# "Mid-compact" 53-36 Crankset



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Anyone use one of these? I live in a hilly area and am doing a big ride next week. I test rode a Specialized Tarmac Pro SL3 and loved it but could not decide on the crankset. I have been riding a Secteur with a compact but this seemed easier even while getting used to the Red shifting. The bike was phenomenal. But figured I would sleep on it and ask all of my questions here.

Here's my thought. They'll order a compact and get it on the bike for next weekend but would I even need it? On the other hand, how often am I really going to need the bigger gearing of the "Mid Compact"? 

There are a lot of hills here and I am not a racer. What would be the benefit of the Mid?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

53 to 36 is a pretty big jump in gearing. If you're not a racer, just try conventional compact. Even as a racer, I don't spend much time in a 53x11


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Arguably nothing, just a bigger jump than both a regular and compact, but it can still work. 

If it were me, I'd stick with that mid-compact for its presumably standard BCD to maybe change the inner ring conveniently at some point to something bigger when the legs develop. From there, only the cassette will dictate gearing, as the difference in cog size make a bigger difference than chainrings.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Ventruck said:


> Arguably nothing, just a bigger jump than both a regular and compact, but it can still work.
> 
> If it were me, I'd stick with that mid-compact for its presumably standard BCD to maybe change the inner ring conveniently at some point to something bigger when the legs develop. From there, only the cassette will dictate gearing, as the difference in cog size make a bigger difference than chainrings.


What's BCD? BTW, looked on-line its 52-36, so not a big drop. Just thinking that even if it would make me faster in descents, I probably don't really need that for long recreational rides?


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> What's BCD? BTW, looked on-line its 52-36, so not a big drop. Just thinking that even if it would make me faster in descents, I probably don't really need that for long recreational rides?


Bolt Circle Diameter, which caters to particular chainring sizes. Just checked, my previous post is now worthless as both the mid compact and "compact compact" share the same 110mm BCD. Had the mid-compact been using the larger 130mm BCD, I would've suggested it because of the selection in case you "promoted" in gear size because when the 34t chainring becomes too easy to ride with, you'll probably cross-chain.

You're right about likely not needing that 52, though. spade2you pointed out the fact the largest gear inch combo isn't so usable and on most descents, pretty much any rider would prefer to coast.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Thanks. Appreciate it. Leaning more and more towards doing this with the compact. Just still a little surprised that I am thinking Tarmac not Roubaix.


----------



## scirocco (Dec 7, 2010)

NJBiker72 said:


> Here's my thought. They'll order a compact and get it on the bike for next weekend but would I even need it? On the other hand, how often am I really going to need the bigger gearing of the "Mid Compact"?
> 
> There are a lot of hills here and I am not a racer. What would be the benefit of the Mid?


If you are running a cassette where the smallest cog is 12, then 53-12 will give you a nice high gear for descending fast. A standard compact with 50 combined with a 12 spins out a bit quick on descents. I don't know how much that will matter to you.

If you have a 11 tooth cog then there is very little benefit in the 53 because 53-11 is ridiculously high and 50-11 is perfectly high enough.


----------



## bradXism (May 10, 2011)

I am old ,but it used to be that 53-13 was what was on race bikes. For me a 50-12 is large enough unless I am attempting to chase a pack of testosterone intoxicated young guns down a pretty steep downhill. Solo on downhills(most of my rides), if I am spinning out on 50-12 and put my hands next to the stem and my nose almost on it, I pick up speed. My legs are generating more drag than they are power.
Its the large drop in ratio that I do not like.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

scirocco said:


> If you are running a cassette where the smallest cog is 12, then 53-12 will give you a nice high gear for descending fast. A standard compact with 50 combined with a 12 spins out a bit quick on descents. I don't know how much that will matter to you.
> 
> If you have a 11 tooth cog then there is very little benefit in the 53 because 53-11 is ridiculously high and 50-11 is perfectly high enough.


My mistake. It was a 52-36 combo with an 11-28 cassette. 

The shop is willing to let me try the compact and if I don't like it swap it back out. Frankly for my riding that's fine. After two downhill crashes on the Secteur, not sure I need to go faster than I already can and I know the Tarmac will be much faster anyway.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

You won't go wrong with a compact.
Seeing that you don't race you'd probably never use the bigger gears afforded you by the 52x11so why bother. Shux, I'm running compacts with cassetts of 11x23 and 11x25 and would rather have cassetts of 12x23/25.


----------



## rgordin (Oct 22, 2010)

bradXism said:


> I am old ,but it used to be that 53-13 was what was on race bikes. For me a 50-12 is large enough unless I am attempting to chase a pack of testosterone intoxicated young guns down a pretty steep downhill. Solo on downhills(most of my rides), if I am spinning out on 50-12 and put my hands next to the stem and my nose almost on it, I pick up speed. My legs are generating more drag than they are power.
> Its the large drop in ratio that I do not like.


I am old enough to have started with a 52/42 and 14-21. I have been riding a 53-13 until this year, when I switched to a 12-25 rear. I like the 53-12 but have decided to go compact on one of my bikes. I felt better about losing the 53 -12 when I realized that a 50-12 is higher than the 53-13 that I had been using for the past 16 years.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

"Mid-compact" can't use a 130 BCD because 39 is considered the smallest chain-ring that you can manufacture around the 130 BCD pattern (though some have said that 38 is also possible).

