-26 7-spd.

This was fine, but once I finally discovered high-rpm climbing (a la Lance), I wanted something lower... and from past bad experience, a mega-range cassette wasn't the way to go for me (ironic that these are making a comeback just now). Compacts just seemed to come along at the perfect time for what I wanted.

Triple would've been okay too, but it's real hard to find a triple crank with a truly low Q-factor, which I find makes a difference for me.

I still have a beautiful std double DA 7400 crank (52/39) which is begging to be put back on a bike. It's a tough choice whether or not to use it... it's not really the gearing I want anymore, but it's just so damn gorgeous and has that 'old school' aura around it.  
.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

I think we are all victims of fashion. Overwelmingly as a group we choose a double, but the majority don't have the confidence to go with a 'Standard' Double. I think this prooves that most of us secretly want the security of some easier gears. Add this to the number of threads asking about MTB cassettes on a road bike, and I suggest there is plenty of demand for traditional triple gear ranges amongst non-racers. For people who regularly go out in public in Lycra we are sure overly sensitive about putting a third ring on our cranksets.
For me I have both a triple and a compact (no need for more than 50 teeth), and the set of gears I find most usefull are the middle 39 ring on my triple.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Wow. Are road triples really getting this uncommon these days? 
.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

With the availability of an 11 tooth cog, I highly doubt that anyone here really "needs" to use a 53-11.....(How many of you are able to sprint to 40+ mph on the flats), and don't give me any of that crap about needing to go downhill faster. (once you hit 35-36 mph downhill, gravity works wonders if you get aero)

Yes, I use a 53, but I do most of my training with a wheel that has a 13-25 on it. My racing wheels all have 12's on them, BUT....I've only needed to use a 12 in a sprint once.........and that was with a strong tailwind.


If I had a 50x36 crank, I could use a 12x21 for racing, instead of a 12x23.......(which would look cool)


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I think there's a lot more triples out there in the wild than are posting here. A ton of entry-level bikes ship with them, and a ton of people buy once and ride every now and then, or even fairly frequently, without thinking about it.

The group of roadbikereview posters is a little more selective and, I think, a little more self-conscious. As long as QBP offers a few different ones and a few different brands' aftermarket small and middle rings, I doubt the idea that triples are getting uncommon. As well as the evidence of my eyes, of course, and I see a fair number out on the road.

There are some mechanical things to recommend a largish ring/largish minimum cog setup as mentioned above. I have two cassettes to wear out first, but if QBP still has those 6600 cassettes with big cogs when I do, I'll have to try one.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

I really don't care.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> With the availability of an 11 tooth cog, I highly doubt that anyone here really "needs" to use a 53-11.....(How many of you are able to sprint to 40+ mph on the flats), and don't give me any of that crap about needing to go downhill faster. (once you hit 35-36 mph downhill, gravity works wonders if you get aero)
> 
> Yes, I use a 53, but I do most of my training with a wheel that has a 13-25 on it. My racing wheels all have 12's on them, BUT....I've only needed to use a 12 in a sprint once.........and that was with a strong tailwind.
> 
> ...


Part of my "strategy" with my compact 11sp is that I really don't need different gruppos. I have a few 11-23 and some 11-25 for really steep climbs. 

On a side note, I think a power meter would really open folks' eyes to what sort of gearing they _need_. I suppose I'd need a 55t on my TT bike if I were doing tailwind time trials.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

exracer said:


> Looks like compacts are pulling out a lead. Never owned one. When I used to race I could climb a 12-15% grade in a 42x23. Now 25 years later, I can do a 8-10% climb easy enough but in a 39x25. Breaks the heart that I gotten that slow. My next bike wont have one either. Guess I just have to just go out and ride more.


I'd love to be that "slow" on an 8-10% grade. I run the 34x28 and chug at 70 rpms screaming "when will it end, when will it end!" I never raced though.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ziscwg said:


> I'd love to be that "slow" on an 8-10% grade. I run the 34x28 and chug at 70 rpms screaming "when will it end, when will it end!" I never raced though.


LOL, thank you. Honest Post of the Day™. 

On cycling forums, it's usually more like, "And then I tackled the 20% grade in my usual 42x15, my brow furrowed with steely determination, my cadence never dropping below 100... so what if it was 10 miles of this, straight up... I laughed at my pain, and embraced it as if it were a lover."
.


----------



## SlowMover (Jun 6, 2010)

I picked up a new Apex compact last year and was a bit unsure about the massive cluster it came with, not sure what it is up top, but I'm just pleased as punch with it when I hit the hills. As much as I'd like to think I need an 11/12/13 I just don't use them and the cluster is right on for me in the middle. Had been on standard cranks since the late 70's. Talk about fighting change!


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Wow. Are road triples really getting this uncommon these days?
> .


About a month ago I climbed the Mont Ventoux and let me tell you, everyone there had a triple! I think I only saw one guy with a double.

If you have serious climbs, long and steep, I doubt many could get by without a triple.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Part of my "strategy" with my compact 11sp is that I really don't need different gruppos.


That's a good point, and to expand on it, compact plus more & more cogs is also probably a lot of why SRAM and Campy have pretty much written off the road triple... rightly or wrongly. 

Compact + cassettes with more and more gears = wider gear range covered w/out tremendous jumps between gears.

For example, 50/34 crank with a Campy 12-29 11-spd cassette gives you a road-triple-like range with acceptable jumps. And you don't even need a long-cage RD.

Sure, you still don't get certain triple benefits such as being able to just be in the middle ring most of the day and thus hardly ever needing to front-shift, but given double advantages (simplicity, lower Q-factor, less weight), it's a trade-off many seem willing to make.

Shimano and SRAM will go 11-speed eventually, and Campy will go 12-speed (they already have the patent filed, IIRC), so the trend will continue and probably accelerate.

Heck, even in the MTB segment, mountain doubles are starting to become popular, now that there's 10-spd cassettes for dirt.

Not saying it's right or wrong, only that that's the trend.
.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm light enough that my 34x25 low gear is enough for me most of the time, but I wish Campy had some nicely spaced 11-27 and 11-29 sprockets available. Sure, I could get by without the 11, but...I don't wanna!!!!!

Sure, if I were a pro, I could just change chainrings and group sets, or perhaps bikes, before a hilly race vs. a flat route as well as a nice 55t if I'm ever doing tailwind TTs. Fortunately, I can easily get by without modification. Part of it is because I'm lazy, but I like to minimize variables and wrenching before races.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

spade2you said:


> I'm light enough that my 34x25 low gear is enough for me most of the time, but I wish Campy had some nicely spaced 11-27 and 11-29 sprockets available. Sure, I could get by without the 11, but...I don't wanna!!!!!


I wish they'd stuck with 13-29 from the 10 speed lineup and just added an 18 cog in the middle which is a lot more useful than an 11 or 12.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> That's a good point, and to expand on it, compact plus more & more cogs is also probably a lot of why SRAM and Campy have pretty much written off the road triple... rightly or wrongly.
> 
> Compact + cassettes with more and more gears = wider gear range covered w/out tremendous jumps between gears.
> 
> For example, 50/34 crank with a Campy 12-29 11-spd cassette gives you a road-triple-like range with acceptable jumps.


Except for the missing 18 cog. Hopefully we'll get that with the move to 12 speeds, although if the marketing guys dictate a wide-range cassette with another cog on the end that might take 13 or 14.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I like my 13-25 10 speed Shimano cassette, with an 18. I can use it on most of my training rides. 

For racing, I use a 12-23 10 speed cassette, which also has an 18.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Except for the missing 18 cog. Hopefully we'll get that with the move to 12 speeds, although if the marketing guys dictate a wide-range cassette with another cog on the end that might take 13 or 14.





spade2you said:


> I'm light enough that my 34x25 low gear is enough for me most of the time, but I wish Campy had some nicely spaced 11-27 and 11-29 sprockets available. Sure, I could get by without the 11, but...I don't wanna!!!!!



Yep, that's definitely a problem with a problem Campy's implementation of 11-speed. They only make five cassette configs for it, so some options get left by the wayside... such as no wide-range cassette starting with an 11, and no wide-range 'settes with an 18. 

The need for an 18t is something that definitely becomes more of a priority with compact set-ups, since they encourage you to be in the big ring most of the time... as opposed to standard doubles, which (for typical rec riders, anyhow) encourage you to be in the small ring most of the time. 

Lack of an 18 with those doesn't matter that much, you can 'just ride along' in the 39x13,14,15 (though larger cogs are better in terms of wear & efficiency). Probably also explains why 11-28 cassettes are popular, despite the huge jumps through much of the range... you've still got 1-tooth jumps up until the 15t, so it's okay.

Yet another reason to hope that SRAM and Shimano come to the 11-spd party pretty soon. More options = better for us.
.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

Living in Florida, I'm riding 53x17 or 53x19 about 98% of the time I'm on the road bike (basically unless it's a chill-out group ride at slower pace). I need to go single speed...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ukbloke said:


> There's a new kid in town: 52/36 mid-compact cranks are being spec'd on many 2012 bikes.


Interesting. How big is the trend? Would like to hear more on this.

I assume these are all SRAM-equipped bikes, since they sell 'em and I haven't seen any Shimano 52/36 cranks (yet).


