flippin_bikes

Ok, so here is my issue. I was riding a cheap steel KHS road bike that I bought in th spring which was my first bike with a compact crank. I was running an 8 speed 12-26 cassette and the bike had 172.5 mm cranks and 700x32c tires. I ride on flat to rolling terrain and typically only used the small ring for taking off or cruising down the MUP. On the open road, I was pushing the big ring up front and using the middle 4 cogs of the cassette. I don't have cadence on my computer, but guessing my prior use of a cadence meter, I was probably in the high 70s or low 80s and moving along at 15-19 mph.

Two weeks ago, I upgraded to a new Specialized Secteur with compact gearing and a 10 speed 11-28 cassette. This bike is running 175mm cranks and 28c tires. The bike also weighs 8-9 lbs less. So, I was fully expecting I would be able to push a larger gear given less weight, smaller tires, and slightly longer cranks. Such is not the case.

I have always been a masher, so I was a bit dumbfounded when I started riding my new bike and fell naturally into the small ring and the smaller half of the cassette cogs. Where before I felt like I was spinning out at 15 mph in the small ring of my old bike, I am rolling 17-21 mph on my new bike. My cadence is probably now in the 90-95 range.

I just don't understand why there is such a drastic difference. The gearing is actually pretty similar when you consider that the cog spacing on a 12-26 8 speed cassette is about identical to the middle 8 cogs on a 10 speed 11-28 cassette and seldom use to top and bottom cogs on my new bike.

urbanknight

You're using your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th smallest cogs to ride at 17-21. You could also use the big ring and the 3rd, 4th, and 5th largest cogs. Try it and see if it feels similar enough. Either works though, other than I would personally avoid using the 2nd smallest with the small ring.

DScott

Run the actual numbers: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Maybe it's not as far off as you think?

Daytrip

I had trouble getting comfortable on a compact. I switched to a 53/39 and it's perfect.

dstrong 

I think this is one of the compromises of the compact setup. There are a lot of intermediate riders that ride in the 15 - 18 mph range on the flats...which means you're either on the small ring with the smaller cogs or the big ring with the bigger cogs...and you sometimes have to shift more frequently on the front...AND it's a bigger jump on a compact than on a standard double.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the 42 tooth chainring on my triple is like God's gift to cycling...I can cruise in it forever on a wide variety of terrain. That said, I run a compact on my ParkPre, which I find works very well when I'm doing hilly routes.

hao

Depends on how often you'll speed up to 21+.

engstrom

I've got a compact 50/34 crankset with an 11-28 cassette and find myself in the small ring unless I'm going over 21 MPH. Once I shift up to the big ring I usually stay there until I have to drop below 17 MPH.

urbanknight

True. I'd go with the big ring just because you'd need fewer chainring shifts. I most often cruise in the big ring. My small ring gets plenty of use since I spend more time climbing than descending anyway.

banerjek

For the "average" rider, if you had only one ring, a 42 would probably be best.

With two rings, I'm persuaded that most recreational cyclists would be served best by 46/36. You don't spin out until you're going over 35mph which is faster than many people will go even when there are hills. The 36 is great against fairly strong winds and steep hills, but it gives you more usable speeds. And there is reasonable overlap at the speeds that at least 95% of road cyclists ride at.

Pro gearing is optimized for people who are way stronger than the typical rider, so it's nuts to think that most cyclists would not want something better suited to their actual needs.

flippin_bikes

The bike I had before the KHS was a touring bike ( triple w/ 11-32 cassette) and I spent 90% of the time on the 42, 9% on the 52, and almost never used the 30. I liked the range of gears, but didn't like the spacing. The compact gearing was and is a good alternative to a triple and seemed to me to be more appropriate for recreational cyclists compared to 39/53 gearing.

I think 36/48 gearing would work well with an 11-28 cassette. Until I wear my chainrings out, I'll just have to push harder and get back on the big ring.

8Fishes

I have the sector apex, and I know what you mean. I just plugged the gearing into the calc to see where everything lies. I know the RPMs are low, and I set them intentionally low for more cruising/sight seeing than speed or 'efficiency'. There is a bit of over lap on the higher end of the small chainring and lower end of the big chainring. Personally I like to avoid cross chaining even though they say it doesn't happen on a compact double. I stick to 1 to 7 or 8 on the small and 3 to 10 on the large... but that is just me.

