Compact Crankset: yes or no

Orange Fish said:

I'm trying to figure out if I should get a compact crankset and don't really know much about them besides what I've read on some web sites (not too informative so far). I currently ride a full Ultegra setup with 172.5mm cranks. I've heard that compact cranksets are typically for cyclo-cross and older riders, but what about Tyler Hamilton (and any other pros?) using compact cranks? He's a young guy...

Here's my situation. I'm 24, 6'3", 159.5lbs. Climbing is my strength and I climb at a fairly high cadence (depending on the grade), but am pretty useless in sprints currently, so I'm not ever in a 53x12 gearing during a race unless it's a big downhill, and I suck wheel any time possible - so never in my highest gear really. Much of the time I'll be in 53x18-21 spinning around 95-105rpm because it feels the best and allows me to keep the rpm's high for racing. In training I spend a lot of my time spinning in 39x something and keeping the cadence around 100 on rolling terrain.

Would a compact setup be good for someone like me? Would the gearing options be more beneficial than a 53x39 setup in my situation? This is kind of a big investment ($170-$300), so I want to make an educated decision. Any input from you guys (and gals) would be great! Thanks! cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗

If you can climb what you need to with a 53/39, you don't need a compact. That stuff about Cyclo-cross and geezers is BS. Tyler actually used a 36x 52 which is not considered a compact in the 34/50 sense even to the cranks were 110bcd.

I've kicked around the idea of a compact on my training bike, and I've decided that I'll eventually go that route. Like you, I hardly ever use the 53x12, and after consulting a gear inch chart, I'm convinced that the 50x12 will be plenty of top end gear for 98% of my riding. The difference is that the compact will 1) allow me to use more of my cassette more often, 2) limit my having to change to the small chainring for all but the steepest of climbs, and 3) give me a hell of a climbing gear, even with a 12-25 cassette.

Also, it seems like with the smaller chainring, the chamce of it rubbing in the inside of the front derailleur would be less, because it wouldn't move as far for the same amount of BB flex.

I'm planning on picking up either a Ritchey WCS compact crank (which uses an octalink BB) or an FSA Energy (which uses ISIS). Both are around $150.

If you want a more useable top gear consider a cassette that begins with a 13T.

If you are wondering about the chainring shifts the compact shifts crisply if you have it dialed in. Only difference really is that you'll have to give the right shifter an "extra click" after a chainring shift due to the wider spacing between rings.

P.S. I like both the 53/39 and the compact equally, but for different reasons.

Agree with Boudreaux...compact would normally be used if you're having problems with the hills, which you aren't. If you are serious about racing, I would say forget the compact. The reason is simple: it's the speed of the peloton that largely dictates what gear you may need to use on any occasion, of course you can spin a smaller gear faster to go the same speed, but there are limits to this. Also, although a 50x11 is a bigger gear than a 53x12, I think it's more valuable to have closer gear spacing when you're trying to hang onto a fast moving bunch, to find the exact gear you need. You can't do that with compact as well. If you're already spinning in the 100s, what are you going to do in lower gears - 120s?? That would be hard to maintain for very long. If you're having trouble on the flats, try upping your power so that you can eventually spin (90-110 rpm) bigger gears. It takes work and time, but it's worth it. I speak from experience: I experimented with compact a couple years ago: it definately made it tougher to stick with a fast-moving group comfortably. Another thing to consider is that unless you use a compact specific front der, smaller inner chainrings are harder to shift unto the large, and can be more prone to dropping a chain unless you have it set up perfectly. That can also cost you in a race. Overall verdict: not very valuable for racers except in very specific circumstances (ie, when Tyler was racing with a broken clavicle and couldn't power bigger gears) Something to think about...

Orange Fish said:

Climbing is my strength and I climb at a fairly high cadence (depending on the grade), but am pretty useless in sprints currently, so I'm not ever in a 53x12 gearing during a race unless it's a big downhill, and I suck wheel any time possible - so never in my highest gear really. Much of the time I'll be in 53x18-21 spinning around 95-105rpm because it feels the best and allows me to keep the rpm's high for racing. In training I spend a lot of my time spinning in 39x something and keeping the cadence around 100 on rolling terrain.

