# Preferred Crankset for Road Riding?



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Did a poll on this a couple of years back (now closed). 

Standard double won the popularity contest back then, but not by a mile. Was wondering if or how much things have changed since then. 


// *Clarifying note:* 

_Things like 50-36, 52-36, etc are obviously still Compact, not 'Other'.
Things like 52-42 and 54-44 are still Old-school double, not 'Other'.
'Other' is for things like cranks with wacky seldom-seen BCDs, or quad-ring setups and such. Something that truly doesn't fit in other categories._
.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Currently using a 50/34 on my Fuji Roubaix Pro. But I've been tossing around the idea of a new crank and a 53/39 might be in my future. I don't road ride a lot - more MTB than anything - but as I've been getting stronger on the bike, I've been contemplating a change. I'll probably switch out over the winter to something new, so we will see which direction I take.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

compact crank for me too and i can keep up with my buddies (who have doubles) on flats and descends. 

I can climb better though.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

Compact double with an 11-23 for me.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Compact, not because of the knee-saving, low end gear range available, but because of the Q factor for easier FD adjustment (IME), and the more "exact" gearing for me personally:

(At pretty much any given speed) In between 39x19 and 39x17 is 34x16 and 34x15. I personally find those minuscule changes in demanded cadence per unit of speed (~2-6.5 rpm/mph) to make the difference.

I'm pretty much cross chaining, but apparently it's not so noticed. I'm also needing to shift more for a sprint/breakaway interval, but my overall climb is better at the end of the day.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I've used a 53 X 39 for the last 23 years. Why should I change now?

I don't mean to put Compact cranks down. I might get one if I manage to hit 75 years old.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

WHAT? Someone _finally_ voted for the road triple?? Hunt 'im down! *GIT 'IM!!!* 













/ kidding. I actually had to rent a bike when I was out of state a couple weeks back, and it had a road triple on it. 
The 30-25 was nice on da hills... felt like I could grind up anything.
.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

I use a 54x44 setup on my crit bike, and a 53x42 on my RR bike, although I sometimes switch the inner to 39 if the course contains climbs over a certain grade.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm pretty much in the 53-39 camp but I do ride a couple of outliers. One is a 50-39 which is pretty nice - improved a chainline problem on a certain frame without much tradeoff.

I've spent the last two years almost exclusively on my travel bikes. One is 48-38 with a 12-27 and the other is a compact Campy which is 50-36 with an 11-25. Nice combinations for versatility.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

I use a 51/39 set up right now as I ride mostly solo with a lot of cross winds. a 51/11 gear is fast enough for about anyone but a pro on solo flat rides. Then again I never use/need a 39 anyways. I was thinking of getting a 42T to go on there instead.

The back is 11-21 or 11-23


----------



## sandman98 (May 12, 2008)

i don't race. i primarily ride for fun and fitness. the compact with a 12-25 allows me to keep up on group rides, and gives me the range i need for climbing here in southeast pennsylvania.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

If someone is running 53/39 with 11/23 they can talk all the trash they want about compacts. But if the standard guys are running a 12/X, lest we not forget a 50/11 is bigger than a 53/12, so its not exactly like all compact users are running small ratios.


----------



## Nater (Feb 7, 2003)

My current choice isn't up there...36/50

Although my all-time favorite set-up is probably 30/42/52 triple. I like having the 42 tooth ring but can't rely on it when the going gets up.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

/ Looking at the poll results thus far... oh my.

Is the compact becoming the new 'standard double'? :idea:
.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> / Looking at the poll results thus far... oh my.
> 
> Is the compact becoming the new 'standard double'? :idea:
> .


the standard double is for real road cycling and racing.

the "compact" double is for recreational riders and sport-tourers, in fact the compact double is nothing more than a glorified touring crankset.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

IAmSpecialized said:


> But if the standard guys are running a 12/X, lest we not forget a 50/11 is bigger than a 53/12, so its not exactly like all compact users are running small ratios.


Exactly! Do I need to really go faster on the flats?

Cadence 100 rev/min
Chainring Teeth 51 teeth
Cog Teeth	11 teeth
Speed 36.30 mph

I think ONCE in a large very fast group ride, this ratio was not enough, but that was for a few minutes.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> the standard double is for real road cycling and racing.
> 
> the "compact" double is for recreational riders and sport-tourers, in fact the compact double is nothing more than a glorified touring crankset.


Really? How many "real road cycling" racers that you know that are NOT Pros that really turn a 53/11 all the time? Not downhill on a straight away?

IMO a 50/38 compact cranks will and should become the new "standard."
Maybe a 52/38 set?? Most people even who "race" don't "need" a 53/39. You also have to count what they have in back. 11 or 12T


----------



## gnatman (Jan 14, 2009)

The 50-34 compact is a good compromise for many riders. With a cassette in the 12-25 to 12-28 range, the recrerational/fitness riders can keep doing the kinds of riding they did when they were 20-yrs younger and the body was stronger and more resilient.

It's inexpensive to switch with a 53-39 double and can possibly be done without changing any other parts.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> Really? How many "real road cycling" racers that you know that are NOT Pros that really turn a 53/11 all the time? Not downhill on a straight away?
> 
> IMO a 50/38 compact cranks will and should become the new "standard."
> Maybe a 52/38 set?? Most people even who "race" don't "need" a 53/39. You also have to count what they have in back. 11 or 12T


why you want to turn 53/11 all the time ?

it is the distribution of gears that make the standard the "standard".


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Your descriptions are biased. Not exactly scientific...


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

I have one bike with a compact and one with a road triple. I like the road triple better personally.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

All these smaller gears are a load of nonsense. 

Bad carry-over from MTB tech.

I use a standard road set with 23-12 cassette. I seldom see steeper hills than 8%. And with the 53 ring, an 11 sprocket is just a waste as well as being a mechanical abomination in the first place.

In fact : I am thinking of getting a 42 small ring. The more popular cassettes go up to a 25 anyway. Better mechanical efficiency and less wear issues with more teeth all around. 