The only trouble I find with a compact is that once you pop up to the big chain, you have to shift quite a way back unless you are pounding down a hill or really mashing for speed.

Pre-defined calc with my apex gearing. I like this one better because it has a graph and I like visualization. I could also probably stand to swap the 11-32 out for 11-28, but the 32 has come been handy when I git 10+% grades.

Zhtwn

Two other possibilities: fit and fitness. Perhaps your riding position on the Secteur is more conducive to spinning than your KHS. Or, perhaps you are more accustomed to cycling, and your comfortable cadence has increased.

Simple experiment, if you've still got the KHS: take 'em both for a ride on a similar route, and see if you still mash more on the KHS, or if you're now spinning about as much on that bike as on the Secteur. If you're still mashing on the KHS, I'd say it might be fit issue. If not, then probably fitness.

bbattle

Instead of being in the 34-12, try the 50-17.

And if you had a 53-39 setup, the same gear would be 53-19.

Wow, such a major difference. Why anyone would ever use a compact is beyond me, they are so, just so.. they're just so compact. *

Seriously, I think when people hear the words compact crank, they feel their manhood is threatened. Run the gear calculator, it's not that different from the Manly Crank.


*that there was some sarcasm

EdIsMe

The biggest difference imo is whether you're riding solo or in a group. When in group rides, I frequently hit speeds of 30+ mph on flats, and generally in the 25-30 mph range for most of the ride. Solo, I'll ride anywhere between 18-25 on flats unless I'm really pushing myself. I use a 53/39 btw.

EdIsMe

For people that ride in areas that are generally flat... the benefits of a compact are significantly reduced.

Vicelord

Riding a compact is like driving a 4 speed manual. You RPM like a mad man!

Viceroy

I consider myself an "average" (or slightly better than average) rider and I do find that the 42 on my 52/42/30 triple (with a 12-26 cassette) provides a really good range. I used to live really close to the mountains and was in this ring almost all the time. I moved to somewhere flatter, and then I found that the middle ring was still good, but that I could easily ride more in the larger ring. Terrain makes a big difference.

Edit - I also ride pure solo.

revchuck 

First, congrats on the new bike!

I've got roughly the same gearing (compact crank, 12/27 cassette) and run at about the same speeds. I stay in the big ring, using the 21, 19 and 17 tooth cogs, and usually only resort to the small ring when riding into a strong headwind, going up long hills, or am really beat at the end of a long ride. It took me a while to get used to using the big ring, but it's where I live now.

zandoval 

I have been using a Compact for about a month now - I like it and now that its mentioned yes I am spending more time on my big ring...

But when I hit those hills its Little one in front and big one in back...

kf9yr

As mentioned earlier the 50-17 should be comparable, also using that combination should be easier in the long run as there have been studies that say there is less friction by using the larger rings (17 versus 12).

Most of my riding is on fairly level roads so I went with 53-39 crank and 11-25 cassette on my new bike. I also bought a compact crankset someone had pulled off their bike which I can switch out when I'm riding in the mountains.

Either way I usually just try to keep my chain reasonably straight, if I'm headed uphill I shift into the small ring before I get all the way over to the largest cogs in the rear. This reduces the side load on your chain and also reduces the chance of dropping your chain on your shift to the small ring.

I wouldn't buy anything different until I rode 1000 miles or so on the new style bike as your riding style may change as you adapt to your new position as someone else pointed out.

Have fun with the new road bike.

m2tiguy

pick up a 12 -23 and switch out the 11-19 for the 12 - 19 and you end up with 7 gears, all 1 tooth larger in the progression -

RollCNY

There is no difference, it is all in your head.

You are spinning higher cadence, and going faster, so all is good. You just have to make the mental transition to do the same thing but on the big ring. Your old bike and new had compact cranks, so there is no difference in gearing. I would suggest that you put the bike on the big ring, and go all the way down to the biggest rear cog (32 you said?) and start a ride from there. From a dead stop in 50-32, work your way up to speed using just the RD. When you get to your 50-19 or 50-17, you will be cruising just like you were on your small ring, without the grating cross chain noises. Forget you have two front rings. Put it on the 50. leave it on the 50, and ride til it is second nature.

When I started to ride, I bought a hybrid, and immediately put a compact road crank on it and lost the ability to shift the front under any type of load. Had to learn to ride with a front single. Had similar cassette to yours, only 9 speed. You adapt. Trust me.

Trsnrtr

If you like the small ring, ride in it. You have my permission.