/ Ah, ok, I see... just looked it up... Specialized is doing a lot of this in their Tarmac line, paired with 11-28 cassettes. They're one of the 'Big 3' bike manufacturers, so others may follow the trend.
.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> Interesting. How big is the trend? Would like to hear more on this.
> 
> I assume these are all SRAM-equipped bikes, since they sell 'em and I haven't seen any Shimano 52/36 cranks (yet).
> .


It seems to be a big trend - pretty much the entire Specialized 2012 Tarmac range, both Shimano and SRAM bikes, except the very high-end. Basically you get a "proper" double at S-Works, mid-compact across the rest of the range except for Apex wide-compact at the bottom. The cranks are Specialized in house, not from Shimano or SRAM. In another thread I referred to this as the Specialized Goldilocks Principle of design - standard double was too big, compact was too small, now mid-compact is just right ... at least for this model year.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ukbloke said:


> It seems to be a big trend - pretty much the entire Specialized 2012 Tarmac range, both Shimano and SRAM bikes, except the very high-end. Basically you get a "proper" double at S-Works, mid-compact across the rest of the range except for Apex wide-compact at the bottom. The cranks are Specialized in house, not from Shimano or SRAM. In another thread I referred to this as the Specialized Goldilocks Principle of design - standard double was too big, compact was too small, now mid-compact is just right ... at least for this model year.


Thanks much for the heads-up, didn't know about this 'til you mentioned it. 

Perusing the spec sheets, the 52/36 cranks appear to all be either Specialized, SRAM, or FSA. They're also doing it in other lines besides the Tarmac.

At first look it comes across like a marketing gimmick, but 52/36 may work well for a lot of ppl, esp. paired with the 11-28 'sette (which is what Specialized is doing). 

Solo/non-paceline rec riders can 'just ride along' happily in the 36x12,13,14 (34t ring is kinda too small for this), and the low-gear is still pretty low... while, with the 52t big ring, it's difficult for the stronger riders to whine legitimately about loss of top-end.

As in, "Oh noes, 52x11 is too small for you? You should go pro." :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

....aaand we're just about at 250 votes for the poll. Compact's still in the lead, but not by a bunch.
.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> That's a good point, and to expand on it, compact plus more & more cogs is also probably a lot of why SRAM and Campy have pretty much written off the road triple... rightly or wrongly.
> 
> Compact + cassettes with more and more gears = wider gear range covered w/out tremendous jumps between gears.
> 
> ...


Running Campy always comes with its' own headaches. I remember right after putting my Record 10 TT bike together that next year everything would be 11sp. I suppose my only legit gripes is they don't currently have a wider range cassette and the cranks/chainrings aren't Quarq/SRM compatible. Hopefully 11sp hangs around a while. I'm not planning on buying more cranks or cassettes for a long time.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SlowMover said:


> I picked up a new Apex compact last year and was a bit unsure about the massive cluster it came with, not sure what it is up top, but I'm just pleased as punch with it when I hit the hills. As much as I'd like to think I need an 11/12/13 I just don't use them and the cluster is right on for me in the middle.


Yeah, that's another head-scratcher for me... plenty of ppl report never really using their 11, 12, 13t cogs, and yet, every most every road cassette Shimano and SRAM sells starts with an 11 or 12 ('cept for a couple of Shimano 'junior' cassettes). Campy still offers some 'settes that start with a 13, but only in 10-spd.

You'd think you'd see more 'settes starting with a 13... if nothing else, for rec riders still riding standard double.

Maybe ppl think if the bike has an 11, you can automatically turn that. 
.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

In the 38 km/h group in my club orders are that you shall have no shorter largest gear than 53x12 or 50x11. That is to be able to mainain position and hit the front in a 65 km/h double paceline. We also have a 41 km/h group, where 53x11 is not uncommon.

My wife's fine with 50x13, though.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Maybe ppl think if the bike has an 11, you can automatically turn that.
> .


Yeah, most don't need it. In one of my time trials, I just use the 53x11 a few times I'm not sure if I use it in my other TT route. 

I don't spend much time in that gear on my road bike that I can recall. 



kbwh said:


> My wife's fine with 50x13, though.


She needs to HTFU.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbwh said:


> In the 38 km/h group in my club orders are that you shall have no shorter largest gear than 53x12 or 50x11. That is to be able to mainain position and hit the front in a 65 km/h double paceline. We also have a 41 km/h group, where 53x11 is not uncommon.
> 
> My wife is fine with 50x13, though.











.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Wellll...hardly a peep for almost two weeks now, poll look's like it's all but on ice at this point. 

Results:


– For the second year running, *compact* wins... albeit by a nose this time.

– *Standard double* is a close second. 53/39 = no longer the big kahuna.