Specialized have standardized on this mid-compact gearing (52-36) across all of their non-Sworks Tarmac range and coupled it with an 11-28 cassette. You get both a really big gear and a pretty small gear ... and big jumps on the crank-set and on the cassette. I suppose one advantage is that it has a full-size outer chain-ring (standard double Ultegra has often been 52T), and nobody can see your hidden "girly-man" inner chain ring.

This seems like a worst-of-all-worlds compromise to me. Anyone liking this new combination?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

My LBS swapped it for a compact. Thanks to Irene, I have yet to test it. 

The mid compact felt better on this bike than a compact did on the Roubaix, Madone or Super Six.


----------



## redlude97 (Jun 29, 2010)

I've been riding my swapped 50-34 compact for most of this season and haven't found the need for anything larger than 50x12 which will reach almost [email protected] I have found the 34T not as useful as I'd like so I'm swapping for a 36T which is in the mail. The tooth jump is almost the same as a semicompact 52/39 so it should be pretty quick


----------



## aaric (Mar 10, 2011)

ukbloke said:


> "Mid-compact" can't use a 130 BCD because 39 is considered the smallest chain-ring that you can manufacture around the 130 BCD pattern (though some have said that 38 is also possible).
> 
> Specialized have standardized on this mid-compact gearing (52-36) across all of their non-Sworks Tarmac range and coupled it with an 11-28 cassette. You get both a really big gear and a pretty small gear ... and big jumps on the crank-set and on the cassette. I suppose one advantage is that it has a full-size outer chain-ring (standard double Ultegra has often been 52T), and nobody can see your hidden "girly-man" inner chain ring.
> 
> This seems like a worst-of-all-worlds compromise to me. Anyone liking this new combination?


I've been riding 52-36 for most of this year. Paired with an 11-25 in the back, it gives a comparable range to a standard w/ 11-27, but puts the gears closer together, so you have smaller jumps between your low gears. I've got a 2.5mile ~7% grade that I commute over, so I like having at least 2 viable gears to switch up my cadence. 

FWIW, I ride the 52-11 for about 5 miles every day on the way to work.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

redlude97 said:


> I've been riding my swapped 50-34 compact for most of this season and haven't found the need for anything larger than 50x12 which will reach almost [email protected] I have found the 34T not as useful as I'd like so I'm swapping for a 36T which is in the mail. The tooth jump is almost the same as a semicompact 52/39 so it should be pretty quick


Just a terminology point - 52/39 is a standard double. Shimano have offered both 52x39 and 53x39 as their standard double usually with higher end groups like DA and Ultegra getting the extra tooth. I suppose you can make a 52/39 on a 110BCD spider if you want.

For my riding I've found the 50x12 to be fine top end gear. The only occasion I wished for more was doing low cadence drills, such as 60rpm, where more resistance on the flats would have been nice.


----------



## redlude97 (Jun 29, 2010)

ukbloke said:


> Just a terminology point - 52/39 is a standard double. Shimano have offered both 52x39 and 53x39 as their standard double usually with higher end groups like DA and Ultegra getting the extra tooth. I suppose you can make a 52/39 on a 110BCD spider if you want.
> 
> For my riding I've found the 50x12 to be fine top end gear. The only occasion I wished for more was doing low cadence drills, such as 60rpm, where more resistance on the flats would have been nice.


Until recently a "standard double" was a 52/42, 52 or 53 paired with a 39 I had commonly be referred to as a "semi-compact". Sure, nowadays it is referred to as just a standard double.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

redlude97 said:


> Until recently a "standard double" was a 52/42, 52 or 53 paired with a 39 I had commonly be referred to as a "semi-compact". Sure, nowadays it is referred to as just a standard double.


That's why I said "a" standard double as there's no hard and fast definition. Thanks for the info - I guess I've not been around long enough to see the evolution, though I was generally aware that gearing has been continually watered down over the years. The way I've been using the term "compact" (and now "semi-compact") is gearing that requires a 110BCD pattern, but I guess that's a recent invention and not necessarily historically correct.


----------



## redlude97 (Jun 29, 2010)

ukbloke said:


> That's why I said "a" standard double as there's no hard and fast definition. Thanks for the info - I guess I've not been around long enough to see the evolution, though I was generally aware that gearing has been continually watered down over the years. The way I've been using the term "compact" (and now "semi-compact") is gearing that requires a 110BCD pattern, but I guess that's a recent invention and not necessarily historically correct.


Hey I haven't been around that long either, I'm just going off of what I have heard other refer to them as, and it seemed to make sense in this context


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I've ridden a 52/36. I used it with a 12-23 and found the gear range to be great but the front shifting was poor. I found it tolerable because I live in an area where spend the majority of my time in the big ring. I sold the bike I had this on and haven't felt any need to go back. 

38T with a 130bcd is fairly common. Many cyclocross bikes come with a 46/38 on 130bcd.


----------



## lcampbell89 (Aug 26, 2011)

I am trying to pick out what gearing I am going to go with on my bike. Having a hard time deciding on which to go with. I am pretty set on campy but not sure if a 50/34 is really a good idea for me vs the 53/39 as I live in an extremely flat area and most of my riding will be taking place in this flatland. But I also do realize that in the event I ride on a hilly area having the compact could come in handy and as I am not racing its mainly just casual bike rides compact might not be all that bad.


----------



## tylerwal (Jul 28, 2011)

I find that compacts shift slightly more cumbersome but that I end up using the larger chainring far more often so the 53 almost seems like a waste, I moved the compact to my aluminum frame and use it for crits and I just leave it in the big ring for the entire race


----------