My beater is an example : 42-52 front and 13-26 6-speed. I regularly ride it in the 52-23 or 20 and it runs sweetly despite every part being worn to bits in reality. 
Just try a similarly worn 34 chainwheel driving a small sprocket in a comparable ratio - and that 34 will wear faster in the first place, with increased risk of chainsuck.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

IAmSpecialized said:


> If someone is running 53/39 with 11/23 they can talk all the trash they want about compacts. But if the standard guys are running a 12/X, lest we not forget a 50/11 is bigger than a 53/12, so its not exactly like all compact users are running small ratios.


how about me, on top of the hills on a 53/39 11-23 ?


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

I use a 53/39 on all my road bikes. I also use a 11-25 and 12-25 cassette. Where I live, I enjoy having the 53-11 on the down hills so I can spin at 30-35 miles per hour and also keep on top of the gear when the grade is not steep enough to freewheel but to my advantage to spin and excelerate past my riding buddies. It also helps me get up to speed so that I can hit a higher top end. I don't live in the mountains but rather the hills, so I have to work to hit 50(+). Around here 53.5 is my top end down hill, where in Colorado it was 64.5.

Also, because we have rollers around here I can keep a 53/11 spinning up over the next roller. Hey it's fun prentending I can really push a 53/11.


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

I have a double and a triple. Actually I am using the triple 99% of the time as a double, but the fun of the triple is knowing you can ride up anything. 

I have never tried a compact, but after doing some gear comparisons don't believe I would enjoy them. A 34 small ring wouldn't cut it for me, too small for regular riding. With a triple I have the 39 and in case of emergency I can always jump to the 30.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

50x34 shifts much better than my old triple. I do miss the 42 gear - a very versatile gear. When I grow up I'd like a 53x39 (i.e. lose 60+ lbs).


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Wow, very noice bike :thumbsup:. Although, I'd have to put Campag on a Bianchi to quiet my inner deamons.



Salsa_Lover said:


> how about me, on top of the hills on a 53/39 11-23 ?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> how about me, on top of the hills on a 53/39 11-23 ?


Great and good for you? Going up at a snails pace too right


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

I'm picking "Other" because I'd like to see more of a 52x36 combo. You still have the big gear to run a 12 in the back and a smaller gear to go with a 26 rear cog for a wide range of gearing that can be used by both racers and recreational riders.

I'm currently running a 53x39, but that's mostly due to lack of funding to purchase a new crankset. However, my next one will be a 52x36...I'm not getting any younger either.

Part of my desire for the 36 is we have several steep climbs around here in the 15%-20%+ range, where that slightly smaller chainring can make the difference between spinning the small gear or mashing it.


----------



## kiroskka (Mar 9, 2008)

Maybe when I am an old geezer and still riding, a compact will make at least a little bit of sense to me.

For now, i am quite happy running a 52 or 53/42 in front and a 12-21 in back.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

DIRT BOY said:


> Great and good for you? Going up at a snails pace too right


Depends, if he's a 135lbs climber and in race condition, he would likely be able to ride up at tempo.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

AJL said:


> 50x34 shifts much better than my old triple. I do miss the 42 gear - a very versatile gear. When I grow up I'd like a 53x39 (i.e. lose 60+ lbs).


My FSA 50x34 carbon pro compact (9/10 speed "compatible") doesn't shift as well as my Campagnolo 50-40-30 Racing-T (8-speed vintage) with 9-speed cogs and Campagnolo 9-speed chain. I couldn't say how much comes from the bigger size difference between rings and how much is the pin/ramp configuration difference.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

Depends on your ambitions. A compact or triple is great for long, hilly rides, centuries, etc. Racing? Probably the 53x39 or 42 is the better choice. I used to race with a compact but recently bought a standard 53x39. I at least feel faster; it forces you to push a bigger gear.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

Yea. I rented a bike a few yrs ago while in France. It had a triple and I was quite happy to have it in the Alps.....


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Compact double here. Campagnolo 11 speed 50/34 and 11-25. Great stuff. Used to ride Campagnolo 10 speed 53/39 and 11-23.
My Campagnolo compact double only has one flaw: Aestetics:

















The compact spider has to flare in too abruptly. 135 mm rules ok in the good looks-department.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Assuming the current results hold up, it is sorta interesting to see the reversal of std double vs compact compared to the last poll, which was in '08 (below).

Is that just clever marketing, or honestly filling a need? Or some combo of the two? Something else? You decide.

Also, contrary to SRAM and Campy's stance on the issue, road triples do not appear to be going away as of yet, though perhaps they've taken a dent.


.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

My favorite gear combination is 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23.

The high gear is plenty big (like a 52x14), 30x21 is plenty low (like 42x28) for hills and mountains (like Ride the Rockies Grand Junction to Golden, 418 miles with 30,000 feet of climbing), there are one tooth jumps through the flatish cruising gears, there aren't any fatigue/wind/hill combinations where you're stuck making a lot of double shifts, and when you do need to shift both derailleurs you can get to the next gear with one nudge on the right lever (Campagnolo which will go 3 cogs bigger).

I figured that 34x23 was the same as 30x21 and decided to drop the third ring in favor of a 50-34 compact double when I wore out my last set of chain rings and have since decided that was a mistake. There isn't a lot of overlap between the rings so there are occasional fatigue/wind/hill combinations with a lot of double shifting. That might not be so bad, except when running off the small end of the cassette it's five cogs bigger instead of two which takes a couple of shoves on the right lever. It also doesn't shift as well although I couldn't say how much of that is the bigger jump between rings and how much is pin/ramp differences between the Campagnolo Racing-T (8 speed vintage) and FSA carbon pro compact rings.


----------



## m_s (Nov 20, 2007)

I voted SS/fixie because that's what most of my road riding is on these days. But I also use my geared cross bike on the road sometimes. I've found the best for me is 39-48 for road and a cassette with an 11 tooth cog, preferably. I have an 11-28 on their now but that's more for dirt road/ offroad climbing than what I need on road rides. A 12-25 might be OK too, I don't really mind spinning out on the very long descents because I do not road race. In fact that's the cassette I used to use.

The 39-48 has a lot of advantages. Even with a 53-39 I get a little bit of chainring rub in the 39x11, which is a gear I like to use a lot. I hate rub. With this setup the shifts are also very fast, even with my old abused Tiagra components, so I shift in the front often. 

