Compact Chainsets & Road Bikes

Not Responding said:

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these

referred

Quoted message said:

to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
is - anyone help me?

'Compact' double chainsets for road bikes are ones which allow the use
of a smaller than normal inner ring; conventional road chainsets
usually have a 38 or 39 tooth inner ring at the very smallest. With the
'compact' pattern, the bolt circle diameter on the spider is smaller,
allowing smaller diameter rings with less teeth to be used, down to a
34T minimum. The idea isn't really a new one - Stronglight have offered
double chainsets which can take a 36T inner for years, and the Shimano
RSX group offered a 48/36 combo before such things became fashionable.
David E. Belcher

David E. Belcher said:

Not Responding said:

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

'Compact' double chainsets for road bikes are ones which allow the use
of a smaller than normal inner ring; conventional road chainsets
usually have a 38 or 39 tooth inner ring at the very smallest. With
the 'compact' pattern, the bolt circle diameter on the spider is
smaller, allowing smaller diameter rings with less teeth to be used,
down to a 34T minimum. The idea isn't really a new one - Stronglight
have offered double chainsets which can take a 36T inner for years,

s/36/28 for the Stronglight 99 and its cousins.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

" [Not Responding] " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
is - anyone help me?

While I'm posting, anyone got any suggestions for a lightweight, fast
but comfortable audax type bike? What are the qualitative differences
between, say, cheaper Dawes or Thorn Audax bikes and the pricier
Pearsons, Longstaffs, Roberts etc?

Differences are largely be that the cheaper options tend to be offered as
a complete package and are instantly available whereas others can be
customised to your needs plus of course you can pay a bit more and have the
frame made to measure; these obviously take a bit longer. If you give us an
idea about your intended budget and use we'll probably be able to offer more
specific advice. Personally I had a made to measure frame built up by my LBS
with components all of my choosing but it's not the route for everyone.

HTH
Julia

" [Not Responding] " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
is - anyone help me?

While I'm posting, anyone got any suggestions for a lightweight, fast
but comfortable audax type bike? What are the qualitative differences
between, say, cheaper Dawes or Thorn Audax bikes and the pricier
Pearsons, Longstaffs, Roberts etc?

Don't forget the 'start from a frame' option too - eg mine is based on a
Kinesis Racelight-T.

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:08:53 -0000, "JBB" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Differences are largely be that the cheaper options tend to be offered as
a complete package and are instantly available whereas others can be
customised to your needs plus of course you can pay a bit more and have the
frame made to measure; these obviously take a bit longer. If you give us an
idea about your intended budget and use we'll probably be able to offer more
specific advice. Personally I had a made to measure frame built up by my LBS
with components all of my choosing but it's not the route for everyone.

A year ago, I had one bike for all purposes; a lightweight flat barred
Ridgeback. I used it for commuting and for >100 mile rides.

In June I wanted a new bike just to see if I was physically capable of
riding so bought a Halfords special which could later (now) become a
utilitarian hack and commute. It's actually not a bad bike but now
that I want to try and get fit again and try for some longer
distances, I'd like something more appropriate.

As I already have a utility bike, for the first time ever I'm looking
for a single purpose machine rather than an all rounder. I hope to get
back up to covering 100 miles and more. It won't be used every day so
I'll be happy to give it the cleaning and care that my day-to-day
bikes rarely get.

I'm not interested in heavy load carrying but would want to be able to
take *something* (unlike pure race bikes).

I'm not really working to a budget but I don't like wasteful
expenditure. Spending £4k on a carbon-everything would be wasted on
me! OK, let's put a figure on it; say £1750. But I'm not ruling out a
£600 off the peg bike just because I could spend more.

Finally, for all the wrong reasons, I would like a light bike.

[Not Responding] wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I'm not interested in heavy load carrying but would want to be able to
take *something* (unlike pure race bikes).

[snip]

Using a back-pack when cycling is pretty much a last resort. They are
principally designed for walking and they become uncomfortable on a bike
with any significant weight in them. If you want to able to carry all
you are likely to need for a day trip, a saddlebag is excellent, and its
easy to leave it off the bike when not required. Those who take pride in
carrying the bare minimum find a saddle bag sufficient for even longer
journeys. You would of course need a saddle that's suitable (e.g. Brooks).

Another possibility is a handlebar bag, such as the Ortlieb one. I'm
very happy with mine, and it has an excellent map pocket. However, its
smaller than a typical saddlebag.

If that's not enough you should start looking at panniers and the
associated racks, but it sounds as though you don't see any need to go
that far.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB said:

Using a back-pack when cycling is pretty much a last resort. They are
principally designed for walking and they become uncomfortable on a
bike with any significant weight in them. If you want to able to
carry all
you are likely to need for a day trip, a saddlebag is excellent, and
its easy to leave it off the bike when not required. Those who take
pride in carrying the bare minimum find a saddle bag sufficient for
even longer journeys. You would of course need a saddle that's
suitable (e.g. Brooks).

Or one of these: <URL:
sjscycles.comvIndex.htmOpen ↗

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

in message <[email hidden]>, [Not

Responding (') said:

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these referred
to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
is - anyone help me?

My understanding is that a 'compact' is a double chainset with
relatively small chain rings - although not as small as those typically
used on mountain bikes. E.g., a 48/34 double.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
/-\ You have discovered a security flaw in a Microsoft product. You
|-| can report this issue to our security tesm. Would you like to
| | * Be completely ignored (default)?
| | * Receive a form email full of platitudes about how much we care?
\_/ * Spend hours helping us fix this problem for free?

