Compact Chainsets & Road Bikes

[Not Responding]

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
is - anyone help me?

While I'm posting, anyone got any suggestions for a lightweight, fast
but comfortable audax type bike? What are the qualitative differences
between, say, cheaper Dawes or Thorn Audax bikes and the pricier
Pearsons, Longstaffs, Roberts etc?

David E. Belcher

[Not Responding] wrote:
> Simply, what is a compact chainset?
>
> I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these
referred
> to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
> is - anyone help me?
>

'Compact' double chainsets for road bikes are ones which allow the use
of a smaller than normal inner ring; conventional road chainsets
usually have a 38 or 39 tooth inner ring at the very smallest. With the
'compact' pattern, the bolt circle diameter on the spider is smaller,
allowing smaller diameter rings with less teeth to be used, down to a
34T minimum. The idea isn't really a new one - Stronglight have offered
double chainsets which can take a 36T inner for years, and the Shimano
RSX group offered a 48/36 combo before such things became fashionable.
David E. Belcher

Dave Larrington

David E. Belcher wrote:
> [Not Responding] wrote:
>> Simply, what is a compact chainset?
> 'Compact' double chainsets for road bikes are ones which allow the use
> of a smaller than normal inner ring; conventional road chainsets
> usually have a 38 or 39 tooth inner ring at the very smallest. With
> the 'compact' pattern, the bolt circle diameter on the spider is
> smaller, allowing smaller diameter rings with less teeth to be used,
> down to a 34T minimum. The idea isn't really a new one - Stronglight
> have offered double chainsets which can take a 36T inner for years,

s/36/28 for the Stronglight 99 and its cousins.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

JBB

" [Not Responding] " <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:b1ftr016haokbfkoucldp8jg11su8mg77l@4ax.com...
> Simply, what is a compact chainset?
>
> I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
> to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
> is - anyone help me?
>
> While I'm posting, anyone got any suggestions for a lightweight, fast
> but comfortable audax type bike? What are the qualitative differences
> between, say, cheaper Dawes or Thorn Audax bikes and the pricier
> Pearsons, Longstaffs, Roberts etc?
>
Differences are largely be that the cheaper options tend to be offered as
a complete package and are instantly available whereas others can be
customised to your needs plus of course you can pay a bit more and have the
frame made to measure; these obviously take a bit longer. If you give us an
idea about your intended budget and use we'll probably be able to offer more
specific advice. Personally I had a made to measure frame built up by my LBS
with components all of my choosing but it's not the route for everyone.

HTH
Julia

Clive George

" [Not Responding] " <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:b1ftr016haokbfkoucldp8jg11su8mg77l@4ax.com...
> Simply, what is a compact chainset?
>
> I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
> to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
> is - anyone help me?
>
> While I'm posting, anyone got any suggestions for a lightweight, fast
> but comfortable audax type bike? What are the qualitative differences
> between, say, cheaper Dawes or Thorn Audax bikes and the pricier
> Pearsons, Longstaffs, Roberts etc?

Don't forget the 'start from a frame' option too - eg mine is based on a
Kinesis Racelight-T.

cheers,
clive

[Not Responding]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:08:53 -0000, "JBB" <juliadream@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> Differences are largely be that the cheaper options tend to be offered as
>a complete package and are instantly available whereas others can be
>customised to your needs plus of course you can pay a bit more and have the
>frame made to measure; these obviously take a bit longer. If you give us an
>idea about your intended budget and use we'll probably be able to offer more
>specific advice. Personally I had a made to measure frame built up by my LBS
>with components all of my choosing but it's not the route for everyone.

A year ago, I had one bike for all purposes; a lightweight flat barred
Ridgeback. I used it for commuting and for >100 mile rides.

In June I wanted a new bike just to see if I was physically capable of
riding so bought a Halfords special which could later (now) become a
utilitarian hack and commute. It's actually not a bad bike but now
that I want to try and get fit again and try for some longer
distances, I'd like something more appropriate.

As I already have a utility bike, for the first time ever I'm looking
for a single purpose machine rather than an all rounder. I hope to get
back up to covering 100 miles and more. It won't be used every day so
I'll be happy to give it the cleaning and care that my day-to-day
bikes rarely get.

I'm not interested in heavy load carrying but would want to be able to
take *something* (unlike pure race bikes).

I'm not really working to a budget but I don't like wasteful
expenditure. Spending £4k on a carbon-everything would be wasted on
me! OK, let's put a figure on it; say £1750. But I'm not ruling out a
£600 off the peg bike just because I could spend more.

Finally, for all the wrong reasons, I would like a light bike.

