Any nooobs using a Compact?

tomc

I know this is down to user preference but i just wanted to hear any user experiences regarding using a compact instead of a triple? Would a relative noob manage the worst wicklow has to offer using a Compact?

Have been spoilt for choice in gearing in the past as I am converting from an MTB to a roadie.

TomC

TinyExplosions

tomc wrote: »

I know this is down to user preference but i just wanted to hear any user experiences regarding using a compact instead of a triple? Would a relative noob manage the worst wicklow has to offer using a Compact?

Have been spoilt for choice in gearing in the past as I am converting from an MTB to a roadie.

TomC

I use a compact, and have never had a problem -was a fat, unfit b*stard when I started, now I'm a slightly thinner, slightly less unfit b*stard... compact got me up the Alps, so I'd say go for it!

Colmhayden76

Go for it . I went for a compact when I switched from mtb to road and it's grand.
The wife had a tripple and she found that she wasn't using a third of her gears so she changed to a compact and it's made her faster and also reduced weight on her bike and made her cycling more efficent . She now has to think about what gear to use and where .Also further down the line new wheels and tyres will make the bike go faster and you won't use half as much gears on your rides

Lumen

I have one of each (compact and triple).

30/27 (triple) gives me 1.11, whereas 34/25 (compact) gives 1.36.

There isn't a huge difference TBH, but it depends on how tolerant your legs are to low cadence.

ROK ON

Colmhayden76 wrote: »

Go for it . I went for a compact when I switched from mtb to road and it's grand.
The wife had a tripple and she found that she wasn't using a third of her gears so she changed to a compact and it's made her faster and also reduced weight on her bike and made her cycling more efficent . She now has to think about what gear to use and where .Also further down the line new wheels and tyres will make the bike go faster and you won't use half as much gears on your rides

Not an expert by any means, but it is not surprising that your wife is not using 1/3 of her gears on a triple. The chain would cross at a pretty bad angle (leading to faster chain degradation) if you were to use all the gears.
I have a triple, and when in it I only use the largest 4 cogs on the rear casette block. To use any of the smaller cogs causes the chain to grate - and I can get the same gear inches on a different combination of the middle ring.
Thus I have a triple and like it. Would recommend it on the basis, that (if you use it properly (I sometimes dont)) you always have a gear that can get you up any hill.

Vélo

I haven't a clue what's on my bike.

How do I find out if it's compact.

My road bike is a Giant Scr C3 2007 model.

Does it say compact somewhere or do I count the teeth?

Trojan

Shouldn't that be "Any POBs using a Compact?"?

Raam

Aquinas73 wrote: »

I haven't a clue what's on my bike.

How do I find out if it's compact.

My road bike is a Giant Scr C3 2007 model.

Does it say compact somewhere or do I count the teeth?

Count the teeth. Standard double is typically 53/39.

cantalach

Amazing...this thread is now half an hour old and tunney still hasn't posted a comment about how compacts are strictly for girls with broken legs attempting multiple ascents of Mont Ventoux in a blizzard.

short circuit

Lumen wrote: »

I have one of each (compact and triple).

30/27 (triple) gives me 1.11, whereas 34/25 (compact) gives 1.36.

There isn't a huge difference TBH, but it depends on how tolerant your legs are to low cadence.

Not sure about you, but I would consider that a significant drop on the low gear ratios available ... if you ever use the 30/27 combo, I would definitely think about getting a 28 cassette for the compact.

tunney

Just to keep up my reputation:

"Compact, what are you? A one legged 90 year old woman with severe health problems. Stick on a 57/49 and a 21-11 on the back. Sure there are no mountains in Wicklow".

tunney

tomc wrote: »

I know this is down to user preference but i just wanted to hear any user experiences regarding using a compact instead of a triple? Would a relative noob manage the worst wicklow has to offer using a Compact?

Have been spoilt for choice in gearing in the past as I am converting from an MTB to a roadie.

TomC

If I lost one of my legs in a boating accident I'd go compact instead of triple.

Reason being you can interchange a compact and a standard very easily so if you were doing lots of hilly riding you could put on a compact and if you were mainly riding flat or starting spinning out the compact you could stick on a standard.

tomc

tunney wrote: »

Just to keep up my reputation:

"Compact, what are you? A one legged 90 year old woman with severe health problems. Stick on a 57/49 and a 21-11 on the back. Sure there are no mountains in Wicklow".

Ouch!!!!!:P

blorg

I have used a triple, standard double, and just this week for the first time, a compact.

I don't buy the weight arguments, it's a couple of hundred grams either way. If you are into the area where you need it I doubt it is going to matter much, the lower gears on a triple will be worth more to you than the weight saving. The interchangability is a bigger issue as it is difficult to go from triple to anything else, while you can easily swap standard and compact.

Both standard double and compact shift better (smoother) at the front than a triple. It's almost like the rear shifting on a standard double. The compact is not quite as good but still nicer than the triple. HOWEVER (and it is a big however) the drop from 50t to 34t is, in my opinion, massive, and leaves your legs spinning all over the place. I find it very disruptive to my rhythm compared to a standard double, or indeed compared to the shift between the large and middle ring of a triple. I also find I'm shifting between the rings more, I would be able to stay in either ring longer on the standard or triple. You do also lose a bit off the high end if using with a 12t cassette, again I don't think this would be an issue in Ireland but I reckon I could pedal a bit faster down some of the 18km long descents they have over here!

I got the compact for the Marmotte and am using it over here in Spain, I certainly appreciate the bottom gears for the length of the climbs. Most of the time I am in the third or second lowest gear (34-24 and 34-21) but for the sections over 8% I drop down into 34-27. This is really due to the length, in Wicklow I am fine just powering up the steep bits as it doesn't go on for so long. Now I am fit enough that a standard double is fine for the worst Wicklow has to offer but I certainly remember when I wasn't and needed a triple!

So, bottom line for me is that a triple will give you low gears with small % gaps in gearing at the front, at the cost of not quite so good shifting performance. Note you only really need this performance in a race I reckon.

A compact will give you almost but not quite as low gearing with better shifting but a large % gap in gearing at the front that I do find annoying. The interchangability is a big benefit to a compact but you only really need this if you you will be racing I reckon.

estariol

Aquinas73 wrote: »

I haven't a clue what's on my bike.

How do I find out if it's compact.

My road bike is a Giant Scr C3 2007 model.

Does it say compact somewhere or do I count the teeth?

Have this bike too and it is a compact! lovely bike for long spins. Had it out on the weekend 100K down sat. and 100k back on sun. from courtown and less aches and pains than expected.
Personally I hardly ever move off the big ring, imho a triple is just over complicating things.

cantalach

blorg wrote: »

HOWEVER (and it is a big however) the drop from 50t to 34t is, in my opinion, massive, and leaves your legs spinning all over the place.

So you haven't yet got the knack of filling the gap by simultaneously upshifting on the back whenever you downshift on the front??? Me neither.

Raam

cantalach wrote: »

So you haven't yet got the knack of filling the gap by simultaneously upshifting on the back whenever you downshift on the front??? Me neither.

I sometimes do that, but I dunno how good an idea it is, since it would probably increase the chance of throwing the chain because of all the change in tension.

blorg

cantalach wrote: »

So you haven't yet got the knack of filling the gap by simultaneously upshifting on the back whenever you downshift on the front??? Me neither.

I do this all right, but I still find it's just a damn big gap. I have never thrown a chain from simultaneous front and back shifting.

Chips Lovell

I think the advent of compacts mean that nobody really needs a triple in Ireland.

Having said that, I think people get too wrapped up thinking about cranksets when it comes to gearing. You can actually make quite a big difference by swapping out your cassette.

E.g. A 34/25 combo, which is the lowest gearing on a lot of new bikes with compact cranksets yields 36.7 gear inches.

39/27 will give you 39 gear inches.
39/28 will get you 37.6.

The downside to a compact is, as blorg mentioned, the big difference in chainring sizes. It means having to shift up a few gears at the back when changing at the front.

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

I think the advent of compacts mean that nobody really needs a triple in Ireland.

Having said that, I think people get too wrapped up thinking about cranksets when it comes to gearing. You can actually make quite a big difference by swapping out your cassette.

E.g. A 34/25 combo, which is the lowest gearing on a lot of new bikes with compact cranksets yields 36.7 gear inches.

39/27 will give you 39 gear inches.
39/28 will get you 37.6.

Your's truly is running a 39/27 on his bikes.
That said I have just switched the Spesh back to a 25 for racing.

niceonetom

el tonto wrote: »

39/27 will give you 39 gear inches.
39/28 will get you 37.6.

That can't be right.

I don't find i have much of a problem with the big gap on the compact - two or three clicks on the right, one on the left and, with a bit of practice, not too muck loss of momentum. I find the big jumps at the thick end of a 27 cassette to be more annoying, 21 to 24 to 27 is a bit jumpy when trying to find a nice rhythm up a climb. And that may actually be an advantage of the compact. A smaller small ring can allow us mortals to use an 11-25 cassette (or even 11-23 or 11-21) where we'd be committed to a 12-27 on a race-double, and that tighter range at the large end makes finding the right gear a bit more likely, and transitions smoother, while climbing.

I do think that an 11 tooth cog is necessary on the compact though. When descending (or, like last saturday on the N81, with a serious tail wind) 50x12 isn't enough to really power along.

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

That can't be right.

Chart here.

niceonetom wrote: »

I don't find i have much of a problem with the big gap on the compact - two or three clicks on the right, one on the left and, with a bit of practice, not too muck loss of momentum.

Thing is that you can front shift on a properly set up double with practically no loss in momentum. And just do it with one click down at the back simultaneously.

niceonetom wrote: »

I find the big jumps at the thick end of a 27 cassette to be more annoying, 21 to 24 to 27 is a bit jumpy when trying to find a nice rhythm up a climb. And that may actually be an advantage of the compact.

This is a good point and is the downside to using a 27 or 28 sprocket. I guess you've got to choose between good front shifting or tightly spaced big sprockets.

DirkVoodoo

I find that I only switch into the small ring when the incline starts to ramp up, so the increased spinning is only for a moment or two, annoying I guess but not in a major way.

I thought it was interesting that my sister's bike came with a compact, she hasn't even looked at a bike in about 15 years I reckon.

I can't see the need for a triple really, like Tonto says if you have the right cassette than your gearing can be easily matched to your cycling on a compact/double. There are just too many unusable ratios on a triple, not to mention I found it more difficult to clean and it makes more work shifting at the front.

niceonetom

el tonto wrote: »

Chart here.

fair enoughsky.

el tonto wrote: »

This is a good point and is the downside to using a 27 or 28 sprocket. I guess you've got to choose between good front shifting or tightly spaced big sprockets.

Well, I shift at the back more or less constantly. The front? Small ring at the bottom of the climb, big ring once I'm up there. That's it. The jump is bigger, yes, but I shift it much more rarely than I would if I had a 53. The Scalp might be a good example of an occasion where a compact eliminates the need to shift the front at all.

TBH, I'm slightly confused that blorg says he shifts the front more often while using the compact. Surely if the jump is bigger then the shifts should be less frequent? No? Maybe i'm just less averse to a bit of chain crossing for a few minutes... or maybe he just needs to get used to it.