# whats up with these "compact" cranks



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

OK so I got into cycling about three years ago and have upgraded to a new bike.

Now theres a whole lot to get used to on the new bike as i am going from steel to carbon But....

I have a 53/44 with 11-21 on my steel bike

The new bike has 50-34 with 11-30 (??!!!??!)

I HATE having to go down to the small ring cuz its just too damn small, requires excessive RD shifting and breaks my rhythm every time. The old setup was a cleaner switch in power when dropping down to the 44 and on most rolling terrain required little RD shifting with the FD.

Now I KNOW I have to just wait it out for more mileage and THEN decide if i don't like it, but what the hell are people climbing with 34/30? Seriously!

Im very tempted to swap (at least Cranks, if not the whole group) Drivetrains, but this brand new 105 feels great compared to my 6500 ultegra.

I don't know, i guess I'm just ranting (and wishing it came stock with larger chainrings)

Would you swap out 105 5700 cranks with the 10 year old (well taken care of) Ultegra 6500?

And, will the 105 levers be compatible with an ultegra FD?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Thee 34x30 ratio seems a bit excessive, but you have to remember that the bike was probably made to suit riders of all athletic abilities AND climbs of all gradients. Even as a racer, I like having a 34x25 on steeper gradients.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Throw on an 11-23 and you'll be happy. You'll be doing less FD shifting than you were used too, and there is this irritating one cog at the time upshifts with Shimano, but you'll get the hang of it PDQ.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I agree with you re: wide gearing and how it can affect ones rhythm, but I'd extend the complaint to the 11-30 spacing at the rear as well, so IMO kbwh's suggestion is worth considering.

That said, my general attitude is that gearing should match the riders fitness and terrain, so if your 'old' gearing was a better match than the new, change it. IMO the expense is justified versus riding a bike that aggravates you on every ride. 

To answer your question, 105 shifters will work fine with your Ultegra FD.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

That cassette, with the big 34-50 gap in the rings, does map out kind of odd. Rather than changing the whole crank (costly), maybe you could just change the little ring to a 38 or 39, and get a 12-25 cassette (f the low is low enough for you). Much more rational shift pattern and gear jumps. Here's a great gear calculator, BTW:
http://www.gear-calculator.com/#


----------



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

Thank you all.

Great advice.

I'm probably going to swap FD & cranks with the ultegra off the old bike (cringing as I destroy the beautiful colorway). I'm going to try it out as I already own said cranks and if I run into any problems I will just go with like a 11-21 or 11-23. Let you know how it goes.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Easy way first*



Elpimpo said:


> I'm probably going to swap FD & cranks with the ultegra off the old bike (cringing as I destroy the beautiful colorway). I'm going to try it out as I already own said cranks and if I run into any problems I will just go with like a 11-21 or 11-23. Let you know how it goes.


If you have that 11-21 cassette on your steel bike, why don't you just swap that over? Zero cost and less than 15 minutes work. See how that treats you before creating a lot more effort for yourself. Very few humans ever need a 53/11 and your new 50/11 will get you 35 mph at 100 rpm (over 40 in a sprint). The 34/21 will give you a 23% lower gear than you now have and maybe you don't need that - I assume you live in dead flat country.


----------



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

The reson is that bike is 9-speed ultegra, and i DONT wanna find out what happens if you shift into that "missing" cog.

As far as flat, well I'm in SoCal, and there are some great hills as well as dead flat, so it just depends how i feel. But the 21 cog got me up every hill i tried to conquer (although at very low RPM). With the new bike i feel like i shift just because they're there and i can, not because i necessarily need to.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> my general attitude is that gearing should match the riders fitness and terrain, so if your 'old' gearing was a better match than the new, change it. IMO the expense is justified versus riding a bike that aggravates you on every ride.


+1

I bought an Ultegra 6750 compact to put on one of my bikes before a very hilly century last autumn. I was worried because I'd gotten out of shape from working extra shifts through the summer.

