Plainsman

What is the market for 52/36 rings? I'm looking at a new bike, and it has a mid compact setup. I prefer a true compact, and would be looking to sell the new bike take-off. Trying to factor replacing the crankset into my purchase. Just wondering if I've missed a market shift to mid-compact. (I'm not switching). Also hate to be stuck with an R8000 crankset that wants.

Esthetic

Should be able to get 180-210 for a new takeoff r8000 crankset and replace it the same.

I have a standard, semi compact and compact . Personally i feel the 52/36 is the best of all worlds. Feels as fas as the standard, while still being able to get a short cage derailleur to work with up to an 11-32T cassette...even though a 11-28 or 11-30 would be plenty for climbing on a 36 chainring.

FeltF2Tarmac

52/36 and 12-25 here. I prefer this now but befor getting this set up in 2014 it was a 50/34 and 11-25. Of course the latter was 10 speed and current is 11. I liked both but prefer current setup much more

str8jakett

I have a compact on one bike and had a standard on the main bike. I just upgraded the standard (Force 22 to Red 22) to a mid compact which is definitely more fitting for my mountainous terrain. However the compact just didn't have the speed for me to have chosen another one. 11-28 cassette on both bikes.

Bob Ross

If I owned a lot more bikes I would definitely want one with a 52/36 mid-compact. I almost ordered one with the last bike I bought, but while slogging up some hill in my 34-28 combination one day I asked myself "Why would I want to make this any harder?" and couldn't think of a good answer, at least not for my main every day go-to bike. But I definitely see the appeal of something slightly bigger than a 50/34, especially if your local terrain doesn't involve too much up&down.

Jasper Storm

First road bike was 50/34 x 12-27 11sp. for centuries/hilly rec rides.
Got stronger and lighter, went to 50/34 x 11-25 11sp. Started racing with this.
Got to the point in hilly races where not only pedaling on descents, but keeping power high became important. went to 52/36 x 11-25 11sp.
If I never raced I probably would not have purchased the 52/36.

Still have 50/34 x 11-25 on the winter bike.

TrojanHorse

The bolt circle diameter on new Shimano cranks is 110mm, which means you can just put compact chainrings on there, no need to swap out the entire crank.

You can probably resell the chainrings although I'm not sure what they're worth. When mine wear down I'll probably try to find some take-offs like yours.

Karman321

I have like new ultegra compact chain rings that I’d be willing to trade Shimano Ultegra 6800 50/34 looking for 52/36

nycphotography

Only time I spin out my 50x11 is going down a pretty steep grade without switchbacks. I find the 34 more valuable than the 52.

You don't have to swap cranksets, you can just change chainrings. Both sets are 110 bcd.

WhyFi

From what I've seen, the rings are almost as expensive as the street price on take-off crankset and it'll probably be easier to sell the complete crankset.

Laurido92

I have both set ups and will say that I prefer the Ultegra 52/36 11-28 to the 105 50/34 11-28. I feel like I'm always searching for the right gear with the compact and feel like I'm spinning more than I would like. Maybe I got used to the 52/36. This weekend I'm doing a 60 mile ride and has a big climb at the 30 mile mark so I want to see how it does compared to the mid compact when it comes to climbing.

anon`

The market for 52/36 is probably a lot bigger than you might think... it really is a great middle ground.


In line with what has been said earlier, a mid-compact seems to have more useable gearing options than a compact. That may not actually be true, but it does feel like it. I started out with a compact crankset, and it wasn't very long at all before I'd improved to the point where I didn't need to be in 34x26 to climb, and could spin out 50x11 (at least, on a descent). I didn't want to replace the whole crankset, so I went as big as I could with a 110 BCD--52/36. Even now (in decidedly worse shape than back then), I still manage pretty well, and if I were to swap cassettes to something with a 28t cog, instead of 26t, I'd actually have a numerically lower gear (36x28) than I used to (34x26).

fietsbob

I have one from the days ot freewheels , so top gear was 52:13.. built it up from classic parts ..

2018Roubaix

Another vote for 52/36 but with 11-32 cogs. With a tailwind on the flats, 50/34 would spinout on descents and with strong tailwinds on the flats.

caloso

My Tarmac came with a 52/36 crankset. Paired with a 11-28 cassette, it seemed like just the right combination to handle any climb on the low end, or any sprint on the top end.