Would a compact setup be good for someone like me?

I'd try changing the rear cassette first. I went with 13/23 9 speed because I never used the 11t or 12t. Also, that gives me a pretty tight cluster.

Since climbing is your strength I'd just change the easiest and lowest cost item first and go from there. Then if you still want some lower gearing consider going compact.

All great comments. Thanks everyone!

Biking Brian, I have another question for you since you experimented with compact cranks. If I'm in a group that's riding pretty fast and I have a 50x11, doesn't the compact setup offer a closer gearing than a 53x12 setup? That's what I've read so far, but even in the higher gears like 50x11, wouldn't that tighter gearing allow me to keep the cadence lower? Since I'm not usually in the 53x12 anyway? I'm not 100% sure😕, but just tossing more questions out to ya.
Also, I currently race cat5, so the speed of the peloton isn't ever an issue as far as hanging on goes. Would that matter in such a situation?

Thanks again! 🙂

I have recently switched to a compact crankset as well, and I found it to be helpful to me. The gear inches of a 53 x 12 is actually a smaller gear (easier to pedal) than a 50 x 11. I have found that a compact crankset gives you more gears in the middle range (where most of us spend most of our time pedaling) as well as a few smaller gears on the bottom end that can come in handy for those of us that are larger riders (like me), suck at climbing (like me), and want to keep our cadence up over hills/climbs. In my opinion, unless you spend a fair amount of time in the 53 x 12, and you can always find a good gear to be in when you ride--there really isn't a good reason not to switch to a compact. Keep in mind this is just my opinion, so take it for whatever you want....

Orange Fish said:

I'm trying to figure out if I should get a compact crankset and don't really know much about them besides what I've read on some web sites (not too informative so far). I currently ride a full Ultegra setup with 172.5mm cranks. I've heard that compact cranksets are typically for cyclo-cross and older riders, but what about Tyler Hamilton (and any other pros?) using compact cranks? He's a young guy...

Here's my situation. I'm 24, 6'3", 159.5lbs. Climbing is my strength and I climb at a fairly high cadence (depending on the grade), but am pretty useless in sprints currently, so I'm not ever in a 53x12 gearing during a race unless it's a big downhill, and I suck wheel any time possible - so never in my highest gear really. Much of the time I'll be in 53x18-21 spinning around 95-105rpm because it feels the best and allows me to keep the rpm's high for racing. In training I spend a lot of my time spinning in 39x something and keeping the cadence around 100 on rolling terrain.

Would a compact setup be good for someone like me? Would the gearing options be more beneficial than a 53x39 setup in my situation? This is kind of a big investment ($170-$300), so I want to make an educated decision. Any input from you guys (and gals) would be great! Thanks! cyclingforums.combiggrin.gifOpen ↗

A while back when I was building a new bike, I was debating the whole compact thing myself and I made this rudimentary chart so I could look at all the options... it is pretty self explanatory feel free to play with it or change it as you wish.

Some of the takeaways:
- compact gives lower gearing yes, but so does changing your cassette (duh)
- the wider range of a compact with 16 tooth jump comes at the expense of having a bigger gap between your rings (duh again) besides changing to a 39/55 gives roughly the same result
- the jumps in gears is determined primarily from your cassette, not your chainring (duh...see the pattern) however in most cassettes the biggest jump comes from a 19 to 17 or 17 to 15 (if you don't have a 16) and by changing the chainring size you can move at what speed this occurs
- the one thing a compact can do for you is allow you a closer cassette range (21-11 or 23-12) with similar top and bottom ratios (at the expense of a big jump between rings).

To me the compact only makes sense if you have as big of a cassette as possible, and you still need more gearing, in which case a triple may make more sense. From everything you wrote, you don't need a compact, you are fine with the 39/53.

I ended up sticking with a 39/53, because I like to hammer down mountains and draft buses when given the chance and a 50/11 just isn't enough gear...the 55 is on the way too 😄

BTW, you are turning a short crank give a longer crank some thought just to complicate your decision. 😉

Orange Fish said:

All great comments. Thanks everyone!

Biking Brian, I have another question for you since you experimented with compact cranks. If I'm in a group that's riding pretty fast and I have a 50x11, doesn't the compact setup offer a closer gearing than a 53x12 setup? That's what I've read so far, but even in the higher gears like 50x11, wouldn't that tighter gearing allow me to keep the cadence lower? Since I'm not usually in the 53x12 anyway? I'm not 100% sure😕, but just tossing more questions out to ya.
Also, I currently race cat5, so the speed of the peloton isn't ever an issue as far as hanging on goes. Would that matter in such a situation?

Thanks again! 🙂

sheldon Brown at www.harriscyclery.com has a gear inch chart.

wilmar13 said:

A while back when I was building a new bike, I was debating the whole compact thing myself and I made this rudimentary chart so I could look at all the options... it is pretty self explanatory feel free to play with it or change it as you wish.

Some of the takeaways:
- compact gives lower gearing yes, but so does changing your cassette (duh)
- the wider range of a compact with 16 tooth jump comes at the expense of having a bigger gap between your rings (duh again) besides changing to a 39/55 gives roughly the same result
- the jumps in gears is determined primarily from your cassette, not your chainring (duh...see the pattern) however in most cassettes the biggest jump comes from a 19 to 17 or 17 to 15 (if you don't have a 16) and by changing the chainring size you can move at what speed this occurs
- the one thing a compact can do for you is allow you a closer cassette range (21-11 or 23-12) with similar top and bottom ratios (at the expense of a big jump between rings).

To me the compact only makes sense if you have as big of a cassette as possible, and you still need more gearing, in which case a triple may make more sense. From everything you wrote, you don't need a compact, you are fine with the 39/53.

I ended up sticking with a 39/53, because I like to hammer down mountains and draft buses when given the chance and a 50/11 just isn't enough gear...the 55 is on the way too 😄

BTW, you are turning a short crank give a longer crank some thought just to complicate your decision. 😉

Wow, that's a nice sheet you put together. I think I'll play with that and see what I come up with. 🙂

As for the crank, what are the benefits of turning a longer (175mm) crank? Would I be doing myself an injustice by using my current 172.5mm cranks?

Thanks!

Orange Fish said:

As for the crank, what are the benefits of turning a longer (175mm) crank? Would I be doing myself an injustice by using my current 172.5mm cranks?

Thanks!

Well it really is a can of worms, but for taller folks, most people agree a slightly longer crank fits better and while it is true that the extra leverage is in effect lowered gearing, when you have longer bones etc. you can use it more efficiently... everyone is different but my first road bike was a 61cm frame that came with 172.5 cranks. Of course I never knew the difference, but when I started to race an old timer that took me under his wing, told me "kid you got long levers(femurs), you need some longer cranks." This was around the end of Big Migs reign and he always compared me to him, telling me that when indurain switched to 180mm cranks he got much faster (I am 193cm/6'4" tall with 93cm/36.5" inseam). Well sure enough I saved my pennies until I could afford a set... and yeah they did make a big difference and I have used them ever since. But of course I really believed they would make me faster, so what % of the gain was psychological I don't know. I am a larger power rider that tends to have a cadence of about 90-95 which is about average I guess. I do know that going from 175 to 180 is only a 2.5% difference and I don't even notice it when going from my road bikes which all have 180s to my tandem or mountain bike that have 175s. If you are fine with 172.5s don't worry about it... but if you are going to change your cranks it may be something else to consider.

Interesting. I'll have to look into that more. I have a long torso because my inseam is only about 33"...my girlfriend, who is only 5'10 has the same inseam as me (she's all leg), so I'm kinda weird with the height/leg length thing. lol. 😉