BradOlz

This is my first real season of road biking and I've been doing so on my used, old 90's Nishiki. As much as I love this bike for getting me into this sport, I can't help but want something shiny, new, and without downtube shifters! So, I've pretty much been in the market for a new bike since the day I got my Nishiki.

Lately, the feature I've been paying attention to in a new bike is the crankset. My bike has the standard 53/39T gearing and I get around well with that setup. It has certainly taken some conditioning and overcoming some local climbs, but I've gotten used to it. In my online shopping/browsing I have noticed that most bikes in my price range come with compact or triple cranksets. And from my understanding, triples do serious damage to your street cred, so those are out of the question. But, the compacts.... whats the deal? Is it that noticeable a difference? If I've gotten used to 53/39, would I be downgrading if I got a bike with 50/34ish?

Basically, my price range is that of entry-level road bikes (sub $1500) but I feel as if even though I'll be upgrading 90% over my old bike, a crucial element will not be upgraded.

JustinNY

I just made the switch from 53/39 and 12-25 (9spd) to 50/34 and 11-28 (10spd) and since then have spent much more time in the big ring. Overall Im pleased with the decision because it gives me relief on some of the more painful climbs without any real loss at the top end.

iamtim

I was on a triple, then the whole "seriously damages street cred" thing got to me and I upgraded to a compact. Then I sold that bike and bought a new one with a triple and... eff street cred. Triple FTW.

vermilionx

i love compact.

it's pretty hilly here.

and yeah, i pretty much spend most of the time in the big ring but i sure use that lowest gear on the 5-12% hills here.

Big Pete 1982

Well, how much time do you spend in your top gear going 40mph+? If it's a lot, then don't get a compact. Otherwise, I'd rather have the lower gears for hill climbing. On my compact set with 12-28 gears, my top gear is 35-40 mph at a high cadence. That's plenty for me.

Carbon Unit

If someone lives where the land is completely flat, then a 53/39 is a good option. If you live somewhere with hills, a 50/34 has a wider gear range. A 50 chain ring with a 11 cog is a higher gear than a 53 chain ring with a 12 cog. At the other end of the scale, a 28 or 29 on a 34 cog is in the same range as you would get from a triple. Currently, I have a triple and could care less about street cred. However, I am not a competitive cyclist. I ride for fun and fitness. If I were buying a new bike today I would get an 50/34 crank with an 11-28 cassette on it.

Carbon Unit

The only option that would give a 53/39 crank a higher top end than an compact with an 11 cog is if the standard also had an 11 cog.

KoolAidnPizza

Rules.

TrojanHorse

you have a bike with DT shifters and its 53/39??? Interesting.

regardless, if you are doing fine with a standard crank, then no - there's no point in changing. it's hilly where I live, ergo - compact cranks on my bike (actually they're mid-compacts, which is a nice compromise). As for what other people think, if I'm passing them I don't care. If they pass me they're welcome to think what they want.

datlas 

Bottom line is you should get the gearing that is most suitable for the type of riding that YOU do.

I suspect if you have been riding for awhile, you already know the right answer.

Use an online gear calculator to play around with options.

BTW you may wish to count the teeth on your inner chainring, the "back in the day" standard gearing was 53/42. So your inner chainring might currently be a 42 and not a 39.

ericm979

Why? That was normal back then. There were 110mm BCD compacts but no one but tourists used them.

"street cred". Are you riding, or posing? If you actually ride and need low gears (i.e. because you ride big climbs) there's nothing wrong with running whatever gearing works for you. What's lame is grinding slowly up climbs, or walking them, because you too dumb to run appropriate gearing.

OTOH if you're ok with the 53/39 you have now and don't plan to ride big climbs in the future, get a 53/39. But for sale ads are full of people desperate to trade their 53/39 for a 50/34, which ought to tell you something.

BigK75

+1

slowride454

I absolutely love my Apex compact setup. At mile 90 the 34/32 gearing comes in handy for even moderate hills.

kenmcchord

I don't really even understand the question as it's stated. It hardly seems a downgrade to get the appropriate gears for the kind of riding you intend to do. Over in southern NJ where I live it would be unnecessary to use a compact, but as I've been riding some pretty big hills west of Philly I find the 53/39 front and 12/23 rear almost impossible to climb with. Therefore I am switching to a compact crank and a slightly larger cassette range.

So if you've got hills to climb then entertain a compact crank, but if you're riding mostly flats with occasional small hills then a standard crank will be fine. I will say that unless you're a highly trained sprinter I doubt you'll be sitting on the big chain ring and your smallest sprocket rolling 40+ mph routinely. Hell, I only am in those gears when I'm on a big downhill!