– *Key innovation* of the year: 'Mid-compacts' (i.e. 52/36) spec'd OEM on bikes from major manufacturers

– *Road triple* continues to be a red-headed-stepchild distant third & lost some popularity compared to last year. 

– And almost no one seems to ride anything that doesn't fall into one of the above three categories. But props to the one fixie hipster who put down his PBR long enough to actually vote. :smilewinkgrin:


And a thank you to everyone who participated. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## speed metal (Feb 8, 2007)

I came from mountain biking to road in 2005. Mountain biking was getting to complicated for me 29 or 26, hardtail or full suspension, trail or xc, camel-back or water bottle, tubes or tubeless, mechanical or hydraulic brakes.
Now road biking is making my head hurt. :mad2: Compact, mid compact or standard!!!!!!!!
I have only used a standard, but I can see were a compact can be more practical.
How many of us REALLY need that 53 x 11? How many of us would like a compact but, our ego keeps us using a standard? If component companies came out with a 60 tooth front chainring would we buy it to boost our ego? No. So why do we stick with a 53? 
If I was to buy a bike or crankset today I believe I would come home with a compact maybe a Mid Compact. Well I guess a standard would be better.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Is it more hardcore to race on a compact or run 53/39 and not race?


----------



## Nixnick (Oct 14, 2011)

In my racing days, 85-92, I ran a 52/42 and was more of spinner than a masher. Last month I decided to start road riding again but discovered that my brother had thrown out both sets of wheels to my Dura-ace equipped Eddy Merckx.

After nearly killing him, I went down to the LBS and picked up a new road bike with a compact setup. I swapped out the 34 to a 36 and changed to an 11-25 cassette. I found the jump from 50 to 34 to be too much of a difference for me. I'm beyond caring too much about what anyone may think about what I choose to ride. But my 22 year old racer self would probably have been very dismissive of the 45 year old I am now. Hey, getting old sucks in some ways, but it's better than the alternative. I'm just glad to be back on the road.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

From the poll it seems what we need is a 51.5/36.5. 
Where are those bloody mech. engineers when we really need them?


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

I use and prefer the 53/39, but if it were more available I would probably run a 53/36, especially for training here in Salt Lake City. The 36 inner would let me use an 11/25 Campy cassette more comfortably in the mountains and leave smaller gaps in gearing. It would also allow for a straighter chainline when climbing, being able to more gears in the middle of the cassette. 

Running a 50 for a big ring is nice at times as well. It is easier to run a cross chained gear for shallow climbs.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2011)

I'm one of the oddballs that voted for triples. I run triples w/ 12-23 cassettes on both my bikes -- a hybrid set up as a loaded commuter, and a road bike. The hybrid has a MTB crank so is slightly lower ratios overall. 

My second crankset choice would be standard. My third choice would be a single-ring. If I went with either of these options, I'd probably get a spare wheel with different cassettes and switch them out depending on whether I expected to ride hills or mostly flat.

Almost every bike I tried out in shops had a 50/34 with 11-27, 11-28, or even 11-32 on the back which I just found annoying. I basically forced me to front-shift and/or cross chain like 10x more often as I do on the triple, and I found the big ratio jumps in the rear annoying for JRA.

This triple works well for me as I seem to be most efficient at 110rpm cadence -- which means the 39 ring and middle 6 cogs (14-19) span a range from 19-25mph @ 110. If I mash 75rpm on the low-end and spin 125 on the high end, and use the whole cassette the speed range for the middle ring is 11-32.5mph. For stuff like flats, or terrain with lots of short rollers and twisting turns I usually just stay in the middle ring/middle 8 cogs and never front-shift.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbwh said:


> From the poll it seems what we need is a 51.5/36.5.
> Where are those bloody mech. engineers when we really need them?


Mid-compact, brah. :thumbsup:

I actually almost feel like re-doing the poll with mid-compact in it (and feel kinda out-of-the-loop for not noticing it as a trend earlier), but it's so new as a mainstream thing that many ppl don't even know what it is yet... much less whether or not they like it.
.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Mid-Compacts are the flavor of the year, because most people, builders, riders and LBS are finally realizing how bad the 50/34 is... for a road "racing" bike.

hopefully next year more people realize they just have to grow more their cojones and just push those standards... then your poll will look better :thumbsup: ( only 3% difference this year  )


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Mid-Compacts are the flavor of the year, because most people, builders, riders and LBS are finally realizing how bad the 50/34 is... for a road "racing" bike.
> 
> hopefully next year more people realize they just have to grow more their cojones and just push those standards... then your poll will look better :thumbsup: ( only 3% difference this year  )


Hi Salsa. :smilewinkgrin:

1) Too early to tell if mid-compacts are going to be a big hit or not. I don't have any problem with 'em, though... they could be a good compromise for a lot of ppl.

