# Compact Double, always shifting?



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

I've had my new bike for 2 months now, over 500 miles and it seems I have troubles deciding which front sprocket I should be in when traveling around 15 MPH. Sometimes I'm in the 50 up front but then start climbing and don't want to run the chain at a sharp angle so switch to the 34 up front but them must shift a few down in the back....I have a 12-27 in the back. Seems like when I'm on the 50 in the front I need larger middle sprockets in the back, but just the opposite when I'm on the 34 in the front....how do others deal with this?
Just push the hard gears slowly, or drop into easier ones and spin faster??


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Stay in the 50, use the rear to adjust for desired cadence/speed. If rubbing on the front derailleur - depending on which rear gear you have selected - use the trim function on the front shifter.


----------



## Erion929 (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm relatively new (again) also and ride a lot of rolling terrain, with some moderate steepness included. To the OP, yes, if I am on the 50 and start climbing, sometimes you have to shift the rear cog to one or two HIGHER gears prior to dropping to the front 34 so as to not get that drastic increase in cadence. As I have gotten stronger, though, often now I will just GET OUT OF THE SADDLE and pedal the 50 uphill as far as I can, then when I drop into the 34 with the same rear cog (usually 14-15-16-17) it is more to my needs as I am getting more tired. If I do it that way I am never in the 50x21 which requires you to shift to higher cogs before the shift to the 34.

May, or may not, be the "right" way to do it, but works for me. Stronger riders probably do it different?

**


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

You need to figure out what works for you and your terrain. The basic phemonenon you describe -- having to shift the rear 2 or 3 cogs get the needed gear after you shift the front -- is an inherent part of the 2-ring setup, more so with your 34-50 because of the bigger percentage difference between the rings. 

I did a little number crunching, and at 15 mph a 50x23 or a 34x16 will have you in the vicinity of 90 rpm. Neither of those is extreme cross-chaining, but they don't give you much more room if you need lower (in the 50) or higher (in the 34). Most experienced riders will decide which ring to use based not just on the immediate grade and speed, but what's ahead in the short and medium turn. Thus, if the hill is short (even if steep) you might stay in the big ring, even if you bog down a little and finish the climb standing. That way you maintain speed over the top and don't have to shift the front again. But if the hill is going to go on longer, you drop the front so you have more gears to play with.

The good news for you (that you may not realize) is that double-shifting is vastly easier today than in the days of downtube friction shifters. So you don't have to think about it too hard. If you choose wrong, 3 or 4 clicks in a second or so fixes it.

You also may have a gear setup that is not ideal for your style and terrain, but I think 2 months is too early to decide that. One question: do you need your lowest gears? Do you ever use the 34x27?


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

*Good info, thnaks for time.*



JCavilia said:


> You need to figure out what works for you and your terrain. The basic phemonenon you describe -- having to shift the rear 2 or 3 cogs get the needed gear after you shift the front -- is an inherent part of the 2-ring setup, more so with your 34-50 because of the bigger percentage difference between the rings.
> 
> I did a little number crunching, and at 15 mph a 50x23 or a 34x16 will have you in the vicinity of 90 rpm. Neither of those is extreme cross-chaining, but they don't give you much more room if you need lower (in the 50) or higher (in the 34). Most experienced riders will decide which ring to use based not just on the immediate grade and speed, but what's ahead in the short and medium turn. Thus, if the hill is short (even if steep) you might stay in the big ring, even if you bog down a little and finish the climb standing. That way you maintain speed over the top and don't have to shift the front again. But if the hill is going to go on longer, you drop the front so you have more gears to play with.
> 
> ...


Yes, I do need the 34x27 sometimes, have in fact bought a 29T cog for the hardest hills. Guess I'll slow cadence on the 50 longer before dropping down to the 34....maybe I was a little obsessed with always trying to be at the perfect cadence.


----------



## temoore (Mar 9, 2004)

In 2004 I had a compact double, and found that I was on the 50 most of the time except for hills. I felt that limited my gear selection and went to a triple (30/39/53), which allowed me to ride a traditional double with the ability to use the small change ring on steep hills.
Just built a new bike this year (campy chorus 11) with a compact double, and find that I can use the 34 chain ring more than I did in 2004. The main reason is I worked on increasing my cadence a few years back. I ride 95 to 105 rpm, and the 34 is good up to at least 18 mph for me. In 2004 I was a 85 to 90 rpm rider. I like the compact much more now than I did then.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

You're shifting, but it's not so much about your gear ratios. Terrain and conditions will constantly change, so even pro riders will be continuously changing gears. I recall being near a corner at last year's Tour of Missouri and all of the riders were shifting almost simultaneously.

As a new rider, you simply need to figure out what's comfortable and build the engine. Try to stay at a consistent effort and cadence. Manipulate the gearing to stay in the zone.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Erion929 said:


> I'm relatively new (again) also and ride a lot of rolling terrain, with some moderate steepness included. To the OP, yes, *if I am on the 50 and start climbing, sometimes you have to shift the rear cog to one or two HIGHER gears prior to dropping to the front 34 so as to not get that drastic increase in cadence.* As I have gotten stronger, though, often now I will just GET OUT OF THE SADDLE and pedal the 50 uphill as far as I can, then when I drop into the 34 with the same rear cog (usually 14-15-16-17) it is more to my needs as I am getting more tired. If I do it that way I am never in the 50x21 which requires you to shift to higher cogs before the shift to the 34.
> 
> May, or may not, be the "right" way to do it, but works for me. *Stronger riders probably do it different?*
> **


No that's pretty much the way to do it for anyone. Unless the hill gets really steep very suddenly you need to shift the back like you mentioned so the change to the small ring doesn't cause you to spin out.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

As spade2you implies, don't over-think things. Don't look down at the gears. Just peddle in a ratio you're comfortable in.


----------



## heffergm (Jul 9, 2010)

I almost always stay on the big sprocket on my compact. I climb completely cross chained with the front trimmed and get no rubbing. I'm only on the small sprocket if the hill is really big, really long or I'm really tired!


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

hikertoo said:


> I've had my new bike for 2 months now, over 500 miles and it seems I have troubles deciding which front sprocket I should be in when traveling around 15 MPH. Sometimes I'm in the 50 up front but then start climbing and don't want to run the chain at a sharp angle so switch to the 34 up front but them must shift a few down in the back....I have a 12-27 in the back. Seems like when I'm on the 50 in the front I need larger middle sprockets in the back, but just the opposite when I'm on the 34 in the front....how do others deal with this?
> Just push the hard gears slowly, or drop into easier ones and spin faster??


It's an interesting dilemma - riders that typically want/need the extra low gears that a compact provide also tend to cruise right around the crossover point of that setup.