JLB

[Not Responding] wrote:

[snip]
> I'm not interested in heavy load carrying but would want to be able to
> take *something* (unlike pure race bikes).
[snip]

Using a back-pack when cycling is pretty much a last resort. They are
principally designed for walking and they become uncomfortable on a bike
with any significant weight in them. If you want to able to carry all
you are likely to need for a day trip, a saddlebag is excellent, and its
easy to leave it off the bike when not required. Those who take pride in
carrying the bare minimum find a saddle bag sufficient for even longer
journeys. You would of course need a saddle that's suitable (e.g. Brooks).

Another possibility is a handlebar bag, such as the Ortlieb one. I'm
very happy with mine, and it has an excellent map pocket. However, its
smaller than a typical saddlebag.

If that's not enough you should start looking at panniers and the
associated racks, but it sounds as though you don't see any need to go
that far.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Dave Larrington

JLB wrote:

> Using a back-pack when cycling is pretty much a last resort. They are
> principally designed for walking and they become uncomfortable on a
> bike with any significant weight in them. If you want to able to
> carry all
> you are likely to need for a day trip, a saddlebag is excellent, and
> its easy to leave it off the bike when not required. Those who take
> pride in carrying the bare minimum find a saddle bag sufficient for
> even longer journeys. You would of course need a saddle that's
> suitable (e.g. Brooks).

Or one of these: <URL:
http://www.sjscycles.com/store/vIndex.htm?item644.htm>

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Simon Brooke

in message <b1ftr016haokbfkoucldp8jg11su8mg77l@4ax.com>, [Not
Responding] ('not_responding@dev.null.invalid') wrote:

> Simply, what is a compact chainset?
>
> I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
> to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
> is - anyone help me?

My understanding is that a 'compact' is a double chainset with
relatively small chain rings - although not as small as those typically
used on mountain bikes. E.g., a 48/34 double.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
/-\ You have discovered a security flaw in a Microsoft product. You
|-| can report this issue to our security tesm. Would you like to
| | * Be completely ignored (default)?
| | * Receive a form email full of platitudes about how much we care?
\_/ * Spend hours helping us fix this problem for free?

Helen Deborah Vecht

"David E. Belcher" <deb107_york@yahoo.co.uk>typed



> [Not Responding] wrote:
> > Simply, what is a compact chainset?
> >
> > I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these
> referred
> > to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
> > is - anyone help me?
> >

> 'Compact' double chainsets for road bikes are ones which allow the use
> of a smaller than normal inner ring; conventional road chainsets
> usually have a 38 or 39 tooth inner ring at the very smallest. With the
> 'compact' pattern, the bolt circle diameter on the spider is smaller,
> allowing smaller diameter rings with less teeth to be used, down to a
> 34T minimum. The idea isn't really a new one - Stronglight have offered
> double chainsets which can take a 36T inner for years, and the Shimano
> RSX group offered a 48/36 combo before such things became fashionable.
> David E. Belcher

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.

Clive George

"Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:328ah6F3k2bt4U1@individual.net...
> JLB wrote:
>
> > Using a back-pack when cycling is pretty much a last resort. They are
> > principally designed for walking and they become uncomfortable on a
> > bike with any significant weight in them. If you want to able to
> > carry all
> > you are likely to need for a day trip, a saddlebag is excellent, and
> > its easy to leave it off the bike when not required. Those who take
> > pride in carrying the bare minimum find a saddle bag sufficient for
> > even longer journeys. You would of course need a saddle that's
> > suitable (e.g. Brooks).
>
> Or one of these: <URL:
> http://www.sjscycles.com/store/vIndex.htm?item644.htm>

Or one of these:

http://www.carradice.co.uk/sqr-products.htm

cheers,
clive

David Martin

On 14/12/04 2:16 pm, in article 313030303736393541BEF5D311@zetnet.co.uk,
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.
>
> Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

But they wear the knees out slower..

Fine if you don't like disposable prosthetics.

...d

jtaylor

"David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BDE4ABF6.5AF9%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...
> On 14/12/04 2:16 pm, in article 313030303736393541BEF5D311@zetnet.co.uk,
> "Helen Deborah Vecht" <helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.
> >
> > Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(
>
> But they wear the knees out slower..
>

Now just exactly HOW do you get this?

Your knees don't know or care what size of ring is between them and the
road. The only factors that affect them are load, range of motion, &
frequency (with an asterisk should you have lever-drive or non-circular
rings).

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Pete Biggs

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Not tooooo much faster if using only slightly smaller rings, say 50/36 v
52/39. Even those few teeth make a nice difference to the gearing.

> Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

It's only money :-)

~PB