DinoShepherd

It appears the new DA crankset bolt pattern may make heads explode here. There is no compact or standard. It just is.

Oh and having a standard is no measure of your e.dick without knowing the cassette and riding locale.

canemaster

lol I race with a triple

bobonker

The compact works well for me. There's lots of climbing not far from where I live, but the surrounding area is very flat. When I ride near home, I live almost exclusively on the 50t ring and with a 12-23 in back, pacing is very easy/fun. When I go for the hills, I usually run a 12-27 and enjoy having that 34t ring.

Having a power meter has taught me that in many cases, more cadence = more power = faster. Over the last few years, I've gone from running a 12/28 in back to a 12/25. I was happy about being able to use a progressively taller granny gear on climbs. However, I found grinding along at 60 rpm up a long climb is (for me) slower than running a lower gear and turning 80 rpm.

YMMV

Bob

bikeme

I had a 53-39 x 12-25 9-spd on my LeMond Zurich but just switched it to a compact 50-34 x 12-27 9-spd. and love it. I'm in the hills a lot and used to do ok with the 53-39 but this gives some relief in that I can still spin 85-95 rpm vs grinding away at 65-70 on some of the tougher climbs with my old gearing. I'm mtb'g a lot now, so the compact feels more like my mtb gears. I have never spun out in 50 x 12, in fact the 50 x 13 is plenty pedaling downhill at 100-105 rpm. It's a bit weird up/down shifting between the big and small rings due to the teeth diff but I'm getting used to it and anticipating it better.

bikeme

If you're finishing in the top 1/4 of the group, no one can say much can they? LOL!

momo15

Not everyone can justify the speed from a 53-11, and most mortal riders can't hold it. I can barely sprint into my top gear in a compact, and I am a fairly fit person. I'm just not a monster cyclist. I was just at my inlaw's mountain cabin, and I have to say, riding my old HardRock, with super low mountain gearing, was much more relaxing then riding my compact/28 Allez up ski slope grades. Most riders are casual, and fighting a gear to go 8mph up a hill sucks a lot more than spinning casually up at 4-5mph on a killer grade.

cwcook3

What do you consider "completely flat"? I live in LA and my rides along the coast seem very flat. Curious because I'm in a similar boat upgrading to a new bike from an old Univega. My crankset is even higher (42-53 or something). My cassette is an 11-25 and I almost never even need the big ring. Hopefully that changes as I am getting stronger though.

thump55

Lots of folks saying compacts are better for hilly areas, but compacts work fine for flatlanders too.

merlinextraligh

I live in Florida. I race mostly flat crits, and races we call "hilly" have what others would call small rollers.

New bike has a compact, and 50/34 with an 11-23 works just fine. And it gives me the option of very low gearing for the occassions when I race somewhere with actual climbs. (such as Everest challenge.)

So the compact is more flexible in setting up for varying terrain, with little downside.

Also, you can put 52/36 rings on a compact if you want to, adding to the flexibility.

Stealthammer

My Salsa Campion (aluminum/full 105) road bike has an aggresive geometry and a 39/53t crankset and 11-26t cassette, while my Cannondale Synapse CF road bike has a bit more relaxed geometry and a 34/50t crankset and 11-28t cassette. They are different bikes use for different purposes. The Salsa is my "race bike" (even though I no longer race) and I love it for fast paced solo and group rides, but the Cannondale is my more recreational ride that often turns 30-40 mile rides into 60-80 mile rides. If I had to choose one I would probably choose the Salsa. but in a couple of years I would probably choose the Cannondale.

The choice or crankset gearing was made based on the intended purpose of each bike.

CJ C

I went from a 90's steel with a 52/42 and huge gaps in the rear cassette to a compact 50/34 with a 12-25 cassette.

Yes i have to jump around on the front derailleur more but going from stem shifters to brifters 100% makes up for the front shifting. At first i was hesitant i didn't go with a 53/39 as i live in the flat lands and was i bit miffed I had to front shift. But in the end my legs thank me every ride for the tightly spaced cassette, my legs sent me a thank you card in spring for having the 50/34 during the 25 mph winds (which will happen again in fall).

I cannot highly stress how much going from old downtube/stem shifting to brifters will make either crank be a nonfactor. I can shift the front ring while shifting up 3cogs in the back AT THE SAME TIME with just a flick of the fingers without having to take my hands away from their.


BTW: anybody have a link to that cool online gear calculator where you can compare two different gearings?