2) If 50/34 was "bad", then why is it winning the poll two years running & getting spec'd on so many bikes? :idea:

3) There's nothing bad about 53/39 (for those whose needs it meets), but it's been around awhile, and if it really were 
All Things To All People™, then compact would've never gotten a foothold... much less mid-compact.


Let's face it... neither standard nor compact is going away anytime soon. Perhaps that's as it should be. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Kontact said:


> I think too many riders make the mistake of valuing gear range over gear step, and end up with choppy gearing that they only use a small portion.
> 
> 53x39s and reasonable cassettes (13-28, 12-25) are good for most of North America on light road bikes. Traditional gearing shifts better up front and lasts longer. It is being increasingly overlooked for the compact system which most people don't even understand.


53x39 is reasonable for flat roads - much of midwest etc. but with 11-25 or 12-27 gearing. Why would anyone run 13 cogs, that's somewhat limiting on the high speed end, even on flat roads.

But for any region with reasonable mountains or even hills, compact 50x34 is a must (along with 11-27) - I pity anyone in California or Colorado who tries to go up extended 16% pitch grades on standard gearing.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

55x11 said:


> 53x39 is reasonable for flat roads - much of midwest etc. but with 11-25 or 12-27 gearing. Why would anyone run 13 cogs, that's somewhat limiting on the high speed end, even on flat roads.
> 
> But for any region with reasonable mountains or even hills, compact 50x34 is a must (along with 11-27) -* I pity anyone in California or Colorado who tries to go up extended 16% pitch grades on standard gearing.*


Why do you pity people who can climb 16% grades on standard gearing? I've climbed extended grades like that on a 53/39 with 12-27 out back, and I don't feel at all distressed by it. Sure, it's certainly tough, but it's not impossible and it's not the end of the world.

If you need a compact, you need a compact. If you don't, you don't. Seems pretty simple, without the "pity" involved.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

55x11 said:


> 53x39 is reasonable for flat roads - much of midwest etc. but with 11-25 or 12-27 gearing. Why would anyone run 13 cogs, that's somewhat limiting on the high speed end, even on flat roads.


53x13 is a 34 MPH cruising gear and 42 MPH sprinting gear. 12 and 11 cogs yield 37/45 MPH and 40/49 MPH respectively with the defacto standard 53 ring.

50x13 is a 32 MPH cruising gear and 39 MPH sprinting gear. 12 and 11 cogs net 35/42 mph and 38/46 MPH with the increasingly popular 50 big ring.

I find that down-hill past 30 MPH it works well enough to just tuck, and with a 30 MPH flat ground sprint in 50x16 or 50x15 depending on mood I don't need a bigger gear.

OTOH, 53x18 is a really nice cruising gear around 22-24 MPH and 50x18 hits the spot around 21-23 MPH. Almost every ride calls for that except flat (up-hill means a corresponding down-hill) commutes with headwinds (winds shifting 180 degrees over 10 hours are a lot more common than over an hour or two, so on out-and-back or looping recreational rides with a head-wind in one direction you get a tail wind in the other) on recovery days (130W with a 1% down-hill false flat is about 22 MPH).

With 8/9/10 cogs a 13 starting cog allows you to have one with a 21/23/26 big cog. Assuming 25/26 is big enough you can't have a 12 cog with one until you hit 11 speeds.



> But for any region with reasonable mountains or even hills, compact 50x34 is a must (along with 11-27) - I pity anyone in California or Colorado who tries to go up extended 16% pitch grades on standard gearing.


I spent 15 years in Boulder, CO and never encountered a sustained 16% grade on the road. As far as I can tell geography leaves flatter alternatives which civil engineers then carve up with switch backs to produce flatter roads.

The worst I faced there was the Mike Horgan Memorial Hill Climb Magnolia Road route. Although that hit double digits for short stretches it only averaged 9% over the worst 4 miles. 20-30 mile long 4-6% grades like Grand Mesa and Mt. Evans are the real killers especially when you plan on riding the next day.

At a healthy climbing weight (around 2 pounds per inch like 5'10" and 145 pounds) 42x28, 39x26, 34x23, and 30x21 are all sufficient. At the same power and 180 pounds from middle-aged spread you arrive at 42x34, 39x31, 34x28, or 30x25 which don't allow for reasonable flat ride gear spacing until you have a triple crank.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Is it more hardcore to race on a compact or run 53/39 and not race?


Maximum hardcore-ness would probably come from either a) not caring how hardcore you are, or b) racing on a fixie.
.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> 2) If 50/34 was "bad", then why is it winning the poll two years running & getting spec'd on so many bikes? :idea:


It's the lowest common denominator which allows bike companies to make, distributed, stock, and sell fewer SKUs for bigger profits.