The good news is that it's largely a temporary problem. As you get more time, miles, and fitness, the big ring will be your friend more often. There will always be some back-and-forth over varied terrain of course, but you'll see less and less of it over time.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

hikertoo said:


> Yes, I do need the 34x27 sometimes, have in fact bought a 29T cog for the hardest hills. Guess I'll slow cadence on the 50 longer before dropping down to the 34....maybe I was a little obsessed with always trying to be at the perfect cadence.


Good insight there. If you ride in varied, rolling terrain, you will vary cadence, and it's good to learn the skills. Standing up to stomp over the top of a short steep one is very useful -- it's fun, too. 

I use the whole range of gears on my road bike, and most of the time I'm probably spinning 90-95 rpm. But I do a fair amount of riding on a fixed-gear, too, some of it in moderately hilly terrain. So I know how to grind up a hill at 40 rpm if necessary (without hurting my knees), and conversely I can spin 120 for several minutes when needed. All useful skills, and they make riding more fun.


----------



## Erion929 (Jun 10, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> Standing up to stomp over the top of a short steep one is very useful -- it's fun, too.



I've discovered that, too, after improving my cardio and strength. More fun than just always spinning up hills while seated. Less shifting off of the 50,, too.

**


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

hikertoo said:


> I've had my new bike for 2 months now, over 500 miles and it seems I have troubles deciding which front sprocket I should be in when traveling around 15 MPH.


15 MPH is pretty much 50x21 or 50x23 territory, which is towards the end of your cassette. However, 34x14,15, and 16 covers that range of gears, so you could just go down to your small ring.

Another possibility would involve bringing your 'go-to' gearing range more towards the middle of the cassette, either by going with a smaller big ring (say a 46t instead of 50) and/or by using a bigger small ring (36 or 38t instead of a 34). 

Inner chainrings are much cheaper than big rings usually, but if you feel like you really need the 34x27 or equivalent and 36 or 38x27 isn't low enough, then perhaps changing the big ring (assuming you're ok with the loss of top-end gearing) might be as cheap or cheaper than changing inner ring + cassette (i.e. going 11-28, say).

But I'd also have to echo comments made by others in the thread... 15 mph is a pretty slow cruising speed. Assuming fairly flat ground and/or no constant major headwinds in your area, with some regular riding you should be going a bit faster than that soon. Most anyone can keep a 16-18 MPH pace on flat ground with a little training and good bike fit/position.

I'd also say that 90 rpm is not a 'magic' cadence number... it actually scales depending on how fast you're going and certain physiological factors.

If you're riding pretty slowly, 80 rpm in a bit bigger gear might actually be more efficient than 90 rpm in a smaller one. Conversely, if you're really putting out the watts on the flat/are just flying, 100-105 rpm can be what's right. 

Body weight can have an impact too... if you're really overweight, your legs are heavy too, and it takes a lot of energy to move them around in a circle at high-rpm cadences. But heavy folks naturally tend to have stronger lower bodies, so slightly higher gearing with a lower cadence can work for them.

Some other people are cardio monsters yet have scrawny, weak legs. Those folks will often gear down and go high-cadence, as that's what suits their body makeup.

So, it's all up to what works for *you*. There are no magic cadence or gearing numbers, though there are some broad ranges you might want to stay within. I think very few ppl are at their most efficient below 70 rpm or above 120 rpm for any extended length of time.
.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I base my choice somewhat on speed. Using 34x12 anything over 21-22 mph gets uncomfortable for me. If I see the road slant down slightly, if there's a tailwind, or if I'm in a group where the speed is likely to vary I'll be in the big ring. If the group is riding slowly or if there are hills I'll probably be in the small ring.


----------



## Greg Smalter (Jul 16, 2005)

hikertoo said:


> I have troubles deciding which front sprocket I should be in when traveling around 15 MPH. Sometimes I'm in the 50 up front but then start climbing and don't want to run the chain at a sharp angle so switch to the 34 up front but them must shift a few down in the back.?


This is the drawback to a compact crank. You have more cross-chaining issues than on a standard double. The people who love compacts say, as many as suggested here, to simply stay in the 50 basically all the time. (It's amazing how well compacts shift if you never use the front derailleur, ever.) I'm not trying to put down compacts too much here - Basically, if you are willing to accept this trade-off, then that's fine. If not, a standard double would give you less cross chaining issues (but as others have said, it doesn't eliminate the fact that you have to select the right gear and sometimes it's tricky). But standard doubles have their own drawbacks.


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

I don't want to open a can of worms or start a flame war between the pro and anti-compact camp, but here is my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

Supposedly compact cranks have to offer some lower gears so one can maintain the same cadence throughout, BUT the big jump between the chainrings (16T from 50 to 36) causes you to have to shift up to three or four sprockets up on the cassette, as the OP described.

Hence, people will try to remain on the same ring to avoid this bothersome procedure, but then what is the point of a compact crank. This riding style makes me think more of an old 12-speed (double cranks, 6 sprockets in the rear) than anything else. You would wait to change sprockets untill really needed, because the gaps between them would cause you to be either too big or too small and so you would end up using different cadence to cope with that.

So are compacts supposed to be the new revolution when in order to avoid cross-chaining and having to perform multiple shifts all the time one has to slow down one's cadence? It seems like compacts are doing exactly the opposite of what they were designed for.

FWIW, I have a double and a triple bike. Normally I don't need the granny ring, but it is nice to have it just in case. And BTW on my triple I use a friction shifter for the crank (for the cassette I have indexed shifting) and it shifts very quickly and without chain rub.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

matchmaker said:


> I don't want to open a can of worms or start a flame war between the pro and anti-compact camp, but here is my opinion, take it for what it is worth.
> 
> Supposedly compact cranks have to offer some lower gears so one can maintain the same cadence throughout, BUT the big jump between the chainrings (16T from 50 to 36) causes you to have to shift up to three or four sprockets up on the cassette, as the OP described.
> 
> ...


You'll get no flame war from me. I like compacts, but I don't think _everyone_ should... ppl should pick what's best suited for their needs.

That said, I think ppl sometimes don't put the pluses and minuses of compacts into perspective.

For example, some folks bemoan the alleged cross-chaining issue, or how you're supposed to stay on the big ring for most things... or are upset about how you have to shift three or four cogs in the back when changing chainrings. But, wait a sec, much of that is not strictly a 'compact' thing, more like a double-crank thing.

Many ppl use standard doubles (i.e. 53/39) the same way as ppl use compacts– they just stay on the _small_ ring most of the time instead of the big ring. And they ride around all day long in gears like the 39x14 or 15- very reasonable gears for avg recreational riders on flat ground.

