Compact V 39/53

For Roadies

Compact V 39/53

Postby Apple » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:50 pm

Ok I know I have asked this question before but here I ago again.
I have always ridden a 39/53 with 27 gears at the back.
I had to stop riding for a while due to surgery about a year ago.
I am getting older and I find that many riders younger and fitter then me, are riding compacts.
I do have lots of power and am in the process of losing weight as I am 6 kg over weight.
I am not a great spinner and I love using big gears. My cadence is moderate but slow on the hills.
Climbing a hill like akuna or bobbin head in Sydney I would be at 10 to 13km/hour on a 4km climb. Cadence would be about 54-70 depending how tired I am and how heavy.
Is it worth changing to a compact.
I am also a female
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Speak your mind,Those that mind dont matter, Those that matter dont mind!!
User avatar
Apple
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: sydney

by BNA » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby DanielS » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:11 pm

Do you often feel like you need an extra gear or two when climbing hills? If so, then a compact might be good. If not, I wouldn't worry about it.
User avatar
DanielS
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby philip » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:12 pm

Apple wrote:Is it worth changing to a compact

Unless you feel you need smaller gears, i.e. you're in 39/27 and you're slowing down and want to pedal faster for the same speed then there's no point. If you want to be able to click down another gear while you're climbing and you can't because you're out of gears, then go for it. Compact gearing wont magically make you climb faster if you're going to use the equivalent gear to what you're using now :)
User avatar
philip
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Lane Cove, Sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Apple » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:22 pm

Yes I do feel like I would like an extra gear when climbing a steep hill.
I just don’t want to lose my 53.
It will also mean that I will need to change back to my 11/25 at the back if I get a compact. So my question is: is there much difference in compact with an 11/25 at the back, to a 39/53 and 27 group set at the back
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Speak your mind,Those that mind dont matter, Those that matter dont mind!!
User avatar
Apple
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Missy24 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:57 pm

11-28 exists from what I remember.
Missy24
 
Posts: 7198
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brunswick

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby ireland57 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:21 pm

Apple wrote:Yes I do feel like I would like an extra gear when climbing a steep hill.
I just don’t want to lose my 53.
It will also mean that I will need to change back to my 11/25 at the back if I get a compact. So my question is: is there much difference in compact with an 11/25 at the back, to a 39/53 and 27 group set at the back


If you're wanting to compare the climbing gears (39/27 to 34/25) the difference is approx 6%. It is a bit of a change given that many riders can feel 2% difference in ratios and will make hills a little easier.
If you are concerned about the loss in overall top speed it's still 6% difference obviously but a 50/11 is still a decent gear to push on flat ground.

You can get a 38 tooth chainring and an 11-28 cassette. They fit most bikes with a tweak of the rear derailleur B- screw. A 52 tooth big ring is also available so it's still a 14 tooth jump.
ireland57
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby sogood » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:34 pm

There's not too much difference b/n 53-12 and 50-11. And the test Philip outlined is absolutely right, unless you are constantly pumping 53-12 and asking more, then swapping to CT will still provide you with all the high end gears you want. The key advantage of CT is in the extra 2 gear steps at the lower end (for the same cassette).
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby ZepinAtor » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:45 pm

Here is a link to Sheldon Browns gear inch calculator--- http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/
Last edited by ZepinAtor on Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gas propulsion.......it's natural don't fight it.
User avatar
ZepinAtor
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Brizzzzbane Everton Hillzzzz

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby open roader » Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:41 pm

Apple,

My recent experience but with Ultegra 53/39 vs 50/34 and using the Ultegra 11-28 casette.

I recently opted for compacts but for different reasons. I find that I perform better with a higher cadence and I was preferring rides with an ever increasing proportion of moderate longer climbs and several short nasty steep short climbs. My pre-existing 39 small front cog in combination with a large 28 tooth rear cog was not quite spinning my legs fast enough to be truly comfortable with and fast recovering from said climbs.

I also found with the 53 tooth front sproket that I was crossing the chain too often as my flat road cruising speeds were a couple of km/hr too low to really be using the centre rear cogs so I was finding that I often was using the bottom three rear cogs with the 53 front cog and crossing or was forever chaning down to 39 front and then back up to the 53 front.

The change to compacts has really advanced my climbing, keeping my legs spinning at 90-94 RPM at 14 to 15 km/hr up the really steep kicks using the 34 front in combination with the 24 and 28 tooth rear cogs. The flat road cruising is also perfect now for me, holding the large front chainring 99% of the time with no crossing issues.

As I stated before, I changed to compacts to aid keeping my cadence up, I'm a spinner not a grinder. It sounds to me like a shorter geared alternative cassette option is on the cards for you - cheaper than a full compact crankset. If your're curious and you can afford to do so, purchase a compact crankset to suit and try them both back to back on the same ride routes then choose one and sell the other as i did. I kept swapped back and forth from standard to compact three times (six crank changes) before I def. went with the compacts.
3rd class cycling is always better than 1st class walking
User avatar
open roader
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Dueling Banjo Country

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby ireland57 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:37 pm

Have you thought of a triple? It has 30/42/52 or 53 giving a decent choice of gears. It may mean changing shifters too though depending on what your bike has on it.
ireland57
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Apple » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:06 pm

ireland57 wrote:Have you thought of a triple? It has 30/42/52 or 53 giving a decent choice of gears. It may mean changing shifters too though depending on what your bike has on it.

Please,
I dont need a triple, I had one before and never used the 30, I was spinning and not going anywhere
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Speak your mind,Those that mind dont matter, Those that matter dont mind!!
User avatar
Apple
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Apple » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:12 pm

open roader wrote:Apple,

My recent experience but with Ultegra 53/39 vs 50/34 and using the Ultegra 11-28 casette.

I recently opted for compacts but for different reasons. I find that I perform better with a higher cadence and I was preferring rides with an ever increasing proportion of moderate longer climbs and several short nasty steep short climbs. My pre-existing 39 small front cog in combination with a large 28 tooth rear cog was not quite spinning my legs fast enough to be truly comfortable with and fast recovering from said climbs.

I also found with the 53 tooth front sproket that I was crossing the chain too often as my flat road cruising speeds were a couple of km/hr too low to really be using the centre rear cogs so I was finding that I often was using the bottom three rear cogs with the 53 front cog and crossing or was forever chaning down to 39 front and then back up to the 53 front.

The change to compacts has really advanced my climbing, keeping my legs spinning at 90-94 RPM at 14 to 15 km/hr up the really steep kicks using the 34 front in combination with the 24 and 28 tooth rear cogs. The flat road cruising is also perfect now for me, holding the large front chainring 99% of the time with no crossing issues.

As I stated before, I changed to compacts to aid keeping my cadence up, I'm a spinner not a grinder. It sounds to me like a shorter geared alternative cassette option is on the cards for you - cheaper than a full compact crankset. If your're curious and you can afford to do so, purchase a compact crankset to suit and try them both back to back on the same ride routes then choose one and sell the other as i did. I kept swapped back and forth from standard to compact three times (six crank changes) before I def. went with the compacts.

thanks open rider,
that is a great response to my question.
I am not a spinner, I can spin but for short periods, I can push high gearing for a long time and I prefer the 53 to the 39. I do try and use the 39 more often these days but am more comfortable on the big cog.