50-34 is acceptable (but not ideal) for most road cyclists. With a given cassette fat ones can have a low gear equal to one a cog bigger with a 39 ring. Fast people can still have a gear as big as 53x12. Factory bikes equipped with such cranks can still be sold to people who won't buy triples and unlike triples additional front derailleur and left shifter SKUs aren't needed.

A triple is ideal for fat people and luggage haulers who can handle the Q-factor since it allows lower gears without compromising on spacing. A 39 ring on a double or triple makes for a lot fewer double shifts since it's usable for about 50% more power at the same cadence on flat ground with the same first cog and at least 16% more with a starting cog one tooth bigger. 



> Let's face it... neither standard nor compact is going away anytime soon. Perhaps that's as it should be. :thumbsup:


I expect standard cranks to disappear from the mid-market (fewer SKUs mean higher profits) and become a specialty (they're stiffer on paper than 110mm BCD cranks) item like triples except they'll be sold at higher levels (maybe Ultegra/Centaur and beyond for "racers").


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> It's the lowest common denominator which allows bike companies to make, distributed, stock, and sell fewer SKUs for bigger profits.


Here's a very interesting article that lays out that position in some detail:

The Rise of the Compact Crank (aka “The Death of the Triple”) - Bike Hugger




> _I expect standard cranks to disappear from the mid-market (fewer SKUs mean higher profits) and become a specialty (they're stiffer on paper than 110mm BCD cranks) item like triples except they'll be sold at higher levels (maybe Ultegra/Centaur and beyond for "racers")._


Shhh. Don't piss off Salsa. :smilewinkgrin:

Sure, I too see 53/39 eventually becoming more or less restricted to high-end road bikes and the triathlon/time-trial bike market (and have said so in the past), but it's always going to be available to those who want it.
.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

systemshock said:


> sure, i too see 53/39 eventually becoming more or less restricted to *real* road bikes


ftfy


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Salsa's history on 'real'...*



Salsa_Lover said:


> ftfy











*"Hey Eddy, who was that crazy guy back there?"
"I dunno Francecso... but he kept yelling something about how I wasn't riding a 'real road racing bike' because my chainstays were too long and my top cog was 'only a 13'."
"Oh, so just another poseur, huh?"
"Yep."*
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Nope. Mid-range racing bikes will have *53-39* (or 52-39) rings *on 110mm BCD cranks.*












.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> ftfy


Nope. Mid-range racing bikes will have 53-39 (or 52-39; the 2% cadence difference versus a 53 ring) rings on 110mm BCD cranks.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Excellent!*

A point well made. Some of the greatest riders in the sport's history rode with nothing bigger and a 53x13. Most assuredly, there are illegitimate reasons for people to have bigger gears than this. However, you have to be pretty strong to have that gear really make you faster.

As a self-proclaimed fat old guy, I am very happy riding steep Nor Cal terrain with a 34x32 at my disposal. I'll be the first one to admit that I do not really need the 50x11 and spend very little time there.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> hopefully next year more people realize they just have to grow more their cojones and just push those standards... then your poll will look better :thumbsup: ( only 3% difference [between std and compact] this year  )


Now 6%. :smilewinkgrin:
.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

I have a road double (53/39 with a 9 speed 28/13) and a road triple (52/42/30 with the same cassette). I prefer my double.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Guess we're almost done here. 

No major 5-page flamewar either, which is a rarity for RBR. :smilewinkgrin:
.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

We're only done if everyone agrees that all compact cranks should be silver and all standard cranks should be black.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

System Shock I am sorry I didn't participate more on your thread flame wars but I was too busy with my apartment moving, work and now holidays preparations.

I promise I will troll more on your next thread


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Thanks Salsa, I was starting to wonder. :lol:
.


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> We're only done if everyone agrees that all compact cranks should be silver and all standard cranks should be black.


Uh-oh. I just picked up silver Campy Athena standard cranks...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Don4 said:


> Uh-oh. I just picked up silver Campy Athena standard cranks...


Great. You went and broke the matrix. What were you thinking?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

You should rep me for putting up the picture of it in that other thread, right?


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Great. You went and broke the matrix. What were you thinking?


It looked right on a 1983 Trek? Even worse, I avoided getting a silver compact by getting the 12-29 cassette.


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

But I do have a compact SRAM Red compact on my '11 Felt F3. I must be conflicted.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Don4 said:


> But I do have a compact SRAM Red compact on my '11 Felt F3. I must be conflicted.


You have a problem. I suggest several hours of "Misanthropic Bastard" brand counseling.


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> You have a problem. I suggest several hours of "Misanthropic Bastard" brand counseling.


Several hours scheduled for next Friday. I suspect there may be coffee involved. 

