# Your Preferred Crankset for Road-Riding? (2013 Edition)



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Poll'll be up in a minute.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

First year for mid-compact in the poll, btw. 

Am sorta curious as to whether ppl are liking it, or if it's something that Specialized is forcing on consumers a bit.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Goodness. Over 200 views on this thread, some votes, and not a single post from anyone on what they use and why they dig it.

Can only surmise that either:

1) Ppl are a-scared. :skep: :lol:

2) Crankset choice is just not controversial/a big deal any more.


_edit_– Well, ppl are certainly participating/posting now, thus proving my above observation premature/incorrect. So, never mind. 


If it's the latter, that's welcome news. Past polls I've done on this topic have sometimes degenerated into flame wars (usually standard double ppl vs compact double ppl), with some folks showing almost religious fervor for their choice of crankset. :blush2:

Perhaps it's become apparent that neither std double nor compact are going away any time soon, and that there's a place in the market for anything. Well, _almost_ anything.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I would be so much faster if I had that Golden Ratio crankset. Too bad I can't afford it.

Seriously, though, this year I'm actually answering differently from last year - I'm on a compact double now.

Honestly, I don't think it's that big a deal. But I do like having some really low gears to spin in on climbs, and while I currently have a 46t large ring on my closest-to-'A' bike, I doubt I'll need higher than 50/11 anytime soon. So if 46/11 is too low, I'll go back to a "normal" compact.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Your crusade arguing which one is best again? It's simply a matter of preference.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Goodness. Over 200 views on this thread, some votes, and not a single post from anyone on what they use and why they dig it.
> 
> Can only surmise that either:
> 
> ...


or, 

3) Everybody is totally freaking tired of and bored with this topic. Just do the damn math. The names are stupid.


----------



## JimP (Dec 18, 2001)

I used to ride a "standard" 39-53 with an 11-21 cassette. Then as I got older, I realized that I couldn't push the big gears as well as when I was 25 years younger. First the compact crankset, 34-50, with a 12-27 cassette that I hated because of the poor gaps and then an 11-23 which worked fine. Then I got even older and tried riding some long, steep hills at higher altitudes. Now I am riding the compact crankset with an 11-28 cassette that works well most of the time. I am thinking of changing the cassette to an 11-32 for the Ft. Davis hillclimb ( 1.5 mile with 18% grades at 6,200 feet ) because I had to stop 4 times last year to breath and get my pulse under control. I know it isn't macho and some will say to train more but I did ride 11,600 miles last year so I will gear to what I can push for the conditions.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Peanya said:


> Your crusade arguing which one is best again? It's simply a matter of preference.



Last poll was 18 months ago. So if there's a 'crusade', Peanya, gosh, it's a pretty sleepy one.

FWIW, I own two bikes... one has a std double on it (52-39), the other a compact. I love both bikes about equally.

I think your misconception comes from the early polls, where compact was still getting established and some ppl were Homering pretty hard against it/dismissing it out of hand. I did argue against that some, feeling that compact was going to be just as legit for recreational riders as std double was for racers. 

I think the market has since proven that view to be correct. 

Now that compact's well-established, I don't think it needs defending (though if SalsaLover comes in and Homers against it, I might bother to give him some ribbing... it's just what we do ).

FWIW, if std double was ever in danger of disappearing (it's not), I'd be bummed about that. But racers, triathletes, and high-end buyers will always want it, so it will never go away. So we're in a 'right tool for the right job' situation right now regarding cranksets, and I think that's great. 

If I was to say what I'm most interested in trying personally going forward, it's probably mid-compact (52-36), and also oddball stuff like the old-school Stronglight touring cranks (basically, mountain doubles in terms of chainring-size). 

But there's no 'crusade', P... never really was. Sorry to disappoint you. 

But on the plus side, you've maintained your crusade/perfect record of posting a snarky/disparaging comment in every one of these polls to date. So, there is that. Feel better now? :thumbsup:


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Stance is wanting to change to mid-compact although I still voted standard.


In the span of a year I've gone from 70-75rpm to 85-90rpm, jumped like two cogs. I previously didn't feel like I needed to do that. I never felt slow or struggling until I saw someone faster than me, and when I see them I try to take after them - which boiled all down to cadence. They aren't hitting a gear harder than me, they're always in an easier gear. Only reason I didn't jump to higher cadences is because I didn't think it was necessary. In fact I thought I was only getting better by building on the same given gear.

Compact made me cross-chain on rolling terrain quite a lot. Mid-compact sounds like an idea. May consider it before a bigger cassette to minimize jumps.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Ventruck said:


> Stance is wanting to change to mid-compact although I still voted standard.
> 
> In the span of a year I've gone from 70-75rpm to 85-90rpm, jumped like two cogs. I previously didn't feel like I needed to do that. I never felt slow or struggling until I saw someone faster than me, and when I see them I try to take after them - which boiled all down to cadence. They aren't hitting a gear harder than me, they're always in an easier gear. Only reason I didn't jump to higher cadences is because I didn't think it was necessary. In fact I thought I was only getting better by building on the same given gear.
> 
> Compact made me cross-chain on rolling terrain quite a lot. Mid-compact sounds like an idea. May consider it before a bigger cassette to minimize jumps.