"David E. Belcher" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

Simply, what is a compact chainset?

I'm thinking of buying a road bike and have come across these

referred

Quoted message said:

to as an alternative to a triple. But I haven't a clue as to what one
is - anyone help me?

Quoted message said:

'Compact' double chainsets for road bikes are ones which allow the use
of a smaller than normal inner ring; conventional road chainsets
usually have a 38 or 39 tooth inner ring at the very smallest. With the
'compact' pattern, the bolt circle diameter on the spider is smaller,
allowing smaller diameter rings with less teeth to be used, down to a
34T minimum. The idea isn't really a new one - Stronglight have offered
double chainsets which can take a 36T inner for years, and the Shimano
RSX group offered a 48/36 combo before such things became fashionable.
David E. Belcher

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JLB said:

Using a back-pack when cycling is pretty much a last resort. They are
principally designed for walking and they become uncomfortable on a
bike with any significant weight in them. If you want to able to
carry all
you are likely to need for a day trip, a saddlebag is excellent, and
its easy to leave it off the bike when not required. Those who take
pride in carrying the bare minimum find a saddle bag sufficient for
even longer journeys. You would of course need a saddle that's
suitable (e.g. Brooks).

Or one of these: <URL:
sjscycles.comvIndex.htmOpen ↗

Or one of these:

http://www.carradice.co.uk/sqr-products.htm

cheers,
clive

On 14/12/04 2:16 pm, in article [email hidden],

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

But they wear the knees out slower..

Fine if you don't like disposable prosthetics.

...d

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 14/12/04 2:16 pm, in article [email hidden],

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

But they wear the knees out slower..

Now just exactly HOW do you get this?

Your knees don't know or care what size of ring is between them and the
road. The only factors that affect them are load, range of motion, &
frequency (with an asterisk should you have lever-drive or non-circular
rings).

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Not tooooo much faster if using only slightly smaller rings, say 50/36 v
52/39. Even those few teeth make a nice difference to the gearing.

Quoted message said:

Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

It's only money :-)

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger

ones.

Quoted message said:

Not tooooo much faster if using only slightly smaller rings, say

50/36 v

Quoted message said:

52/39. Even those few teeth make a nice difference to the gearing.

I've not had any excessive wear problems using a 46/36 combo for
cyclo-cross (as against most people's 48/38 or 48/39), and said
chainset has run the same rings for nearly 3 years. It also enables me
to use a rear cassette with a 23T or 24T max sprocket, which are much
easier to come by than wide-ratio stuff in the Campag 8sp format my
rear wheel uses, without being too highly geared for off-roading.
David E. Belcher

David E. Belcher said:

Pete Biggs said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger
ones.

Not tooooo much faster if using only slightly smaller rings, say
50/36 v 52/39. Even those few teeth make a nice difference to the
gearing.

I've not had any excessive wear problems using a 46/36 combo for
cyclo-cross (as against most people's 48/38 or 48/39), and said
chainset has run the same rings for nearly 3 years. It also enables me
to use a rear cassette with a 23T or 24T max sprocket, which are much
easier to come by than wide-ratio stuff in the Campag 8sp format my
rear wheel uses, without being too highly geared for off-roading.

I used 42/28 for /years/ without undue wear prombles.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

jtaylor said:

Quoted message said:

But they wear the knees out slower..

Now just exactly HOW do you get this?

Your knees don't know or care what size of ring is between them and
the road. The only factors that affect them are load, range of
motion, & frequency (with an asterisk should you have lever-drive or
non-circular rings).

Knees can suffer if you're over-geared and trying to climb quickly.
There's only so low you can go without a compact or triple chainset.

~PB

On 14/12/04 3:16 pm, in article [email hidden],

jtaylor said:

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 14/12/04 2:16 pm, in article [email hidden],

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Fine if you want disposable equipment :-(

But they wear the knees out slower..

Now just exactly HOW do you get this?

Your knees don't know or care what size of ring is between them and the
road. The only factors that affect them are load, range of motion, &
frequency (with an asterisk should you have lever-drive or non-circular
rings).

And load is determined by gearing, hilliness and weight. As I am definitely
over weight, and Dundee environs could be regarded as over hilly, being
overgeared is a bad thing. I frequently use my lowest gear on the road bike
(39x26) and really could do with something a bit easier for the steeper
hills. I never use the top gears (52x12,13) and rarely the 52x14, even when
doing a TT.

Quoted message said:

Or are the type of person who believes marketing blather?

Me? Gullible? really?

...d

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I used 42/28 for /years/ without undue wear prombles.

Well mtb'ers will use something like 44/32/22 for years without prombles. A
standard road triple could be something like 52/42/30 and you won't
necessarily see the middle and inner rings rapidly wearing out just because
of their size (my middle will probably wear before the other two but that's
because I tend to stay in it nearly all the time!) I don't really think you
can say compact chainsets are necessarily going to wear _much_ quicker than
bigger rings. I think that once I start training for a certain seriously
hilly ride I shall quite happily wimp out into a 48/36/26! I think
excessive wear on the chainrings will be the least of my problems!

Rich

Helen Deborah Vecht <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Remember, compact chainsets will wear *much* faster than larger ones.

Really? Why?

I run either 34/48 or 38/48 depending. Most of the time I stay in the
48. By your argument (smaller rings wear quicker) things will last
longer than if I used a 32/42/52 triple or similar.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness