|
...you have a small ring for a reason. If you're getting killed on the hills, USE IT. This aversion to front shifting is silly. Cross chaining isn't the answer.
|
Originally Posted by mac1965
(Post 12288473)
Just how bad is it to be totally topped out, meaning 54/23? Is it a wear issue or potential mechanical failure? I'm pretty strong legged and haven't snapped anything, yet! |
For the weight weenie, compacts are lighter. I switched to a compact on my new bike and never looked back...because I'm so slow everybody was in front of me, but that had nothing to do with the crank selection. I was even slower with those heavy full sized rings.
Check out this cool gearing calculator... http://www.gear-calculator.com/# |
Originally Posted by mac1965
(Post 12288473)
Gotta say I appreciate this thread! Currently running 50/34 and 11/21 (10s), but am getting killed on the hills, however I do hit the 11 on occasion in some areas and never the 34. I'm thinking of going to a 23 on the back to stay off the 34, but don't have the knowledge or experience to know better either way, but from what I'm reading that seems to be the way to go.
Just how bad is it to be totally topped out, meaning 54/23? Is it a wear issue or potential mechanical failure? I'm pretty strong legged and haven't snapped anything, yet! Glad I found you all!! :) That's like having a stick shift car and avoiding 1st and 2nd gear. |
I will heed your advice and use my gears better! It also keeps me from spending money! Thank you all very much! :)
|
also your gear ratios are closer with a 50 which is more efficient but can also make you weak. Riding in the 52/53 all the time will make you tough or kill your knees. years ago I used to ride 52 before I got a front derailuer. so I was riding up chilikoot in 52-26 on platform pedals. probably survived because i rode minimally.
|
Personal preference I'd say. Living in the Rocky Mountains there are times I wish I had a compact. However, I'd be lost without my 53x11, particularly in races. Hammering down a mountain with a 53x12 you spin out against guys with a 53x11. I just use an 11x26 cassette to have the extra low gear.
|
Originally Posted by unterhausen
(Post 12285612)
I think for most mere mortals a compact crank makes more sense. I went from a 54 big chainring to a 50, and I don't think there are any places I have spun that gear out yet.
|
Originally Posted by mpath
(Post 12290388)
+1. I live in a largely geriatric community with mamils so my LBS kits out most of their bikes with compacts.
|
Originally Posted by Homebrew01
(Post 12289241)
What the heck is wrong with you ?!
That's like having a stick shift car and avoiding 1st and 2nd gear. |
Originally Posted by ProudDaddy
(Post 12290061)
Personal preference I'd say. Living in the Rocky Mountains there are times I wish I had a compact. However, I'd be lost without my 53x11, particularly in races. Hammering down a mountain with a 53x12 you spin out against guys with a 53x11. I just use an 11x26 cassette to have the extra low gear.
|
Originally Posted by DinoShepherd
(Post 12281950)
Gear inches.
How do they work? - Z
Originally Posted by Homebrew01
(Post 12282350)
Compacts give you a wider range than a normal double, so they are good in hilly areas. .... maybe you'd like it ?
From the master, Sheldon Brown http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html Gear Inches The simplest system in common use is the "gear inch" system. This dates back to before the invention of the chain-drive bicycle. It originally was the diameter of the drive wheel of a high-wheel bicycle. When chain-drive "safety" bikes came in, the same system was used, multiplying the drive wheel diameter by the sprocket ratio. It is very easy to calculate: the diameter of the drive wheel, times the size of the front sprocket divided by the size of the rear sprocket. This gives a convenient two- or three-digit number. The examples listed above are all around 74-75 inches. The lowest gear on most mountain bikes is around 22-26 inches. The highest gear on road racing bikes is usually around 108-110 inches. Unfortunately, the handwriting is on the wall for all inch-based measurement systems. Otherwise, it's a totally antiquated way of looking at things, and it's make more sense to think of gain ratios, or better yet mph at a given cadence. |
Originally Posted by ProudDaddy
(Post 12290061)
Personal preference I'd say. Living in the Rocky Mountains there are times I wish I had a compact. However, I'd be lost without my 53x11, particularly in races. Hammering down a mountain with a 53x12 you spin out against guys with a 53x11. I just use an 11x26 cassette to have the extra low gear.
Better approach often is to push hard at the top to accelerate quickly, and by the point you're geting into the high 40's tuck in, and recover. |
I made the switch (on Ultegra 9) with some anxiety about 3-4 years ago and was glad of it. I was tickled a few years later to see compacts become standard - even on higher end bikes. I now have a 50/34 and 11/25, and since I don't like cross chaining at all (I leave two cogs unused on each end), having an 11 on the back allows me to go to 34-13 and maintain 20-21 comfortably. The only time I ever see the 50 is with a BIG tailwind or long downhill - strict recreational guy here.
|
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
(Post 12292387)
I'm really not sure that's true if you have a good spin. 53x12 at 140 rpm is 50mph. At that speed you're getting to the point where you have to put out an awful lot of watts for a very marginal increase in speed.
Better approach often is to push hard at the top to accelerate quickly, and by the point you're geting into the high 40's tuck in, and recover. |
Originally Posted by clink83
(Post 12292105)
What's wrong with that? One of the benifits for me of a compact is that on flatish ground I don't have to use the small ring, period. Short rolling hills the lowest gear I need is a 50/25, where with a standard crank I would be down in the 39 ring. Less front shifting is a good thing for alot of people.
It is absolutely ridiculous to struggle your way up hills, overworking your system and destroying your knees, because you have a lower gear and refuse to use it. Shift down when you start climbing, shift back up when you get to the flats/downhill. It's not a difficult concept. Really. I promise. |
Originally Posted by Nerull
(Post 12293177)
A good thing for a lot of people who have compensation issues.
It is absolutely ridiculous to struggle your way up hills, overworking your system and destroying your knees, because you have a lower gear and refuse to use it. Shift down when you start climbing, shift back up when you get to the flats/downhill. It's not a difficult concept. Really. I promise. |
Originally Posted by mpath
(Post 12293230)
+1. It's not like golf - at least I hope it's not! - where you'd compare with your buddies which club you're using for a given hole.
|
South Central CO, surrounded by Sawatch, Elk and Wet mtns. 15 14ers in this COUNTY alone. Switched to 50/34 a couple years ago to save my knees. A 'short' climb here is 45 minutes. Was riding 12-27, got tired of spinning out on the descents. Put on 11-28 and am looking forward to the training rides this spring. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Nerull
(Post 12293177)
A good thing for a lot of people who have compensation issues.
It is absolutely ridiculous to struggle your way up hills, overworking your system and destroying your knees, because you have a lower gear and refuse to use it. Shift down when you start climbing, shift back up when you get to the flats/downhill. It's not a difficult concept. Really. I promise. |
Originally Posted by mpath
(Post 12293230)
+1. It's not like golf - at least I hope it's not! - where you'd compare with your buddies which club you're using for a given hole.
|
Originally Posted by clink83
(Post 12297189)
You're missing the point. I can spin a 50/25, so I don't have to shift in the front on flat/rolling terrain. When I had a standard crank, I had to shift to the small ring to keep above 80rpms. Eliminating the front shift for short climbs is really, really useful on flat/rolling terrain. It's not about compensation, since I'm not a masher. As soon as I have a real climb, I switch to the 34t and use it for what it's designed for.
|
Originally Posted by Homebrew01
(Post 12297236)
Exactly .... so I don't know what your earlier reply was all about.
Originally Posted by mac1965
(Post 12288473)
Currently running 50/34 and 11/21 (10s), but am getting killed on the hills, however I do hit the 11 on occasion in some areas and never the 34. I'm thinking of going to a 23 on the back to stay off the 34, but don't have the knowledge or experience to know better either way, but from what I'm reading that seems to be the way to go.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:33 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.