Fifty Plus (50+) - Standard vs. Compact crank set

A little background before my question. I ride with a standard crank set (53-39) and a 10 speed Dura Ace cog set of 13x25. On a flat road, riding solo, I can do about 24-27 mph. One of the club members I respect and get advice from (a former racer at a high level) rides with a compact crank and suggested I consider it. We talked about gearing and chain inches and such and I've been mulling it over. Here's my question. Does it really matter if I mix and match cogs to either a standard or compact? Can't I achieve the gearing I need with either? One of the reasons I ask this is because changing out to a compact can be pretty costly and if I can get the same result with new cogs for the standard, why bother?

You are correct. No reason to change unless you are wanting much easier gears or you want to expand your gearing. If you can hold 24 mph on flats solo it sounds like you can handle a 53.

Went out and counted cog teeth. Oops. Turns out the LBS said they were going to install a 25x13 but the actual count is 25x12! At this point I can spin that 39x25 fairly well when climbing thanks to a 12 lb. weight loss this season. But, I think I will go to a 13 or 14 just cause it allows me to spin with the rpms I like. I like to stay in the 90-100 rpm range and actually hit 110 rpm yesterday on a 30 mi. ride. That was a high for me.

I run standards or 52/39/30 triples on all my bikes, and I own a compact for one of them.

A compact isn't going to do a thing for you at the speeds and cadences you're talking about. Compacts give you lower gears for climbing. If that's not a problem, then you don't need a compact.

I absolutely detest compacts in 51 weeks of my usual cycling. My typical cruising speeds are in the 18-21 mph range, which makes me cross-chained in either ring. Worse, it means a front shift combined with four rear shifts when I go faster or slower. With my standard, my typical cruising speeds fall right in the sweet spot of my preferred 12-23 cassette, and I have plenty of cassette left over for faster or slower speeds.

As for climbing, I've worked long and hard and consistently on the HTFU part of it and can outclimb almost everyone I've come across on our local terrain. It was early season, but once, this old man on a standard left a racer on a compact puking on a climb. The point is that HTFU trumps gears.

In the 52nd week of the year--next week, as it happens--I ride the Highlander Cycle Tour (http://highlandercycletour.com/), billed as the toughest century in the east, with up to 11,000 feet of climbing. Although I ride the metric route with only 7,500 feet of climbing. For that, I own a compact and 12-27 cassette. I'll install them on Wednesday the 5th, and remove them on Sunday the 9th.

^^^^^^
Rochester is not level ground, my son went to school at Geneseo and I rode with him twice. He's a climber and leaves others in the dust, but then he's only 21.

It's impressive that @ 50+ you can climb so well and one day I hope to maybe keep you in sight. But until then, i'll ride my compact with a 11-28.

And yes... I need to HTFU. I'm working on it. ;)

Bruce, the answer is that unless you need the gears for climbing, I can't see why you would move away from the standard chainset. If you do need the gears for climbing, then a compact (or a triple) might be the way to go. The triple would bump the costs up still more, though.

When I came back to cycling I more or less defaulted to a compact on the advice of a friend who a) knew how out of shape I was and b) rightly wanted my aged knees to spin rather than mash. I currently have two compact set-ups - a 50-36 on the Giant TCR that I race, with a 12-25 cassette, and a 50-34 with a 12-27 on the other road bike (currently in bits). Obviously I can swap the wheels/casstettes between bikes easily enough. Of the compacts, I much prefer the 50-36. There's something about the 16-tooth drop on the 50-34 that just makes it more difficult to find the right gear when shifting up front, and gives rise to a lot of double-shifting. YMMV.

At some point I will abandon the compact on the race bike and revert to a standard, and save the other bike with a compact for long days in the hills. Were I starting again from scratch, I'd have one with a standard crank and one with a triple, because I like the fact that a triple can give you a big range while retaining nice tight ratios at the back.

And one other thing. If you can crank along at >24mph, why aren't you racing?

And one other thing. If you can crank along at >24mph, why aren't you racing?

I have thought about it. But only with regard to TTs. My club is going to have one next month and I'll probably give it a go.

Today I'm going to go out to find a level piece of road at least a mile long and see how fast I can spin the pedals in that 53x12. Never really paid attention to that before. It will be an experiment.

Today I'm going to go out to find a level piece of road at least a mile long and see how fast I can spin the pedals in that 53x12. Never really paid attention to that before. It will be an experiment.