But wait a sec... on a 12-x cassette, 39x14 is only two cogs away from being in the small-small gear. Go kinda-sorta fast (39x13) and you're just one away. So why does no one complain "ZOMG, I am teh cross-chaining!" about standard doubles? :skep:

Yeah, you could go 53x17 or 19 instead, but many ppl don't because they like the 1-tooth jumps they get between their cruising gears on the small ring.

The equivalent gear range on a compact is 50x16,17,19... well-away from the big-big cross-chain. 

So, the ppl having cross-chain issues on compact are the ppl who are riding pretty slowly and/or are riding in certain kinds of rolling terrain, since this puts their 'go to' gears more into the crossover range of a compact. 

But if you're one of those ppl, its pretty easily fixed with a change of cassette and/or chainrings. No stock solution is perfect for everyone, regardless of crankset type. Ppls' riding terrain and fitness levels simply vary too much for that.

And on the whole "ZOMG, you have to shift three or four in the back when shifting rings when you're running through the gear range w/compacts"... well, so? With std doubles, you have to shift two or three in the back while doing the same thing. Is shifting one more cog when you're shifting several already really that big a diff?  

Boiled down, much of the above drama is just part of being a double crankset owner.

- With std doubles, ppl (non-racers) often stay in the small ring mostly, and sometimes come close to cross-chaining small-small. They shift 2-3 in back when changing rings.

- With compacts, ppl often stay in the big ring mostly, and sometimes come close to cross-chaining big-big. They shift 3-4 in back when changing rings.

Make sense? :idea: 

Of course, this is part where the triple riders come in smiling and go, "I don't got any problems, I just stay in the middle ring all day and it's perfect." 

Yes, but... triples have bad Q-factors (and yup, I sure notice this out on the road). They're heavier, and some ppl and LBSes find them to be harder to set up and _keep_ set up. They can shift a bit slower. Some ppl find them complicated. They're not usually available on higher-end groups anymore, aside from Ultegra (and not everyone digs Shimano).

And, finally, they can be the object of some disdain/ridicule on group rides, though that part I don't give a frick about. If someone's lame enough to comment negatively on what someone else rides, they're just giving themselves away as a dork/poseur/insecure person. I have no use for such ppl. :frown2:

In the end, just choose what works. If you do a lot of fast big-group paceline rides and/or race, the std double is a great choice. If you're more a recreational rider and loose-pack rider, and/or have some big hills to deal with, compacts make a lot of sense. And triples can be awesome if you're not bothered by the Q-factor, certain small negatives, and what other ppl think.


/ One thing I'll add is that the bike manufacturers and component companies add to the issues by not being that honest about what kind of gears average ppl really use in typical riding. They often spec 'wannabe racer' gearing, and too many consumers foolishly buy it as part of an 'aspirational' or 'be like Lance' purchase, which is more than a tad silly. 

The compact has been kind of a reaction to that, but you can still mismatch your gearing to your capabilities & the terrain at hand. 
.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

matchmaker said:


> I don't want to open a can of worms or start a flame war between the pro and anti-compact camp, but here is my opinion, take it for what it is worth.
> 
> Supposedly compact cranks have to offer some lower gears so one can maintain the same cadence throughout, BUT the big jump between the chainrings (16T from 50 to 36) causes you to have to shift up to three or four sprockets up on the cassette, as the OP described.
> 
> ...


Reading between the lines I'm guessing the hills are not quite as steep or start much more gradually than they do where someone of your riding ability who actually does like a compact rides.

If you need to shift 4 in the back...not sure why you'd be shifting in the front anyway but when you go from flat to a decent hill quickly the big drop off is something that works out just fine.

Agree the drop off is big and a standard is better (assuming same rider) where the hills aren't abrupt or steep.


----------



## Gall (Feb 6, 2004)

I didnt read all that was posted so this might be posted already.

But ... I switched to a 48 and 46. I liked the 48 but the 46 is soooo much better. I only shift to the small ring when I am climbing. 

Try it!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Gall said:


> I didnt read all that was posted so this might be posted already.
> 
> But ... I switched to a 48 and 46. I liked the 48 but the 46 is soooo much better. I only shift to the small ring when I am climbing.
> 
> Try it!


why don't you better switch to a mountain bike crankset then ?


----------



## Gall (Feb 6, 2004)

ohh because I bought a R700 years ago while on sale for a pretty good price. 

This works for me ..


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

I did a ride today that was 80mi and 5000 ft. Grades up to 14%. Using a compact double.

Worked out great! I was in the big ring when speeds crested 19, and in the little ring when speeds were below 19. Maybe it helps that I spin a high cadence (115). But I'm thrilled with my compact.

My wife uses one too. She's a slower pedaler, about a 90 cadence. She uses the big ring about 17 or 18. 

Frankly, I don't know what all the complaining is about. We shift the back der several times over a 10 minute period. What's the big deal with using the front one? Learn to shift, learn your bike, and enjoy your ride.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> why don't you better switch to a mountain bike crankset then ?


Because most of the better mountain bike cranksets start with a 42, not a 46. 

The correct zinger would've been, "Why don't you switch to a cyclocross crankset, then?"

Then you should immediately follow up with a "HTFU", since that worked so well in the Lounge.
.


----------



## Erion929 (Jun 10, 2010)

JoelS said:


> I did a ride today that was 80mi and 5000 ft. Grades up to 14%. Using a compact double.
> 
> Worked out great! I was in the big ring when speeds crested 19, and in the little ring when speeds were below 19. Maybe it helps that I spin a high cadence (115). But I'm thrilled with my compact.
> 
> ...




+1 :thumbsup: 


**


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Because most of the better mountain bike cranksets start with a 42, not a 46.
> 
> The correct zinger would've been, "Why don't you switch to a cyclocross crankset, then?"
> 
> ...


cyclocrosses do know how to HTFU, believe me rrr:

ride whatever you want, but if your gearing is low, your handlebars high and your tyres wide then don't call it a road racing bike, that's all.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> cyclocrosses do know how to HTFU, believe me rrr:
> 
> ride whatever you want, but if your gearing is low, your handlebars high and your tyres wide then don't call it a road racing bike, that's all.


Sigh. We've been all over this before, Sals... the pros riding Paris-Roubaix on 27mm tubies were certainly riding 'road racing bikes'.

And the guys riding compacts in the Giro were riding 'road racing bikes' too.

And, of course, only a couple decades back, 'road racing' bikes had better clearances for wider tires than they do now... and no ever said they weren't 'road racing bikes' because of it. :skep:

But if you want to have your own private definition of what a road racing bike is or is not, you're welcome to it. Just don't be surprised when most ppl don't fall in line behind you in the Holy Church of HTFU™. :lol:


/ ooh, this reminds me... gotta order me a Technomic stem now. 
.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Sigh..................
> .