To get a relatively low climbing gear with these chainrings of course I need a wide range cassette, but I mind the bigger jumps less than most people I think, especially when front shifting is so easy.

Everyone is different.


----------



## Greg Smalter (Jul 16, 2005)

Last year I got a compact crank because I don't tend to use either extreme of my gear range so I figured it didn't matter. What nobody told me was that compacts are a cross chaining nightmare. False flats into a headwind or moderate hills and the choice was big/big or small/small. It was awful. I since switched to a standard.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

To me that seems more like a cassette than a crankset problem.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> My FSA 50x34 carbon pro compact (9/10 speed "compatible") doesn't shift as well as my Campagnolo 50-40-30 Racing-T (8-speed vintage) with 9-speed cogs and Campagnolo 9-speed chain. I couldn't say how much comes from the bigger size difference between rings and how much is the pin/ramp configuration difference.


I think the difference is that the Triple is a Campag (and maybe the slightly tight gear range than current road triples).


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> Great and good for you? Going up at a snails pace too right


yes I have to admit that am old and slow.

however, standard speed is ~33Kmh on flats, rolling hills at least 24Kmh, steeper gradients ~16Kmh, higher grades about 14Kmh, the minimum I see on the computer is 12Kmh when I am about to fall over.

My statistics on the last ride

75Km, ride time 3:30, 410mts climb, max speed 46Kmh ( on descents I don't like to descend fast), Average Speed 20.5Kmh ( includes climbs and descents and stops at traffic lights ) 

but to be fair that was done on the low profile wheels with a 12-27, I need the 27 on the steepest parts of the climbs, otherwise usually I am on the 21 or 24.

And there is quite a bit of waiting for my riding partner on this particular one.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbwh said:


> Compact double here. Campagnolo 11 speed 50/34 and 11-25. Great stuff. Used to ride Campagnolo 10 speed 53/39 and 11-23.
> 
> My Campagnolo compact double only has one flaw: Aesthetics.
> 
> The compact spider has to flare in too abruptly. 135 mm rules ok in the good looks-department.


I'd agree that, all else being equal, 53-39 cranks are a little bit more aesthetically pleasing than compacts. Though compacts like the Sugino Cospea/Alpina look very good indeed.

And I think both (again, IMO) look better than triples. But triples from Sugino and Campy still look quite nice.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> The "compact" double is for recreational riders and sport-tourers, in fact the compact double is nothing more than a glorified touring crankset.


If so, then I guess the next question is, "Is that a bad thing?" :idea:
.


----------



## SlowJoeCrow (Sep 3, 2009)

I voted other, since I ride a cyclocross compact double with 36/46 rings. With an 11-28 cassette I get a usefully low gear for for climbing and I can go pretty fast in the middle gears, however I do spin out around 27-28mph even with an 11T cog. For road I think a 36-50 might be a better compromise.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SlowJoeCrow said:


> I voted other, since I ride a cyclocross compact double with 36/46 rings. With an 11-28 cassette I get a usefully low gear for for climbing and I can go pretty fast in the middle gears, however I do spin out around 27-28mph even with an 11T cog.


You spin out at around 85rpm? :skep:

'Cuz that's pretty much what 28mph is in a 46/11.
.


----------



## M-theory (Jul 16, 2009)

*1st Vote for the OS Double 53/42*

<delete> double post.


----------



## M-theory (Jul 16, 2009)

Pieter said:


> All these smaller gears are a load of nonsense.
> 
> Bad carry-over from MTB tech.
> 
> I use a standard road set with 23-12 cassette. I seldom see steeper hills than 8%. And with the 53 ring, an 11 sprocket is just a waste as well as being a mechanical abomination in the first place.



I was the first to vote for the Old Standard Double 53/42...not because I'm so strong...but because the bigger cranks are more mechanically efficient. Better to have a 53/42 with a 12-28 cassette, then to have 53/39 with an 11-25 cassette. 

Funny thing is I presently ride a triple...but have no regrets because at least I still have the standard double and can just ignore the inner ring. I'm considerably stronger now than I was...and try to always ride the big ring(52)...even if it means cross chaining. Riding the 39 just feels so mechanically ineffecient. Of course, I use the 39 on steep climbs, but a 53/42 with a larger cassette would be my preference.

The compact 50/34 would be a nightmare for me, since both front cranks are smaller than they should be. 

And a correction to the original poll should be noted. The Road Triple has a 52 large crank.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

M-theory said:


> And a correction to the original poll should be noted. The Road Triple has a 52 large crank.


For the original poll, yes, probably... there were likely more 52-X-X road triples still out there at that time than there were 50-39-30.

Nowadays though, it looks like 50-39-30 has kinda taken over. In fact, that's all you see Shimano offering in road triples anymore at the 105, Tiagra, and Sora level, i.e. the bulk of road triples that get sold or OEM'd.
.


----------



## bending guide (Jun 21, 2010)

I have both standard and compact. Cog range seemed to have more significant difference than crank set.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

M-theory said:


> I was the first to vote for the Old Standard Double 53/42...not because I'm so strong...but because the bigger cranks are more mechanically efficient. Better to have a 53/42 with a 12-28 cassette, then to have 53/39 with an 11-25 cassette. .


+1. :thumbsup: 

When components wear out I will seriously consider replacing the 39 with a 42 and using a 12-25 cassette which is more popular and readily available than the current (Ultegra / DA exclusive) 12-23.

I would hate losing the 18 sprocket of the 10 speed 12-23, but most likely the 42 ring will open new horizons and options. I will tabulate the gear ratios, check the gaps and decide.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

200 votes so far. Compact's ahead, but not by a ton.

Still, a somewhat dramatic reversal from the '08 poll. Would be even if compact and 53-39 finished neck-and-neck.

It's an interesting result because this seems to be one of the few cases where riders are willing to break from the "if racers use it, it must be the best" orthodoxy. 

Not many racers use compacts (okay, maybe in the Italian alps), yet regular riders seem willing to adopt them anyway.

Road triple usage falls into the same category too, but they don't seem quite as popular, and the road triple is being targeted for extinction by SRAM and Campy apparently (though they certainly don't have last word in the matter). 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

LeeRain said:


> I've used a 53 X 39 for the last 23 years. Why should I change now?
> 
> I don't mean to put Compact cranks down. I might get one if I manage to hit 75 years old.