53/12 is a bigger gear than Eddy Merckx used to ride on the road. Thirteen was as small as it got, then. He seemed to do OK.

tsl nailed it.

The key criteria in the decision is whether your typical riding causes a lot of chainring shifting. It's a pita to always be right at the edge in between the big ring and the small ring. I use a 53-39 because of that, and because otherwise I'd spin out on fast stretches. I swap cassettes a lot, training on a wide range 12-28, and racing on 12-23, 12-25, or 11-25 depending on the terrain.

And since you are thinking about doing TTs, be aware that you will want the tallest gearing you can get for that. Many people go with a 54 chainring and an 11-xx cassette. I got the 11-25 specifically due to the needs of TTs, and am considering boosting my big ring to a 54. On a TT bike, if there is a tailwind or any sort elevation drop, you are well into the 30's, and many people use a lower cadence for TTs. You don't want to run out of gears on a TT, since maintaining a steady cadence is considered beneficial.

53/12 is a bigger gear than Eddy Merckx used to ride on the road. Thirteen was as small as it got, then. He seemed to do OK.

Not everyone rides like Eddy Merckx, just like not everyone rides like Lance Armstrong or Jan Ulrich. We all have a cadence that works for us as individuals which is why my gearing works for me and may not work well for you. Gearing is an individual thing that should take into account the riders cadence, strength (muscle and cardio) and what kind of terrain they are riding on not what anyone else is doing.

Not everyone rides like Eddy Merckx, just like not everyone rides like Lance Armstrong or Jan Ulrich. We all have a cadence that works for us as individuals which is why my gearing works for me and may not work well for you. Gearing is an individual thing that should take into account the riders cadence, strength (muscle and cardio) and what kind of terrain they are riding on not what anyone else is doing.

However, we all share some basic physiology, and we all must abide by physics. The result is that competitive cyclists have cadences that fall within a fairly narrow range, and that range is generally higher than the range of non-competitive cyclists. Cyclists that want to be competitive (and I realize not everyone does) see their cadence gradually increase along with their skill and fitness. One of the quick and easy ways of knowing whether someone you meet on a ride is going to keep up is to evaluate their cadence. There is the occasional grinder that is also fast/strong, but it is rare.

However, we all share some basic physiology, and we all must abide by physics. The result is that competitive cyclists have cadences that fall within a fairly narrow range, and that range is generally higher than the range of non-competitive cyclists. Cyclists that want to be competitive (and I realize not everyone does) see their cadence gradually increase along with their skill and fitness. One of the quick and easy ways of knowing whether someone you meet on a ride is going to keep up is to evaluate their cadence. There is the occasional grinder that is also fast/strong, but it is rare.

Hmm, I agree, but I think you may be responding to one of those rarities. Homeyba is plenty strong, by all accounts, and likes to push a big gear.

Actually, my Merckx reply was meant to be flippant. I don't know what gears he pushed in TTs. You're certainly right about needing tallish gears for the downhills, though, it's quite difficult to keep the power on as the road slopes downwards.

Well, I used to ride a 13-24 with a 53/39. I could hit 38 mph on the flat in a 53/13 and then I was starting to spin out a bit. Excepting down hills, I don't think that one is going to use any of the small cogs very often unless you have a really low cadence.

Hmm, I agree, but I think you may be responding to one of those rarities. Homeyba is plenty strong, by all accounts, and likes to push a big gear.

Actually, my Merckx reply was meant to be flippant. I don't know what gears he pushed in TTs. You're certainly right about needing tallish gears for the downhills, though, it's quite difficult to keep the power on as the road slopes downwards.

I have a friend, built like linebacker, who we like to say "flattens the hills" rather than climbing them, and he does so at a really low cadence. His torque is off the charts, and hanging with him on the flats is truly challenging.

A little background before my question. I ride with a standard crank set (53-39) and a 10 speed Dura Ace cog set of 13x25. On a flat road, riding solo, I can do about 24-27 mph. One of the club members I respect and get advice from (a former racer at a high level) rides with a compact crank and suggested I consider it. We talked about gearing and chain inches and such and I've been mulling it over. Here's my question. Does it really matter if I mix and match cogs to either a standard or compact? Can't I achieve the gearing I need with either? One of the reasons I ask this is because changing out to a compact can be pretty costly and if I can get the same result with new cogs for the standard, why bother?