You sound like Phil, that's what he does, spins and spins.
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Speak your mind,Those that mind dont matter, Those that matter dont mind!!
User avatar
Apple
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby breezer1 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:48 pm

I'm running 53/39 and 13/28, i find that is a very good allround combo, still fast on flat's and the extra big cog's for hill's, i was using a 12x25 then a 13x26, now a 13x28, i find this the best combination for my type of rides, on the hill's i was thinking i always needed another gear and the 28 is perfect for those hard climb's now!, i was talked out of going compact by my local bike shop guru as he thought the 13x28 was going to get me close to a 50/34 with 12/27.
User avatar
breezer1
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:20 pm
Location: Newcastle.NSW

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby ZepinAtor » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:36 pm

Apple wrote:Please,
I dont need a triple, I had one before and never used the 30, I was spinning and not going anywhere


With a comment like that I doubt you need a compact crank at all. Although there are quite a few different combo's of which the largest chainring sizes may have some benefit. The 36 x 50 or as suggested above a 38 inner ring could have some advantages.

If you're interested I have a compact crank you can try out & keep if you like it. I don't like compacts at all & removed this one from a CX bike. It's an FSA Gossamer with a 110 BCD & travelled less than two thousand K's. Unfortunately it's a 34/48, but you could probably source a 50 tooth big ring to give this compact thing a crack.

PM me if interested & I'll send them to you in Sydney. (I'm in Brisbane)


From Wiki.

In the context of road cycling, compact drivetrain typically refers to double cranksets with a smaller (usually 110mm) bolt circle diameter than the standard 130mm or Campagnolo's 135mm. As of 2006, all of the major component manufacturers such as Shimano and Campagnolo offer compact cranks in their midrange and high-end product lines. The compact crankset provides a compromise between the standard road double crankset (with 39/52 or 39/53 tooth chainrings) and the road triple (with 30/42/52 or 30/39/53 tooth chainrings). The compact crankset has two chainrings and typical ratios are 34/48, 34/50 and 36/50. This provides nearly the same lower gear ratios as a triple but without the need for a third chainring, a triple front derailleur and a long cage rear derailleur. Note that both Shimano and Campagnolo recommend and sell front derailleurs specifically designed for compact cranksets, claiming better shifting.

Compact gearing is not necessarily lower than standard gearing if cassettes with smaller sprockets (such as 11–23) are used. A high gear of 50×11 on a compact drivechain is actually slightly higher than the 53×12 of a standard set.

Compact gearing usually has a large percentage jump between the two chainrings. In balance, it may also allow small jumps in the rear by allowing a closer ratio cassette to be used, except for the 9% jump at the high end between the 11 and 12 tooth sprockets.
Gas propulsion.......it's natural don't fight it.
User avatar
ZepinAtor
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Brizzzzbane Everton Hillzzzz

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Drunkmonkey » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:35 pm

Apple wrote:
ireland57 wrote:Have you thought of a triple? It has 30/42/52 or 53 giving a decent choice of gears. It may mean changing shifters too though depending on what your bike has on it.

Please,
I dont need a triple, I had one before and never used the 30, I was spinning and not going anywhere


a triple on a prince is blasphemy :shock:
Drunkmonkey
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby scotto » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:50 am

Apple, IN recent months I have just gone from compact to standard. i'm not much of a spinner either
My observations are that on long hills it doesn't seem to bother me much, indeed on our bobbin head, galston gorge ride i found climbing much quicker for some reason. however on some short little steep hills I seem to get dropped a bit as i have to change down to the 39 chainring and lose momentum while the compact riders dont ?
If your managing 10-13 with cadence of 50ish, maybe a compact set will be the go.

I have a compact crankset (shimano) at home that you're more then welcome to borrow and try.
User avatar
scotto
 
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:38 am
Location: Baulkham Hills

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Apple » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:54 am

scotto wrote:Apple, IN recent months I have just gone from compact to standard. i aint much of a spinner either
My observations are that on long hills it doesnt seem to bother me much, indeed on our bobbin head, galston gorge ride i found climbing much quicker for some reason. however on some short little steep hills I seem to get dropped a bit as i have to change down to the 39 chainring and lose momentum maybe?
If your managing 10-13 with cadence of 50ish, maybe a compact set will be the go.

I have a compact crankset (shimano) at home that youre more then welcome to borrow and try.