Anyway, I hated the compact. It has less than 200 miles on it and is sitting in a drawer. It taught me not to doubt myself, so I guess it was worth it for that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2012)

Elpimpo said:


> Thank you all.
> 
> Great advice.
> 
> I'm probably going to swap FD & cranks with the ultegra off the old bike (cringing as I destroy the beautiful colorway). I'm going to try it out as I already own said cranks and if I run into any problems I will just go with like a 11-21 or 11-23. Let you know how it goes.


If I were you I'd go for a 11-23 cassette, and possibly buy a 36-tooth inner chainring for the compact crankset. Having the smaller difference between front and rear (50-36 vs 50-34) makes for smoother "compound shift" patterns when shifting front and rear derailleur at the same time, especially with narrower cassettes like 11-23. Switching chainrings is a valid way to fine-tune your gearing without having to throw away an entire crankset (and possibly mess up the aesthetics of your bike in the process). 

A setup like that would give you most of the same ratios you used to have on your old bike, with a few lower ones, instead of a setup with missing lots of gears you used to use, and tons of gears which are way lower than what you want.

The shimano 11-30 cassettes has really awful shift patterns though, IMO. I really think the cassette is more the problem than the compact crankset in itself:

11-13-15-17-19-21-23-25-28-30

no single-tooth jumps anywhere. I have a compact crank (50x36) with a 11-28 cassette on my bike. That's also a very wide gearing range, but the jumps in the cassette that make a _lot_ more sense IMO:

11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-28

Single-tooth jumps on the high end (where having closely spaced gears matters more). The only big annoying jumps are going from 21 to the 24-28 cogs, which for me are basically infrequently used "insurance" gears for scenarios like climbing uphill into a stiff headwind, or having to start from a dead-stop on an incline.


----------



## Doolab (Feb 13, 2008)

The Shimano 105 5700 short cage rear derailleur is designed to handle up to a 28T sprocket. A quick check on Shimano's website did not turn up a 10spd Shimano 105 cassette with 11-30. So I'm not sure we're getting all the right info to be able to give your good advice. 

However, I'd guess the cassette on the bike is the 11-28, and if you think your drivetrain gear combo is unsuitable for your needs, you should consider buying a standard Shimano 105 crankset to swap instead. An 11-23 cassette should tighten things up pretty nicely too.

Ebay has many of these for anywhere from $90 to $160 for the Shimano 105 cranksets, so they're not terribly expensive to get yourself a proper standard 53-39 crankset... :thumbsup:


----------



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

@ photonfreak

wow you just opened my eyes.

Just repped ya.

Now I'm thinking (very dangerous {thinking that is}), if i can get "custom" cogs i can probably build a 11-23 using only single tooth jumps until the 23 with would be my insurance gear and KEEP the 50x34.

Off to google....


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

The 50 to 34 jump is huge. No cassette is going to make that not a huge jump. No matter what cog you're in out back, you'll be in that same exact cog when you make the front shift. It'll be a drastic down or upshift and you'll be in a much harder or easier gear. 

Using that setup with a smaller cassette, like a 11-23, very may well require you to shift the front much more. I run a 28t cassette and can stay in the same front chainring for quite a lot of riding since the rear cassette covers such a wide spread. I replaced the 23 tooth cassette because it forced me to shift down the front ring when i ran out of gears. Having less out back means you're going to shift the front more often.

Standard gearing (39/50 or 53) with a broad range cassette gives you very good range. Even an 8 speed 11-28 cassette has smooth shifts, a 10s 12-28 has really smooth shifts. That'll get you up anything. Those 10s 11-23 cassettes feel like you have to make 5 shifts to get into a significantly different gear.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Elpimpo said:


> i can probably build a 11-23 using only single tooth jumps until the 23


Just keep in mind that not all single-tooth jumps feel the same. For example, the jump from the 11 to the 12 gives you a 9% gear change, while a jump from a 22 to a 23 would give you a 5% gear change. Many riders prefer the feel of a cassette giving them the same or similar _percentage_ jumps, not number-of-teeth jumps.


----------



## Golfjunky (Nov 23, 2011)

Will one of these Shimano Dura-Ace 7900 10 Speed Cassette | Evans Cycles be compatable with my Tiagra groupset on my 2012 Scott s30


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Golfjunky said:


> Will one of these Shimano Dura-Ace 7900 10 Speed Cassette | Evans Cycles be compatable with my Tiagra groupset on my 2012 Scott s30


If your Tiagra is 10-speed, sure, no problem. But why Dura-Ace? 105 or Ultega cassettes cost less, shift just as well and last a little longer.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Golfjunky said:


> Will one of these Shimano Dura-Ace 7900 10 Speed Cassette | Evans Cycles be compatable with my Tiagra groupset on my 2012 Scott s30


I think so, but why on earth would you want to spend that kind of money? Get a 105 cassette for less than half the bucks. It will work just as well.


----------



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

Doolab said:


> The Shimano 105 5700 short cage rear derailleur is designed to handle up to a 28T sprocket. A quick check on Shimano's website did not turn up a 10spd Shimano 105 cassette with 11-30. So I'm not sure we're getting all the right info to be able to give your good advice.


My apologies, Its actually 12-30 (Stock on felt z5) if that helps.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2012)

> @ photonfreak
> 
> wow you just opened my eyes.
> 
> ...


thanks for the rep. 

Something like (11-18, 20, 23) would be another interesting custom cassette to consider. I'm not sure single-tooth jumps past 18 would be worth it (only ~5% change is getting too fine IMO). Looks like Miche sells shimano-compatible 10sp cogs and spacers so this could actually be done. 

The advantage of the standard 11-23 (11-17, 19, 21, 23)--basically your old 9 speed 11-21 with an added 23--is you'd have more range while staying in the big-ring (practical low of 50/19 instead of 50/18 without front-shifting). 



Elpimpo said:


> My apologies, Its actually 12-30 (Stock on felt z5) if that helps.


I see. The one I looked up was actually a shimano MTB cassette confusingly listed next to a bunch of road cassettes. the 12-30 road cassette is not as bad: 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30,


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I was rather pleased with myself for having a 34/32 low a little while ago. They're nice off-road, and in the snow. I did a paved climb on an errand the other day in 34/32, and I found it quite pleasant.

It's all about what you want the bike for. I'm not sure if I'd ever use that low a gear on an exclusively road-going bike that I only used for fitness/fun/training rides. But if the point of a hill is not that it's difficult and I don't care to work that hard, having some low gears is nice.

It sounds like some people have already gone over the technical aspects of changing up the gearing on your bike. Personally, I don't see why you'd get a custom cassette. (Can you even get those anymore?) A 12-23 has plenty tight spacing for me. I wouldn't want to broaden any of the lower shifts to tighten higher shifts - they actually work out to be as close to proportional spacing as one can get with tooth counts like 11, 12, 23, etc. Actually, my usual road bike gets a 12-27 10-speed, and that's fine too. I do agree that 50/34 is a pretty big jump, though.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

50/36 X 11-25. I almost bought 11-23 the other day as a race cassette. 

I can't even imagine 34X30.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

I know it's too late now, but if you bought it new, why didn't you ask for 53/39 instead of 50/34?


----------



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

milkbaby said:


> I know it's too late now, but if you bought it new, why didn't you ask for 53/39 instead of 50/34?


I got this bike at a stooooopid discount. (think about $300 less than the cheapest online price) And brand new too.
Actually had to drive to a different location that had my size. 

I didn't want to rock the boat i guess, 

And i didn't know i could do that for free, i figured if felts selling em as compact, anything else would be an upgrade


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

Elpimpo said:


> I got this bike at a stooooopid discount. (think about $300 less than the cheapest online price) And brand new too.
> Actually had to drive to a different location that had my size.
> 
> I didn't want to rock the boat i guess,
> ...


