Let's review:

How does 110 BCD negate the discussion of a >16 tooth gap between the chainrings?

I thought the same thing about "leverage" that he just meant more gear...but his comment about the amount of "chain" didn't make any sense at all, unless he meant a more solid purchase.

I was actually adressing Yaniel's post more than ptle's. I was just too lazy to scroll back up to his post figuring that most could follow the whole thread and not just a portion of it. Apparently I was mistaken and apologize for the confusion. SO to clarify, if they were running 53/34 or36 then thay had to be running 110 BCD (compact crank) arms as a 34 or 36 will not fit on a 130 BCD (standard crank). If they were in fact running 110 BCD cranks then they were running compact cranks and Bob's statement was untrue thus negating the whole discussion. I guess it all hinges on what you consider "compact" cranks. I consider a crank that with a 110 BCD a compact crank. You could put 39 and 53 tooth rings on these cranks so I guess then they would not be compact cranks anymore by my definition.

Silly me, I thought you were referring to the post that you quoted. I can't believe I made such a stupid mistake

Of course

It negates Bob's statement, but not the discussion of the thread.

That is pretty much the generally accepted definition. Without getting into touring, MTB, etc. cranks, it's pretty much either 130BCD "standard" cranks or 110BCD "compact" cranks.

By your definition they would still be compact cranks as they would still have a 110BCD.

Sure, so if you don't like that "leverage" combination, just change up or down one or two at the rear. The whole idea that the leverage depends only on the front rings is nonsense - you can't take it in isolation to the rear.

All that the compact gearing can give you is a different spread of ratios, packed a little closer at the botom end rather than at the top.

If you think about it, a chain link looks like a small pulley (and it could easily be used as one because of the roller). Bobke undoubtedly remembers from introductory science that as you add pulleys, you get more mechanical advantage. Therefore, the more links, the more mechanical advantage.

Although this would not not normally be technically referred to as leverage, the chain would seem fairly rigid when subjected to the forces of a pro rider pedaling hard. As such, it could theoretically act as a lever that applies force to the rear wheel much the same way a chain whip does.

But if you need larger than a 50/11, you don't have an option to go to a smaller cog in the back.

And you can put a 52 chainring on a 110bcd crank, but if you don't need a 34 inner chainring there's just no reason to ride a compact.


And here's the dirty little secret: the climbs in France are not that steep. The HC climbs rarely have sustained sections over 10%. They are very lng but not tremendously steep. Some of the Category 1 and 2 climbs are steeper but not for long sections.

I'm a Cat 4 Clydesdale, and I can climb L'Alpe de Huez, Mt Ventoux, Col de Galibier, Col De Aubsique, Col de Izoard amongst others on standard gearing.

My bet is the lead guys aren't actually using below a 39/23 very often.

These guys are climbing well above 10 mph. 39/27 at 80 rpm is 9.3 mph. They just don't need smaller chainrings for the TDF.

Not true. With a 50/34 and an 11-25 cassette on rolling to flat courses you can stay in the big ring on longer/steeper climbs while still being able to retain your top end. If your honest with yourself and how you really ride, compacts are the best choice for 90% of people. There is more to compacts than just the low and high end gears. Also, 11-23 or 11-25 cassettes have much better ratios than something like a 12-27 cassette does, so you don't sacrifice your big ring ratios in order to climb.

Really, unless your a strong road racer on flat ground, there isn't a compelling reason to run a standard crank. Hell, I know someone who is a very good cat2 racer who races everything with a compact and an 11-23 setup.

I agree but on the bald prairie a compact leads to cross chaining much of the time. I swapped a 52/39 Ultegra on but I really wish I could have found a 50/39.
With the wind seemingly always in my face I never get a chance to use the big ring unless I'm going downhill, which is also rare.

I do 40mph+ descents frequently and like to still pedal, so I'll keep my 53x11, thanks. I don't mind large gaps in the cassettes so I just run a wider cassette when I'll be climbing. 11-23 for crits, 11-26 for hilly races and 11-28 for training.

If most of the nonracing cycling population are even more honest, they'd probably find that a 46/36 would probably meet their needs even better. They neither have any hope of spinning out the top end nor being in conditions that would make a larger difference between the rings optimal.

I find a 50 perfect for my riding on flats, short hills, and lesser grades. The 34 gives me a perfect range when going up a mountain. The 34 can also be nice if I'm quite tired or there's a big headwind, neither of which is as uncommon as I wish they were.

I almost always spin out a 50x12 on descents, keeping up with traffic. No big deal - bikes are faster in tight corners, cars on straight sections. Hwy 1 descending from the coast towards Sausalito CA is one example. But I don't think it matters much, I'd always spin out whatever I have on the bike anyway. 40 or 37mph... doesn't terribly matter.

Bigger large chain rings make sense for people who do a lot of climbing. They tend to use their top and bottom gears a lot.

But most recreational cyclists spend more time in flatter areas. They often can't really use their top gears, so when they're in the big ring, they only use the bottom part of their cassette.

In any case, when spinning out requires a steep descent, aerodynamics rather than pedal power is the limiting factor.

Huh? I'm a member of the non-racing population and it is not that unusual for me to spin out on a descent. And it isn't unusual at all for me to need the 34/27. In fact I had to get off and walk the other day, though admittedly my garmin claimed the gradient to be 33% at the point I gave up. It isn't just racers who climb hills.

https://www.53x12.com/

The doper's Dr. agrees with that statement.

The pros are now riding wider spreads with 10/11 speed. Many are riding 53/39 with 11/26 everyday at the Tour(LA).

I believe the majority of bikes should be sold with 50/36 & 11/(26,27 or 28).

More people are riding higher cadence which demands lower gearing.

Bob is Bob

The flats where I live would be ideal for that combo.

The context of the thread is Bob Roll explaining why the riders in the Tour de France are not using compacts. My response in this thread was written in that context. There's no real advantage for those guys to use a compact because the climbs they are doing, they just don't need the lower gears.

So the riders that the thread is discussing are "strong road racers"

Ummm ... you're trying to be funny, right ? (Bobke might have been trying to be serious ... not sure)

Sure, but my comments had more of the flatlanders in mind. A huge percentage of the cycling population does not live near decent hills, and even where there are hills, only a minority of people seem to like grinding up them.

There are plenty of nonracers who climb, and a compact with a 12/27 or 11/26 is a great choice for that application because you use your top and bottom gears a lot. 33% is an insane grade and few people have access to that. Not so many regularly encounter grades half that.

I keep forgetting, a lot of serious talk in the 41 is so idiotic that identifying over the top comments meant in jest is not so straightforward