McBTC

I'm with you-- 52/36 would be worthless for me unless perhaps they were 165s and I was training for a triathlon. A 50 big ring is plenty big enough where you can spend a lot of time in the middle gears of an 11-speed cluster -- so, you're sort of riding big x big most of the time and not wearing out tiny freewheel gears-- and, if needed, 50x11 is still pretty tall (I'd need a bit of a tailwind to hammer out >30 mph at 85+ rpm). The only time you need the smaller ring is when riding the big half of the cluster and even at that, a 34x32 isn't even 1:1 bailout gear (hit enough rise and it's like interval training to me)...

mstateglfr 

I often wonder if many who are 'spinning out' are really just pedaling quickly.
50x11 at 110rpm is 40mph with 25mm tires.
If that can be sustained on flat road, sure a bigger ring is needed. Few ride that setup for any meaningful sustained period on flat road.

As for downhill, spinning at 120rpm will send you flying down the hill at over 43mph before gravity is taken into account. Seriously- tuck at that point. How many are going 47mph or faster so often they need to swap out the big ring for something larger?

'Spinning out' seems to be a bit of a misnomer on here, if all the road cyclists i see are any representation of riders elsewhere.

Bob Ross

Why would I set up a bike with gearing that's only optimized for terrain conditions that I see ~60%? I like to consider 100% of the terrain I'm likely to encounter!

Every time I descend. Some folks like to go fast downhill. Why not equip your bike to allow that?

nycphotography

My logic is as follows: I often end up climbing at 40-50 cadence on the toughest climbs. More low gears will get me up those climbs faster and with less destruction to the legs that will impact the rest of the day. If I'm climbing that crap, you can bet I'm descending it too, and I will spin out on the steepest parts of the descent. Not so much that I couldn't pedal, but that it becomes hamsterish, and I don't usually bother. But sometimes I do, and when I do, like to catch onto a draft or to catch someone before a switchback, at which point, sure, I'm hamster spinning briefly. On the 50.

But not pedaling on the steepest descents is much less of a loss of time than being destroyed on the steepest climbs, so I go with the 34/50 rings. I even went 11-32 cassette. WHAT? wtf for? Well in my defense I do hit some 14-18% stuff every year, and the gearing is critical for those rides, and never "a problem" for other rides.

Were I Nibali, hammering downhill at 50+ MPH to make time in a pro race, then yeah, sure, I'd be running a full size crank. But I'd also be climbing at 80 cadence on the 39/28 with my 6w/kg FTP.

TL;DR - If you are strong enough to climb your toughest climbs at a reasonable cadence on the 36, then get the 36/52. If not, then get the 34/50. Simple.

redlude97

Are you still pedaling at that point? Almost everyone would be faster at 47mph in a tuck

Bob Ross

I'm pretty sure nobody going 47mph is going any faster than anybody else going 47mph regardless of what they're doing with their legs.

Me, I'm still pedaling if I want to go faster than coasting in a tuck allows me to go. Or if there's someone behind me who I don't want crawling up my rear wheel.

redlude97

When I'm spinning at >100rpm in a 52x11, which means >10% descent, I go into a tuck on the top tube and my speed increases. If you aren't changing positions then sure you might slow down coasting compared to continuing to pedal. Are you really continuing to pedal at 120+rpm to keep up a 47mph+ descent?

mstateglfr 

You should absolutely set your bike up for 100% of the terrain you encounter.

And i agree that sone folks like to go fast down hills. One should equip their bike to do that.

I simply find that most who claim they are spinning out arent at all spinning out. And i find that few are going 44mph down hills while cursing that they need to keep pedaling but cant due to spinning out.

gurk700

mid compact is the best thing ever switched from compact and never looked back.

so you should have no trouble selling!

redfooj

I live in foothills and I'm a fairweather recreational rider. 50 top end isn't about running out of room spinning at the tallest gear, but being close to the limits in many scenarios.

Today I still need the 34 for some steep kickers or when fatigued.

If I had the time (or inclination) to put in 25% more riding, and the improvement that came with that...I'd probably be looking for 52-36.