At least I am making proper use of my 11-speed cassette to extend gearing range. Just sayin'.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Don4 said:


> Several hours scheduled for next Friday. I suspect there may be coffee involved.
> 
> At least I am making proper use of my 11-speed cassette to extend gearing range. Just sayin'.


Yay! Someone who makes use of the 11 speed concept!


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Yay! Someone who makes use of the 11 speed concept!


It's my only redeeming quality.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Don4 said:


> It's my only redeeming quality.


Well, that and your puppy avatar. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Anyways, judging by this series of polls and the way the market is going in general, the future seems to look like this:

*Standard double:* Racers, TT guys/triathletes, high-end bikes
*Compact double (& 'mid-compact'):* Almost everybody else
*Road triple: *Slowly trudging towards extinction or marginalization, rightly or wrongly 

Everything else seems to be mostly staying in its cubbyhole... cyclocross cranks for cyclocross bikes, mountain triples for hardcore touring bikes, single-chainring cranks for fixies and track guys, etc. etc. 

Would be interesting to see something different in those 'specialty' categories, like mountain doubles suddenly becoming very popular/widespread on expedition touring bikes.
.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

There's some discussion of mountain doubles for cyclocross. IMO, even the cranks I'd consider impractically high for MTB (45-30, for example) are still pretty low for 'cross. But it would let someone use a road cassette instead of a MTB cassette to get at some of the low ratios that a marginally rideable, longish climb can call for.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> There's some discussion of mountain doubles for cyclocross. IMO, even the cranks I'd consider impractically high for MTB (45-30, for example) are still pretty low for 'cross. But it would let someone use a road cassette instead of a MTB cassette to get at some of the low ratios that a marginally rideable, longish climb can call for.


An interesting development, thanks for the 411. :yesnod:
.


----------



## Vibe (Jan 11, 2011)

Racing cat 5s with a triple compact 50-39-30 with a 12-25. I spend 90% of my time on the 39 ring.

Thinking about switching to double compact next year though but I do love the 30 ring bailout.


----------



## DanTheSaxMan (Jun 29, 2011)

MoPho said:


> And a 50/34 with an 11-23 pretty much has that covered without having to change cassettes for the conditions :idea:


Good point


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Vibe said:


> Racing cat 5s with a triple compact 50-39-30 with a 12-25. I spend 90% of my time on the 39 ring.
> 
> Thinking about switching to double compact next year though but I do love the 30 ring bailout.











*"Holy poll thread resurrection, Batman!!"*

.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Hey, SS!
What shall we call that new 52/36 Campagnolo combo? Big Compact? Short Standard? Compact Standard? God Help Us? Heaven Forbid? Hells Rings?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbwh said:


> Hey, SS!
> What shall we call that new 52/36 Campagnolo combo? Big Compact? Short Standard? Compact Standard? God Help Us? Heaven Forbid? Hells Rings?


"I Can't Believe It's Not Standard?"

"A-Mid-A-Compacto."

"Something-for-people-who-just-can't-make-up-their-minds-between-standard-and-compact... 
in other words, cranks for the terminally indecisive."

"It's a-me, Mario!"


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Also is interesting that Campy is introducing a slew of road triples after badmouthing them not all that long ago.

Maybe they see an opening since SRAM hasn't done one. And maybe the road 'trip isn't on that slow boat to extinction-ville after all.


Campagnolo Intros 52/36 Wide Range Cranks, Cassettes & Performance Triple Cranksets - Bike Rumor
.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Maybe Campagnolo is recognizing that the market for bikes that look like and are priced like racing bikes but will be ridden slowly is getting really big.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Maybe Campagnolo is recognizing that the market for bikes that look like and are priced like racing bikes but will be ridden slowly is getting really big.


With an aging population in the US, Europe, and Japan, seems like a good move to have appropriate gearing options for those riders... though compact + wide-range cassettes give gearing almost as low (and with 34x32, sometimes lower than what's common on road triple).

And now with Shimano about to offer 11-spd (with SRAM to follow, likely), wide-range cassettes with-not-so-big jumps between cogs should become pretty commonplace.

Hmm... thinking it through some more, I'm now kinda confused as to why Campy's reversing themselves on road 'trips. Maybe the lone triple they had kept in the line-up sold better than expected over the past couple of years? Hmm. :confused5:
.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I actually have a triple on my nicest bike. I bought it before I knew they're not cool. 

I also have a compact double with a MTB cassette on my cyclocross bike.

So the nice road bike has a 30/27 or 1.11 low gear ratio and the 'cross bike has a 1.06 - actually a little lower - in the 34/32 ratio.