Deja vu?:

*http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2926534&postcount=6*
.


----------



## SlowJoeCrow (Sep 3, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> You spin out at around 85rpm? :skep:
> 
> 'Cuz that's pretty much what 28mph is in a 46/11.
> .


Spin out as in I don't feel much resistance in the cranks, not spin out as in run out of legs. I may actually go closer to 30mph before I run out of gear, but i have been riding my mtb lately so my memory is hazy.

As an aside to wookiebiker ? I saw some new parts from SRAM that give a 36/52 gear but on 110 BCD compact.


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

Triple. Mine is old school -- 52 x x.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SlowJoeCrow said:


> Spin out as in I don't feel much resistance in the cranks, not spin out as in run out of legs. I may actually go closer to 30mph before I run out of gear, but i have been riding my mtb lately so my memory is hazy.


So you actually spin out at 90 rpm? Somethin's wrong there.
.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

Another good poll Shocker. I swapped to a compact crank this year. Thought it was going to be a "paradigm shift" in gearing, but really it was only one more gear lower, in the same approximate "steps" I had with my 53/39. 

A typical weekend ride for me is 50-75 miles with 4-6K F of climbing and what I like most about the compact isn't the lower low, but the ability to stay in the big ring more on lesser climbs.

Now that its mid season and I'm much stronger than I was way back in cold February (and a few pounds lighter), I'm thinking about swapping back to the 53/39... but I cut the chain :-(


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Sablotny said:


> Another good poll Shocker.


Thanks. 

I'm a little surprised at the results, though... I thought it'd be neck-and-neck between compact and 53-39. I didn't expect compact to win outright for another year or two. Looks like it probably has.




> _A typical weekend ride for me is 50-75 miles with 4-6K F of climbing and what I like most about the compact isn't the lower low, but the ability to stay in the big ring more on lesser climbs._


In that way, compacts are kinda the "paradigm shift" that you mentioned. With the right cassette, you can stay in the big ring most of the time, going to the small only for the 'beeg' hills.

Whereas with 53-39, seems like lots of ppl are staying in the small ring most of the time, and only use the big for descents, sprints, and fast group rides. 

It's kinda opposite-land from compacts, and vice-versa, which may be why ppl seem to be rather polarized on the subject. Not a ton of folks seem to say, "Ah, I love 'em both." 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Any thoughts on compact's apparent win in the poll? Seems that we have a new 'standard' double. :idea:

53-39 sure isn't going away, though. It's too useful for too many applications.
.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Any thoughts on compact's apparent win in the poll? Seems that we have a new 'standard' double. :idea:


I don't think there is necessarily a new standard. It may simply be that we have fewer competitive racers on the board than the last time this poll was taken.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

IAmSpecialized said:


> If someone is running 53/39 with 11/23 they can talk all the trash they want about compacts. But if the standard guys are running a 12/X, lest we not forget a 50/11 is bigger than a 53/12, so its not exactly like all compact users are running small ratios.


No kidding. I use a 50/34 with 11/23. Most 53/39 riders I know use 12/x. The few with 53/39 and 11/x get dropped on climbs regularly.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

This poll doesn't reveal much without knowing cassette sizes.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ghost6 said:


> This poll doesn't reveal much without knowing cassette sizes.


Funny you should mention that... I did a poll on that also. Two, in fact:

*http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=147214&highlight=preferred+cassette+size* (2008) 

*http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=194229&highlight=what+size+cassette* (2010)
.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Funny you should mention that... I did a poll on that also. Two, in fact:
> 
> *http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=147214&highlight=preferred+cassette+size* (2008)
> 
> ...


Oh thanks! I like this poll, don't get me wrong. Maybe your next poll will be crank plus cassette.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ghost6 said:


> Oh thanks! I like this poll, don't get me wrong. Maybe your next poll will be crank plus cassette.


That would be very difficult... the poll feature allows a max of only 10 options.  
.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

*But*

crankset + cassette gearing also mean different things depending on where you ride. I hear "if you can't climb with a 23 you don't need an 11" and such. Cool if you live in Ohio. 

A poll on cadence would be very boring.


----------



## mustang1 (Feb 7, 2008)

I ride a triple 52/42/30 but never move out of the 42. Gotta 12-26 cassette and ride mainly flats and short steep hills like 15% 0.5km.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

52/36 - 11-26

Rarely in the 11 though...only sprinting...downhill.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

With the 6spd set-up, 52-39 on a 13-19. 10-9spd, 52-42 or 41 with a 12-23. 

Going further:
I wouldn't mind a 14-25 or 15-25 for the one tooth increments. All I would need is the 14-21 in 1 tooth increments. I'm just too wimpy and my flatland loops aren't demanding for other ranges in crank-cassette combos.


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

53, 39 11 to 21. Run a 53 only on my tt bike and a 11-25 in case I have to climb. Yes I use use 53/11.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> WHAT? Someone _finally_ voted for the road triple?? Hunt 'im down! *GIT 'IM!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not only do I have a triple...................................but a 28 big rear cog!!!! Call me wimpy

Or

I have crappy knees and still want to ride anyway!!!! Spinny uppy the hilly


----------



## heffergm (Jul 9, 2010)

Went from a triple to a compact double. Definitely a paradigm shift, totally worth it. I stay on the big ring except for the worst hills I have to deal with, where with the triple I was moving between outside and middle a lot (and never really touched the inside ring).


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

*Geez, how much does that spare tire weigh?*



Salsa_Lover said:


> how about me, on top of the hills on a 53/39 11-23 ?


Is that a tubular?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

yes and it is not heavy, 230grams I guess.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

High cadence light weight climber. I rock the heck out of compact gearing. 

On my TT bike, I use a 53/39, but with the same gearing as my compact cluster. I suppose I could have gotten a 55 and "normal" gears in back.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> yes and it is not heavy, 230grams I guess.


Do you use gluing tape? Seems like it'd be crazy to have to change a tubular with liquid tubular glue.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

its only for emergencies, 

in 10 years of riding I had very few flats, but you never know.