He's right about the gearing. Of course a gear inch is a gear inch but you'd be much more of a racer if you use a 53 and ride around on the top of the cassete than if you use the middle with a 50. Plus, as I'm sure you've picked up on, amature racers who fantasize on the internet tend to spin out 50/11 so they really 'need' the 53. Then there's those of use who live in the mountains. Nevermind that a lot of the top racers I know use a compact around here............they just aren't riding a race bike or as 'pro' as the guys who grind up on a standard. Efficiency? Please. Like that matters in dream land.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> He's right about the gearing. Of course a gear inch is a gear inch but you'd be much more of a racer if you use a 53 and ride around on the top of the cassete than if you use the middle with a 50. Plus, as I'm sure you've picked up on, amature racers who fantasize on the internet tend to spin out 50/11 so they really 'need' the 53. Then there's those of use who live in the mountains. Nevermind that a lot of the top racers I know use a compact around here............they just aren't riding a race bike or as 'pro' as the guys who grind up on a standard. Efficiency? Please. Like that matters in dream land.


Nice sarcasm. 

Yeah, I dunno... I guess someone should tell all those pro riders in the Giro that they weren't riding road racing bikes somehow. We need to dispatch Salsa pronto to go tell those guys to HTFU.


*Lennard Zinn rides the Giro’s Monte Zoncolon*

...speaking of gearing, you know it’s steep when you see some of the world’s best climbers riding huge rear cogs with a tiny front chainring. With few exceptions, the teams will use the same gears on Plan de Corones on Tuesday as they used on Monte Zoncolan. I saw Ivan Basso riding nimbly in a 36 X 29, while Vincenzo Nibali and the rest of the Liquigas team struggled a bit more with the gear. But BMC’s Cadel Evans was just barely behind Basso where he passed by with 3.5km to go, and he was doing fine with a 34 X 27. He has trained on the critical Giro mountain stages for weeks and knows what he wants on his Easton EC90SLX wheels adorning his BMC Team Machine SLR01. Julian Dean and other Garmin riders came by me with the same 34 X 27 gear.

Damiano Cunego, Gibo Simoni, and the other Lampre riders, as well as Pippo Pozzato and the other Katusha riders pushed their Campy setups all the way to 34 X 29. They will do the same on Plan de Corones. Alexander Vinokourov and his remaining Astana teammates may have had the widest gear range on Monte Zoncolan: 53-34 X 11-28, and their derailleurs seemed to handle it just fine. Carlos Sastre and other Cervelo riders were also using a 34 X 28, as was Rabobank and Ag2R. Stefano Garzelli and his Aqua & Sapone teammates rode 34 X 28 on the Zoncolan, but they will be on 34 X 29 on the Plan de Corones.

Bradley Wiggins and other riders on Sky using oval Osymetric chainrings rode a 38 X 28 up the Zoncolan, while round-ring-riding Sky riders like Michael Barry pushed a 36 X 28. Milram and Columbia-HTC also rode 36 X 28, while Bbox chose Evans’ gearing: 34 X 27.
​
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...rd-zinn-rides-the-giros-monte-zoncolon_118438
.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Nice sarcasm.
> 
> Yeah, I dunno... I guess someone should tell all those pro riders in the Giro that they weren't riding road racing bikes somehow...
> 
> ...


But Salsa is. (I was trying to be sarcastic in my prior response).


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

how often you guys are riding up the Zoncolan or Belgian Pavé to "need" compacts and 28mm tyres ?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> how often you guys are riding up the Zoncolan or Belgian Pavé to "need" compacts and 28mm tyres ?


That kinda dodges the original question... are pros NOT riding racing bikes when use compacts in the Giro or ride wide tires in Paris-Roubaix or any other spring Classic? :idea:

Any response should include the term HTFU.
.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

no, the question is how often do *you* find yourself in those extreme situations that you ar using to justify why *you* have to use compacts, wide tyres and high handlebars on a road racing bike.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> no, the question is how often do *you* find yourself in those extreme situations that you ar using to justify why *you* have to use compacts, wide tyres and high handlebars on a road racing bike.


I need the small gears offered by a compact often, like nearly every ride. I could do it with a standard, but my knees tell me they aren't happy. I am VERY happy with my compact.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> no, the question is how often do you find yourself in those extreme situations that you ar using to justify why you have to use compacts, wide tyres and high handlebars on a road racing bike.


Wow... that is real, state-of-the-art, question-dodging.

Here's an actual, unretouched pic of Salsa dodging questions... :lol:











.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

JoelS said:


> I need the small gears offered by a compact often, like nearly every ride. I could do it with a standard, but my knees tell me they aren't happy. I am VERY happy with my compact.


this is another false concept... that the standard crankset are "bad for the knees" and the compacts are a solution.

what is bad for your knees is ill fitting shoes and cleats. or flat feet or not straight legs ( which all of us not have in a way or another BTW ).

using lower gearing diminishes the problem, not solve it. This is solved using proper orthotics and cleat positioning.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> this is another false concept... that the standard crankset are "bad for the knees" and the compacts are a solution.
> 
> what is bad for your knees is ill fitting shoes and cleats. or flat feet or not straight legs ( which all of us not have in a way or another BTW ).
> 
> using lower gearing diminishes the problem, not solve it. This is solved using proper orthotics and cleat positioning.


I have proper orthotics and cleat positioning, my shoes are completely custom and fit properly. And the cleat positioning is set anatomically for my feet. There is no foot pain whatsoever. You should stop jumping to conclusions that you obviously don't have sufficient information to back up.

Apparently you don't ride a compact, and don't need one. Good for you. The standard crankset is not ideal for everyone, nor is a triple. 

I could tell you about my knee, hip, and ankle damage from past injuries, but I won't. Suffice it to say that slow cadence, high power climbing is painful. A compact crankset is a perfect solution for me. I can keep the cadence up, which keeps my joints happy. Otherwise I'd have to stop riding hills. I enjoy hills. With a compact I can climb them without hurting my knees. Even rather steep hills of 16% grade or higher. 

Incidentally, the only time I've ever spun out my high gear of 50/12 is on descents. Frankly, I'm happy to coast. I don't race and don't need a higher top end. The increased low end is very useful for me.

Everyone has to make the right decision for them. Your advocacy for a standard crankset because that's what is best for you, is counter productive for many others.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

JoelS said:


> I have proper orthotics and cleat positioning, my shoes are completely custom and fit properly. And the cleat positioning is set anatomically for my feet. There is no foot pain whatsoever. You should stop jumping to conclusions that you obviously don't have sufficient information to back up.
> 
> Apparently you don't ride a compact, and don't need one. Good for you. The standard crankset is not ideal for everyone, nor is a triple.
> 
> ...


Very well said. Thank you.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

That's allright Joel

As I said many times before, if you are old, have a medical condition or maybe a children or a girl, then a compact is surely the best option for you.

