Your latest bike purchase?

[ShawnoftheDread]

Never mind

[Phatboing]

I like my compact with the 11-28. At Kill Bill I was wishing for a 11-34, or even a triple, but my training for that was having lots of beer and pulled pork the night before, so this perspective is suspect.

Not entirely relevant, but on the Fargo I used to have an MTB triple with a road cassette, and that thing was ready to party on most surfaces.

(Now it has 11-34, and is ready to party on ALL surfaces)

[ShawnoftheDread]

My CX/commuter has a 50/34 and 11/32. It’s the 34 I’m not crazy about. I used it on Kill Bill, in races, and with studs, but otherwise it feels too small. It’s actually too small in races, too, but 50 isn’t happening.

[Jason B]

I find the compact way more useful. Rarely am I in the 11, but the 28 is used more than i like to admit. I have several of both, but the standards have been collecting dust ever since my first compact. Never have i wished i had a standard, but there have several hills that i would have paid a king’s ransom for another gear. If you’re planning fondo’s, or just big hill climbs a compact is essential. Even more local, a compact keeps you from switching out of the big ring.

[Tim Kelley]

11-28 & 39-53 on the TT bike.

11-28 & 34-50 on the road bike!

Spin to win, baby!

[Phatboing]

@ShawnoftheDread 110125 wrote:

My CX/commuter has a 50/34 and 11/32. It’s the 34 I’m not crazy about. I used it on Kill Bill, in races, and with studs, but otherwise it feels too small. It’s actually too small in races, too, but 50 isn’t happening.

What about splitting the difference: 1x and switching to a 11-34?

Or a triple (26-36-46, maybe?) with the innermost ring repurposed as an emergency ninja star? I have no idea if the front mech will work with the two rings, but the ninja star…

[mstone]

@TwoWheelsDC 110118 wrote:

If I ever swap out the crankset on my Cervelo, I’ll probably put in a standard. Not that I need a standard, since I don’t think I’ve ever spun out on 50/11, but I kinda like the idea of forcing myself to adapt and grow into the “harder” gearing on the low end. There really isn’t anything in this area that I need lower than a 34/25, and 39/28 is pretty close to the same gearing. With the exception of the last climb of Mountains of Misery (which I didn’t train well for), my current 34/28 low end is mostly overkill and never really need it.

I tend to err on the side of “I might need a lower gear” rather than “I might need a higher gear”. Stuff happens. If I were to routinely spin out the highest gear, then a bigger ring would be a no-brainer. In reality, I’m willing to coast a little bit on whatever flukey downhill tailwind makes me spin out a rarely used gear. If, on the other hand, something happens that makes me need the low end, it’s pretty certain that I can’t coast through it. On the gripping hand, I ride for fun & to see the sights–if I were a competitive rider who would give my left nut to go even faster on the flukey downhill tailwind so I could show off on strava, I might choose differently.

You also can trade off between the front and the back–you can compensate for a giant front ring by adding a wide ratio cassette, but then you end up with big jumps between the cogs. I personally prefer a tighter cassette and smaller rings but YMMV.

The other deciding factor is probably to change the front rings (either bigger or smaller) if you’re shifting the front a lot because your sweet spot is in the middle of the current configuration.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@Phatboing 110128 wrote:

What about splitting the difference: 1x and switching to a 11-34?

Or a triple (26-36-46, maybe?) with the innermost ring repurposed as an emergency ninja star? I have no idea if the front mech will work with the two rings, but the ninja star…

If it were a dedicated CX, a 1x would be great. I think I need two rings for all-around use, though, so I plan to get 46/36 rings before cross season.

[mstone]

@ShawnoftheDread 110125 wrote:

My CX/commuter has a 50/34 and 11/32. It’s the 34 I’m not crazy about. I used it on Kill Bill, in races, and with studs, but otherwise it feels too small. It’s actually too small in races, too, but 50 isn’t happening.

Have you looked at 46/36?

[Phatboing]

@ShawnoftheDread 110132 wrote:

I plan to get 46/36 rings before cross season.

This seems settled, then. We will watch your progress with great interest.

[americancyclo]

@ShawnoftheDread 110132 wrote:

I plan to get 46/36 rings before cross season.

@Phatboing 110136 wrote:

This seems settled, then. We will watch your progress with great interest.

Does this mean you’ll place better than this year?

[vvill]

I have 46/36 on the CX and in races mostly stayed in the 36, with the 46 for commuting. I might occasionally use the 46T but actually am afraid of chain drop in a race, so prefer not to use my front derailleur!

[ShawnoftheDread]

@americancyclo 110137 wrote:

Does this mean you’ll place better than this year?

Hey, I did pretty well last year for an aging rookie. Better than you, anyway.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@vvill 110120 wrote:

I would also consider a “mid compact” (52-36). 52 is almost a 53. 36 is almost almost-a-34.

My only gripe with this is that there aren’t many cranksets that will allow you to run a mid-compact. In all honesty, if you can swing the coin, get two cranksets, one standard, one compact, then just adjust the fder. to suit the crank. I’ll even admit to doing this on my regular road bike – for hill work (like Skyline, or rides up in western MD) a 34-25 is plenty good, but i tend to be a low-cadence rider.

[GB]

@Harry Meatmotor 110147 wrote:

In all honesty, if you can swing the coin, get two cranksets, one standard, one compact, then just adjust the fder. to suit the crank.

This is ridiculous.

If you need 2 crank options you obviously need 2 bikes. Or 1 more bike if you already have 2± but none of the others have *just* the right gearing.

[Author]

Posts