I have both but in my case I prefer the compact for all around riding club rides and short road races with some climbing. But then that might be because I like tripples only slightly less than TSL likes compacts. For long flat or rodes with rollers my road doubble works fine. With today's 10 speed cassettes you can get some of the same gearing from the road crank as the compact. Looking at Saint Sheldon's gear chart you will see a 52x12 at 100 rpm and a 170 crank, I have short legs, gets you 33.9 MPH. Drop into a 50x11 and you get 35.5 at the same rpm. I believe you can get a 11x28 that will work with a road crank but I could never spin a 52x11 and I can just bairly hit 100 rpm with a 52x12 on the flats. That is just me however.

My road crank is matched to a Dura Ace STI, cranks and derailleurs. My compact is matched to SRAM Red. But I ride the compact about twice as much as the road crank because I can simply slip a climbing wheel and cassette on it for long climbs. I often change wheel sets depending on the ride we will be doing. Just my opinion however.

... One of the quick and easy ways of knowing whether someone you meet on a ride is going to keep up is to evaluate their cadence. There is the occasional grinder that is also fast/strong, but it is rare.

I'd probably qualify as one of those but in truth my cadence is all over the place depending on what I'm doing. I run pretty big gears sometimes (60/11) but not all the time. It just depends on what I'm doing. That's why I have a box of chainrings and cassettes that I liberally swap in and out depending on the event that I'm doing. If you show up at an ultra-distance race, I'm not too unusual there. There is some science that says the most efficient cadence is 60rpm+/-. You see a lot of long distance racers run big gears so that we can put it in that big gear and actually recover on the bike. I can put it in that big gear and cruise at 25+mph across Kansas but when I'm climbing in the Rockies or Appalachians I prefer to spin at a much higher cadence.

53/12 is a bigger gear than Eddy Merckx used to ride on the road. Thirteen was as small as it got, then. He seemed to do OK.

I'm going to tell all my friends that I was compared to Eddy Merckx! :)

I'd probably qualify as one of those but in truth my cadence is all over the place depending on what I'm doing. I run pretty big gears sometimes (60/11) but not all the time. It just depends on what I'm doing. That's why I have a box of chainrings and cassettes that I liberally swap in and out depending on the event that I'm doing. If you show up at an ultra-distance race, I'm not too unusual there. There is some science that says the most efficient cadence is 60rpm+/-. You see a lot of long distance racers run big gears so that we can put it in that big gear and actually recover on the bike. I can put it in that big gear and cruise at 25+mph across Kansas but when I'm climbing in the Rockies or Appalachians I prefer to spin at a much higher cadence.

From the reading and listening I've done, I think it depends on how much torque is involved. As a general rule, higher torque limits the reps you can do, hence the benefit in spinning at higher rev's, and lower torque, to generate the same power output. But there is also the theory that "tired muscles are slow muscles", and adherents to that advocate slowing cadence over the course of a long hard ride. Yet another factor is that many of us recover best by spinning at low torque. In fact, a study I read showed that to be the single best method of recovery they tested, beating ice baths and compresses. But it was at ~80w, which is really low power. Personally, I'm going to be triple digits when the power requirement isn't too extreme, and in the mid 90's if I want to maximize my power. I take about 10rpm off when I'm OTS.

From the reading and listening I've done...

I'm going to have to give you a better answer when I get home from work but I will say that I tried to train myself to spin a number of years ago. I can tell you there is no way I can recover on the bike with a triple digit cadence. I did get to where I can comfortably spin at 90rpm but as soon as I got in a race and got tired, I'd revert back to a slower cadence. Sometimes that'd be 150 miles or 300 miles into a race but it always happened. Now I don't really worry too much about specifically where my cadence is. I vary it depending on how I'm feeling and what I'm doing.

Boy, I'm sure glad I don't race and don't have to worry about all those different cassettes. However, I did get to (and held) 24.8 mph for just over a mile this morning trying to outrun the rain (which I failed to do). That was on a compact at a 50/14 gearing and around 85 rpm. I don't seem to last very long at higher rpms and do much better at cadences of upper 70's to mid 80's.

If you need slightly easier gears going to a compact crank will allow you to get that and keep a bit tighter range between gears on the cassette. Often people, myself included, use a compact with a wide range cassette which can make the jump between gears a bit too much in some cases. Ideally we could all have the perfect selection of gearing with close ratios covering the full range required (and not use a triple which is clunky IMO). However, until they make a 15 speed cassette I don't think that will be possible. So pick what works best.