I am talking here about young and able men. those should HTFU.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> That's allright Joel
> 
> As I said many times before, if you are old, have a medical condition or are maybe a children or a girl, then a compact is surely the best option for you.
> 
> I am talking here about young and able men. those should HTFU.


Guys, don't worry too much about Salsa. He pulled this same crap in the Lounge, and got dozens of ppl telling him to basically jump off a cliff. Pure comedy gold. :lol:

I do sort of like his 'magical thinking' though... it's like you take a racing bike, and if you put tires wider than 23C on it, *poof* it magically transforms into SOMETHING ELSE. Whoa. 

The sheer arbitrariness is very odd though... for example, wide-range cassettes are popular these days, so plenty of ppl have low gears like 39x27,28 or even 29(Campy). But if you run a compact, you somehow automatically need to 'HTFU', even though if you run a 11-25 or 11-23 cassette with it, you actually have the same or _higher_ low gears than _lots_ of ppl on 53-39.

And, oh yeah... your 50x11 top gear will be higher than all those guys with a 53x12 top. Guess Sals didn't get the memo about how gear inches are gear inches, doesn't matter much what crankset you get 'em from. 

Finally, the stem height silliness... where's the exact cut-off? If your bike has 6cm of saddle-to-handlebar drop, is it still considered 'racing bike', but at 5cm or less, it's not? :idea:

Sounds like more magical thinking to me... as in, "WHOA DUDE... I just raised my bars 1cm and transformed my racing bike into SOMETHING ELSE! I'm JESUS!" 

It's just too funny if you think about it. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

you know very well what I am talking about

it is not about gear inches, or 50x11 or Zoncolan or 1cm spacers.

it is about the general STFD ( Soften the F*** Down ) attitude of some posters that are IMHO sissyfying this sport.

This is a hard sport, do it in the right way or maybe leave it at that and take ping-pong.

and BTW nobody is expecting that you are hard and strong from the very start, but to assume the right attitude and build up your strenght by raising the bar. that's all


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Sorry Sals... but when you try to define other ppl's riding and tell them what to do and what they can and cannot buy or use, according to the Gospel According to Salsa™... well, that's an endeavor largely doomed to hilarious failure. 

Not that I mind that much... it's been kinda fun watching this stuff blow up in your face. You're like the Wile E. Coyote of RBR. :thumbsup:

Btw, here's the infamous Lounge 'HTFU' thread: 
*http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=222698&highlight=HTFU*
.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> As I said many times before, if you are old, have a medical condition or maybe a children or a girl, then a compact is surely the best option for you.


Now you declaring that a compact is "surely the best option" for a certain group of people. How do you do that without knowing what their goals are and what kind of terrain they ride in?


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> it is about the general STFD ( Soften the F*** Down ) attitude of some posters that are IMHO sissyfying this sport.
> 
> This is a hard sport, do it in the right way or maybe leave it at that and take ping-pong.


You need to remind yourself that this is *NOT* a racing forum. Cycling is a recreational activity that can be participated in by all levels of riders who ride for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps you should let each of us enjoy it on our own terms instead of insisting that your way is the only right way.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

gtpharr said:


> Now you declaring that a compact is "surely the best option" for a certain group of people. How do you do that without knowing what their goals are and what kind of terrain they ride in?


What I want to know is why his opinion is gospel, and who put him in charge? He's not exactly the "govt. commission appointed by the president to decide standards for the sport of cycling".  

Each and every person makes their own choices of equipment. Those choices are made to reflect the riding they do, the terrain, speed, cadence, etc. They have nothing to do with someone else's vision of what cycling should be. People like this "Salsa" character do the sport a disservice and, potentially, keep folks out of the sport who might otherwise enjoy being out and riding their bikes on local trails or roads. 

I'd much rather see folks out enjoying cycling, then frustrated because they listened to "someone who knows better" and ended up with a gearing selection that's totally ill suited to them.

I encourage everyone to learn as much as they can and make their own decision. We all have opinions and some of us like to chime in with them, but ultimately, _you_ have to decide for _you_. No one else can make up your mind for you. Thankfully, decisions made in haste or without experience can be corrected down the line.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

all you keep justifying your choice with tangential arguments.

The cycling sport has a form, style and level of difficulty defined by the sports field, not by me or SystemShock.

You know very well what those standards are, I don't have to repeat them for you.

Everyone has his own objectives and is free to chose his gearing or how far he can go with the sport, in that point I fully agree with gptharr.

what I find disapointing and that is the only reason I am posting all this HTFU stuff is that I see a tendence to lower the bar in this particular forum.

whenever someone who gets into the sport finds out that he is not strong enough to climb hills or to go faster, I would expect that the advice is more to the lines of recomending him effective ways to train and develop his power and endurance, excercises, work-outs etc.

no, here the advice is given, is, go to a compact, no better yet, go to a subcompact, setup a 30t cog on your cassette, go 25mm or better yet 28mm tyres etc.

the later advice can be ok for people getting older ( 50 years and plus ), or people that due to medical conditions or accidents can't really practice the sport the way it is. 

but to sweeping generalise this advice to anyone, including young men starting the sport is IMHO what is really doing a disservice to the sport as Joel said.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The cycling sport has a form, style and level of difficulty defined by the sports field, not by me or SystemShock.
> 
> You know very well what those standards are, I don't have to repeat them for you.



Actually you do need to repeat the "form, style, level of difficulty, and standards" that are expected of us. I bought my first road bike last year and my LBS failed to inform me about what was expected of me.

Once you provide me with these "standards', I plan on taking them to my next group ride and insist that everyone comply. If they are unable to comply with the "standards", I'll tell them they must HTFU or go find a new sport as we can't allow them to sissify the sport of cycling.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

gtpharr said:


> Actually you do need to repeat the "form, style, level of difficulty, and standards" that are expected of us. I bought my first road bike last year and my LBS failed to inform me about what was expected of me.
> 
> Once you provide me with these "standards', I plan on taking them to my next group ride and insist that everyone comply. If they are unable to comply with the "standards", I'll tell them they must HTFU or go find a new sport as we can't allow them to sissify the sport of cycling.


Since salsa is a non-racer telling racers what gearing they should use, I refuse to allow him to tell any racers anything in regards to HTFU. In a few other areas, he has clearly demonstrated that he does not know what goes on during the climbs of an actual race. 

Higher gear ratios are fine and dandy during a climb, but it's hard to make the accelerations or respond to them when overgeared. These attacks and constant changes in pace are how the climbers duke it out.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Apparently none of us meet Salsa's high standards. Perhaps he should go find a group of folks where they do? Oh wait, he'd be riding alone.

He also fails to grasp that this particular forum is for components, not training. If someone wants training advice, it will happily be given. 

