Going from a triple to a compact
08-06-12 | 08:39 AM
#26
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 22,676
Likes: 2,642
From: CID
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
I don't have a whole lot of experience with compacts, but when I borrowed a bike from a friend that had one, the amount of front-shifting (and then the rear-shifting to find the "next" gear) I needed to do was really annoying. In contrast, I'm very happy to spend 90-95% of my time in the middle ring of my triples.
That said, compacts have a siren call that many find hard to resist. I don't know if it's the simplicity of two rings, the OCD need to reduce overlap, or what. I've done some thought experiments to figure out how a compact could satisfy my needs, and that would be to size down the big ring so that it would cover more of the middle range. With the 11 or 12T top cog on cassettes, I wouldn't need anything bigger than 46T or even 44T. With that, I could spend the vast majority of my time in the big ring (like the middle on my triples), and then only need to shift down to the 34T when I see a steep hill looming.
Of course, if you're a racer and need gears over 105 GI, the above wouldn't be satisfactory, but you'd probably be using a standard double anyway.
That said, compacts have a siren call that many find hard to resist. I don't know if it's the simplicity of two rings, the OCD need to reduce overlap, or what. I've done some thought experiments to figure out how a compact could satisfy my needs, and that would be to size down the big ring so that it would cover more of the middle range. With the 11 or 12T top cog on cassettes, I wouldn't need anything bigger than 46T or even 44T. With that, I could spend the vast majority of my time in the big ring (like the middle on my triples), and then only need to shift down to the 34T when I see a steep hill looming.
Of course, if you're a racer and need gears over 105 GI, the above wouldn't be satisfactory, but you'd probably be using a standard double anyway.
08-09-12 | 06:40 PM
#27
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,341
Likes: 326
From: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs
I don't have a whole lot of experience with compacts, but when I borrowed a bike from a friend that had one, the amount of front-shifting (and then the rear-shifting to find the "next" gear) I needed to do was really annoying. In contrast, I'm very happy to spend 90-95% of my time in the middle ring of my triples.
That said, compacts have a siren call that many find hard to resist. I don't know if it's the simplicity of two rings, the OCD need to reduce overlap, or what.
That said, compacts have a siren call that many find hard to resist. I don't know if it's the simplicity of two rings, the OCD need to reduce overlap, or what.
The bike companies profit from SKU reduction (fewer bike models, fewer cranks, fewer front derailleurs, fewer rear derailleurs, perhaps fewer shift levers).
They want the populace to believe that triple cranks are dorky but compact crank setups with their non-traditionally small inner ring and pie plate sized big cog are not.
I've done some thought experiments to figure out how a compact could satisfy my needs, and that would be to size down the big ring so that it would cover more of the middle range. With the 11 or 12T top cog on cassettes, I wouldn't need anything bigger than 46T or even 44T.
If I wasn't 40 pounds over racing weight I might consider it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Puget Pounder
Classic & Vintage
43
05-06-11 09:38 PM
