Best choice - crankset

omri

Which version of ultegra crankset should I chose - we are looking long term - have no intention of upgrading to anything for couple of years:

Price ascending:

1)Ultegra double: Chainwheel, number of teeth: 53-39

2)Ultegra double compact: Chainwheel, number of teeth: 50-34

3)Ultegra tripple: Chainwheel, number of teeth: 52-39-30

Won't be racing. Might do weekend spins. Just rather regular use although will climb whenever there is chance to climb.

DirkVoodoo

What do you have at the moment?

omri

I had 50/34 never felt right to be honest, but I thought that my casset was too easy on me.

pprendeville

can someone explain the difference between the double and the double compact.

DirkVoodoo

Full spec of the bike?

It might be a case of just swapping cassettes, I've heard people say that they can easily spin out on a compact, but 50-11 will get you up to 52 kph on the flat if you spin your legs at a not too unreasonable 90 rpm. If you find it easy going downhill, you might gain speed for "free" by working on your position and becoming more aerodynamic.

If you are doing 52 kph on the flat (solo) as a recreational cyclist then you need to think about a career change.

Anyway, you have a compact, so if you really just want a new crankset, the triple is out the window, the cost of replacing half of your groupset probably isn't worth it.

100Suns

pprendeville wrote: »

can someone explain the difference between the double and the double compact.

It refers to the number of teeth on the chain ring. A standard is 53/39 (53 teeth on the big ring and 34 on the small) and compact is 50/34-in essence the rings are smaller on a compact which gives higher gear ratios (easier) when in the same cog on the cassette.

omri

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Full spec of the bike?

It might be a case of just swapping cassettes, I've heard people say that they can easily spin out on a compact, but 50-11 will get you up to 52 kph on the flat if you spin your legs at a not too unreasonable 90 rpm. If you find it easy going downhill, you might gain speed for "free" by working on your position and becoming more aerodynamic.

If you are doing 52 kph on the flat (solo) as a recreational cyclist then you need to think about a career change.

Anyway, you have a compact, so if you really just want a new crankset, the triple is out the window, the cost of replacing half of your groupset probably isn't worth it.

I'm switching to new complete ultegra - except hubs and pedals.

DirkVoodoo

omri wrote: »

I'm switching to new complete ultegra - except hubs and pedals.

Gotcha. Compact or triple then, I can't see why a recreational cyclist wouldn't want one over a standard double.

If you can live with the shame, get the triple, but a compact is just as good and moves you up one rung on the ladder of social acceptance.

doozerie

One approach is to decide exactly how low a first gear you need. That may immediately rule out the standard double (or not). How high a top gear you want might rule out the compact and/or triple (or not). Then look at the jumps between gearing on the cassette - if you go for a standard double chainset and opt for a wide ranging cassette to give you the low and high gears you want, assuming such a cassette exists, then you may find that the jump between cogs on the cassette are too large to be comfortable, which may rule out the standard double. And even if the jumps between gears are reasonable check that any particular gears that you favour are available with that cassette - it can be annoying ending up with a gearing range which results in your having to adjust to a gear that is even just one tooth higher or lower than one that you are used to using most of the time.

Triples can be more fiddly to maintain, plus if your preferred gear range falls across two front rings (more likely with a triple) then you'll obviously find yourself changing between front rings a lot on the bike which can be a hassle (bit of a personal thing though, some people don't mind it). With a compact the issue is the relatively large jump in gears from small to big ring so you might find yourself having to change up/down gear at the back whenever changing on the front in order to maintain some kind of consistent cadence - again, may or may not be a big deal for you depending on how you like to ride.

omri

I think that was actually happening on my last configuration. I think normal double + guess small cassette. No pain - no gain and eventually I'll get strong enough for it.

cantalach

First, consider the wider range of gears offered by a compact:

• A compact 50/34 crankset paired with an 11-23 cassette gives you a bottom gear of 1.48 and a top gear of 4.55.
• A traditional 53/39 crankset paired with a 12-25 cassette gives you a bottom gear of 1.56 (higher than compact) and a top gear of 4.42 (lower than compact).

So the compact wins on this point. Many traditional types assume that this comes at the expense of bigger gaps in the ratios, i.e. that it will be harder to find exactly the right gear. But this is not the case - in fact it's the opposite:

• In an 11-23 cassette, the first seven sprockets (11-17 inclusive) are one tooth apart, and there is a two tooth jump to each of the last three sprockets (19-23 inclusive).
• In a 12-25 cassette, only the first six sprockets (12-17 inclusive) are one tooth apart, and there is a two tooth jump to each of the last four sprockets (19-25 inclusive).

The bigger jump at the front with a compact (16-tooth vs a 14-tooth jump) supposedly makes front shifting less smooth. But I'm not sure I've noticed this in three years of using a compact and I drop my chain just as infrequently as I did when I used a traditional crankset.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that unless you are regularly going to be spinning out your 50x11 and wishing for a 53x11 (and those occasions are few and far between in this country), you really have no business using a traditional crankset.

Lumen

Choosing a compact for social acceptance

53/42 FTW.

I like triples. A triple with a straight-through cassette would be sweet. I'm holding out for an 11sp triple with electronic shifting.

doozerie

cantalach wrote:

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that unless you are regularly going to be spinning out your 50x11 and wishing for a 53x11 (and those occasions are few and far between in this country), you really have no business using a traditional crankset.

That's a sweeping generalisation. Wait long enough and someone will come along and use a similar generalisation to argue in favour of a triple. And they'll be countered by someone arguing exclusively for a traditional double, which will be your cue to beat that person down with the "you're getting above yourself with your traditional double, compact is the real shizzle" argument. Cue the triple fan to put some manners on you, etc.

And while that age-old and never-ending circular academic argument goes on and on, the majority of people will just continue to ride whatever they feel suits them best, which could be any one of the three options as they all have their place. Until, that is, someone chimes in with the option of a geared hub with a wide range of gearing, "infinite" adjustments within that range, and a single front ring, causing genuine fear amongst the three camps above that'll lead to a temporary truce so that they can collectively attack this upstart and burn them at the stake as the heathens they must surely be.

cantalach

doozerie wrote: »

That's a sweeping generalisation.

Well, maybe...deliberately provocative even! But I note you're not denying the accuracy of the hard facts preceding it

bcmf

Lumen wrote: »

A triple with a straight-through cassette would be sweet. I'm holding out for an 11sp triple with electronic shifting.

I believe SRAM have been left behind in the electronic dept looking for a niche market> send them an email telling them this is what you would like.

doozerie

cantalach wrote:

Well, maybe...deliberately provocative even! But I note you're not denying the accuracy of the hard facts preceding it

No, why would I question a suggestion that someone look in a little detail at the gearing that a particular chainset and cassette combination offers them before choosing between the available options? I suggested the very same thing myself in an earlier post.

But you followed your "hard facts" up with a complete dismissal of one particular chainset based on nothing more than your own personal preference. Some people prefer compact chainsets and can't see the sense in a standard double. That's fine. Others prefer a standard double (or a triple) and can't see any sense in a compact. That's fine too. The world is a big place, there is room for such differing views to sit comfortably alongside each other, however the world could do without one of those camps disparaging the other with personal taste dressed up as irrefutable fact. That'll lead to tears. While the fixie camp looks on and giggles. And we wouldn't want that, we don't want to encourage Billy NoGears.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

I like triples. A triple with a straight-through cassette would be sweet. I'm holding out for an 11sp triple with electronic shifting.

I'm not sure it's very promising but the 11p and electronic parts of your wish have come true. Now they just need to make it for a triple. Reliable, affordable, and available-to-the-public, might be optional extras for a while though.

cantalach

doozerie wrote: »

The world is a big place, there is room for such differing views to sit comfortably alongside each other, however the world could do without one of those camps disparaging the other with personal taste dressed up as irrefutable fact. That'll lead to tears.

We're talking about the appropriate gearing for an amateur cyclist to use on their bike - not the relative merits of private vs public healthcare. I was just trying to stimulate some discussion on what is a pretty inconsequential topic in the grand scheme of things. I'm slightly confused by how worked up about it you are...it's like I've touched a raw nerve. This is, after all, just supposed to be a bit of fun right?

Paul Kiernan

omri wrote: »

I think that was actually happening on my last configuration. I think normal double + guess small cassette. No pain - no gain and eventually I'll get strong enough for it.

Nico Roche was using a 39-26 on some of the mountain stages in last years tour so you're probably OK:rolleyes:.

Seriously, though, general concensus seems to be that you're better spinning a high cadence on climbs. It's meant to be more efficient and less stressful on joints.

