Compact Chainsets & Road Bikes

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Just the reverse.

Engineer friends tell me smaller curvature radii and more frequent chain
cycles wear components more rapidly.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Just the reverse.

Engineer friends tell me smaller curvature radii and more frequent
chain cycles wear components more rapidly.

That's right but it seems like you're comparing big "road" chainsets with
MTB compact chainsets with diddy rings. The new breed of "compact" road
chainsets aren't really all that compact. Any slight difference in wear
won't be enough to worry about.

~PB

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Just the reverse.

Engineer friends tell me smaller curvature radii and more frequent chain
cycles wear components more rapidly.

True, but
a) by far the greatest causes of chain and cog wear are poor cleaning and
lubrication
b) the modern fad of rear clusters greater than 5 cogs has meant a thinning
of the cogs, and so they and the chain wear faster
c) you should re-read the thread; the poster to whom I replied stated that
a "compact drive" would put less stress on his _knees_.

A bit of a non-starter, seeing as for donkey's years you have been able to
get 26-tooth front chainrings on a bike, cheaply, and with good quality
components. That and a 28 or 32 on the back will see most people up most
hills. This "compact drive" is indeed marketing speak.

On 16/12/04 3:02 pm, in article [email hidden],

jtaylor said:

A bit of a non-starter, seeing as for donkey's years you have been able to
get 26-tooth front chainrings on a bike, cheaply, and with good quality
components. That and a 28 or 32 on the back will see most people up most
hills. This "compact drive" is indeed marketing speak.

It is indeed a marketing term for a practical solution. If I wanted to
change my current road bike chainset it would be for a 'compact drive'. Why?
Because it gives me the gears I want to use in a simple package that doesn't
require a new front changer, levers etc.

The major factor is cost. I like short cranks so the cheapest I can find
good quality components will still set me back in excess of 100 GBP to do
the conversion. But it will give me gears that can go on my current set up
(Sante rear derraileur and 7sp uniglide) and won't break my knees as the
gradient hits single figures.

...d

Pete Biggs said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Just the reverse.

Engineer friends tell me smaller curvature radii and more frequent
chain cycles wear components more rapidly.

That's right but it seems like you're comparing big "road" chainsets with
MTB compact chainsets with diddy rings. The new breed of "compact" road
chainsets aren't really all that compact. Any slight difference in wear
won't be enough to worry about.

~PB

I have a chainset with 170mm cranks, 50/36 chainrings which today would
be termed a compact one. It was purchased in 1986 and while the
chainrings are worn they perform as well as anything newer. IME compact
chainsets last as long as any other. This is my oldest in fact and I
have never replaced a chainring because it is worn out. [ My cassettes
seem to last longer than everyone elses too ]

you should watch durian rider's video on bike stuff it's so helpful.