Incidentally, I had a great ride this morning. My bride and I took the day (after getting a sitter for the kids) and we rode up Mt. Hamilton outside San Jose. It's not steep, I don't think I recorded anything over 8%, however it IS a 19 mile long climb, and rated a Cat 1 in a past run of the Tour of CA. That's a lot of time going up. I was quite happy spinning along in my 34/27 and keeping pace with my bride. We ended up with about 39mi and 5000 ft.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

dbl post


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> all you keep justifying your choice with tangential arguments.


LOL... there's nothing to 'justify', Sals. Everyone rides how they wish, and they sure don't have to check in with you first. :lol:

I guess what you're NOT getting is that the sport is continually evolving, and every time an improvement or new option comes along, it is derided as soft/weak/lame by a small band of ppl/zealots who can't understand the benefits and/or embrace change.

To wit:

- The derailleur, when first introduced, was derided as being for women or older riders (gee, does that kind of commentary sound familiar? ), even though the benefits were immediately obvious. 

I don't see you riding a fixie full-time, Sals... just that derailleur bike with the wimpy 39x27. You really should HTFU.

- Pneumatic tires (i.e. those containing air) were thought of as lame and slow when first intro'd, especially by racers of the time, who believed that solid rubber tires and even iron strips were what ppl should be riding on if they wanted to go fast. 

Ironically, it took touring riders to bring these into the mainstream. Racers followed along begrudgingly a few years later. 
Do you have air in your tires, Sals? If so, you need to HTFU.


No doubt others can provide further examples. :lol:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ps- Note: $5000 Trek Madone 6.5- NOT a racing bike, according to Sals... bars are too high, and its got a compact. Oh noes!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JoelS said:


> Apparently none of us meet Salsa's high standards. Perhaps he should go find a group of folks where they do? Oh wait, he'd be riding alone.
> 
> He also fails to grasp that this particular forum is for components, not training. If someone wants training advice, it will happily be given.
> 
> Incidentally, I had a great ride this morning. My bride and I took the day (after getting a sitter for the kids) and we rode up Mt. Hamilton outside San Jose. It's not steep, I don't think I recorded anything over 8%, however it IS a 19 mile long climb, and rated a Cat 1 in a past run of the Tour of CA. That's a lot of time going up. I was quite happy spinning along in my 34/27 and keeping pace with my bride. We ended up with about 39mi and 5000 ft.


Actually the training/racing forums do not have issues with compact gearing. Racing is about winning, not about where you keep your keys, etc.


----------



## seacoaster (May 9, 2010)

*Compact Double, always shifting - Me Too*

When I took a compact double out for a long test ride, I also found that I had to shift the FD quite a bit (and consequently the RD), so I went with a triple. For the most part, I just leave it in the middle ring. About the only time I use the biggest ring is with a good tailwind. Downhill I’ll usually just coast, as I don’t enjoy going THAT fast on a bicycle any more.

I rode a triple for years, and when I bought a new bike, I wanted the bike to fit my riding preferences, and not have to change my riding style to fit the bike. Some point out that the triple is heavier, but I can’t tell the difference. I also can’t tell the difference if I take one water bottle or two.

If the OP is cruising at 15 mph, I doubt that he will make much use of the tallest gears. Moving to a smaller big ring might be the solution. I didn’t explore the option, but I know that others have and are happy with it.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

seacoaster said:


> When I took a compact double out for a long test ride, I also found that I had to shift the FD quite a bit (and consequently the RD), so I went with a triple. For the most part, I just leave it in the middle ring. About the only time I use the biggest ring is with a good tailwind. Downhill I’ll usually just coast, *as I don’t enjoy going THAT fast on a bicycle any more.*.


Your statement made me curious. How fast do you go before you stop pedaling and coast? And as for the "any more", how long have you been riding? And how old are you? "That fast" is a relative term, of course, and I've never been very fast by some standards, but I still get a kick out of spinning out my top gear on a descent, then tucking in at 35 mph or so to coast into the mid-40's.


----------



## Erion929 (Jun 10, 2010)

seacoaster said:


> When I took a compact double out for a long test ride, I also found that I had to shift the FD quite a bit (and consequently the RD), so I went with a triple. For the most part, I just leave it in the middle ring. About the only time I use the biggest ring is with a good tailwind. Downhill I’ll usually just coast, as I don’t enjoy going THAT fast on a bicycle any more.
> 
> I rode a triple for years, and when I bought a new bike, I wanted the bike to fit my riding preferences, and not have to change my riding style to fit the bike. Some point out that the triple is heavier, but I can’t tell the difference. I also can’t tell the difference if I take one water bottle or two.
> 
> If the OP is cruising at 15 mph, I doubt that he will make much use of the tallest gears. Moving to a smaller big ring might be the solution. I didn’t explore the option, but I know that others have and are happy with it.



IMO, you have to look at gear shifting as an ADVANTAGE, not a chore or disadvantage. The gears are there for using, to make riding different terrain easier or manageable....not harder.

If you buy a triple and just stay in the middle, why not a fixie?

**


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

Is there a smaller front sprocket option for me?
My bike has this Shimano FC-R600 Compact 34/50 , maybe a 45 to 48T front sprocket would be what I'm looking for, I did a quick look and did not find a Shimano sprocket with fewer teeth.

Maybe something like this FSA 48t x 110mm for 34t - S10 Black

http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=5617&category=2628


----------



## Erion929 (Jun 10, 2010)

Dang, hiker....you already have a compact 34 with a 12-27 cassette, and you want a large ring smaller than 50? Are you ALWAYS going uphill or sumpin'?  I can't imagine not having the 50 on at least the flats or downhill...

I'm like you and have only been riding 2 months and on a compact crank. I thought I would have to SURELY change out my 12-25 for, at least, a 12-27 to climb hills. But I've just stuck with training 3-4 times a week and the hills are getting "smaller" as my strength and cardio improves. I think I can stay with the 12-25 now by gutting it out mentally and physically....although gotta admit, it's painful on dem hills :cryin: 

**


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

*It's not that I need it easier to pedal*



Erion929 said:


> Dang, hiker....you already have a compact 34 with a 12-27 cassette, and you want a large ring smaller than 50? Are you ALWAYS going uphill or sumpin'?  I can't imagine not having the 50 on at least the flats or downhill...
> 
> I'm like you and have only been riding 2 months and on a compact crank. I thought I would have to SURELY change out my 12-25 for, at least, a 12-27 to climb hills. But I've just stuck with training 3-4 times a week and the hills are getting "smaller" as my strength and cardio improves. I think I can stay with the 12-25 now by gutting it out mentally and physically....although gotta admit, it's painful on dem hills :cryin:
> 
> **


... it's just that 15 mph seems to fall right in between the max of the small ring and min of the large. I'm actually in excellent shape, had been a runner for 8 years, MTB riding for last 3, spinning class for last 3 and off/on road bikes all my life, I actually excel at hill climbing.....just wanted the gears perfect when cruising.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

15 mph is for a stroll in the park.
20 mph and plus is what you should aim for.


----------



## seacoaster (May 9, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> Your statement made me curious. How fast do you go before you stop pedaling and coast? And as for the "any more", how long have you been riding? And how old are you? "That fast" is a relative term, of course, and I've never been very fast by some standards, but I still get a kick out of spinning out my top gear on a descent, then tucking in at 35 mph or so to coast into the mid-40's.


Not as old as you, but not very far behind. I’ve been riding off and on throughout my life. Some years a few thousand miles, other times not at all.

Nowadays low 30’s is about as fast as I want to go, as the roads have some surprises that I would not want to hit any faster than that. I used to hit the mid 40’s on downhills, but thinking back to the high speed wobbles makes me keep my speed at something more reasonable. It would really hurt to go over at that speed, and healing time is a lot longer than it used to be.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> 15 mph is for a stroll in the park.
> 20 mph and plus is what you should aim for.


For whom? 

Average mph doesn't tell you jack. Even in a time trial, weather conditions can drastically change your average speed.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> 15 mph is for a stroll in the park.
> 20 mph and plus is what you should aim for.





Salsa_Lover said:


> 15 mph is for a stroll in the park.
> 20 mph and plus is what you should aim for.


This from the same poster who I read not to long ago doesn't get flats because he's watching the road for little pieces of glass (or something along those lines)? yeah, and to think you 'need' 53/11 for that. Not only are you an internet strong man but apparently have super human vision too. Impressive, salsa.

You are a clown, plain and simple.

-There's two ways to go about setting up a bike. a. That which suites the riders body and riding conditions. b. And that which makes the rider feel 'pro' when he spouts off on the internet. They are not mutually exclusive but from what I can gather from what little I've read that you have to say......you're exclusively in the B camp.

-There are two ways to go about selecting gears. a. That which fits the terrain, strengh and cadance preference of the rider(aka 'smart') and b. That which is necessary to play internet hard man (aka 'dumb'). Smart money is on B for anyone talking smack about compacts without knowledge of where the person in question does his/her riding. Only a fool would make a blanket statement about compacts not being for racing. Either that or you know something most everyone I saw at the Mt. Washington race didn't know. 

I love your earlier statement about compacts wussifying the sport. Nothing much to say here....you're doing a pretty good job of digging your own hole.

Clown.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

seacoaster said:


> Nowadays low 30


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

seacoaster said:


> Nowadays low 30’s is about as fast as I want to go, as the roads have some surprises that I would not want to hit any faster than that. I used to hit the mid 40’s on downhills, but thinking back to the high speed wobbles makes me keep my speed at something more reasonable. It would really hurt to go over at that speed, and healing time is a lot longer than it used to be.



I hear all that. It would hurt a lot. I only let it go like that on roads I know well. And I maintain my bike myself, so I know everything in the front end is sound.

And maybe I'm lucky to have a well-balanced bike that fits me, or maybe I've refined my technique around this equipment, but I have NEVER experienced a speed wobble on the road bike I've been riding for the last 12 years. The darn thing tracks like it's on rails. I can't make it wobble if I try. If I'm in a full tuck with hands on the top next to the stem, I can release both hands to move to the drops, at 40 mph. No problem.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> This from the same poster who I read not to long ago doesn't get flats because he's watching the road for little pieces of glass (or something along those lines)? yeah, and to think you 'need' 53/11 for that. Not only are you an internet strong man but apparently have super human vision too. Impressive, salsa.
> 
> You are a clown, plain and simple.
> 
> ...


OK so you think is not possible for a regular man to train and develop his own power and endurance to fit himself to the ability to ride a bike with standard gears up the hills and at 20mph on flats ( which is not high) , and you also think that superhuman vision is needed to watch the road ahead and like that avoid flats and accidents.....

and I am the clown ?


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Are you guys still slugging it out?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> OK so you think is not possible for a regular man to train and develop his own power and endurance to fit himself to the ability to ride a bike with standard gears up the hills and at 20mph on flats ( which is not high) , and you also think that superhuman vision is needed to watch the road ahead and like that avoid flats and accidents.....
> 
> and I am the clown ?


-No, I think it takes an assclown to ride a crankset for the purpose of acting like a hard man on the internet instead of for efficiency. I don't know about you but not being worn out at the top of a hill is more important than being able to say you did it with a standard if you want to do well in a hilly race. 

-And yes I do think it would take super vision to see a shard of glass at 20mph or so.

-Correct.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> -No, I think it takes an assclown to ride a crankset for the purpose of acting like a hard man on the internet instead of for efficiency. I don't know about you but not being worn out at the top of a hill is more important than being able to say you did it with a standard if you want to do well in a hilly race.
> 
> -And yes I do think it would take super vision to see a shard of glass at 20mph or so.
> 
> -Correct.


the fact is you are wrong. you are going around the main point.

I trained my old and heavy ass and I am able to climb long hills with many steep sections and arrive at the top of them fresh enough.

the efficiency is something you develop, by training, by setting your goals high and by developing yourself progresively towards those goals.

If you set your goals low and you go the easy way lowering the bar, you probably will reach a lower level and then be persuaded that is all what can be reached and no more.... ( which is the case here as it seems ).

my whole point is that I see too much people coming to this web site looking for advice because they can't do something and the advice they get is to get low gears, wide tyres and in general to soften it down.

well, probably that soft approach is what they want or need or enough for them.

but I think a forum specialized in road bike riding should be more balanced and they should get more training advice towards become better and stronger.

my only point is that, not to be a "internet hard man", I posted my own experience with graphs of my climbs and a description of my progress, and all that disclosing my age and weight, so a younger and lighter man can see it is possible to become stronger, and not just STFD and get a subcompact and be satisfied with a 15mph speed.

and about the glass, for sure you can see it, unless is dark or raining. you can see the shining glass and the gravel and other things.. and this is no joke, I had 3 flats in 10 years of riding my racing bike, in average 3-4 times per week, 40-80km each time. one was glass on my first year, one a pinch flat last year , and one the in the rain 3 years ago.

if your experiences is different, that doens't mean is not possible sir.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> the fact is you are wrong. you are going around the main point.
> 
> I trained my old and heavy ass and I am able to climb long hills with many steep sections and arrive at the top of them fresh enough.
> 
> ...


okay, that's fair enough.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> okay, that's fair enough.


Except that many of his premises are incorrect.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

hikertoo said:


> Is there a smaller front sprocket option for me?
> My bike has this Shimano FC-R600 Compact 34/50 , maybe a 45 to 48T front sprocket would be what I'm looking for, I did a quick look and did not find a Shimano sprocket with fewer teeth.
> 
> Maybe something like this FSA 48t x 110mm for 34t - S10 Black
> ...


Shimano's kind of weird/atypical in that the only chainrings (sorry, I just can't call 'em sprockets) they make for compact are the 50 and the 34.

However, they're kind of alone in this... many other companies, such as SRAM, FSA (as you saw), Sugino and TA make other sizes of compact chainrings. Look around, you'll find plenty of choices.

Just make sure whatever you get is compatible with your particular crankset... for example, I think Campy compact chainrings are only compatible with Campy cranksets (they did something intentionally to one of the mounting bolts to make it this way... pretty silly ).
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

JoelS said:


> Except that many of his premises are incorrect.


Yup. But that's why we love Salsa... he's like the 'crazy old uncle in the attic' of RBR. :thumbsup: 

Oh, and his b*tching about 'subcompacts' reminds me... I need to order a 46t chainring in 110mm.

Gosh, I wonder if he'd consider me a 'real man' if he knew I'll be ridin' the flats @ 20mph with said 'subcompact'... on wide tires and with a fairly high stem position too. 

Oh please oh please oh please Salsa... validate my riding. Because I *SO* care what you think. :crazy: :lol:
.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Dear SytemShock, we know at what level you want to be, and if that is what satisfies you then great. 46 big ring, wide tyres, maybe even fenders and racks ? you want a touring bike, to do sportive touring, so be it.

But give the young guys who are starting the sport the choice ( and also the need ) to have higher goals and expectations of what they can achieve.

that's all.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> But give the young guys who are starting the sport the choice ( and also the need ) to have higher goals and expectations of what they can achieve.


Gearing has little to do with goals. If a compact is lowering expectations, what about aero wheels, sub 15lb bikes, power meters during a TT? It's called progress. Besides, I see little that lowers expectation like not signing up for the next race.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Dear SytemShock, we know at what level you want to be, and if that is what satisfies you then great. 46 big ring, wide tyres, maybe even fenders and racks ? you want a touring bike, to do sportive touring, so be it.
> 
> But give the young guys who are starting the sport the choice ( and also the need ) to have higher goals and expectations of what they can achieve.
> 
> that's all.


Still not sure if you are just a traditionalist (head in the sand) or a poser who chooses their gearing for image but you're starting to clarify. First, there's really not much use in coming to any conclusion on the gearing somone uses without factoring in what cassette they have. Seeing as though you're willing to jump to those conclusions I'll have to assume you are a poser and not really concerned with pushing bigger gears as mentioned earlier. Because as we know, a gear inch is a gear inch. So go on and assume anyone using a compact is a wimp and ignore what gear inches are and how a 27 on the back of a standard provides a wimpier (as you'd say, not me) bail out gear than a compact with a 21 - 11 which allows a nice tight cassette and realistic low and high gears. Nevermind the benefits of a tight cassette....as long as you got the standard for the pictures and talking smack in the interwebz you're good to go.

Then there's the two factors for speed. Pedaling hard, and pedaling fast. Let's just ignore one of them and bury our heads and pray at the alter of what came first and resist any improvement.

I don't know if you know anything about baseball but to throw out an analogy: Your school of thought is basically that everyone should be using the same bat Babe Ruth used (massive and heavy) and just keep trying to get around on fastballs with it while ignoring that those who have moved past the 1920's have discovered that it's more about bat speed. 

That being said there is a use for standards. I like them for crits myself. But to jump to any conclusions on others and issue blanket statements without knowing the facts (grades, cassettes, distance) I can only assume your primary motive for advocating a standard while dismissing a compact is putting image before thought.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> <snip> I can only assume your primary motive for advocating a standard while dismissing a compact is putting image before thought.


Yup.

Actually, I think I finally have him figured out. At least as far as this goes. He's of the opinion that folks starting out (never mind those that have been riding for 20 years and decided to switch to a compact as it better suits their riding style/terrain/etc) should just HTFU and get stronger. 

It doesn't matter if they're buying a bike to ride for fun or leisure or to get out and see some new scenery. No, for him it's all about getting stronger. 

Well Salsa, very many of us don't share your desire or needs or motivations. We have our own goals, and needs, and desires, and motivations. 

I also have a suspicion that Salsa is a youngster and hasn't learned so many of life's lessons yet. And hasn't fully matured (easy to base that opinion on his rantings here on RBR). He'll learn as he gets older, at least, I hope so.

I also noted on another thread that he likes to keep his speed below 50 kph. That's pretty slow. On many descents around here, I regularly and quite easily hit 50 MPH after climbing long stretches of 16+% grades in my 34/27 gearing.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

JoelS said:


> I also noted on another thread that he likes to keep his speed below 50 kph. That's pretty slow. On many descents around here, I regularly and quite easily hit 50 MPH after climbing long stretches of 16+% grades in my 34/27 gearing.



I noticed that, too, and I'm thoroughly confused. Seems like a compact crankset would really serve his needs perfectly. A 46x12 at a very sane 105 rpm will get you to his 50 kph speed limit. Or to look at it from the other side, with the 52x12 on his Bianchi, he's only spinning 91 rpm when he runs up against the governor. For a guy with so much respect for the road-biking tradition, that's kind of a low cadence to top out.

I'm confused here.

Maybe it's just that he's naturally a masher, and he thinks everyone should be. Diff'rent strokes, ya know?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Dear SytemShock, we know at what level you want to be, and if that is what satisfies you then great. 46 big ring, wide tyres, maybe even fenders and racks ? you want a touring bike, to do sportive touring, so be it.
> 
> But give the young guys who are starting the sport the choice ( and also the need ) to have higher goals and expectations of what they can achieve.
> 
> that's all.


Tsk. My dear Salsa, you are simply a cranky old poseur, and that's NOT what the sport is about at all.

Pity you don't realize it.

Btw, can you recommend some good 28mm 'tyres'? My second bike has some ghastly 23s I need to throw out. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

JoelS said:


> It doesn't matter if they're buying a bike to ride for fun or leisure or to get out and see some new scenery. No, for him it's all about getting stronger.
> 
> Well Salsa, very many of us don't share your desire or needs or motivations. We have our own goals, and needs, and desires, and motivations.


Not to mention that, if you do want to get stronger, the compact is in no way, shape, or form an impediment to that, despite Salsa's wild hand-waving to the contrary.

Your body doesn't care if you're riding fast on the flats in a 53x17 or a 50x16... it's pretty much the same gear. 

Ditto going up the hill in a 39x27 or a 34x23...again, same gear, and your body does not care. Only poseurs do.
.


----------