I think a lot of issues here are down to personal preference, I use a very gappy 11-28 cassette and the gaps don't bother me but I appreciate many people would hate it. In fact, when I go from the 24 to the 28 it's usually with a great sigh of relief and a strong desire that it was actually a 32:o.

doozerie

cantalach wrote:

We're talking about the appropriate gearing for an amateur cyclist to use on their bike - not the relative merits of private vs public healthcare. I was just trying to stimulate some discussion on what is a pretty inconsequential topic in the grand scheme of things. I'm slightly confused by how worked up about it you are...it's like I've touched a raw nerve. This is, after all, just supposed to be a bit of fun right?

You've become too used to riding a compact. You're spinning away mad there, throwing out the words, but your argument is actually going nowhere.

karlmyson

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

... I use a very gappy 11-28 cassette and the gaps don't bother me but I appreciate many people would hate it. In fact, when I go from the 24 to the 28 it's usually with a great sigh of relief and a strong desire that it was actually a 32:o.

I'm with Paul on that, I changed recently from a 12-25 to an 11-28 (coupled with a standard 53/39) 'cos I'm training for an event with a lot of hills at the moment. The gaps don't bother me at all, I've got the ratios I want to roll along for hours on the flat if I need to (and have done), and the overall gearing range can't be beaten by anything (well maybe SRAM Apex). The 39x28 does come in useful, allowing better power development through a higher cadence on the steep stuff!

I actually think a 53/39 with 11-28 is the do-everything combination. But that's just me

Lumen

A lot of the argument comes down to difference in shifting vs having the right gear available.

Having run triple, compact and standard double I'd rate having the right gear above minor differences in shift quality.

Shift quality is only a problem when you shift. The wrong gear feels wrong every....single....pedal....rotation.

Climbing at 50rpm is deeply unpleasant.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Climbing at 50rpm is deeply unpleasant.

HTFU!

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Climbing at 50rpm is deeply unpleasant.

Now you've opened the gates to those who ride on small wheels to come in here and be offended. I can see a Moulton being ridden in the distance and heading this way. Here he comes. Any day now. No, not here yet.

mahoo

cantalach wrote: »

The bigger jump at the front with a compact (16-tooth vs a 14-tooth jump) supposedly makes front shifting less smooth. But I'm not sure I've noticed this in three years of using a compact and I drop my chain just as infrequently as I did when I used a traditional crankset.

I just switched from a standard to a compact and i have to say i don't like the big jump when shifting down. still haven't got the hang of making a smooth change without loosing loads of momentum. i also don't like the way i spin out earlier when descending.. im on a 12/25 at the back though, so maybe a 11/23 should be my next investment. does the spending ever end....

cantalach

mahoo wrote: »

im on a 12/25 at the back though, so maybe a 11/23 should be my next investment. does the spending ever end....

Yep, spinning out the 50x12 was a pain for me too and I saw it as the major downside to running a compact. For a long time I considered switching to an 11-25 to solve this but I didn't like the idea of the gap in the ratios. So I said to myself that when I got strong enough to get up a particular climb in West Cork without using my 25, I would put an 11-23 on the back. I finally achieved this last June and have been very happy since with the compact.

omri

But won't 53-39 paired with 11-25 be nice compromise and it's 10 euro cheaper. Comparing to compact.

cantalach

omri wrote: »

But won't 53-39 paired with 11-25 be nice compromise and it's 10 euro cheaper. Comparing to compact.

Not sure who that question is directed at. But if the above thread has established anything, it's that compact vs traditional is a highly personal choice. It breaks down like this and it's really up to you to decide.

Advantages to 53/39 paired with 11-25:

• Higher top gear (4.82 vs 4.55)
• Smoother shifting between chainrings
• It's what Fabian uses

Advantages to 50/34 paired with 11-23:

• Lower bottom gear (1.48 vs 1.56)
• Tighter cassette with fewer gaps
• Lighter chainrings and cassette

omri

cantalach wrote: »

Not sure who that question is directed at. But if the above thread has established anything, it's that compact vs traditional is a highly personal choice. It breaks down like this and it's really up to you to decide.

Advantages to 53/39 paired with 11-25:

• Higher top gear (4.82 vs 4.55)
• Smoother shifting between chainrings
• It's what Fabian uses

Advantages to 50/34 paired with 11-23:

• Lower bottom gear (1.48 vs 1.56)
• Tighter cassette with fewer gaps
• Lighter chainrings and cassette

You are really making this harder and harder

Although being Fabian sounds tempting

markdrayton

My commuter has a compact (which it came with), race bike has a standard double.