I used to carry a bag with all the repair kit for the clinchers in the past.. years went by without a flat, so I decided to leave the repair kit at home to save weight, and then "bam"! flat, I had to push my bike to the next train stop.... not funny.

So I carry the tubie on the bottle cage, (I never needed 2 bottles anyway) it is an old Conti competition 22 that has glue on it. and a little bag on my jersey pocket with 2 CO2 cartriges and inflator, 2 plastic levers and basic tools ( 4,5,6 hex wrenches and screwdriver ). 

If I ever flat I can replace it on the road, inflate it and roll carefully back home ( or the next train stop )

this is the little bag.


----------



## stickboy71 (Jul 13, 2005)

Where's the OLD school 52-42?


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Currently running a 50/36. Found the jump to 34 too big.

Thinking of going to 48/34 as I'm not a speed demon on downhills.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

stickboy71 said:


> Where's the OLD school 52-42?


53-42 is just an example. If you're rockin' 52-42, you vote Old Skool™.
.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> the standard double is for real road cycling and racing.
> 
> the "compact" double is for recreational riders and sport-tourers, in fact the compact double is nothing more than a glorified touring crankset.



But there's _plenty_ of recreational riders using the standard double.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

300 votes biatches!  



/ srsly, thank you to everyone who's participated in the poll
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ghost6 said:


> But there's _plenty_ of recreational riders using the standard double.


True dat. You can't strictly categorize the kind of riding someone's doing by the crankset they run. 

There are ppl who road-ride very aggressively on triples. There are ppl who lollygag along on 53-39. You just never know. 

The most you can say is that a particular type of crankset is _more suited_ to a certain type of riding than others are. But the correlation is far from absolute, because ppl don't always use equipment in the way its intended or marketed. Or they don't have a lot of $$$ and just 'use what they brung'.
.


----------



## runnerstreet (Aug 8, 2010)

Shimano Ultegra 6650-SL Compact Crank w/ SRAM Red 36/52 chainrings.
Works for me, but I might change back to a Standard Crank next season.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, in closing, I guess the only surprising thing about the results was that no one was really surprised.

I expected more 'NO WAI' reactions, somehow.

.


----------



## elesido (May 18, 2010)

Changed from 53/39 to 50/34 a couple of weeks ago (keeping my Ultegra 11-28 cassette) and like it a lot! Riding in the hills and mountains quite frequently (but not as often as I want to) I felt the need for some lower gears, but the $$ kept me from going triple. I like the compact so far, lower gears in the mountains but still high enough for me in the flats. I lack the hardest combination in fast descends (53-11) but I can live with that.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

My bike that I ride the most has a Dura Ace 7803 triple with the hard to find 30/42/52t and that 42t is the cat's meow. Rarely, do I use the 52 and the 30 has only been used twice. I can average 22 mph with it on a 50 mile ride. Two of my other bikes are running 39/53t standard cranks and one has the 34/50t compact. I will be upgrading to a 39/53 on that one as well. Still I found my sweet spot with that 42t. It would be sweet to be able to have a lighter crank with it, but with a triple (the Dura Ace in particular) I always have the right gear for the situation. It shifts superbly for a triple and it rivals most doubles of the same caliber. I would use one of my other bikes if I was in a crit due to the very slight delay associated with shifting triples, but this one has my heart.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

elesido said:


> Changed from 53/39 to 50/34 a couple of weeks ago (keeping my Ultegra 11-28 cassette) and like it a lot! Riding in the hills and mountains quite frequently (but not as often as I want to) I felt the need for some lower gears, but the $$ kept me from going triple. I like the compact so far, lower gears in the mountains but still high enough for me in the flats. I lack the hardest combination in fast descends (53-11) but I can live with that.


Well okay, guess this thread hasn't passed on yet after all. :idea:

Very good point about the $$$ issue when converting from 53-39 to something with lower low gears. I have nothing against triples ('cept Q-factor) , but to convert from std double runs like this:

std double to triple: new crank, new bottom bracket, new front derailleur, new rear derailleur, new left brifter

std double to compact: new crank, *maybe* new FD (if the old one's pretty old), maybe new BB if changing crankset brands
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

It's been over six months... with riding season just around the corner, are compacts still 'large and in charge', or are there signs of a 53-39 resurgence and overtaking of compacts in popularity? :idea:

I strongly suspect nothing's changed (or perhaps things have even swung a bit more towards compacts), but you never want to just assume.
.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

I've actually gone back to a standard 53/39 and after two years on a compact. I hated it at first...but forced myself to give it a chance. I'm staying with my standard. Doubt I'll ever go back to a compact again.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

/ Btw, if anyone's curious, I currently own two road bikes: one's a compact, one's a std double (52/39, soon to be 52/38).
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Waiting for a poll that isn't based on mumbo-jumbo. Compacts are neither "more efficient" nor "save knees".


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

rx-79g said:


> Waiting for a poll that isn't based on mumbo-jumbo. Compacts are neither "more efficient" nor "save knees".


Of course, because there's a difference between 50/34 cranks if they're described differently......


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> Of course, because there's a difference between 50/34 cranks if they're described differently......


My post is protest against oft repeated nonsense concerning crank choice. "Spins up", "easier on the knees", "climbers cranks", "better for _____ cadence". The poll wording perpetuates this hogwash.

Of course, if you're one of those people who thinks one component group is "faster" than another, this would all seem very comforting.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

rx-79g said:


> My post is protest against oft repeated nonsense concerning crank choice. "Spins up", "easier on the knees", "climbers cranks", "better for _____ cadence". The poll wording perpetuates this hogwash.
> 
> Of course, if you're one of those people who thinks one component group is "faster" than another, this would all seem very comforting.


So, should the poll have used the descriptors used by those who want to show in their posts they have the largest willy? Compacts: "are for slow, old guys", "are for people who don't race", "are for old fat guys", "are not worthy of real road cyclists"


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

I like my compact.

And, I dont care what anyone thinks of my willy.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> So, should the poll have used the descriptors used by those who want to show in their posts they have the largest willy? Compacts: "are for slow, old guys", "are for people who don't race", "are for old fat guys", "are not worthy of real road cyclists"


No, factual differences in weight, gear ratio and stiffness are more than enough.

Or maybe some anti-Shimano rhetoric for you? Can't get enough of that sort of quality posting around here.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> No, factual differences in weight, gear ratio and stiffness are more than enough.
> 
> Or maybe some anti-Shimano rhetoric for you? Can't get enough of that sort of quality posting around here.


Obviously you're not astute enough to understand the sarcasm and playfulness in the poll options...

And yes, Shimano stinks on ice.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Obviously you're not astute enough to understand the sarcasm and playfulness in the poll options...
> 
> And yes, Shimano stinks on ice.


Why is it that the biggest forum cry babies about other peoples posts are also the rudest blowhards themselves?


I'm plenty astute, smart guy. But this thread is full of fallacies that demonstrate that any "playfulness" is completely missed by the majority who are consistently "informed" that certain things have magical qualities, like compact cranks or those malevolent Shimano components, from the company that invented nearly every modern bike innovation.

Why don't you post about something related to bicycles?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> ...by the majority who are consistently "informed" that certain things have magical qualities...


This has nothing to do with cranks, but it does illustrate how marketing distortions are often to blame for this sort of misunderstanding. Trying to sell a bicycle with relatively heavy wheels, a major retailer resorts to "xxx wheelset is sturdy and offers great rolling momentum" in their ad copy. Never seen that one before.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

wim said:


> This has nothing to do with cranks, but it does illustrate how marketing distortions are often to blame for this sort of misunderstanding. Trying to sell a bicycle with relatively heavy wheels, a major retailer resorts to "xxx wheelset is sturdy and offers great rolling momentum" in their ad copy. Never seen that one before.


I was trying to address the misinformation specific to cranks, and much of it is propogated by these discussions, not marketing. People talking about things that don't exist that have wildly improved their performance.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever read a manufacturer claim anything unusual about compacts. Probably because they all make both styles, now. Have you?


----------



## dysfunction (Apr 2, 2010)

I don't believe I have. All one really needs to do is calculate gear inches and make their own choice based on the available ratios. Like anything else, it's simply a matter of choice.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

rx-79g said:


> from the company that invented nearly every modern bike innovation.


You mean Campagnolo?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> I don't believe I have. All one really needs to do is calculate gear inches and make their own choice based on the available ratios. Like anything else, it's simply a matter of choice.


Ditto this. And RX, being the stubborn, always right, hard headed type that he is will not accept any choice other than the one he believes is right.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I ride a 53/39 12-25 (10 speed) on my new road bike. My old road bike has a 53/39 11-23 (9 speed). I also have a 44 x 7 singlespeed.
So far I've only rode the 53/39 12-25 on my trainer as it hasn't gotten clean enough out to try it yet. However that 53 front 12 back isn't hard enough on my trainer for shorter intervals.
The 53 front 23 rear on my old bike isn't impossible on steep climbs, just requires more getting out of the saddle. The singlespeed is a beast on a 10% grade climb, I'll generally do the entire climb standing up. I have wrung out the 53 11 gear on long gradual descents and wind at my back scenarios.
Really though the majority of my time is spent right around 20 mph on the flats. I'll probably get a 11-23 cassette for my new bike, as well as a 11-28...

...and although I like to push a hard gear and ride my singlespeed a lot, my knees are still intact. I believe it builds power better than _spinning all the time_, but to each his own.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> You mean Campagnolo?


Isn't that the company that uses indexing, brifters, double pivot brakes, spring loaded brake levers, external BBs, cassette hubs, chain lifters, gaited chainrings, shifter specific housing, self centering jockey pulleys and servo pantagraph rear derailleurs?

Yeah, they're amazing.


11 speeds! Woo!


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

50-39 for me. I started replacing the 53 with a 50 long before there was such a thing as a compact crank. I found that with the 53 I probably spent 25% of the time in the big ring and 75% in the small; with the 50 those numbers are pretty much reversed. On the back I typically run a 13-24 or 26.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

PRB said:


> 50-39 for me. I started replacing the 53 with a 50 long before there was such a thing as a compact crank. I found that with the 53 I probably spent 25% of the time in the big ring and 75% in the small; with the 50 those numbers are pretty much reversed. On the back I typically run a 13-24 or 26.


This kind of setup, especially 50/40, was fairly common on sport touring bikes in the '80s. Just before 39 chainrings caught on.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

rx-79g said:


> Isn't that the company that uses indexing, brifters, double pivot brakes, spring loaded brake levers, external BBs, cassette hubs, chain lifters, gaited chainrings, shifter specific housing, self centering jockey pulleys and servo pantagraph rear derailleurs?
> 
> Yeah, they're amazing.
> 
> ...


Well, they did invent the quick-release skewer, the hollow axle QR hub, the Campagnolo self-centering wine bottle opener, and the derailleur, after all....
They can't invent EVERYthing.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> Well, they did invent the quick-release skewer, the hollow axle QR hub, the Campagnolo self-centering wine bottle opener, and the derailleur, after all....
> They can't invent EVERYthing.


Campagnolo did not invent the derailleur. Are 70 year old innovations "modern". I guess.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Dont argue with RX. He is only poasts away from calling people names and getting another vacation. 

Nothing meaningfull will come of this, just another argument.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Fun and games.*



tihsepa said:


> Dont argue with RX.


It's difficult not to. If you would post "the earth is round," RX would counterpost "no, not really."


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

tihsepa said:


> Dont argue with RX. He is only poasts away from calling people names and getting another vacation.
> 
> Nothing meaningfull will come of this, just another argument.


Nah, just pointing out his uppity attitude, and the fact that he's often wrong in his assertions. 

Frankly, why is this debate even still happening? The best gearing for anyone is the gearing that allows them to ride the terrain they enjoy comfortably. End of discussion.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

wim said:


> It's difficult not to. If you would post "the earth is round," RX would counterpost "no, not really."


Are you referring to the 44 kilometer difference in diameter between the poles and equator?:thumbsup: 


I think that some people spend way too much time posting about "dummies", "astuteness", "uppityness", incorrect spelling/use of the word "gruppo", and as a recent treat, my height. None of which top being called "the worst kind of bicyclist who just turns off new riders". 

Instead, how about having on-topic discussions about bikes? On a bike forum. 

Go figure.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Are you referring to the 44 kilometer difference in diameter between the poles and equator?:thumbsup:


Yes, exactly. And while we're at it: the earth's rotational speed apparently increased because of the Japan earthquake. A day is now 1.8 microseconds (one millionth of a second) shorter than before the quake. Crap, I was hoping for the days to get longer to get more riding in. Back to bikes, I'm done with geophysics and snide comments about RX.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Waiting for a poll that isn't based on mumbo-jumbo. Compacts are neither "more efficient" nor "save knees".


Complaining is free, easy and cheap.  

Now, ask yourself, did I include those descriptors because it was what *I* actually believed about each type of crank, or was I simply re-stating the popular view of said cranks, in order to add more 'flavor' to the poll? Hmm... :idea:

Now if you wish to make your own poll thread, please, be my guest. No one's stopping you.

And then I can come in and complain about your poll choices. :wink:




ps- I don't like Shimano all that much either. Oh noes.
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Now, ask yourself, did I include those descriptors because it was what *I* actually believed about each type of crank, or was I simply re-stating the popular view of said cranks, in order to add more 'flavor' to the poll?
> .


You should ask yourself - should I care whether you are adding to the slew of dis-information about crank choices for humor or not? :idea:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Nah, just pointing out his uppity attitude, and the fact that he's often wrong in his assertions.


Sadly, this may well be the case, on both counts. RX got banned not too long ago... something about insulting ttug over having Parkinson's? Sounded a bit petty.  

And while he's generally knowledgable, he is also wrong at least some of the time. I just got out of a thread where RX insisted repeatedly that for entry-level enthusiast bikes, aluminum frames were more expensive to make than steel. 

He seemed to get a bit upset when I didn't take his word for it... and sure enough, someone with actual direct knowledge of the issue posted not too long afterwards, and spelled out that steel was equal to or a bit more expensive than aluminum in the price range, i.e. RX was mistaken. If I had just taken RX's word on it, I would've been misinformed.

What's the saying? "It's the wise man who knows what he does not know."

RX is hardly alone in suffering from know-it-all-ism, however. It's sort of the uncontrolled drug of RBR. That, and a willingness to insult ppl over what should be minor disagreements. 


/ Btw, I'm aware that I'm no angel either. But I do think I at least *try* not to be 'that guy'.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> You should ask yourself - should I care whether you are adding to the slew of dis-information about crank choices for humor or not?


I already did. I didn't care that you didn't care. My poll versus the marketing budgets of the entire bike industry equals a drop in the ocean. So hand-waving over it is a tad silly.

However, I do think it would be interesting if you started a thread where you discussed marketing-lead misinformation in the bike industry. 

The examples would be legion. :idea:


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Sadly, this may well be the case, on both counts. RX got banned not too long ago... something about insulting ttug over having Parkinson's? Sounded a bit petty.
> 
> And while he's generally knowledgable, he is also wrong at least some of the time. I just got out of a thread where RX insisted repeatedly that for entry-level enthusiast bikes, aluminum frames were more expensive to make than steel.
> 
> ...


Actually, you seemed to not be getting that the result of the answer you wanted was based on what you expected, rather than what you asked, since it was not actually a simple question with one universal answer. But you kept pushing for ONE answer.

Mike provided numbers that showed that steel frames could run anywhere from lower than aluminum to much more. He then provided examples that demonstrated that a comparison of frames made of name brand steel double butted tubing, like 525, was more expensive than no brand aluminum. At that point, you decided you had gotten the "right" answer and had a little celebration, since Mike managed to confirm your bias by providing an apple and oranges example that fit.

And now, having gotten the skewed statistics you wanted to confirm your bias, you're gloating. Congratulations on being so very right.


There are maybe 5 people on this entire board who can't stand that know-it-all RX. And they are not the most polite, accurate OR helpful people, surprisingly. And then there's everybody else who just doesn't care (great), and another bunch that's happy to get some good explanations and diagnosis. I think the loud and angry few need to look in the mirror.

BTW, do you really want to post inaccurate hearsay about members? Use the search feature instead.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> I already did. I didn't care that you didn't care. My poll versus the marketing budgets of the entire bike industry equals a drop in the ocean. So hand-waving over it is a tad silly.
> 
> However, I do think it would be interesting if you started a thread where you discussed marketing-lead misinformation in the bike industry.
> 
> The examples would be legion. :idea:


I already started one awhile ago about Bottecchia and Motobecane.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Mike provided numbers that showed that steel frames could run anywhere from lower than aluminum to much more.


 Nope. This is what Mike actually said:



BikesDirect said:


> nice but entry tig 4130 DB frames cost about the same as Aluminum
> and we sell entry road bikes like that from $299 to $399
> Specialized has a good example of this type frame at arounfd $650 - Allez Steel
> 
> ...


That would be more like steel is priced equal to or higher than AL, not "lower than to higher than". 

Why the historical revisionism? Is it that difficult for you to admit that you may've been mistaken? Smart ppl are often wrong, and don't fear the occasional misstep. :idea:




rx said:


> _Actually, you seemed to not be getting that the result of the answer you wanted was based on what you expected, rather than what you asked, since it was not actually a simple question with one universal answer. But you kept pushing for ONE answer._


Again, historical revisionism. I knew that you were simply making an educated guess, and did not know the true answer for certain. As your yourself even said later on:



rx79g said:


> _Clearly, my posts are are an educated guess._


Since I knew (even before you posted that) that you didn't really knew, I pressed on for a better source of information, and received it. Can one blame me for seeking out accurate information? I don't think so.

And btw, if Mike had posted that you had been correct in your educated guess, I would've accepted that with relative good grace, instead of the hand-waving route you seem to be taking. It isn't about being right (well, perhaps for you it is), but about getting to the truth.




rx-79g said:


> A_nd now, having gotten the skewed statistics you wanted to confirm your bias, you're gloating. Congratulations on being so very right._


I think the mistake you're making is thinking that I'm like you. I'm not. 

In any case, judging by the responses of several ppl to you in this thread, plus your recent banning, it seems safe to say that your attitude leaves much to be desired. Perhaps it's time to consider a change in tone? :idea: 

Just sayin'.
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Nope. This is what Mike actually said:
> And you clearly missed when Mike said:
> "Steel is everywhere from less than AL to more than Ti"
> That would be more like steel is priced equal to or higher than AL, not "lower than to higher than".
> ...