I actually really like the 12-27 cassette on the nicer bike. The jumps between gears are quite small. For me, that's a big advantage over the 11-32. To be fair, the 11-32 is a 9-speed cassette. With 11-speed, one could simply add two gears to the 12-27 I know and love and get to a 34t granny without messing up the 12-27 range. I didn't find the 11-32 cassette to be a successful change last fall, but I'm going to wait and see what I think of it this season before I take it back off. While I found that I can't hit a high spin on a bumpy 'cross course and don't need those low gears to spin high on asphalt, I can't help wondering if I'll decide my 34/32 bailout is my secret weapon on sloppier courses late in the season, where I'm still not hitting a high spin but I'm at least not as overgeared as the poor sucker next to me. It's a pretty big difference in jumps. I think the average jump on the 11-32 9-speed is 14%, vs. 9% on the 12-27.

I can't help wondering when the market's going to reject more cogs. I just de-evolved my "save me money" bike to a 9-speed drivetrain because I needed new shifters for it anyway and don't want to spend so much on cassettes and chains for it. I realize I'm an atypical consumer, and I kind of liked adding another ratio to the nicer road bike without making the jumps bigger.

For mountain bikes, SRAM is showing a 1x11 drivetrain that's supposed to replace mainstream drivetrains with multiple chainrings. The granny cog is huge, so it doesn't give up any low end.

Sooner or later, I think something's got to give. Wider dropout spacing means a wider Q, and that gets bothersome. Sticking to the same dropout spacing means narrower cassettes and narrower chains, or a wider freehub and cassette and less dish. Eventually going to narrower cogs and chains will give unacceptable wear and durability characteristics, but we don't seem to have hit that point yet.

For mountain bikes, I'm not planning to go past 9-speed on the one I've got because the pull ratios got tweaked. But if I were to replace the whole bike, I'd probably just get 10-speed and live with it.

Pontificating aside, releasing more triples at the same time as going to another speed and offering granny cogs with even more teeth certainly does seem a bit weird.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> *I can't help wondering when the market's going to reject more cogs. * I just de-evolved my "save me money" bike to a 9-speed drivetrain because I needed new shifters for it anyway and don't want to spend so much on cassettes and chains for it.
> 
> ...Sooner or later, I think something's got to give. Wider dropout spacing means a wider Q, and that gets bothersome. Sticking to the same dropout spacing means narrower cassettes and narrower chains, or a wider freehub and cassette and less dish.
> 
> Eventually going to narrower cogs and chains will give unacceptable wear and durability characteristics, but we don't seem to have hit that point yet.


Personally, I'm hoping that 12-speed is the end-of-the-line. Campy already has a patent on a 12-spd system, and I'd think they'd start going to it once Shimano 11-spd is firmly established over the next 2-3 years.

Of course, Shimano has a patent on a 14-spd system too. Scary. 

I dunno, it just gets so rendonkulous after awhile. Road racing guys on non-mountainous courses seem to think they don't need anything beyond an 11-23, and shoot, you've even got mid-compact now to make a 23 feel like a 25 while giving up almost no top-end.

So I guess then you could go to 13-spd straight-blocks and call it a day (and that # of cogs certainly makes for smooth jumps on 'mere mortal' wide-range cassettes too) ... anything beyond that would just be adding weight and wearing the drivetrain faster while not really providing a benefit. Not to mention the durability, wheel dish, and Q-Factor issues you cite. You'd be talking 135mm dropout spacing on road bikes as well, and the associated headaches it'd cause (though I don't think those'd be apocalyptic).

A very lightweight and reliable CVT system would be a way out of this eternal upgrade treadmill, but who knows when or if that'll happen. So yeah, you're right, it probably is on the consumer to eventually say to the industry and all of its marketing hype, "Eff off. I. don't. WANT. it." :incazzato:



> _Pontificating aside, releasing more triples at the same time as going to another speed and offering granny cogs with even more teeth certainly does seem a bit weird._


Yeah, I'm kinda mystified too, it's a total 180 from what they were saying before, which was essentially, "Triples for the road aren't needed anymore, and are going to mostly die out."

SRAM's been saying the same thing... let's see if they stick to their guns.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Btw, Shimano made 11-spd official today...

*Shimano Announces Updates For 2013 DuraAce Di2 and mechanical | Road Bike News, Reviews, and Photos*
.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

If you do a lot of climbing I guess more gears could be nice. I live in the flatlands and 10 speed cassettes are ample for my needs. I rarely use my 39-21 low gear.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I actually have a road bike with 135mm spacing, sort of. It's a Trek Portland, but I stuffed a 135mm hub in it because I was having trouble finding a 130mm disc hub with a price tag I liked.

It's okay... but I'm taking all the paint off the chainstays with my heels. I use it to ride to school, so super-wide pedals and also running shoes. I'm not sure how it'd feel with cycling shoes.


----------