Depends on the shop. When I bought my Felt, I swapped the standard 53/39 for a compact 50/34, Both SRAM Red. The shop considered it a straight swap and did not charge for it, even though they had to order it. On items that I upgraded, they did charge for, but did discount, and did give me credit towards the purchase for the original component traded in.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Elpimpo said:


> I got this bike at a stooooopid discount. (think about $300 less than the cheapest online price) And brand new too.
> Actually had to drive to a different location that had my size.
> 
> I didn't want to rock the boat i guess,
> ...


I second Don's opinion. I got about 800 off my tarmac and the shop still swapped me to a compact. Lots of hills around here and i prefer to spin them. Especially the last climb home.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

PhotonFreak said:


> The shimano 11-30 cassettes has really awful shift patterns though, IMO. I really think the cassette is more the problem than the compact crankset in itself:
> 
> 11-13-15-17-19-21-23-25-28-30


Which cassette is that? I need one exactly like that for a climbing race.

OP, if you really don't want the low gears that your new bike has, I suggest getting different chainrings for the compact crank. You can get 52/38 chainrings for 110mm BCD compact cranks. Pair that with an 11-23 or 11-25 cassette. The smaller change between the chainrings means less rear shifting when you shift up or down in the front.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

sorry. cant post on my own so ill include it here....

i just got a second hand road bike and have been changing some parts which has a lot of scratches. the last thing i cant just change coz im not really sure if its match since i cant find the same model anymore.

if any of you can answer me it would really be a great help

i presently have a truvativ elita gxp 170mm 130bcd crankset on a shimano 105 system

is it okey to replace it with a sram apex gxp with the same 170mm 130bcd crankset?

plesae enlighten me as im not sure if i even should consider getting other crankset.

thank you very much


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> sorry. cant post on my own so ill include it here....
> 
> i just got a second hand road bike and have been *changing some parts which has a lot of scratches.* the last thing i cant just change coz im not really sure if its match since i cant find the same model anymore.
> 
> ...


You can swap those cranksets, but if you're doing so only because of a few scratches, you may want to rethink that plan. You won't notice any difference in performance between the two, but your wallet will be lighter.


----------



## Doolab (Feb 13, 2008)

You'll find the Elita and the Apex virtually identical save for the printed names. Not worth the money spent.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

so you mean i can swap any brand as long as it has the same bcd and crankarm?

i have yet to start riding. still winter here. so i might not even know the difference. what would you say is a better performance crankset that the 2 listed above?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> so you mean i can swap any brand as long as it has the same bcd and crankarm?
> 
> i have yet to start riding. still winter here. so i might not even know the difference. what would you say is a better performance crankset that the 2 listed above?


No, you can't swap any brand as long as it has the same bcd and crankarm length. The two you mentioned are compatible because they're SRAM GXP compatible.

As you go up product lines, components are a little lighter with (aesthetically) better finishes. Some higher level cranksets incorporate refinements for smoother/ quicker shifting, but as long as it's functional, I suggest keeping what you now have - at least for awhile.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

hmm okey.

so one last thing, how would i know if it is or not compatible? should it be a gxp something? i asked cause i am looking at other brands too aside from sram apex. you said not all 39/53chainrings, 130bcd are compatible to what i have in my bike.. so forgive my ignorance. what should i be looking at to know they are?

thanks again


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> hmm okey.
> 
> so one last thing, how would i know if it is or not compatible? should it be a gxp something? i asked cause i am looking at other brands too aside from sram apex. you said not all 39/53chainrings, 130bcd are compatible to what i have in my bike.. so forgive my ignorance. what should i be looking at to know they are?
> 
> thanks again


To answer definitively, we'd need to know the year, brand and model of your bike.. or at least the brand and model.

_However_, seeing as it's now equipped with a GXP compatible crankset/ bottom bracket, your bike _probably_ has a 68mm bottom bracket shell, making it English threaded. If so, you could choose from a number of offerings from Shimano, FSA (among others) as long as you replaced both the crankset and bottom bracket compatible with the 68mm shell.

Not to confuse, but the above would still hold true for 70mm shells, but you'd need an Italian threaded bottom bracket (not very prevalent).

EDIT:
Also, 53/39 are teeth counts on outer and inner chainrings. BCD is bolt circle diameter, meaning In this case 130mm's is the distance between chainring bolts. 170mm is your crank arm length. Some of these specs (more than others) will weigh into your decision if/ when you upgrade, because (as one example) you may decide you want lower gearing for hills, so a compact (50/34) may be in the running.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Just want to add that it takes very little ride time to screw up the finish on a crank. I have the occasional contact between the inside of the heel of my shoe and the crank arm, and this is relatively common - actually one of the ways to tell if a bike has truly never been ridden. Anyway, I don't own any crank sets that aren't scuffed up, and it only takes me a couple of rides to do it.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

I have a 2006 norco ctri road bike. I should correct what I've said before. These are not just scratches, I assume the bike had an accident before I got it and the cranks were hit hard by this "accident". It's functioning well but still would like to replace if I can.

So you're saying too that once I replaced a crankset, I need to replace BB too? I can't use the existing BB of my truvativ cranks? 

I got a used crankset by mistake, a triple 50/34/30. Is it possible to remove the last ring to make it double? What are the parts I need to change to make it a double 50/34?

Also I'm guessing SRAM force gxp double is also compatible with my bike?

Whew....this is getting complicated.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

axxxess said:


> I have a 2006 norco ctri road bike. I should correct what I've said before. These are not just scratches, I assume the bike had an accident before I got it and the cranks were hit hard by this "accident". It's functioning well but still would like to replace if I can.
> 
> So you're saying too that once I replaced a crankset, I need to replace BB too? I can't use the existing BB of my truvativ cranks?
> 
> ...


If your shifters accomodate it, you could simply not shift to the little ring?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> I have a 2006 norco ctri road bike. I should correct what I've said before. These are not just scratches, I assume the bike had an accident before I got it and the cranks were hit hard by this "accident". It's functioning well but still would like to replace if I can.
> 
> So you're saying too that once I replaced a crankset, I need to replace BB too? I can't use the existing BB of my truvativ cranks?
> 
> ...


If you replace your GXP compatible crankset with another GXP compatible crankset you don't have to replace the BB. If you go with another brand or type, then yes, both the crankset and BB have to be replaced together.

Assuming the triple crankset you purchased is GXP compatible, install it and set the FD limit screws to shift to/ from larger/ middle rings, effectively dialing out the small (inner ring). It might take some finesse, but you'll probably get it dialed in reasonably well. If you feel you aren't up to the task (and/ or don't have the tools), have your LBS do the work. 

Lastly, yes SRAM Force GXP cranksets are compatible. Just make sure the specific model you purchase is, because IIRC SRAM also offers Force cranksets in BB30.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

Thanks for the help everyone! 

Would probably skip on the triple crankset since there's so much to do and just get the SRAM.

Will update you!


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Small correction.*



PJ352 said:


> BCD is bolt circle diameter, meaning In this case 130mm's is the distance between chainring bolts.


The bolt circle diameter (BCD) is the diameter of the circle connecting all chainring bolts. The straight-line distance ("Centre to Centre") between one chainring bolt and the next one in line is much smaller. For 5-bolt cranks, the distance between chainring bolts is 64.7 mm with a 110 mm BCD ("compact") and 76.4 mm with a 130 mm BCD ("standard").

I only mention this because the illustration shows that straight-line distance. That distance is really only useful in finding out a crank's BCD if you don't know it.

.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> The bolt circle diameter (BCD) is the diameter of the circle connecting all chainring bolts. The straight-line distance ("Centre to Centre") between one chainring bolt and the next one in line is much smaller. For 5-bolt cranks, the distance between chainring bolts is 64.7 mm with a 110 mm BCD ("compact") and 76.4 mm with a 130 mm BCD ("standard").
> 
> I only mention this because the illustration shows that straight-line distance. That distance is really only useful in finding out a crank's BCD if you don't know it.
> 
> .


I agree and stand corrected, wim. Since I no longer have one, this doing things from memory has to stop! 

A better example:
View attachment 249843


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> Since I no longer have one, this doing things from memory has to stop!


You're not alone. See that _"Last edited by wim_" notation at the bottom of my previous post? Took me five (5) tries to get my numbers right.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

hi im back and need more help....

im getting confused with all these number thing with the cranks.

basing on the bikes specs from bikepedia, it says "Truvativ Elita GXP, 39/53 teeth" for the crankset.
- does this automatically makes it a 130bcd?

but when i looked at any marks in the chainring and the cranks itself, i saw these: 36-v3-110 at the smaller chainring. and the crank arms says "compact drive"
- read somewhere that compact cranks have a 34/50 chainrings.

so which is which? just wanna make sure as ive already got a crankset by mistake so i hope i get the right one next


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2012)

axxxess said:


> hi im back and need more help....
> 
> im getting confused with all these number thing with the cranks.
> 
> ...


Your bike dosn't have the crank that's listed on Bikepedia. You have a compact crank (110 bcd) and a 36t small chainring. Components like chainrings can sometimes change from batch to batch for the same bike. 

34/50 is the most common combination of chainrings used on compact cranks, but other combinations may be used as well. I have 36/50 on mine. 36/52 is yet another. Cyclocross riders will sometimes elect to use a a smaller large ring like 48t. 

With a standard crank (130 bcd) 39t or maybe 38t is the smallest ring that can be used.

If you don't like your gearing, you can swap out chainrings a lot cheaper than getting an entirely new crankset.


----------



## Doolab (Feb 13, 2008)

Nevermind the bikepedia specs. They are riddled with inaccuracies.
However, the 36 & 110 you mention indicate that it is a compact crankset with a 36 tooth small ring, and likely a 50 tooth big ring.

HTH


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> hi im back and need more help....
> 
> im getting confused with all these number thing with the cranks.
> 
> ...


When in doubt measure, using the image below as a guide. 

That aside, if you're replacing your crankset, the current BCD doesn't really matter, because (more importantly) you want the new one to be geared to suite your needs. If that means you go with a 110 BCD 50/34 compact crankset, so be it. If OTOH you decide to stay with a 130 BCD 53/39 standard double, that's ok as well. 

All you really need to be concerned with is:
1) Compatibility - of crankset and BB and BB with frame BB shell.
2) the crank arm length (I think you said yours was 170mm's) and...
3) inner and outer tooth count.
View attachment 249855


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

Thanks for the all the help guys. That was such a relief. I was about to get frustrated not to change it to some of my preferred cranks because of different bcds and teeth. 

39/53 double cranks ---> check!
BB gxp ---> check!

So.... (I know my questions are never ending...) If youd say I do have a 50/36 crank and I would most likely change it to 53/39, do I need to change other parts too such as the chain and cassette? Or can I retain what I have.

I do have a 10-speed, 12 - 23 teeth cassette. Chains are probably something that is compatible with a Shimano 105 system.

Thanks to all!


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2012)

axxxess said:


> Thanks for the all the help guys. That was such a relief. I was about to get frustrated not to change it to some of my preferred cranks because of different bcds and teeth.
> 
> 39/53 double cranks ---> check!
> BB gxp ---> check!
> ...


Do you have a cycle computer that measures cadence? If you know what cadence (how many RPMs you produce at the pedals) works well for you, you can look at a bike gear calcuator and see what speeds you'll get with different gear combinations. I've linked to a good gear calcuator:

53-39 w/ 12-23

What is it exactly you don't like about your current drivertrain? I'd look at replacing a chainring up front, or maybe a cassette before swapping an entire crankset (which is usually more expensive) if possible.

If you feel you're limited for top-end speed, swapping your 50t cassette for a 52t cassette that will work on a compact crankset is one option. Getting a cassette that starts with an 11t cog is another. 


A bike with a 12-23 cassette with a 36/50 crankset (which you seem to have) is acutally what I consider ideal for riding in mostly flat areas. For riding in the mountains -- where I want lower gears going up and higher gears going down, I'd go for a wider-range cassette like 11-26 or 11-28. 

