What would be the difference between a D-A compact and the present one? Go to competitivecyclist.com and read how much difference they have found. How much of a difference do you think there would be?friedmikey said:I was just browsing around competitivecyclist.com, and I came across the SRM Dura-Ace Compact Powermeter crankset. Somebody else had to do it for them! My question is, just what is going on in the heads of the marketing department over at Shimano? It's pretty obvious that the compact thing is not a passing fad. What on earth are they waiting for? Drop that DA compact on us already!
If a little overlap is good, then why wouldn't you ride a Compact 25 x 34, with only 2 teeth cassette shift jumps, instead of a Std. crankset with a 29 x 39 and it's 3 teeth cassette shift jumps, when both ratios are essentially identicle? Plus, the compact doesn't require a medium cage rear derailleur or as high a cadence, in this comparison, when you descend.Bro Deal said:Most pros rarely use anything lower than a 39-25. The exceptions are are some stages in the Giro and Vuelta that include climbs that are far steeper than anything in the TdF. In fact in this year's Giro pros and team managers complained about the steepness of a few Giro climbs, saying that anything that required more than a 39-25 was not suitable for bike racing.
There is the odd pro like Bobby Julich who seems to use a compact crank quite a bit. Maybe he has a sponsorship deal with FSA.
One of the disadvantages of a compact is that there is very little gear overlap, which means that on certain terrain you have to shift back forth between the chainrings a lot. That is why some gear overlap is a good thing.
What present one? Are you referring to the non-group FC-R700 compact crank that's somewhere around an Ultegra level? I've got it. It's currently pulling singlespeed duty on my latest bike. Really, the only difference from DA is aesthetics and weight. I'm a sucker of a consumer that wants nothing but the best, so I want DA. Or were you asking what's the difference between compact and non-compact? I don't think so, since you already seem to be a supporter of compact.lks said:What would be the difference between a D-A compact and the present one? Go to competitivecyclist.com and read how much difference they have found. How much of a difference do you think there would be?
I don't use a compact because I don't need a compact. A 34 tooth chainring leads to really freaking low gears on a 12-25 cassette. On some terrain it would make the little chainring almost useless.lks said:If a little overlap is good, then why wouldn't you ride a Compact 25 x 34, with only 2 teeth cassette shift jumps, instead of a Std. crankset with a 29 x 39 and it's 3 teeth cassette shift jumps, when both ratios are essentially identicle? Plus, the compact doesn't require a medium cage rear derailleur or as high a cadence, in this comparison, when you descend.
Bro Deal said:There will probably come a time when a 53x39 no longer makes sense for me. I just hope that when that time comes I am honest enough to say straight out that I am weak, out of shape, past it, or simply no longer have enough time to train. If I am really honest with myself, I'll use a triple.
That is probably true.DiabloScott said:That ideology might be fine for new bike componentry, but if someone is looking at retrofitting an existing bike for lower gears, he/she is comparing $100 - $300 for a new crank and BB vs. the cost of new shifters, FD, BB, crank and probably RD... probably 2 to 3 times the cost.
It appears you ride a 12-25 x 39-53. That is what I rode before the Compact. But a Compact 34-50 with a 11-23 cassette gives you a HIGHER top gear and a slighhtly LOWER low gear. In this comparison, it's a wash for most riders considering the cost to switch. But when you need to gear lower, you can put your 12-25 on a compact and get the equavelent of having to put a heavy pie plate size 29t, with a longer derailleur cage, on your 39-53. Now you can't go lower without going to a triple, but the compact owner can. In fact, he can get gearing close enough to a triple, without it's greater shifting complexity, to avoid it. Why get emotional over pieces of steel? They are like boots, they either fit and do the job, or they don't.Bro Deal said:I don't use a compact because I don't need a compact. A 34 tooth chainring leads to really freaking low gears on a 12-25 cassette. On some terrain it would make the little chainring almost useless.
The only thing a compact crank does is shift the gear ratios down. Depending on your fitness and the terrain you ride, that might be a good thing--or it might be a bad thing. If your cruising gears are put in between the two rings and you find that you spend a lot of time in cross gears then it is a bad thing.
For the most part money is better spent on a couple of extra and different cassettes, a chain whip, a lockring tool, and a large wrench than on a compact crank. Change your cassette to match the terrain rather than trying to find one setup that does everything.
When I am in a cynical mood about the cycling industry, I tend to think of compacts like this:
Compact cranks are the cycling equivalent of a combover. There have been a huge number of middle aged yuppies who have entered the sport. Being yuppies they have to buy the best equipment. Even though they have never raced and never will race, they want to look like racers. Only problem is that they have spent the last twenty years eating Doritos while watching football. They are in really bad shape. No problem, the industry saw the opportunity and acted. At first they offered "racing triples," which is a contradiction in terms, much like a "racing Yugo." That didn't really work. No matter what they were called, they were still a triple and no self respecting poser wanted to be mistaken for a tourist or, even worse, a fred.
The compact crank was the next solution. This has been marketed with much talk about pros like Tyler Hamilton using a compact. In that way they consumer can still pretend that they are using the same gear as the professionals even though the pros can climb anything except the Angliru with a 39x25. Merckx did his TdF climbing with a 42x21, which just goes to show how stupid it is base purchases on what the pros use.
There will probably come a time when a 53x39 no longer makes sense for me. I just hope that when that time comes I am honest enough to say straight out that I am weak, out of shape, past it, or simply no longer have enough time to train. If I am really honest with myself, I'll use a triple.
Because we believe our bikes and equipment to be part of who we are...and we are passionate about that...lks said:Why get emotional over pieces of steel?
I doubt Tdf riders used a 13-29 x 39-53, because Campy stated they provided Compact cranksets for the mountain stages. The above gearing would require a 171 rpm cadence on their 55mph decents and they wouldn't have any lower gear than a 12-25, with short cage, and a 34-50 Compact crankset.gclark8 said:I don't want to start a war but some of the Campag TdF riders has this: From: http://www.racycles.com/com/catalog/campagnolo_record_sprockets_2935358.htm
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.