compact double cranksets
 

I've recently become interested in switching to a compact double + 9 speed rear setup on my touring bike.

However, I can't really get over the weird look of some of these outboard bearing types of compact doubles though (no chainring bolts = a bit too futuristic for me), and I can't seem to find many good classy-vintage-style compact doubles either (I regret not jumping on the VO Sugino crankset sale a few days ago :(...)

Thoughts on compact doubles? Options for getting a good looking one for under $150 :D?

I was going to suggest the VO Sugino one :) I really enjoy the gearing, but off hand, I can't recite the numbers.

Check out the Harris Cyclery page...some options in your price range. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/c...ct-double.html

Here's my Woodrup with a compact double. Cook Brothers Racing E2 with Real chainrings.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...S/IMG_8053.jpg

You can always try FSA chain rings that fit your older cranks. Ask thrifty Bill (wrk101)....

YoKev, did you see snarkypup's thread on saddle bag protectors?

I would like compact doubles IF they had a 53 tooth large ring. Unless your cassette/block has an eleven tooth sprocket, it'll be geared too low.

FSA and Truvativ make very nice compact square taper 50/34's. Black arms and a black 50 ring, but...nice!

Mm for sure! The black throws me off, but yeah, those would be great otherwise...

Yeah, but I'm switching to modern freehubs anyways, so I figured I'd go 9 speed and do 11-32.

I actually feel kind of dumb now. I didn't realize you could just set up a touring triple with new rings on the outside...is that the case? Can I just set up a compact double with most 110 BCD cranksets?

I'm using a 30-48 TA crankset as a compact double with an 11-32 nine speed cassette. http://www.peterbrueggeman.com/cr/gr...bike-small.jpg

Why the long cage RD, Peter?

With that combo, an RD has to wrap 39 teeth, and that mountain bike RD wraps a lot of chain, perhaps more than needed.

I'm currently running 48/34 on a Sugino RT, a 110BCD crank. I've used something similar for years and it works just fine.

+1 Sugino RT 110BCD crankset. Thats the way I would go. I used vintage MTB rings on my Lotus road bike, 47/35. (Used the two larger rings off the MTB crank (donor bike), reused the Lotus stock crank arms) .

What bike? I have three compact cranks on vintage bikes right now. A modern Tiagra Hollowtech II style, a modern Truvativ, and the Sugino RT above. It depends on the bike. I think the Tiagra looks fine on my Prologue, but it would look way out of place on the Lotus. Just one guy's opinion.

Schwinn Voyageur touring bike. I saw LittleDarwin's Voyageur with a modern compact double (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...or-Ergos/page2) and thought 1) that's gonna cost a pretty penny, and 2) that crankset looks like an extraterrestrial spaceship to me.

I'll be on the lookout for a Sugino RT (or AT) to convert. If anyone has one around here... :).

Timely thread for me 'cause I'm in the same boat as the OP looking for a compact and the choices seem slim pickens.
I came across this new Sugino and like the looks of it.
http://www.bikecyclingreviews.com/su...atibility.html

that's a mighty shiny new Sugino, rothenfield. I wish the logo wasn't in such bright, stand-out-ish red though.

Too low? Not if you don't race and live in flat to slightly rolling terrain (south Louisiana) where the biggest "hill" is an overpass - like I do. I run 47-41 chainrings with a 13-23 (6-speed freewheel). I don't race anymore and most of my rides are solo training/recreational rides. I typically cruise at 17 mph in my 41/17 (63.6-inch) gear. Unless you live in hilly terrain and/or are a competitive cyclist, then I don't see a need for a 53 tooth ring (unless you just like to look macho).

A 53 big ring would be great if the OP was racing on his TOURING BIKE! The simple fact is compact doubles make sense for a huge portion of the riding population. I bet even some racers that aren't descending mountain passes every other day wouldn't miss not having an extreme high gear ratio that you will barely ever use.

It depends on the triple. Common triples are five arm 130/74mm or 110/74mm rings. Compact doubles use 110mm rings. If you have a 110/74 ditch the granny gear and add some suitable 110mm chainrings for a compact double. I have done this in the past with some of my own bikes using mtn triples since they are often 175mm in length and I am tall. If you did want to go with a futuristic outboard bearing compact double the SRAM S350 is nice at $100-120 with BB cups. I am running a compact Rival crankset switched to 48/34 rings on my rando bike. I am also a fan of going even lower with the compact double, 46/30t instead of 50/34. But, that can't be done on a 110mm BCD crank unless the granny is used as the 30. I have a TA Cyclotouriste crank that is getting 46/30t rings and an older Sugino XD (older 94mm BCD) that is setup as a 46/30.

man, does everyone have a TA crankset? I am so jealous. if VO weren't out of their TA copies (and if they weren't around $200) I'd totally get one of those beauties.

anyways, I do have 110 on that triple. will probably dig around the co-op for some old MTB rings in the compact range. for a fairly large rear cassette (11-32) does 48/34 sound reasonable?

white industries vbc road crankset.

I would think most any 110BCD crank would make a suitable 'compact' double, simply by putting smaller rings on it. personally I never saw reason behind the whole compact thing. if I am already using a 9 or 10spd 12-21 with a 42-53 is a 11-19 with 38-48 faster?

now I have always been a bit more of a masher than a spinner , so perhaps that is the reason I just don't get the whole compact thing

I use the same, and have found it is just as practical as many modern triples. Very useful on a bicycle that's used as a tourer or randonneur - especially on some of the sadistic routes that get chosen in this part of the country. I can muscle up a few 12% climbs on a regular double, but after 2-3 hours in the saddle, hitting those nasty climbs (for sixth, seventh, twelfth times) just induces cramps.

That's one sweet looking crankset. Very cool.

Today's compacts are typically 50/34. I think the purpose is to serve the other side of the spectrum - it allows people that don't want a triple to approximate those low gears that a true triple provides. It's a compromise, for folks that insist upon doubles but can't use standard doubles as God intended. :)

I'm one of those folks, but I have no shame and cannot be humiliated. So, I use a triple and ride anywhere I damn well please. :D

If you want a high gear and a really low gear for touring using a double crankset (the OP was speaking about touring), then your crankset will be what used to be called alpine gearing and not what we see nowadays as a compact double. Here's my Mondia with a 28-53 TA crankset with a seven speed 13-32 freewheel for 23-109 gear inches. I've been credit card cycle touring in the high Sierras over passes with it. While I don't "need" that high gear, it is the bomb on long mountain downhill runs if you enjoy pedaling downhill to maximize speed. Do I need that high gear, no. Do I use that high gear, yes, and there's still plenty of gears left for cycle touring.

http://www.peterbrueggeman.com/cr/mondia-bike-small.jpg

Another way to look at it is that the compact double crankset with a wide range cassette gives you the really low gear and the top gear you want, without having to use a triple crankset to get it as one did when there were only five or six speed freewheels. When there were only five speed freewheels, I used a triple crankset to get the low and high gears I wanted on a touring bike. Now with a nine speed cassette you can get that using a double crankset and forgoing use of a triple crankset. The double crankset is easier to shift, not that a triple was hard, but a double is arguably easier. A double crankset weighs less than a triple too, and has less chainring bolts to come loose (!)

OH so a compact is for people who need a triple but are too...... whats the word proud to admit it? LOL