However, what is optimum for me may not be best for you. I like to ride at very high cadence compared to most cyclists. During moderate to high intensity rides I'm usually spinning 110RPMs at the cranks-- this means I like having lower/easier gears and spinning them faster. Most other cyclists I see on the road seem to prefer cadences in the 80-90RPM range. If that's the case for you, taller gearing may work out better.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

axxxess said:


> I was about to get frustrated not to change it to some of my preferred cranks because of different bcds and teeth.


Just a general thought on all this: as far as performance is concerned, the differences between a compact crank and a standard crank are not nearly as large as these forum discussions can have you believe. Point being: don't spend a huge amount of time or money on something that isn't going to make a huge difference to your riding.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> Thanks for the all the help guys. That was such a relief. I was about to get frustrated not to change it to some of my preferred cranks because of different bcds and teeth.
> 
> 39/53 double cranks ---> check!
> BB gxp ---> check!
> ...


To answer your chain/ cassette question, stay with 10 speed cranksets and you'll have no problems with chain/ cassette compatibility.

Because you want to avoid making another mistake, along the lines of what PhotonFreak has mentioned, I would suggest placing your focus more on gearing needs and less on compatibility. Your bike isn't 'old', so there are options available in that regard. Simply put, think _gearing needs_ (based primarily on fitness/ terrain), first.

You don't really say much about your cycling experiences, fitness level or terrain, so consider posting some of that info or at least giving some thought to it in regards to gearing. My general attitude is that you're better off erring on the side of caution, having sufficiently low (hill climbing) gears, because unless you're racing you can always coast on those descents, so ~53/ 11 combos might not be as essential as say ~34/ 28. IMO, some things to consider before making a purchase.


----------



## axxxess (Jan 9, 2012)

I do have a cycle computer but one without cadence calculator. I guess I need to get that too.

If I can stay with my current cassette and chain to go with a new 53/39 cranks then I would. If they're not compatible then I know I won't have a choice but to change them too. But it seems they are judging by what you were saying. I'll probably stay with the setup and see how it goes when I start riding.

Thanks again.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

axxxess said:


> I do have a cycle computer but one without cadence calculator. I guess I need to get that too.


Not really a must-have. If you can see the seconds tick by on your present computer, just count crank revolutions in 15 seconds and multiply by 4 whenever you feel the need to know. After a few weeks of doing that, you'll know your cadence just by feel.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

axxxess said:


> I do have a cycle computer but one without cadence calculator. I guess I need to get that too.
> 
> If I can stay with my current cassette and chain to go with a new 53/39 cranks then I would. If they're not compatible then I know I won't have a choice but to change them too. But it seems they are judging by what you were saying. I'll probably stay with the setup and see how it goes when I start riding.
> 
> Thanks again.


JMO, but I think for about $30 a wired cadence computer is a worthwhile investment. Nothing against wim's suggestion, but in real world riding, just when you don't feel like counting (like, while climbing and shifting), is when a glance at the readout is a plus. 

Re: the crankset/ gearing issue, I agree that if the component is now functional and you're just starting out road riding, stay with what you now have, and reassess (gearing needs) in the future.

A short article on the topic of cadence:
Metasport - THE IMPORTANCE OF CADENCE IN CYCLING

... and a decent cadence computer (can be found for less):
CatEye Astrale 8 Cyclocomputer with Cadence - Cyclocomputers / GPS


----------



## savagemann (Dec 17, 2011)

Quick tip for measuring cadence.
I usually shoot for around 90rpm.
Before i had a cadence computer, i would just sing a song in my head that has a 90bpm tempo.
An easy, and fitting song that worked for me.........that disco favorite.
Staying Alive


----------



## Rapunzara (Feb 13, 2012)

Sheesh...I was really hoping for a simple answer regarding the compacts...heh. (Silly me!) In the market for a new bike, coming off of a Lemond Zurich steel frame with a triple and I use my granny gear a LOT when the guys lead me up icky 10-16% grades...slowly! (meaing they wait at the top for me) So I am afraid of a double and have noticed none of the LBS are getting any in....unless they are a "touring" bike. I really do not want math, just an upgraded triple. =(


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

How big is your biggest rear cog?

If you can deal with a little easy math for just a second, check out Sheldon Brown's gear calculator.

Are you getting a new bike? Otherwise, just ride your triple and be happy.  works for me.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Rapunzara said:


> Sheesh...I was really hoping for a simple answer regarding the compacts...heh. (Silly me!) In the market for a new bike, coming off of a Lemond Zurich steel frame with a triple and* I use my granny gear a LOT* when the guys lead me up icky 10-16% grades...slowly! (meaing they wait at the top for me) So I am afraid of a double and have noticed none of the LBS are getting any in....unless they are a "touring" bike. I really do not want math, just an upgraded triple. =(


A couple of years ago my SO was researching new bikes and agonizing over compact or triple cranksets. She went so far as to set up a spreadsheet compiling columns of data. So one day I asked a simple question. That being, do you ever find that you need the smallest ring/ largest cog? To which she responded, yes. To which I responded, there's your answer.

No math, just common sense.


----------



## Rapunzara (Feb 13, 2012)

I believe it is a 32...according to my computer (cannot see any of those tiny numbers on the thing). Yep, looking to get a shiny new one, though it is okay if it is last year or the year before's model. =)

I've been trying to read up on this phenomenon with the doubles and hear about a SRAM Apex that may be suitable for me, but I struggle so much on those "hills" that my guess is I need a bit more strength training before making the switch. (FWIW, I did not start any serious riding until '06 and have done 4 or 5 century rides, mostly around Lake Tahoe, but am finding at 50, things are feeling tougher than they used to) I guess my goal is not to get talked into a double and wind up having a pity party for all of those climbs that "beat" me. 

I do recall a friend swapping out that rear set from it's original shortly after I got it in '06 (used and guess it is about an '01 or '02?)

Not sure what to do with that calculator, but I am sure I can figure something out. =) Thank you!


----------



## Rapunzara (Feb 13, 2012)

Thanks, PJ...hehehe...but where in the heck does one find a triple these days in a newer road bike? =O


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Rapunzara said:


> Thanks, PJ...hehehe...but where in the heck does one find a triple these days in a newer road bike? =O


Just to take a step back, my response was a bit of an oversimplification, but IMO does make a point.

You're right to consider the cassette as well, although IME most triples are teamed with fairly large rear cogs, which is consistent with the 'theme'.

Re: Apex, I believe you're looking at something in the neighborhood of a 34 front/ 32 rear for the smallest combo, which isn't going to match a triples 30/ 32, so (again) if you spend time in the inner ring/ largest cog, a triple may be your best option.

As far as what bikes come with triples, there are a few. The Jamis Quest is one, but there are others. If you tell us a little more about your current bike, what you're looking for in your next bike and a price range, we can make some recommendations.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Since you're already using a MTB cassette, and if you find you can't find a bike with a triple you like but can find one with a compact,

Sram PG 1050 10 Speed Cassette > Components > Drivetrain > Cassettes | Jenson USA

Comes in sizes up to 12-36. 34/36 is about 1% higher than 30/32. You probably won't be able to tell the difference. You'll probably need a mountain bike rear derailleur to make 12-36 work. (Almost guarantee it if you end up doing a Shimano drivetrain. I don't know SRAM drivetrains as well.) Shimano does 12-36 cassettes too, of course, and they should be cross-compatible. With Shimano, at least, there's a minor technical issue using a 10-speed mountain bike cassette on a road bike - you need to use a mountain bike 9-speed rear derailleur.

Shimano still has the components to assemble an Ultegra Triple group. So maybe this is your excuse to build up a bare frame to your preference. The Zurich reads like a nice ride; certainly I like my LeMond. So it's not like you need to do this right away to start riding. And if you're like me, by now you've probably developed enough preferences in components (this saddle, those handlebars, not that wheelset, etc.) that you may not do much better buying a complete bike than buying the parts a la carte.


----------