Thanks Scotto,
I am going to do some hill repeats and see if I can get back up to speed. Also on those diet shakes at the moment, I am sure my weight power ratio will improve.
The thing is I am not getting any younger. I will PM you soon.
Like you it is those short steep hills I get dropped.
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Speak your mind,Those that mind dont matter, Those that matter dont mind!!
User avatar
Apple
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Christine Tham » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:00 am

Drunkmonkey wrote:
a triple on a prince is blasphemy :shock:


Ha ha ha

Agree completely.

Actually, a triple on any road bike is blasphemy :P
Weekdays: "Bliss" (Trek Madone 5.2 2012) | Weekends: "Cadel" (self built) | Casual: "Kitty" (Giant Cypress LDS 2009)
User avatar
Christine Tham
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Missy24 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:49 am

Christine Tham wrote:
Drunkmonkey wrote:
a triple on a prince is blasphemy :shock:


Ha ha ha

Agree completely.

Actually, a triple on any road bike is blasphemy :P

+1
Missy24
 
Posts: 7198
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brunswick

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby scotto » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:31 am

Christine Tham wrote:
Drunkmonkey wrote:
a triple on a prince is blasphemy :shock:


Ha ha ha

Agree completely.

Actually, a triple on any road bike is blasphemy :P


ALL LIES

here's a lovely lass riding a road triple, and making a nice job of it too !
even her knee is smiling




Image
User avatar
scotto
 
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:38 am
Location: Baulkham Hills

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby number21 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:43 pm

Forget the diet shakes, mate of mine in Spain reckons he knows a great butcher whose cuts make power to weight concerns a thing of the past. 8)
User avatar
number21
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:25 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Apple » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:51 am

number21 wrote:Forget the diet shakes, mate of mine in Spain reckons he knows a great butcher whose cuts make power to weight concerns a thing of the past. 8)

:? you lost me, do you mean eat meat not drink shakes?
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Speak your mind,Those that mind dont matter, Those that matter dont mind!!
User avatar
Apple
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: sydney

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby scotto » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:35 am

Apple wrote:
number21 wrote:Forget the diet shakes, mate of mine in Spain reckons he knows a great butcher whose cuts make power to weight concerns a thing of the past. 8)

:? you lost me, do you mean eat meat not drink shakes?


i think he means the Astana team Purveyor of Fine Meats
User avatar
scotto
 
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:38 am
Location: Baulkham Hills

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby Boognoss » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:53 am

ZepinAtor wrote:/snip Unfortunately it's a 34/48, but you could probably source a 50 tooth big ring to give this compact thing a crack.


I did exactly this on my CX commuter (upped the 48 to a 50). Specialized Tricross Zep? Even with 48 on the front and 11 on the back I didn't spin out too much, but the 50 gives a little extra.

With 11-28 cassette the gearing has higher and lower gears than my roadie with 53/39 and 12-27.
2011ish Avanti Quantum (DIY), 2010 Specialized Tricross, 2010 Salsa Casseroll

Image
User avatar
Boognoss
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 5943
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:45 am
Location: Castle Hill, NSW

Re: Compact V 39/53

Postby ZepinAtor » Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:58 am

Boognoss wrote:
ZepinAtor wrote:/snip Unfortunately it's a 34/48, but you could probably source a 50 tooth big ring to give this compact thing a crack.


I did exactly this on my CX commuter (upped the 48 to a 50). Specialized Tricross Zep? Even with 48 on the front and 11 on the back I didn't spin out too much, but the 50 gives a little extra.

With 11-28 cassette the gearing has higher and lower gears than my roadie with 53/39 and 12-27.


Yep a Specialized Tri-cross. Hated the compact crank & fitted an FSA superlight carbon crank instead. My next issue is that a second hand race bike I recently acquired has Sram Red compact I'd like to swap with a standard Red crank. Anybody ???
Gas propulsion.......it's natural don't fight it.
User avatar
ZepinAtor
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Brizzzzbane Everton Hillzzzz

Next

Return to Road Biking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: illume



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers