Compact Cranks?

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

[email protected] wrote:
> Russell, Paul,
>
> The considerable advantages of compact cranks are that with two
> chainrings, you're able to:
> 1-Get a large variety of gearings (large differential between lowest &
> highest gear)
> 2-Have gears that are far more practical for average people (and still
> allow me to keep up with the fast group rides - who really needs a 53?)
> 3-Have a cassette with minimal gaps - for optimum power production (I
> didn't realize the benefits until I installed mine)

Gotta agree. I hoot when I hear people need to have a 53-11 or 12 cuz
they 'spin out' when going down hill. Either have faster feet than the
80 rpm you have or stop pedaling, go faster and rest. Most that have
53t rings wander around mostly up the cogset, in the 19 or 21 and
wonder why they are wearing stuff out so fast. I have had a 50/39 for
almost a decade and don't 'spinout' anywhere, with a 13t smallest cog.
>
> I've read the plugs and defenses for the triples, but with my 34
> chainring and largest cog of 23, I can climb the steepest (and it's
> steep!) of my favorite climb. Whenever I get to climb the Alpe D'Huez,
> I'll bring a 12-27 cassette (or higher) and that'll allow me to grind
> up any mountain, so there's more to considering compact cranks, than
> just the lowest gear that you need. I think the value of the triples
> lies really for those with low power to weight ratio (low power or high
> weight - e.g. touring).
>
> Josh

 

[Paul Cassel]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

>
> Need a new BB if you choose the Centaur-111mm spindle. The Chorus
> compact uses the same BB you now have(102mm). Need a crank puller, and
> then a 8mm allen and torque wrench to reinstall the Chorus
> compact(really nice BTW-in spite of the $) Lower the FD with a 5mm
> allen and adjust and go ride. If tyou swap the BB to a AC-H, need a
> tool for the Record BB and then a tool for the AC-H. If you use the $60
> Centaur, triple bearing , same tool as for Record/Chorus.

I'd rather spend less and get the different cogset if my current rear
derailleur can go to 29. How can I determine if it will?

Like you said in this thread elsewhere, the 53/11 combo isn't useful to
me. I doubt I've ever gone any higher than the equivalent of maybe a
50/13 and then only to try it.

 

[Chris Nelson]

Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier. There are
hard to find "junior cogsets" where the smallest cog is like a 14, 15
or 16. If you can find one of these you will have smaller gaps. With a
53 up front, you will still have a tall enough gear. You can also fit a
38 up front which will help a little.

I had a similar situation, but hills are not as big. I ended up buying
new chainrings for the front. The smallest I could get was a 38 for a
standard crank, so I went 46/38 in front and 13-25 in back. I now have
smaller gaps and minimal cross chaining for the type of riding I do.
And I still never use my biggest gear because I coast on the downhills.

Chris

 

[Paul Cassel]

Chris Nelson wrote:
> Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
> have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier. There are
> hard to find "junior cogsets" where the smallest cog is like a 14, 15
> or 16. If you can find one of these you will have smaller gaps. With a
> 53 up front, you will still have a tall enough gear. You can also fit a
> 38 up front which will help a little.
>
> I had a similar situation, but hills are not as big. I ended up buying
> new chainrings for the front. The smallest I could get was a 38 for a
> standard crank, so I went 46/38 in front and 13-25 in back. I now have
> smaller gaps and minimal cross chaining for the type of riding I do.
> And I still never use my biggest gear because I coast on the downhills.
>
I asked Peter about my rear derailleur because a friend of mine who
knows bikes well said my rear one will not handle any cogset which goes
up to 29.

I agree with you that a set which starts at 14-16 and goes to 29 will
work perfectly for me. I'd buy it tomorrow if it will work with my
current shifting mechanism.

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 19 Feb 2006 13:40:01 -0800, "Chris Nelson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
>have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier.

In the most cases, if you don't tell the rider about 'gaps' they don't
notice anything. On paper, i'm a gearhead and I've got a bunch of
cassettes. Unless I look at which is put on, I don't notice whether
there is a 16t or 18t cog. I don't have any 11t and only sometimes
can tell whether the smallest cog is a 12 or 13. My bicycles have
52/36 and 50/34 chainrings.

When I get gapped on a ride, it's my riding ability and not the gears.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> >
> > Need a new BB if you choose the Centaur-111mm spindle. The Chorus
> > compact uses the same BB you now have(102mm). Need a crank puller, and
> > then a 8mm allen and torque wrench to reinstall the Chorus
> > compact(really nice BTW-in spite of the $) Lower the FD with a 5mm
> > allen and adjust and go ride. If tyou swap the BB to a AC-H, need a
> > tool for the Record BB and then a tool for the AC-H. If you use the $60
> > Centaur, triple bearing , same tool as for Record/Chorus.
>
> I'd rather spend less and get the different cogset if my current rear
> derailleur can go to 29. How can I determine if it will?

It will. We put 13-29 onto 'short' cage rear derailleurs all the time.
>
> Like you said in this thread elsewhere, the 53/11 combo isn't useful to
> me. I doubt I've ever gone any higher than the equivalent of maybe a
> 50/13 and then only to try it.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Russell, Paul,
>
> The considerable advantages of compact cranks are that with two
> chainrings, you're able to:
> 1-Get a large variety of gearings (large differential between lowest &
> highest gear)
> 2-Have gears that are far more practical for average people (and still
> allow me to keep up with the fast group rides - who really needs a 53?)
> 3-Have a cassette with minimal gaps - for optimum power production (I
> didn't realize the benefits until I installed mine)
>
> I've read the plugs and defenses for the triples, but with my 34
> chainring and largest cog of 23, I can climb the steepest (and it's
> steep!) of my favorite climb. Whenever I get to climb the Alpe D'Huez,
> I'll bring a 12-27 cassette (or higher) and that'll allow me to grind
> up any mountain, so there's more to considering compact cranks, than
> just the lowest gear that you need. I think the value of the triples
> lies really for those with low power to weight ratio (low power or high
> weight - e.g. touring).
>
> Josh

I suggest you learn Excel and create a gear inches spreadsheet. The
person in this post has a 53-39 crank and 11-23 10 speed cassette. By
changing the cassette to 13-26 and staying with the 53-39 crank, he
gets mor or less the same gears as the compact lovers would get with a
50-34 crank and his 11-23 cassette. Except you would get an extra 120"
gear (ha ha) with the compact setup. Don't compact lovers realize a
53x13 is actually a lower/easier gear than a 50x12? Compact lovers
always talk about how wonderful it is to have a smaller big chainring
without realizing its equivalent to changing the cog in back by just
one tooth. The compact setup also would not give you as many useful
consecutive cogs as a new cassette because its consecutive cogs start
at unusable high gear inches (120"). For this person, and the vast,
vast majority, getting a bigger cogset in back is the best method for
getting more useful and lower gears. Or for low gears, get a triple
crankset and change the inner ring to a 26 or 24 and/or get a big cog
in back.

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Chris Nelson wrote:
> > Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
> > have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier. There are
> > hard to find "junior cogsets" where the smallest cog is like a 14, 15
> > or 16. If you can find one of these you will have smaller gaps. With a
> > 53 up front, you will still have a tall enough gear. You can also fit a
> > 38 up front which will help a little.
> >
> > I had a similar situation, but hills are not as big. I ended up buying
> > new chainrings for the front. The smallest I could get was a 38 for a
> > standard crank, so I went 46/38 in front and 13-25 in back. I now have
> > smaller gaps and minimal cross chaining for the type of riding I do.
> > And I still never use my biggest gear because I coast on the downhills.
> >
> I asked Peter about my rear derailleur because a friend of mine who
> knows bikes well said my rear one will not handle any cogset which goes
> up to 29.

I use a short cage Chorus rear derailleur with a 28 cog on a 9 speed
setup. It would handle a 29 large cog easy enough.

As for low gears, a new compact crank set with 50-34 chainrings and
your current 11-23 cassette is the same low gear as your current 53-39
chainrings and a new 13-26 cassette. And this low gear (39x26 or
34x23) is only 1 gear lower than what you have now. You need the 13-29
cassette to get an appreciably lower gear.

As for gaps, the 13-26 cassette is 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26. No
gaps in there. Your 11-23 cassette is 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23.
Tiny gap without the 18 cog and the 11-12-13 are too high to be useful
unless you are using a 44 big chainring. The 13-29 cassette is
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29. Tiny gap without the 18 cog. But for
hilly/mountainous terrain having the 3 tooth jumps in the 23-26-29
might be useful to allow you to shift back and forth as the pitch
varies a little bit.

Campagnolo does not make the 29 cog with anything but the 13-29 10
speed cassette. Only 10 speed 14 tooth cogset is the 14-23.

Someone else mentioned putting a 38 tooth chainring on the front.
Campagnolo uses 135mm bcd and only accepts a 39 tooth ring as the
lowest. No 38.

>
> I agree with you that a set which starts at 14-16 and goes to 29 will
> work perfectly for me. I'd buy it tomorrow if it will work with my
> current shifting mechanism.

 

[Paul Cassel]

[email protected] wrote:
> Paul Cassel wrote:
>> Chris Nelson wrote:
>>> Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
>>> have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier. There are
>>> hard to find "junior cogsets" where the smallest cog is like a 14, 15
>>> or 16. If you can find one of these you will have smaller gaps. With a
>>> 53 up front, you will still have a tall enough gear. You can also fit a
>>> 38 up front which will help a little.
>>>
>>> I had a similar situation, but hills are not as big. I ended up buying
>>> new chainrings for the front. The smallest I could get was a 38 for a
>>> standard crank, so I went 46/38 in front and 13-25 in back. I now have
>>> smaller gaps and minimal cross chaining for the type of riding I do.
>>> And I still never use my biggest gear because I coast on the downhills.
>>>
>> I asked Peter about my rear derailleur because a friend of mine who
>> knows bikes well said my rear one will not handle any cogset which goes
>> up to 29.
>
> I use a short cage Chorus rear derailleur with a 28 cog on a 9 speed
> setup. It would handle a 29 large cog easy enough.
>
> As for low gears, a new compact crank set with 50-34 chainrings and
> your current 11-23 cassette is the same low gear as your current 53-39
> chainrings and a new 13-26 cassette. And this low gear (39x26 or
> 34x23) is only 1 gear lower than what you have now. You need the 13-29
> cassette to get an appreciably lower gear.
>
> As for gaps, the 13-26 cassette is 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26. No
> gaps in there. Your 11-23 cassette is 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23.
> Tiny gap without the 18 cog and the 11-12-13 are too high to be useful
> unless you are using a 44 big chainring. The 13-29 cassette is
> 13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29. Tiny gap without the 18 cog. But for
> hilly/mountainous terrain having the 3 tooth jumps in the 23-26-29
> might be useful to allow you to shift back and forth as the pitch
> varies a little bit.
>
> Campagnolo does not make the 29 cog with anything but the 13-29 10
> speed cassette. Only 10 speed 14 tooth cogset is the 14-23.
>
> Someone else mentioned putting a 38 tooth chainring on the front.
> Campagnolo uses 135mm bcd and only accepts a 39 tooth ring as the
> lowest. No 38.
>
Thanks. I'll go shopping for a 13-29 cogset since both you and Peter say
that my current setup can handle this w/o any serious mods. That's a
much better solution than a new crankset. The loss of the 11 isn't a
loss as I don't envision using it ever. If I did think so and spin out
the 13, I'll just glide along.

I'm not exactly trying out for the Tour of Italy here. I'm just a fred
(I learned I'm a fred two days ago when a spiffy looking guy said I was
due to my non spiffy outfit) out enjoying the ride.

-paul

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2006 13:40:01 -0800, "Chris Nelson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
> >have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier.
>
> In the most cases, if you don't tell the rider about 'gaps' they don't
> notice anything. On paper, i'm a gearhead and I've got a bunch of
> cassettes. Unless I look at which is put on, I don't notice whether
> there is a 16t or 18t cog. I don't have any 11t and only sometimes
> can tell whether the smallest cog is a 12 or 13. My bicycles have
> 52/36 and 50/34 chainrings.
>
> When I get gapped on a ride, it's my riding ability and not the gears.

I notice gaps. I had a shop install a
13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 cassette. After a couple weeks
I noticed that I was not getting the effect I wanted. I
took the cassette off, wiped it and saw that it was
12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23. The 18 tooth cog was missing,
and I noticed.

--
Michael Press

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Russell, Paul,
> >
> > The considerable advantages of compact cranks are that with two
> > chainrings, you're able to:
> > 1-Get a large variety of gearings (large differential between lowest &
> > highest gear)
> > 2-Have gears that are far more practical for average people (and still
> > allow me to keep up with the fast group rides - who really needs a 53?)
> > 3-Have a cassette with minimal gaps - for optimum power production (I
> > didn't realize the benefits until I installed mine)
> >
> > I've read the plugs and defenses for the triples, but with my 34
> > chainring and largest cog of 23, I can climb the steepest (and it's
> > steep!) of my favorite climb. Whenever I get to climb the Alpe D'Huez,
> > I'll bring a 12-27 cassette (or higher) and that'll allow me to grind
> > up any mountain, so there's more to considering compact cranks, than
> > just the lowest gear that you need. I think the value of the triples
> > lies really for those with low power to weight ratio (low power or high
> > weight - e.g. touring).
> >
> > Josh
>
> I suggest you learn Excel and create a gear inches spreadsheet. The
> person in this post has a 53-39 crank and 11-23 10 speed cassette. By
> changing the cassette to 13-26 and staying with the 53-39 crank, he
> gets mor or less the same gears as the compact lovers would get with a
> 50-34 crank and his 11-23 cassette.


Agreed, if all you need or want is a 40" low ( either 39x26 or 34x23
yield this) changing from a standard double (38/39T inner) to a compact
double (34T inner) is a big waste of money, IMO. (Unless, of course,
you want a Compact Double because it's "New" and "Cool")



Except you would get an extra 120"
> gear (ha ha) with the compact setup. Don't compact lovers realize a
> 53x13 is actually a lower/easier gear than a 50x12? Compact lovers
> always talk about how wonderful it is to have a smaller big chainring
> without realizing its equivalent to changing the cog in back by just
> one tooth. The compact setup also would not give you as many useful
> consecutive cogs as a new cassette because its consecutive cogs start
> at unusable high gear inches (120"). For this person, and the vast,
> vast majority, getting a bigger cogset in back is the best method for
> getting more useful and lower gears. Or for low gears, get a triple
> crankset and change the inner ring to a 26 or 24 and/or get a big cog
> in back.

 

[Drew Eckhardt]

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 19 Feb 2006 13:40:01 -0800, "Chris Nelson" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
>>have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier.
>
>In the most cases, if you don't tell the rider about 'gaps' they don't
>notice anything.

I notice the wide gear spacing on the matching comfort bikes my wife and
I got, but don't expect a $250 bike to be anywhere near perfect.

I notice a missing 16 or 18 cog on my road bike - 50 x 18 and 40 x 16 were
my favorites that wore out first and forced the upgrade to 9 speeds when
Campy cancelled my beloved 13-21.

While the switch to a 12-23 had no noticeable effect on my speed, I spent the
money to have the components of my choice hung on the frame of my choice to
get what I found most enjoyable.

>When I get gapped on a ride, it's my riding ability and not the gears.

Irrelevant. A nice road bike is a relatively affordable toy (less than
a daily cup of coffee over 10 years) that exists soly for its owner's
pleasure. Whatever floats your boat.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:40:01 -0800, Chris Nelson wrote:

> Changing the cogset will be the least expensive solution but you will
> have bigger gaps in your gearing as was pointed out earlier. There are
> hard to find "junior cogsets" where the smallest cog is like a 14, 15
> or 16. If you can find one of these you will have smaller gaps. With a
> 53 up front, you will still have a tall enough gear. You can also fit a
> 38 up front which will help a little.

Finding a junior cassette will be hard, and not so cheap. Cranks are only
expensive if you insist on getting something specifically called "compact
road". Any touring cranks, or mountain-bike cranks will work fine. If
you don't want to use the granny, take it off. It'll then help your
chainline to use a shorter bottom-bracket than is recommended. I use a
Sugino 94/56 5-arm crank with a 46/30 set of rings. It called for a 113mm
bottom bracket, but I use a 107 and the chainline is good.
For touring I can put the 22 on and have really, really low gears.

For me, the 46/30 with a 12-23 cassette is just about perfect. It may
seem like the biggest gear is too small, but it's the same as a 52/14,
which is what I used to race with as my biggest gear. If I am going too
fast to spin, then I am going downhill. I can relax and enjoy the descent.

It is nice to have the low gears for the hills, and it is nice to have
lots of gears in between.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

 

[SYJ]

David L. Johnson wrote:
---snip---
>Cranks are only
> expensive if you insist on getting something specifically called "compact
> road".
---/snip---

And not necessarily then. I just picked up a brand new Truvativ Rouler
50/36 with the pipe-style BB off e-bay for 99 bones.

SYJ

 

[John Thompson]

On 2006-02-22, SYJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> ---snip---
>>Cranks are only
>> expensive if you insist on getting something specifically called "compact
>> road".
> ---/snip---

> And not necessarily then. I just picked up a brand new Truvativ Rouler
> 50/36 with the pipe-style BB off e-bay for 99 bones.

Or just dig out that old TA Cyclotouriste or Stronglight 99 from your
dusty old parts bin and put the proper rings on that.

--

John "works for me" ([email protected])