I find the lack of ratio overlap between big and small chainrings on a compact chainset annoying (ie, the spread of gears available in the big ring doesn't overlap those available in the small ring as much as on a double). I'm lazy, so rather than dropping to the small ring and shifting down 4 or 5 sprockets at the back I tend to trudge on in the big ring, only ever using a couple of gears. I'm also reasonably fit and don't have too much trouble with the hills in the UK/Ireland so a standard double and 12-23 or 12-25 suits me fine.

One consideration: are you planning on riding the big mountains on it? I've done some riding on a 53/39 and 12-27 in the Alps and it's a bit of a tall order, particularly if you're at the end of a 8 hour day with some big climbs. HTFU is fine when the climb is 3km, less realistic when it's 15. I generally ride a compact in the mountains but obviously there's a degree of faff in switching between them (not to mention the expense).

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

Now you've opened the gates to those who ride on small wheels to come in here and be offended. I can see a Moulton being ridden in the distance and heading this way. Here he comes. Any day now. No, not here yet.

I've ridden a three-speed Brompton up Killiney Hill carrying a guitar and hard case on my back and a full touring pannier on the front with bike gear, amp and other accoutrements in it.

Three gears and 16" wheels FTW!

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote:

Three gears and 16" wheels FTW!

That's shocking, and not UCI approved. You'll draw the wrath of Pat McQuaid and his minions down on top of all of us if you don't immediately repent!

...I've gotta admit though, that despite my disparaging reference to Moulton's earlier, I've always actually quite liked them. I had a conversation once with a guy many years back who said he raced in open road races in the UK on one and was well up there in the results each time - I'm sceptical of that claim though as Mr McQuaid would have been in there like a shot at one of the races ready to jab his UCI Hurley Of Disapproval in yer man's spokes at the first sight of him (though I'm not certain of the date from which the UCI became quite anal about bike shape/size/cost/etc.). Actually, I think it would be fun to see a race between a Moulton and a "regular" racing bike, with a Brompton, a 3-wheeler, a recumbent, etc., all thrown in for good measure.

doozerie

omri wrote:

You are really making this harder and harder

If you've worked out on paper how the gearing of the various options (standard vs compact vs triple) pan out, then the next thing is to look at how you actually use your current gearing. Figure out what gear sizes you like to use the most (in my case, for example, that's about 2 or 3) and see where these lie in the gearing provided by the various chainsets. If you find those gears spanning the front chainrings of one of the options then using that chainset might prove annoying as it'll likely involve frequent front changes. It may not be enough reason in itself to rule out a particular chainset, and assumes that you are happy that your current most-used gears are appropriate for you (e.g. that your cadence in these gears is not so low as to be detrimental to your joints, etc.), but it can be a useful thing to look at.

omri

doozerie wrote: »

If you've worked out on paper how the gearing of the various options (standard vs compact vs triple) pan out, then the next thing is to look at how you actually use your current gearing. Figure out what gear sizes you like to use the most (in my case, for example, that's about 2 or 3) and see where these lie in the gearing provided by the various chainsets. If you find those gears spanning the front chainrings of one of the options then using that chainset might prove annoying as it'll likely involve frequent front changes. It may not be enough reason in itself to rule out a particular chainset, and assumes that you are happy that your current most-used gears are appropriate for you (e.g. that your cadence in these gears is not so low as to be detrimental to your joints, etc.), but it can be a useful thing to look at.

On my old bike I had computer that could tell the cadence. Unfortunately I don't remember what chainset I had - either tripple or double (which one I don't remember) but my usual commuting speed was around 30kmph with cadence of 100-110. And that was actually fine for going to and from work.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

...I've gotta admit though, that despite my disparaging reference to Moulton's earlier, I've always actually quite liked them. I had a conversation once with a guy many years back who said he raced in open road races in the UK on one and was well up there in the results each time - I'm sceptical of that claim [...]

According to Richard Ballantine, a faired Moulton is considerably faster than a standard road bike.

You can get Zzipper fairings, which look less mental than this:


Ballantine's point, I think, was that you couldn't fit a large fairing to a standard road bike because the large wheels got in the way.

doozerie

@tomasrojo, For the sake of decency surely that fairing should be enclosed in half a (large) bra...