I post about what interests me, which is a lot as I am a bit of an autodidact. You, like the people you're aligning yourself with, get annoyed because I sometimes disagree about factual matter. So annoyed, that threads sink into insults rather than stay at the level of honest debate. The same people remain so incensed that they look for my posts to level pronouncements that have little to do with what's being discussed. You're doing that right now.

I don't claim to be perfect, and I frequently admit to being wrong when appropriate. But the behavior of my anti-fans is frankly lame. It simply amazes me how much energy some of you people will pour into attempting to discredit one guy, especially when most of what I post is very accurate, researched and based on a lot of excellent experience. And I keep the bile out of it. Take a good look at the post type and quality of the couple of people who can't help but get all excited whenever I have something to say about such terrifying issues as fork rake.

No, you're not like me.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> I post about what interests me, which is a lot as I am a bit of an autodidact. You, like the people you're aligning yourself with, get annoyed because I sometimes disagree about factual matter. So annoyed, that threads sink into insults rather than stay at the level of honest debate. The same people remain so incensed that they look for my posts to level pronouncements that have little to do with what's being discussed. You're doing that right now.
> 
> I don't claim to be perfect, and I frequently admit to being wrong when appropriate. But the behavior of my anti-fans is frankly lame. It simply amazes me how much energy some of you people will pour into attempting to discredit one guy, especially when most of what I post is very accurate, researched and based on a lot of excellent experience. And I keep the bile out of it. Take a good look at the post type and quality of the couple of people who can't help but get all excited whenever I have something to say about such terrifying issues as fork rake.
> 
> No, you're not like me.



Tsk. Denial. It ain't just a river in Egypt.
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Tsk. Denial. It ain't just a river in Egypt.
> .


Yup, that's about the level of discourse I'm getting used to with your clique.

No snappy comebacks about your off topic steel harangue?


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

You guys are halarious.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

tihsepa said:


> You guys are halarious.


Are you kidding? You posted on this thread ONLY to take a swipe at me. Get a life.

And spell check.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

rx, don't waste your time arguing, this forum is dominated by old clydes on old steel bikes with campy 6 speed, or comfort geometries with compacts, both with brooks saddles.

just go with the flow,


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Sorey, my ipod dosent as smurt ar you. I am goin to get a lifee sumday. Hupefully yew wuill aprove. 

Oh, and thanks for using my poast in your sig. Especially seeing as it came from a loser like me. 
Stylin. Thanks for looking up to my poasts.

Keep in mind, I dont make fun of peoples handicaps and get banned on a bike forum.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> And you clearly missed when Mike said:
> "Steel is everywhere from less than AL to more than Ti"


And you clearly missed the part where I specified entry-level enthusiast bikes:


SystemShock said:


> Sigh. Rx, the question is very simple, really...
> 
> In the $500-1000 bike market, currently, which is generally cheaper to produce...
> 
> ...


In that price range, which is the question I asked, Mike made it quite clear than steel was equal to or more expensive than Al.

I can't help if you don't listen to me, but then again, that's nothing new. You've made it clear that you only listen to yourself.




rx79g said:


> _No revisionism. You quoted pretty much what I said- a frame made of name brand steel is more than a no-name aluminum one._


Again, nope, you're trying to cherry-pick. Look at what Mike wrote again... 'no name' 4130B was equal in price, not more. This goes against what you said (well, guessed) elsewhere. 

So yes, more historical revisionism, in the name of 'not being wrong'. We get it, Rx. You just can't help it.




rx79g said:


> _well remember your tone and style from our little conversation about the design basis of modern derailleurs. You took the premise that all of them are based on Suntour's because of one (1) feature, and when I disagreed with examples, you started to get insulting._


I remember that convo too. You basically re-iterated your premise over and over again, while steadfastly ignoring any opinions and evidence to the contrary. Even the site you quoted didn't agree with you. It was pretty much like talking to a brick wall, which is why I wound up disregarding anything you had to say. 

Brick walls, after all, seldom give opinions that are worth anything. 




rx-79g said:


> _Yup, that's about the level of discourse I'm getting used to with your clique._


'Clique'? Oh noes, it's RX vs teh World™. 

Poor you. So misunderstood. So maligned. If only we understood how 'winning' you were. :skep:

Wise up, RX. Aside from Plat, I don't really know any of these folks much at all. They're not denigrating you because of me. They're doing so because of you.

Again... denial. Ya sure hate to see it. 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

tihsepa said:


> Keep in mind, I dont make fun of peoples handicaps and get banned on a bike forum.


I'm sure he's got a rationalization for that one too. 
.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Wise up, RX. Aside from Plat, I don't really know any of these folks much at all. They're not denigrating you because of me. They're doing so because of you.
> .


Just wanted to quote and respond.

I officially state that any issues I have with rx79psdfn have nothing whatsoever to do with SystemShock. I am not a sycophant. My issues with rxwhatever are entirely related to rxfluffybunny's condescending attitude, lack of any sort of "filter" (ie: making fun of ttug), 50% failure rate on advice/technical babble, and general unpleasantness.

In a strange way though, you should be somewhat proud. It takes quite a bit to make a misanthrope cringe at your callousness.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> I officially state that any issues I have with rx79psdfn have nothing whatsoever to do with SystemShock. I am not a sycophant. My issues with rxwhatever are entirely related to rxfluffybunny's condescending attitude, lack of any sort of "filter" (ie: making fun of ttug), 50% failure rate on advice/technical babble, and general unpleasantness.


Yup. And I wasn't implying that you and I were backing each other in any way, shape, or form... in fact, we've disagreed on plenty of things. Just giving full disclosure that you and I are on reasonably cordial terms.

Ya Midwestern misanthrope bastid. 

I certainly don't need any further encouragement to point out teh fail that is RX's posting style than what I've observed on the forums. 
.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Can we get a countdown to banhammer please?

The blowup is coming.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

And we are done. BTW, please use the ignore feature. I would prefer to avoid giving out posting vacations, but several posters are right on the line for one.


----------

