Why is Shimano dragging their feet on a DA compact?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by friedmikey, Aug 3, 2006.

  1. Albert 50

    Albert 50 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    For me it does:)
     


  2. lks

    lks New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  3. lks

    lks New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. friedmikey

    friedmikey New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  6. DiabloScott

    DiabloScott New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.

    Of course, even cheaper would be to go to an MTB cassette and RD but that won't work with 10 speed shifters (or Campy).
     
  7. gclark8

    gclark8 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,522
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think we must look at different riding styles. My last years daily commute required 42t chainring and a 13-23 cassette, little or no use of the left shifter.

    This year, my friends want to ride up to the pub for brekky, the best ride was the GFs MTB+slicks with a 38t chainring and 11-28 cassette.

    As one cannont be seen on a purple ladies bike twice so how do you compromise to ride the road bike? Answer, Compact. Yesterday I fitted a 36 tooth to the Tri bike, Wheeler, this will give me a "conversational" gearing, where I can use one chainring and a 12-25 cassette and chat to the guys there and back. What if I have to commute? Well, the 42t is still there and I can suffer the gaps for one or two rides.

    Yes there are still uses for triples, so if you dont use the 30t, just fit the chanrings you need for the job, 36/42/53.... :)



    For Perth viewers, I have for sale a new 38t inner chainring for a compact double 110 pcd for $45. (supplied in errror)
     
  8. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    That is probably true.

    As I said before I started ranting, a compact crank can make sense for some terrain and fitness levels.

    Even though I hope I will be truthful enough with myself when the time come to use a triple, the reality is that vanity will probably cause me to go to a compact. Maybe the best I can hope for is not to make excuses. That is what gets me riled up about the marketing that surrounds them.

    I realize that bike shops are going to lose sales if their salesmen say, "Oh, dude. That normal gearing is not for you. You are fifty years old, fifty pounds overweight, and over the hill. You need a compact crank." But that does not mean you have to B.S. the customers with tales of some heroic victory by a pro on a compact. What is wrong with simply saying stating that a woman who weighs fifty pounds less than her husband, generates a lot less power, and would probably be happier with lower gearing.

    Bike shops are really pushing these things. Several people I know who have just gotten into the sport or are upgrading have gone to bike shops and almost had to beat the salesmen off with a stick to prevent getting stuck with a compact crank. And these are people who are in good shape. After visiting a shop they come back to me and ask if I am sure they don't need a compact. All I can say is, "You run marathons. You are probably in better cardio shape than I am. Once you get over the initial issues with muscular endurance, you will not have a problem."
     
  9. tehpr3chr

    tehpr3chr New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    for those of you who are thinking the 1200 usd price tag on that crank is unlikely, lets just say i wish it were that cheap.... http://planocycling.com/itemdetails.cfm?ID=3011 .....remember that it's a powermeter! and as far as the compact thing goes, i haven't read 100% of replies, but i haven't seen that rider height has a lot to do with things...i'm 6'2", which means my legs don't really like spinning as fast as a guy that's 5'10"...i have a 53/39 crank and 25 cassette i run 100% of the time..AND I LIVE IN NORTHEAST GEORGIA!!!
     
  10. lks

    lks New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. aacliment

    aacliment New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because we believe our bikes and equipment to be part of who we are...and we are passionate about that...;)
     
  12. lks

    lks New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
Loading...
Loading...