Hmm... what cassette are you running now?

Btw, I relate on the cadence thing. I have a habit of being in the low- or mid-80s on the flats, and ideally I think it should be a little higher.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

It's been 18 month already. Wow.

Still using the compact and mostly a 11-25 or 12-25 cassette. I figure that if I'm going to be 20-30% slower than a pro rider, I might as well have similarly lower gearing.

I'm thinking of going from 175mm to 177.5mm in crank length. Mostly because I can get the longer crank cheaper in a sale, but maybe the fractional increase in leverage will help when I'm under-geared on truly steep pitches.


----------



## cbk57 (Aug 12, 2009)

I will never need more than a 50/11 but have never had an 11 cog. A 50/12 is plenty. However when the grade gets steep and long as it does where I live there never seem to be enough of the little gears.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Hmm... what cassette are you running now?
> 
> Btw, I relate on the cadence thing. I have a habit of being in the low- or mid-80s on the flats, and ideally I think it should be a little higher.


12-25. Regular ride is several repeats up a 1.5mi, ~7.2% avg hill. Used to work the 21 but moved to the 23. I keep thinking I'm about to be slower but apparently my pace has been consistently better past three rides. 

Cadence just hurts a bit for the sake of adaptation and allergies making my breathing suck a bit, but it's been a better ride overall. Looks like I have to adjust my standing style and learn to use it differently.


----------



## Blackbeerthepirate (Apr 26, 2011)

53/39 with an 11/23 cassette. 

Perfect for Florida, but I'm coming off an injury and can certainly see the value of a compact. My fit and cadence have changed radically, so I'm thinking of throwing an 11/28 or 12/30 cassette on.


----------



## mann2 (Oct 16, 2012)

50-34 + 12-25 (11 cogs). ready for anything.


----------



## tuffguy1500 (Jul 17, 2008)

I'm rocking a Mid-Compact 52-36. My bike was only available with a compact, and the only real upgrade options were a new bb30 crank or new chainrings to fit 110bcd. So I went with the chainrings. It's a happy compromise for me, the 50-34 was too small for top speeds/descending/tt's, but now that i'm rocking the 52, it's a nice happy place for my cadence. My other two bikes- commuter and TT specific both run 53/39, someday I'll swap down on the commuter to the mid-compact size. As for cassettes, I run 11-23 on Zipp wheels, 11-25 on some Bonty Selects and 11-25 on EC90 Aero clinchers, 11-27 on the commuter with Bonty SSR's.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Goodness. Over 200 views on this thread, some votes, and not a single post from anyone on what they use and why they dig it.


LOL

This is the second thread in which I've seen you start and mention the view count. I have a feeling that you reload your threads a lot!

That said, it's a good thread. I like it. 




I'm riding 50/34 now. But I would happily switch over to 50/36. I emailed praxisworks and asked if they planned on selling that setup again and they pushed me to the midcompact. 

Praxis Works | Chainrings



Can anyone suggest a good aftermarket 50/36 option for my red crank?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> LOL
> 
> This is the second thread in which I've seen you start and mention the view count. I have a feeling that you reload your threads a lot!
> 
> That said, it's a good thread. I like it.


IIRC, the only other thread I mentioned view count on was the Atkins one, and I actually wasn't the one who brought it up first... it was Eretz. 

He said something like "you've got 4600 views in this thread, that's a lot of ppl following it, so you must update more often." Something like that. Didn't know threads came with obligations. 

But I'm glad you like the poll thread.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Thoughts on poll results so far (yah I know, it's early days yet):

Mid-compact– Making a bit of a splash for something that's only been around (to any big extent) for about a year and a half? Specialized did good?

Road triple– Continuing its slow slide to near-extinction/total niche status? SRAM doesn't even make one? Fair to say that compacts and wide-range cassettes ('WiFli') are eliminating some of its reasons for being, even though it still has its advantages?


----------



## m2ber04 (Aug 13, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> LOL
> 
> This is the second thread in which I've seen you start and mention the view count. I have a feeling that you reload your threads a lot!
> 
> ...


Who would have thought the guy with the Obama picture is fudging the count....couldn't resist.

EDIT: I voted for the standard but have a mid-compact I like just as much. I do like this poll/thread.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Goodness. Over 200 views on this thread, some votes, and not a single post from anyone on what they use and why they dig it.
> 
> Can only surmise that either:
> 
> ...



Actually, the reason is that this 'poll' is a total waste of time. Who cares what I or anyone else thinks of our cranks or which ones we use? This information is of no value to anyone. I use the crank that works for me. May not work for you. I don't care what you use. I know nothing of who you are, what type of riding you do, your typical routes, what shape you're in, or what bike you ride. Find one that works for you, use it, and move on to useful threads.


----------



## m2ber04 (Aug 13, 2012)

Special Eyes said:


> Actually, the reason is that this 'poll' is a total waste of time. Who cares what I or anyone else thinks of our cranks or which ones we use? This information is of no value to anyone. I use the crank that works for me. May not work for you. I don't care what you use. I know nothing of who you are, what type of riding you do, your typical routes, what shape you're in, or what bike you ride. Find one that works for you, use it, and move on to useful threads.


not sure i agree. With that arguement 99% of the threads on this forum are pointless. for instance the what kind of road bike do you have sticky thread. who really cares what type of road bike others have. just get one that you like could be said in the same vein.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Gearing is boring. Do a poll about serviceability and longevity of bottom brackets, for me that would be much more enlightening.

Shimano square tapers last me, on average 4 years of hard use including on my beater singlespeed mtb that never gets washed. Campy external bottom brackets last me about one rainy ride, and are _pressed on to the freaking cranks!_. What a rip-off and pain in the ass all rolled into one.


----------



## DaveW88 (Sep 3, 2006)

I have a light touring bike with a 42-32-22 mountain crank and a Cannondale CAAD9 with a compact double with 48-34. Both bikes have a 14-27 cassette. But I am old and slow.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I usually use a compact. My newest build will have a 'cross crank. I have no need to go fast. Another bike has a half-step triple from the old days. My favourite is my Campy square-taper compact crank.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

mann2 said:


> 50-34 + 12-25 (11 cogs). ready for anything.


Except winning a sprint. You should put an 11 on there just in case.


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

"Mid-Compact" is the stupidest description of anything in cycling in a long time. It is the same "compact" 110 mm spider as all of the so called "compact" set ups.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> Gearing is boring. Do a poll about serviceability and longevity of bottom brackets, for me that would be much more enlightening.
> 
> Shimano square tapers last me, on average 4 years of hard use including on my beater singlespeed mtb that never gets washed. Campy external bottom brackets last me about one rainy ride, and are _pressed on to the freaking cranks!_. What a rip-off and pain in the ass all rolled into one.



Gonna disagree on the 'gearing is boring' thing. Boring to you, perhaps, maybe a few others, but I've done a number of threads on gearing in C&W (and not just on cranksets), and it seems like they always get a pretty good response in the end/engender a fair amount of discussion. Probably doesn't hurt that the big manufacturers are always dropping another cog on us or a new crankset configuration.

Far as a poll on bottom brackets goes, if you're interested in the results of such a poll, you should definitely do one... you don't need me to do one for you. Unless you're lazy? :wink5:


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> I'm gonna disagree on the 'gearing is boring' thing. Boring to you, perhaps, but I've done a number of threads on gearing in C&W (and not just on cranksets), and it seems like they always get a pretty good response in the end/engender a fair amount of discussion. Probably doesn't hurt that the big manufacturers are always dropping another cog on us or a new crankset configuration.
> 
> Far as a poll on bottom brackets goes, if you're interested in the results of such a poll, you should definitely do one... you don't need me to do one for you. Unless you're lazy? :wink5:


oh hai! yes i am lazy.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

I think a "which BB sucks the most?" poll would be pretty entertaining.

But I do like gearing.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wabasso said:


> "Mid-Compact" is the stupidest description of anything in cycling in a long time. It is the same "compact" 110 mm spider as all of the so called "compact" set ups.


It's definitely 'marketing-speak', as is the term 'semicompact', which they've also been using.

It's all about differentiation, as in... "Hey, THIS is DIFFERENT and BETTER... heck, it's even got a different name to underline that it's different and better!!!" Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

But like it or not, the marketing-speak names often tend to stick. Ppl aren't going to call 52/36 'compact with bigger rings than usual', they're going to call it mid-compact or semi-compact. The name's already stuck. 

Bravo, marketing weasels.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

mann2 said:


> 50-34 + 12-25 (11 cogs). ready for anything.





foto said:


> Except winning a sprint. You should put an 11 on there just in case.



'cept a lot of ppl would generally use the 18t a lot more than the 11t (though not for sprinting). Or the 16t with 10-spd.

Which, sadly, is an argument for 12-speed. Which is pretty much inevitable, I'd guess.
Campy first, then Shimano, then SRAM. 

Consumers want everything and 'no compromises', even if the ultimate result becomes pretty goofy (14-speed? :skep.


.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> 'cept a lot of ppl would generally use the 18t a lot more than the 11t (though not for sprinting).
> 
> Which, sadly, is an argument for 12-speed. Which is pretty much inevitable, I'd guess.
> Campy first, then Shimano, then SRAM.


If you say so, I believe it. I was happy with 8 speed.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ukbloke said:


> I think a "Which BB sucks the most?" poll would be pretty entertaining.


That is the *perfect* name for such a thread. :thumbsup:

C'mon Foto, get outta yer Lazy Boy and do it.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> That is the *perfect* name for such a thread. :thumbsup:
> 
> C'mon Foto, get outta yer Lazy Boy and do it.


It's already done, and I already made a mess of it.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> If you say so, I believe it. I was happy with 8 speed.


My first 'good' road bike (circa 25 years ago) had a 6-speed, 14-32 freewheel. Did the Davis Double Century on it, wasn't fun. The jumps between gears were brutal, and that 'perfect' gear I really needed always seemed to be mysteriously exactly halfway between two cogs I did have. Blah. 

Later on I graduated to 7-speed 13-26 and rode it happily for many years, thinking it was near-perfect. But on the flats, it did seem like I was always in the same gear all day long.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> It's already done, and I already made a mess of it.


Haha, you suck. :smilewinkgrin:

Not only that, but I'm gonna post idjit troll stuff there like, "This poll/thread is so pointless, I don't care about it so no one else should either." 

Srsly though, you can flag your own post. Do that for post #1 in your poll thread, and ask the mods to delete it so you can have a 'do-over'.

Also remember that you can edit the text in your polls... bold it, make it different colors, etc. It's more visually interesting that way/looks cooler.

And of course think your poll options through before you make the post. But you know that now. 

FWIW, I kinda blew the last crankset poll by forgetting mid-compact, even though it was so new then it probably would've gotten like 2% at best.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> It's definitely 'marketing-speak', as is the term 'semicompact', which they've also been using.


I call it the Goldilocks crankset - not too big, not too small, just right.


----------



## Carverbiker (Mar 6, 2013)

I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 or 11-28 cassette depending on the wheelset. I find that the compact allows me to stay in the big ring longer on the rolling terrain I ride on most of the time.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

50/34 w 11/23 works pretty well for the rolling hills in my area. I have a variety of cassettes up to a 12/32 for centuries with lots of 20%+ grades. At that point it's hard to keep the front wheel on the ground.


----------



## Pitts Pilot (Dec 5, 2011)

I catch a lot of grief for it, but I love my triple. Many of my rides have a bunch of grades in the lower teens, some upper teens, an occasional low twenties, and, albeit rare, topping 30%. There are a few spots I couldn't ride with a compact unless I had a 32 in back. You can do that with SRAM. I'm on Shimano, so I've got 30f/28r.

Right now, I can stay seated until the grade hits about 19%. I like that.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

You can put a 36 on the back of a Shimano compact if you want to.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

ukbloke said:


> I call it the Goldilocks crankset - not too big, not too small, just right.


I think I would cross chain a lot with one of those.


----------



## Pitts Pilot (Dec 5, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> You can put a 36 on the back of a Shimano compact if you want to.


Will any of Shimano's road derailleurs clear it? If not, I would have to change cassette, rear derailleur, and shifter. (And crankset.) All to get what I already have? Maybe I'm confused.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Aside from Dura-Ace, Shimano's indexed road shifters, for all numbers of cogs, and 7-9-speed mountain shifters, road derailleurs, and 7-9-speed mountain derailleurs are cross-compatible.

Actually have a Deore rear derailleur on the back of my 'cross bike. I don't use that low a lowest ratio and I'm probably going to go back to a narrower-range cassette for that bike to ride it as a road bike, but it works great.

Front derailleurs are supposed to have a slightly different pull ratio. I haven't tried it, and people's reports about how interchanging them works in practice vary. And some years of Dura-Ace and the current MTB 10-speed break compatibility. So you need to stay away from those parts.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Aside from Dura-Ace, Shimano's indexed road shifters, for all numbers of cogs, and 7-9-speed mountain shifters, road derailleurs, and 7-9-speed mountain derailleurs are cross-compatible.
> 
> Actually have a Deore rear derailleur on the back of my 'cross bike. I don't use that low a lowest ratio and I'm probably going to go back to a narrower-range cassette for that bike to ride it as a road bike, but it works great.
> 
> Front derailleurs are supposed to have a slightly different pull ratio. I haven't tried it, and people's reports about how interchanging them works in practice vary. And some years of Dura-Ace and the current MTB 10-speed break compatibility. So you need to stay away from those parts.


I think he means the derailer. A road derailer won't shift into a 36.

Oh, but now that I read your post carefully, I see you know that.


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> You can put a 36 on the back of a Shimano compact if you want to.


Chainrings are sold individually. You can put a 36 on the back any compact spider. In fact you can swap chainrings around on pretty much any chain set. Except for the idiotic ones sold as fixed pairs, and why anyone would buy those remains beyond my ken.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Sorry - I meant it's possible to have a drivetrain using Shimano road shifters, Shimano derailleurs, a compact crankset, and a cassette with a 36t largest cog.


----------



## mann2 (Oct 16, 2012)

View attachment 276997


So the LBS hooked me up with these...

much better all rounders than the 50/34. i think this should be the new "standard" crank.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

mann2 said:


> View attachment 276997
> 
> 
> So the LBS hooked me up with these... [52/36]
> ...



Maybe in time? After all, it took compact a few years to crack the market.

Thing is, 'regular' compact (50/34) is quite popular/has momentum. In a way, we just got a 'new standard' or rather, co-standard (alongside of 53/39)... so can we have yet another one come along and displace _it_? 

But on the plus side, I think 'semicompact' 52/36 does have the potential to keep almost everyone happy. Almost. (because some ppl just refuse to be happy :lol: ). 

I just wish Shimano and SRAM would make a few cassettes that begin with a 13t to use with it (aside from a 'token' Shimano junior cassette). Campy seems to be the only major that understands that 52x13 or 53x13 is enough for many ppl, or at least in their 10-spd groups they do.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Last poll was 18 months ago. So if there's a 'crusade', Peanya, gosh, it's a pretty sleepy one.
> 
> FWIW, I own two bikes... one has a std double on it (52-39), the other a compact. I love both bikes about equally.
> 
> ...


I lost interest on this kind of discussions, but as you mentioned me I would just come and say :

oh hai System Shock !!1!

Yes, I did lost interest after a thread that someone started here announcing he was decided to go with a Standard.

I posted on his thread to congratulate and encourage him.

He then posted that he lived in an area so flat that he didn't needed climbing gears.

So I posted again telling him that was anyway the right choice, the Standard 53 ring was the best for riding flats.

He then posted "oh no! I never use the 53, I am always on the 39"  :mad2:

That showed me that there is no more case to make in this forum. rrr:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> oh hai System Shock !!1!
> 
> Yes, I did lost interest after a thread that someone started here announcing he was decided to go with a Standard.
> 
> ...


Poor Salsa.  And oh hai to you too.

But y'know Sals, you can't really get too bummed at that guy. Your typical cassette is something like a 12-25 10-spd, and that means the 1-tooth jumps are all in the 12t to 17t range (and if you've got an 11-28, which is also popular, then you don't even have the 16t ).

If you're riding in a fast paceline all day long, or you solo cruise at like 23mph and up, then having all your closely-spaced gears in a 53x12-17 range is great. But if not, then it's not so great... you're either going to be riding in too big a gear or be settling for 2-tooth jumps on the flat. Kinda defeats the purpose of having all those gears... might as well be riding 7-speed.

So because of this, ppl on std doubles who aren't real fast solo riders and/or in a paceline all the time often ride the flats in the inner 39t chainring. Because for the riding they do, it just makes more sense. 

They roll around all day in the 39x13,14,15 on the flats. There's not much wrong with that ('cept for some fairly minor wear and efficiency issues). Those are pretty much the same gears as 53x18,19,20... but you can have 'em w/out your cassette having to have an 18t or 20t cog, which are cogs that are hard to come by unless you give up some of your climbing cogs (or an 11t) to get 'em. Lotta ppl don't want to do that. 

Maybe if more cassettes started with a 13t it'd be easier to have your cake and eat it too, and more ppl would be happy big-ringing it on the 53/39 with an 18t in the mix, but SRAM and Shimano HATE cassettes that don't start with an 11 or 12, so....

I mean, what, Salsa? Say you're some average-ability recreational rider who rides solo or non-paceline a lot, and your cruising pace is around 18 mph or so. Not fast, but you're not some drugged-sloth of a MUT rider either. 

Given that, is 53x15,16,17 supposed to be your 'sweet spot'? Is your flatland cadence supposed to be 65-75 rpm? Or maybe there's some BIG hills or mountains where you live, and even 39x27 or 28 isn't quite low enough for you... and you don't want to go to a mega-range MTB/touring cassette with its huge jumps between gears.

Do you just suck it up and ride 53/39 even though it doesn't really work best for you, or do you say to yourself, "Hmm, maybe I'll try something else?"

The common 53/39 + 12-25 cassette set up is GREAT for some ppl... mostly club racer-types. But not everyone fits into that mold. In fact, a lot of ppl don't. And that's why compact has become the 'co-standard' of sorts in recent years, because 53/39 didn't fit the way a lot of ppl actually rode.

Now, is 53/39 'inferior'? Nope.
Should it go away? Nope. And it won't.

But should it be the whole ball of wax? Nope to that too. 'Right tool for the right job'. 

For some that's std double, for some that's compact, for some it's triples or mid-compact or track cranks... and so on and so forth. Use what you like and what works best for _you_. :thumbsup:

The 'snob squad' may not approve, but, oh well.


----------



## Rickard Laufer (Jan 1, 2013)

mann2 said:


> View attachment 276997
> 
> 
> So the LBS hooked me up with these...
> ...


Nice, i tried to order this setup when i bought DA 9000. It was impossible to have them do that. It was simply 50-34 or 53-39. I have to buy 52-36 rings on the side. So i will ride 50-34/12-25 combo for now.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Maybe in time? After all, it took compact a few years to crack the market.
> 
> Thing is, 'regular' compact (50/34) is quite popular/has momentum. In a way, we just got a 'new standard' or rather, co-standard (alongside of 53/39)... so can we have yet another one come along and displace _it_?
> 
> ...


Seeing as most chainrings are able to be separated from the cranks, this shouldn't be a huge issue.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> Seeing as most chainrings are able to be separated from the cranks, this shouldn't be a huge issue.


Considering what many manufacturers are charging for chainrings these days (price Dura Ace 'rings lately?)... actually, it kinda is.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Considering what many manufacturers are charging for chainrings these days (price Dura Ace 'rings lately?)... actually, it kinda is.


Dura ace is italian for doosh bag. Didn't you know?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> Dura ace is italian for doosh bag. Didn't you know?


:lol: :thumbsup:

It's also Italian for "Why aren't-u-a buying my-stuff-a?!".





.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Thoughts on poll results so far (yah I know, it's early days yet):
> 
> Mid-compact– Making a bit of a splash for something that's only been around (to any big extent) for about a year and a half? Specialized did good?
> 
> Road triple– Continuing its slow slide to near-extinction/total niche status? SRAM doesn't even make one? Fair to say that compacts and wide-range cassettes ('WiFli') are eliminating some of its reasons for being, even though it still has its advantages?


Since writing that, road triple's made a bit of a comeback in the poll. Still in no danger of being the most popular set up out there, but it's hangin' in there. 

I personally am not too big on 'em because of the Q-factor (and aesthetics, and complexity...), but they definitely do have their considerable advantages, and I'm sure some of those riding 'em have a "you'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers" -type mentality.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I was on a triple this time last year.

While I'm fond of them, I don't think I care quite to the "cold, dead hands" level.


----------



## carlislegeorge (Mar 28, 2004)

wabasso said:


> "Mid-Compact" is the stupidest description of anything in cycling in a long time. It is the same "compact" 110 mm spider as all of the so called "compact" set ups.


Wait a minute, I thought carbon clinchers for non-racers was the stupidest thing in cycling?

I actually am trying out the mid/semi/whatever/somewhat-compact 52/36 with Praxis rings on the 7950 crankset. I don't think it's ever going to supplant 50/34, there's just too many (and ever increasing numbers of) old farts like me who really just want to minimize how hard I have to work to get up steep hills.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wabasso said:


> "Mid-Compact" is the stupidest description of anything in cycling in a long time. It is the same "compact" 110 mm spider as all of the so called "compact" set ups.



Just to follow-up on my earlier "its the marketing weasels" post... can anyone think of a better name for mid-compact than, err, 'mid-compact'? Bleah. rrr:

'Semi-compact' is only maybe a hair better.
'Compact with bigger rings' is more accurate, but pretty unwieldly.

Maybe something like 'supercompact'? 'Neo-standard'? 

Won't matter of course because of the marketing weasels, but it'd be nice to know we can come up with better names for things than them.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

carlislegeorge said:


> I don't think it's ever going to supplant 50/34, there's just too many (and ever increasing numbers of) old farts like me who really just want to minimize how hard I have to work to get up steep hills.


Hey SystemShock this quote is sig-worthy for you.. you should even register it as your Crank Crusade's slogan rrr:


----------



## Wadl (Oct 8, 2011)

I'm on a compact (50-34) with an 11-23 cassette... well, that's what I have right now but I am actually looking for a small chainring with 36 or 37 teeth...

For my type of riding, it is just great... I coast at around 35 to 40 km/h (mostly flat around here) so it means that I stay on the 50 and in the middle of my cassette. I have access to a very nice range of gear without hole in it.

If I need to go fast, I can go to 60 km/h (mostly on descent) pretty easy.

On the climb, with the 34, I never use the 21 or 23 and rarely the 19, that's why I want to get a 36 or 37 chainring...

Low weight, no gap between gears, I use almost all of them. What can I say more !!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Hey SystemShock this quote is sig-worthy for you.. you should even register it as your Crank Crusade's slogan rrr:



Now THAT'S the Salsa we know and love. :lol: :thumbsup:


(ps– you keep getting dropped on steep climbs by guys on compacts, don't you? I know, I know... 'its not fair!' :wink5




.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

I finally caved in and bought a compact 50-34 last year. Many many years of 53-39, although I used to mash a 54 (along with a variety of inner ring sizes) in time trials, and favoured a 51-39 on my commuter before it became a fixed gear hack a few months ago.

The compact crank along with 11-speed gears, has been a huge improvement for me (I'm in my early 50s now) in terms of gear selection, and making better use of the smaller cogs behind. For a former gear-masher, I have occasionally found the 50 x 12 a little short on the downhills (and even sometimes the tailwinds), so I'll be trying the 11-23 cassette option this year with my fastest wheels. Otherwise I could certainly see the benefits of the 52-36 semi-compact rings, using a 12-up cassette at the back. I think David Millar used to set up a 52 x 11 top gear on his TT rigs, and that's way more than I can handle. I can see 50 x 11 being useful for pushing and shoving my way in and out of corners on fast downhills, when I'm not just tucking into a 'downhill skiing' position on the straight bits.

Otherwise, pretty happy with a 12-25 range in both compact rings. With a 36 inner, the 27 might be a better bail-out gear though.


----------



## scottma (May 18, 2012)

carlislegeorge said:


> Wait a minute, I thought carbon clinchers for non-racers was the stupidest thing in cycling?
> 
> there's just too many (and ever increasing numbers of) old farts like me who really just want to minimize how hard I have to work to get up steep hills.


I resemble that remark!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Judging from the results, the next time I run this poll (in like 1-2 years), I need only include these options:

Std double
Compact
Mid-compact
Road Triple
Other


Seems like nearly no one rides anything but the 'Big Four' road options now. Almost makes me want to find the weirdest, most obscure crankset(s) imaginable and put them on my bikes, just to be non-conformist.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

I commute and train (solo) on a 50/34 and race on 53/39. I don't really notice much of a difference going between these two scenarios but that's likely because race speeds are higher on average than any kind of solo riding so the gear ratios are 'just right'.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Judging from the results, the next time I run this poll (in like 1-2 years), I need only include these options:
> 
> Std double
> Compact
> ...


Shouldn't that have been obvious from the number of Trek, Specialized, and Giant pictures posted on this board daily? People like to conform to the pack.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I think there's a certain amount of just buying what's available too.

If I walk down the street to my closest LBS and buy a bike, I'm most likely going to end up on a Trek or a Specialized. To now, and probably for my next road bike too, I've typically bought complete road bikes. It's easier and while I've been developing some preferences for things, I don't care enough to spend the extra to build from a bare frame.

While I've sometimes ended up riding other brands, I still haven't ridden anything really exotic or built from a bare frame. I've just sometimes had my favorite bike or the bike I had access to a better price on be other than one of the big four.

I don't think that's following the herd so much as just doing what's easy, which I think is a little different. One of my uncles used to say, "The path of least resistance leads downhill to nowhere." And I suppose over time, my bikes have all evolved their way to being a little more "me." But so far, what I want from a bike hasn't been different enough from what I can get in a complete bike to justify building one.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think there's a certain amount of just buying what's available too.
> 
> If I walk down the street to my closest LBS and buy a bike, I'm most likely going to end up on a Trek or a Specialized. To now, and probably for my next road bike too, I've typically bought complete road bikes. It's easier and while I've been developing some preferences for things, I don't care enough to spend the extra to build from a bare frame.
> 
> ...


The problem with completes is they never come with the wheels I want. So by the time I have bought an off-the-shelf complete and the wheels I want, I am deeper than if I built from scratch. Particularly because building it myself lets me scrounge on things I don't care about.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> Shouldn't that have been obvious from the number of Trek, Specialized, and Giant pictures posted on this board daily? People like to conform to the pack.


Because nothing says "non-conformist" like refusing to conform by purchasing a custom bike.


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Sep 16, 2011)

Sugino OX601D in 34/48. Works nicely with a 13-29.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

foto said:


> Because nothing says "non-conformist" like refusing to conform by purchasing a custom bike.


Doesn't have to be custom, just something other than the big 3 or 4. For instance, I sell brands that aren't everywhere like Ciocc, DeBernardi, Cyfac, Volagi plus Redline, Torker and Jamis. Sometimes I acquire other odd bike brands too. Then there are my "creations".... Used or closeout frames built with unusual component combinations. People like my odd builds.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

GRAVELBIKE said:


> Sugino OX601D in 34/48. Works nicely with a 13-29.


That's close to the combo I have on one of my bikes. 46/36 with a 13-29.


----------



## RIL49 (Apr 27, 2012)

When I switched to a compact double a few years ago (50/34 with an 11/28), it made me feel young again while climbing.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

GRAVELBIKE said:


> Sugino OX601D in 34/48. Works nicely with a 13-29





PlatyPius said:


> That's close to the combo I have on one of my bikes. 46/36 with a 13-29.



Somewhere, Salsa just fainted.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

foto said:


> The problem with completes is they never come with the wheels I want. So by the time I have bought an off-the-shelf complete and the wheels I want, I am deeper than if I built from scratch. Particularly because building it myself lets me scrounge on things I don't care about.


Yeah, I'm not too stoked on the wheels that came on the commute bike I bought from my friend. Those stupid paired-spoke wheels. I just run these things into the ground before replacing, so I usually get a couple seasons of use first.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Funny thing about the 34/48 is the main bike I have for road riding is actually geared a bit lower. I repurposed it from 'cross, but it still has the 46 ring on it.

I have a pretty fast cadence, but 46/11 is not a super-high gear... So I may need to go with the herd a little more again on that bike.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Somewhere, Salsa just fainted.


there is no hope left for this forum


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think there's a certain amount of just buying what's available too.
> 
> ...I don't think that's following the herd so much as just doing what's easy, which I think is a little different.



That's probably fair, up to a point. And there's usually a trend towards standardization in gear, as LBSes simply can't stock *everything* under the sun.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> there is no hope left for this forum


Oh Salsa, pls understand, we're not laughing AT you, we're laughing WITH you.

You may be a Bike Curmudgeon™, but you're OUR Bike Curmudgeon™. :lol:

I just wish you'd been around in the '70s to yell at Merckx and all the rest for riding 'touring bikes' in the Tour de France (slightly longer chainstays, freewheels that began with a 13t).


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I know, I know, from my side too, I am joking and laughing with you.

Nothing wrong with touring cranks on touring bikes though... Now on mega bucks crabon wunderbikes with "deep dish" wheels they seem out of place  the "p" word comes to mind.

Btw today I saw on eBay a NOS Regina 6 speed freewheel 14-32 and the first thing I thought was "that's a cassette for System Shock"


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Btw today I saw on eBay a NOS Regina 6 speed freewheel 14-32 and the first thing I thought was "that's a cassette for System Shock"


I had that _exact_ freewheel when I rode the Davis Double Century in '87 (my first century/DC).

I HATED it. Giant jumps between gears, gear I needed was always exactly halfway in between the gears I did have. Bleah.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Btw, anyone else surprised that compact is outpacing standard double by about 3 to 2 in this year's poll? It's been much closer than that in past polls.

I thought standard dbl might even 'win' this time out, due to mid-compact siphoning votes away from compact. Go figure.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I had that _exact_ freewheel when I rode the Davis Double Century in '87 (my first century/DC).
> 
> I HATED it. Giant jumps between gears, gear I needed was always exactly halfway in between the gears I did have. Bleah.


That's why half-step cranks were briefly popular back in the day. They allowed you to fill the gaps.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

50/34 12-25 11 speed. I dont do much over 35 mph and when I do Im hanging on steering , not wishing I had a 54 or 56! I like hills and this set suits me perfectly.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> That's why half-step cranks were briefly popular back in the day. They allowed you to fill the gaps.


Yah, but I don't need to tell you the drawbacks of that system.

I like what I did, which was go to 7-spd plus switch to a 39t chainring. 

52/42 plus a 14-32 6-spd cluster in the back is the worst set-up I ever had, for sure.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Yah, but I don't need to tell you the drawbacks of that system.
> 
> I like what I did, which was go to 7-spd plus switch to a 39t chainring.
> 
> 52/42 plus a 14-32 6-spd cluster in the back is the worst set-up I ever had, for sure.


My half-step cranks are a triple... 52-42-30 and I have them on an 8 speed bike. I kinda dig them. Back in the actual 6 speed days I had a cheap department store Columbia.


----------



## 299e (Sep 11, 2011)

36/48 x 11-28


----------



## willum44 (Oct 18, 2008)

I run a 14/23 cassette and a 50/36 Campagnolo crankset. Here in the midwest it works perfectly for me as there are not many steep inclines. I also ran a 48/38 with a 13/25 shimano drivetrain.
I found the 50/34 crankset created too many occasions when I was at one end of the cassette or the other, and too many front changes. I'm 68, 125lbs soaking wet and have not been able to put more than 5 months consecutively riding to get fit beyond building a base. When I was in my late teens living in Northern Ireland I climbed 25% grades with a campy 52/42 and 5 speed rear Regina freewheel 14/22. "seated". I spent a lot of time lifting weights and playing soccer [football] in those days so had great leg strength and power to weight ratio. So I'd say the favourite crankset/cassette combo has a lot of factors to consider.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Poll's hit 200 votes. A thanks to everyone who's participated.


----------



## jrduquemin (Oct 4, 2009)

Having had knee surgery 23 years ago, I have been forced to use a compact crankset for most of my riding life. I ride a lot in the Surrey hills so that, combined with a 11-28 cassette does help a lot on the climbs.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Bump'd for teh moar votes. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Nothing wrong with touring cranks on touring bikes though... Now on mega bucks crabon wunderbikes with "deep dish" wheels they seem out of place  the "p" word comes to mind.


Egads– compact cranks on high-zoot carbon bikes? Better get used to it, Salsa. 

That's yer "$5000 Yuppie Special" right there, and it ain't goin' away. :smilewinkgrin:


----------