So today I went driving around my town (Lebanon, CT) to look for a flat piece of road approx. 1/2 mi. long. The idea is to experiment with different gear combos to see how many rpms I can manage in each. I actually drove around with a 4' level and found a road with about .4 mi. of "relatively" level roadway. As soon as I can I will try it both ways to see how fast I can do it and to see what my max rpms in each combo might be. I feel like I'm doing a science project.

I don't seem to last very long at higher rpms and do much better at cadences of upper 70's to mid 80's.

It takes practice/training to get a cadence up.


So today I went driving around my town (Lebanon, CT) to look for a flat piece of road approx. 1/2 mi. long. The idea is to experiment with different gear combos to see how many rpms I can manage in each. I actually drove around with a 4' level and found a road with about .4 mi. of "relatively" level roadway. As soon as I can I will try it both ways to see how fast I can do it and to see what my max rpms in each combo might be. I feel like I'm doing a science project.

Sounds fun!

There is some science that says the most efficient cadence is 60rpm+/-. You see a lot of long distance racers run big gears so that we can put it in that big gear and actually recover on the bike.

From what I have read, 60rpm is roughly where you are most efficient in terms of generating a given amount of power for the least possible amount of oxygen burned. In other words, it is the cadence at which you are placing the least strain on your cardiovascular system. It therefore makes sense that you recover on the bike at that cadence, but the cost must be potential fatigue in the legs.

So I finally went out and did my experiment today. To recap a bit....I'm trying to determine whether my 53x39 crankset and 25x12 (10 cog Dura Ace) are appropriate for my age (66). weight (185 lbs) and fitness level.

I went out with a 4' level and found a piece of road that is relatively flat. I'm guessing it's 0.5% up or down. This road is 6 mi. from my house so that was my warmup. All runs were done on the hoods and not in the drops. The first run I did was both ways on the road in 53x12. And the result is......26 mph on what I assume is the down slope at 76 rpms and 21.8 mph at 63 rpms on the upgrade. There was a noticeable breeze coming directly from the side. Nothing problematic but noticeable. I then ran in different cogs on the down slope only.

53x13......26.5 mph@83 rpm
53x14......27.0 mph@90 rpm
53x15......27.0 mph@98 rpm

My take away from this is that I probably don't need the 53x12 and 53x13. Maybe I don't even need the 53x14 for the riding I do. Just wondering if anyone has any insights or opinions about this. I should mention that sitting and spinning up to 110 rpm is not a problem for me.

53x13......26.5 mph@83 rpm
53x14......27 mph@90 rpm
53x15......27 mph@98 rpm

My take away from this is that I probably don't need the 53x12 and 53x13. Maybe I don't even need the 53x14 for the riding I do. Just wondering if anyone has any insights or opinions about this.

I don't know about insights, but as usual I have plenty of opinions.

First of all, you say this road was close to flat. So the downhill gradient was only very shallow. In which case I am not at all surprised that you found the 53x14 or 15 the most suitable gears. I wouldn't expect to be in my highest gears in those circumstances unless I was flat-out sprinting.

But I don't think that justifies the conclusion that you don't need the 53x12. Or, to be more precise, you may not need it but that doesn't mean it isn't worth having. You'll go down steeper slopes than this, and on those it may be useful. In particular, you mentioned an interest in time-trialling. Were you to pursue that interest, you'd definitely want a gear that would allow you to continue putting a lot of power down when going down a moderate hill.

And really, what is the downside of having the 53x12? Unless you are having trouble with the hills in your 39x25, why would you change? And even if you changed, you could go to a 12-27 or a 12-28. From your account, it isn't clear what problem needs solving, here.

I'm a masher, I love riding in the 53t ring, I don't like to go to the smaller ring and only use it on real long hills (never the steep ones).

A year ago I bought a bike with a compact double, it's taken me 11 months to get used to the gearing. Some things are so strange like sitting all the way up a hill, coming down a hill and running out of gears way before I want to and keeping my cadence in the high 80s or mid 90s for the whole ride.

Frame and "ride" aside, I have learned to appreciate the compact double. Long hills are a treat and muscle recovery is non existent. Having said that, I still enjoy mashing up a steep hill and the speed I get out of the big double.

From your account, it isn't clear what problem needs solving, here.

Agreed.

Using Sheldon Brown's gear calculator (http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/), inputting a 50/34 compact crank, 11-23 cassette, and calculating MPH @ 90 RPM, you'll be in the 50x13 combo at 27.1 MPH.

Assuming Ultegra, you'll spend about $300 to go from 53x14 to 50x13 to produce the same 27 MPH at the same 90 RPM. In each case, you'll still have two cogs to go.

I'm not sure what problem that solves, unless you have too much money. And if that's the case, PM me for my depository information. I'll help you dispose of all that nasty cash.

If you really want to do this, and you're interested in the dark gray (almost black) Ultegra 6750 50/34 175mm crank, I may be willing to part with mine, which after next weekend, will have only about 400 miles total on it.

tsl thanks for the offer but my focus is really more on changing out the cogs on the cassette. I can see how my original post is a bit confusing. I was originally being told by fellow riders that I should go to a compact. Then I got the alternative suggestion of just changing the cogs from 12-25 to something like 14-26. I think what got me thinking about all of this was the fact that I don't use the 53x12 or 53x13 very much. I was also curious to see what kind of gearing I could turn at a reasonable rpm now that I'm 66.

my focus is really more on changing out the cogs on the cassette. < snip > just changing the cogs from 12-25 to something like 14-26. I think what got me thinking about all of this was the fact that I don't use the 53x12 or 53x13 very much. I was also curious to see what kind of gearing I could turn at a reasonable rpm now that I'm 66.

Ah, it's clearer now. Thanks.

I'm a big fan of multiple cassettes. Two of the first bike tools I bought were a chain whip and cassette lockring tool. My 9 and 10-speed bikes each have a 12-23 and a 12-27. My 8-speed has a 13-23 and 12-28. Once upon a time, I owned a 10-speed Ultegra juniors cassette, 16-27.

In any event, as much as possible, I run the 12-23s because I really like the close ratios at cruising speeds and above. It's part of the reason I've focused on strengthening my climbing, so I that can go on most rides without needing the 27. I'd have give up the 18 to get the 27, and especially in variable headwinds, I like having the 18. I miss it a lot on the 8 and 9-speed bikes. So I've learned to climb using flatlander gearing.

I haven't worried about what I can push in the 53 or 52. I'm in the 39 enough of the time I could probably forego the big ring entirely. I might use it twice in a day for maybe two or three miles total at most. More often, I just don't bother, and back off the power instead. What keeps me in the 12x cassettes instead of switching to a 14x juniors cassette is that I use the 13 a lot, and the 12 a lot more than I should.

I was going to say I have no need of an 11, but then I remembered I also own a 9-speed 11-21. Now there's a flatlander cassette.

One situation where a compact crankset really shines is on rolling routes where flat sections are rare or nonexistent.

If 45% of the route is climbing in the 2 to 15% range and the other 55% of the route is flat or descending, the ability stay on one-chainring-or-the-other is sustainable. The 50t chainring works well on flat sections or sections with sustained descents. The 34t chainring is only usefull when climbing.

When on flat sections and holding a speed in the 19 to 24 mph range, the 34t chainring is inadequate and the 50t is better. However, any short climb of even 3% requires the switch down to the 34t. If the climb is short, the switch back to the 50t comes along soon.

The Compact crankset are the least usefull of all crankset options on flat routes. I'd rather have a single chainring in the 44 to 48 range on a flat route than to use a compact.

Could someone tell me what defines a "compact" crankset?

My frame specs (Salsa Vaya) say it "Fits any road compact double or triple" and I am running a touring triple 48-36-28 (with a 12-36 9sp cassette). I'm big and carry heavy touring loads so getting up hills and not destroying my knees is the goal, not speed.

My current bb is a square taper shimano but I would like to use an external bearing external crankset if possible. People who claim to know tell me that any crankset -- mtb or road -- *should* work as the chainline difference is minute. I hesitate to put down $200-300 without knowing for sure and can only assume the posted specs are there for a reason. Any insight or edumukation would be gratefully received.

Could someone tell me what defines a "compact" crankset?

"Compact" refers to the number of teeth, not anything having to do with chainline. In other words, the diameter is compact, not the width.

"Standard" cranksets have 53 and 39 tooth chainrings. Old-school standards are 52/42.

"Compact" cranksets have either 50/34 or 50/36 chainrings. These are generally paired with a wider-ratio cassette with an 11-tooth small cog so that the effective top ratio--50x11--is nearly the same as a 53x12.

Cyclocross cranksets are pairing 46/36 or 42/34 rings.

Your current touring triple and MTB cassette have much lower gearing than any of the above can ever hope to provide. There may be external bearing touring triples out there, I'm just not aware of any.

Could someone tell me what defines a "compact" crankset?

My frame specs (Salsa Vaya) say it "Fits any road compact double or triple" and I am running a touring triple 48-36-28 (with a 12-36 9sp cassette). I'm big and carry heavy touring loads so getting up hills and not destroying my knees is the goal, not speed.

My current bb is a square taper shimano but I would like to use an external bearing external crankset if possible. People who claim to know tell me that any crankset -- mtb or road -- *should* work as the chainline difference is minute. I hesitate to put down $200-300 without knowing for sure and can only assume the posted specs are there for a reason. Any insight or edumukation would be gratefully received.

The Salsa Vaya will run almost any crank set with an external bearing BB. My Vaya came with a 50/34 compact. I use my Vaya off road and on some very steep dirt climbs and single track so I wanted lower Mt. bike gearing and now have a Mt. double. I did have to change my front derailer to a Sram Mt. It shifted with the road Sram FD, but did so very poorly.

click on the thumbnails

Stock, compact crank
270655

Mt. crank
270656

OK, now I'll muddy the waters a bit. Everybody talks about how low a hill climb gear they need and how fast a top gear they can use. I think that your favorite flat road gear is equally important.

I want my flat road gear to fall near the middle of the cassette. That way I'll have a couple of trim gears in each direction without having to shift front chainrings.

OK, now I'll muddy the waters a bit. Everybody talks about how low a hill climb gear they need and how fast a top gear they can use. I think that your favorite flat road gear is equally important.

I want my flat road gear to fall near the middle of the cassette. That way I'll have a couple of trim gears in each direction without having to shift front chainrings.

Yeah, but that really doesn't affect the choice of standard or compact cranks. A 50-16 is pretty much the same as a 53-17

The Compact crankset are the least usefull of all crankset options on flat routes. I'd rather have a single chainring in the 44 to 48 range on a flat route than to use a compact.Choice of crankset is personal and a function of your power/weight ratio. While a compact might not be suitable for you on the flats, for others it is just fine. While I'm using a std at the moment a compact makes it a little easier to stay in the big ring when going into a headwind. If I use a compact I do less shifting on the front.

53/12 is a bigger gear than Eddy Merckx used to ride on the road. Thirteen was as small as it got, then. He seemed to do OK.

+ the mountains were climbed with a 42:26, or 28t

Choice of crankset is personal and a function of your power/weight ratio. While a compact might not be suitable for you on the flats, for others it is just fine. While I'm using a std at the moment a compact makes it a little easier to stay in the big ring when going into a headwind. If I use a compact I do less shifting on the front.

And how much cycling on the flats do you ride in Vancouver, BC?

And how much cycling on the flats do you ride in Vancouver, BC?I ride a lot in the surrounding suburbs which are mostly flat with occasional 50-200m hills.

Yeah, but that really doesn't affect the choice of standard or compact cranks. A 50-16 is pretty much the same as a 53-17

You're right, with the same cassette it works out to be about one rear gear. That's fine when you're in the middle. If you're battling a head wind, however, that can put you into the situation where frequent front shifts are necessary.

I'm not a particularly strong rider so switching to a 50/34 compact for me traded a couple of fast gears that I never used for a couple of hill climb gears that I really needed. That's the benefit that I was expecting. The unexpected bonus for me was that it allowed me to do all of my flat road riding in the big chainring. Overall I think that switching my road bike to a compact was the best equipment change that I've ever made.

You're right, with the same cassette it works out to be about one rear gear. That's fine when you're in the middle. If you're battling a head wind, however, that can put you into the situation where frequent front shifts are necessary.

I'm not a particularly strong rider so switching to a 50/34 compact for me traded a couple of fast gears that I never used for a couple of hill climb gears that I really needed. That's the benefit that I was expecting. The unexpected bonus for me was that it allowed me to do all of my flat road riding in the big chainring. Overall I think that switching my road bike to a compact was the best equipment change that I've ever made.

Er, that's fine, except it doesn't address the point you made in the first place, which is that you like your typical gear to be in the middle of the rear cassette. On a 12-25 cassette, the 16 and 17 sprockets are the middle two sprockets. What you now seem to be saying is that you wanted lower gearing, which is of course what a compact is for.

"Compact" refers to the number of teeth, not anything having to do with chainline. In other words, the diameter is compact, not the width.

"Standard" cranksets have 53 and 39 tooth chainrings. Old-school standards are 52/42.

"Compact" cranksets have either 50/34 or 50/36 chainrings. These are generally paired with a wider-ratio cassette with an 11-tooth small cog so that the effective top ratio--50x11--is nearly the same as a 53x12.

Cyclocross cranksets are pairing 46/36 or 42/34 rings.

Your current touring triple and MTB cassette have much lower gearing than any of the above can ever hope to provide. There may be external bearing touring triples out there, I'm just not aware of any.

While all of the above is true, the ultimate determining factor that defines the two cranksets in the BCD specification. Compact Cranksets have 110mm BCD spacing and modern standard cranksets have 130mm BCD. The smallest chainring that will fit on a 130mm BCD crankset is 38t. The smallest chainring that will fit on a 110mm BCD crankset is 33t.

I have a Deore MTB "trekking" triple with Hollowtech II external bearings and 48, 36 & a non-standard 22t. This crankset is sometimes seen on touring models from Jamis and other.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/CX700003.jpg

Er, that's fine, except it doesn't address the point you made in the first place, which is that you like your typical gear to be in the middle of the rear cassette. On a 12-25 cassette, the 16 and 17 sprockets are the middle two sprockets. What you now seem to be saying is that you wanted lower gearing, which is of course what a compact is for.

I think that you are so anxious to argue that you ignored my last paragraph. The unexpected benefit of not having to shift chainrings as often is the point that I was trying to make.

i have a compact 50/34 on one bike and a 53/39 on another bike

Really the only difference inmo is that using a compact defiantly helps produce a better spin in any gear that you use.otherwise i find that you loose a lot of top end speed in the long run. it all depends on what you want and how you want to ride

I think that you are so anxious to argue that you ignored my last paragraph. The unexpected benefit of not having to shift chainrings as often is the point that I was trying to make.

I think that you are so anxious to justify your position that you ignore the fact that you are talking nonsense. In my experience, the disadvantage of a compact is that it results in much more frequent shifting up front. YMMV, but I doubt it.

Go back and read what you have posted. I think you'll find that your second argument bears no relation to your first. But hey, the important thing is to save face, right?

I ride a lot in the surrounding suburbs which are mostly flat with occasional 50-200m hills.

I was very happy with a 46 & 38t Cyclocross crankset and a 11-23 ten speed cassette on windy & flat routes. I could keep a tight 92 to 100 rpm cadence from 15 to 33 mph.

A 50t chainring needs a wider cadence range below 22 mph when the 17-19-21 cogs require more than a 10% change in cadence with each gear change.

I was very happy with a 46 & 38t Cyclocross crankset and a 11-23 ten speed cassette on windy & flat routes. I could keep a tight 92 to 100 rpm cadence from 15 to 33 mph.

A 50t chainring needs a wider cadence range below 22 mph when the 17-19-21 cogs require more than a 10% change in cadence with each gear change.I guess I have a wider comfortable cadence range as I'm happy with a compact or std. I think a 46 would be OK for normal riding but a little small for races.

I guess I have a wider comfortable cadence range as I'm happy with a compact or std. I think a 46 would be OK for normal riding but a little small for races.

Don't worry about my cadence range, my Garmin reports a max of 107 rpm or more without really trying and I'm good at producing plenty of watts down to 40 rpm.

I would only recommend a Cyclocross crankset as a road crank for pool-table flat routes.

Not too many 50+ cyclist are holding 33 mph without some help from a 3% slope, a 15 mph tail-wind or a nice position in the middle of a large peloton at the TDF.

I would only recommend it for pool-table flat routes. Not too many 50+ cyclist are holding 33 mph without some help from a 3% slope, a 15 mph tail-wind or a nice position in the middle of a large peloton at the TDF.I normally ride crits in my 15 or 16 and end up in the 12 or 13 for the sprint. I only have a 12 so using a 46 might be harder to sprint in. Not that it would make much difference to my results :)