anyone use compact crankset for racing?
#1
commu*ist spy
Thread Starter
anyone use compact crankset for racing?
I'm wondering if anyone has raced on compact craksets, and whether the lower top end has limited them. situations i can imagine are down hill and really fast sprint finishes, which i feel like are few and far in between, but are critical enough to make a big difference in races.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 748
Bikes: I don't even
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
77 Posts
40mph in 50/11 is 112rpm. 53/11 is 105rpm. For sure most racers could get by just fine with a compact. It's not too big of a difference. I have friends who do it, but it's few a far between. There's not much advantage to gain with a compact in the higher racing categories as the race isn't slow enough to make good use of the 34/28 granny gear.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
The latest Dura Ace crankset can fit 50/34 chain rings. I believe there are riders who use this crankset for racing. My guess is that they (or their mechanic) bolt on the appropriate chain rings for the course.
Last edited by gl98115; 10-09-18 at 11:33 AM.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
I raced a 50/34 my first year back and hated it. Spun out in a sprint once and a couple of other downhill situations, but the biggest issue was the 34. It was utterly useless at race speeds in the rollers and kickers around here. Just way too small and I'd be at the bottom of the cassette.
Only 53/39 for me.
Only 53/39 for me.
#5
Senior Member
I'm wondering if anyone has raced on compact craksets, and whether the lower top end has limited them. situations i can imagine are down hill and really fast sprint finishes, which i feel like are few and far in between, but are critical enough to make a big difference in races.
Whether that top-end matters depends a lot on the kind of cyclist you are. How you pedal, and how you win.
#7
una carrera contrarreloj
I raced on my backup bike last year on a 50x34 and an 11-23 cassette. Raced also on a 53x39 and 11-25. Didn't event notice the difference during the race.
I can't remember the last time I shifted out of the 50 ring on my backup bike. I wonder if the front derailleur still works?
I can't remember the last time I shifted out of the 50 ring on my backup bike. I wonder if the front derailleur still works?
#8
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I race with a compact and 12-28 cassette because I like to ride steep hills when possible and I'm too lazy to change chainrings ever. Was definitely nice at GMSR this year. I can't sprint at 40+mph so it really doesn't seem to affect me. Might start to become an issue in the 2's next year though? But I rarely spin out, and never had an issue with it in a race.
#9
Senior Member
I did my first race on my Motobecane with a triple. After the shop told me triples are out even though I really wanted one, I settled for compact.
With a compact you go 42 mph and still only be at 120 rpm which might be slightly uncomfortable but easily sustainable for several minutes. One time the district champs road race started with a long stretch of flat tailwind and we did 35 for like 15 minutes. Didn't notice the compact.
The only time it ever bothered me was one time my rear shifter was off and I couldn't get in the 11 or the 12, and I attacked solo with 3.5 minutes to go into a strong tailwind with rollers. Every time the road dipped and I'd spin up near 40 mph it was uncomfortable. But I won anyway.
I was never one to swap out my crankset or anything else just for a race. And around here you either need compact or you mash up 20-50 minute hills.
With a compact you go 42 mph and still only be at 120 rpm which might be slightly uncomfortable but easily sustainable for several minutes. One time the district champs road race started with a long stretch of flat tailwind and we did 35 for like 15 minutes. Didn't notice the compact.
The only time it ever bothered me was one time my rear shifter was off and I couldn't get in the 11 or the 12, and I attacked solo with 3.5 minutes to go into a strong tailwind with rollers. Every time the road dipped and I'd spin up near 40 mph it was uncomfortable. But I won anyway.
I was never one to swap out my crankset or anything else just for a race. And around here you either need compact or you mash up 20-50 minute hills.
#10
Cat 2
53/38 here. Compact is cool, having a 38x32 for climbing days is even better without losing the top end.
#12
out walking the earth
Confusing tossing about of absolutes. Wouldn’t the course dictate? I can think of a number of road races I’d prefer my compact crank on. Crits, not do
much. I’ve used a standard crank for some hill climbs as well.
much. I’ve used a standard crank for some hill climbs as well.
#13
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
6 Posts
I started racing in a compact in 2007. First 50x34, then 50x36 when I switched to Q-Rings. (They didn't have a 34 small ring at that time.)
I switched to 52x36 in 2015 when I ordered a new set of rings and through a screw up got a 52 instead of a 50. I figured WTF and have used the 52 ever since.
That said, I won two master's road championships on the 50x36 and placed 21st at elite nationals in 2015 on the 52x36 (at age 54). I also rode a national record 49:27 40km ITT on a 50 tooth big ring at the age of 51.
So yeah, you can do okay on compacts.
I switched to 52x36 in 2015 when I ordered a new set of rings and through a screw up got a 52 instead of a 50. I figured WTF and have used the 52 ever since.
That said, I won two master's road championships on the 50x36 and placed 21st at elite nationals in 2015 on the 52x36 (at age 54). I also rode a national record 49:27 40km ITT on a 50 tooth big ring at the age of 51.
So yeah, you can do okay on compacts.
#14
out walking the earth
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
The quote was "plenty of people". There's always an anecdote here and there, regardless of how small a minority they make up.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,373
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Liked 2,952 Times
in
1,677 Posts
A local guy who won a bunch of state and national track and road championships in the 1960s through the 1980s told me that his secret weapon in crits was that he was always using a 50 against guys with 52s and 53s. By the time they got up to speed he was gone.
#17
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
I believe that most of the UCI pro tour riders were using 50/34 in the recent World Road Race Championship that Valverde won. The race ended on a hideously steep climb.
#18
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978
Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I'm wondering if anyone has raced on compact craksets, and whether the lower top end has limited them. situations i can imagine are down hill and really fast sprint finishes, which i feel like are few and far in between, but are critical enough to make a big difference in races.
#19
Senior Member
Lots of road bikes come with 50-34, and most people don't mess around much with their front gearing.
I don't understand why you'd be surprised by people using 50-34 if you considered 52-36 reasonable, either. The size of the front shift is almost the same between the two (only ~2% different), so they behave almost the same except that the latter is slightly higher.
I mean, if one rider prefers a 52-36, and a second cyclist pedals about the same but at a 5% lower torque and 5% higher cadence, the second rider would find a 50-34 to behave nearly the same for them as the 52-36 behaved for the first person. And the ability and pedaling-style spectrum of racers in general is much, much wider than this.
I don't understand why you'd be surprised by people using 50-34 if you considered 52-36 reasonable, either. The size of the front shift is almost the same between the two (only ~2% different), so they behave almost the same except that the latter is slightly higher.
I mean, if one rider prefers a 52-36, and a second cyclist pedals about the same but at a 5% lower torque and 5% higher cadence, the second rider would find a 50-34 to behave nearly the same for them as the 52-36 behaved for the first person. And the ability and pedaling-style spectrum of racers in general is much, much wider than this.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Lots of road bikes come with 50-34, and most people don't mess around much with their front gearing.
I don't understand why you'd be surprised by people using 50-34 if you considered 52-36 reasonable, either. The size of the front shift is almost the same between the two (only ~2% different), so they behave almost the same except that the latter is slightly higher.
I mean, if one rider prefers a 52-36, and a second cyclist pedals about the same but at a 5% lower torque and 5% higher cadence, the second rider would find a 50-34 to behave nearly the same for them as the 52-36 behaved for the first person. And the ability and pedaling-style spectrum of racers in general is much, much wider than this.
I don't understand why you'd be surprised by people using 50-34 if you considered 52-36 reasonable, either. The size of the front shift is almost the same between the two (only ~2% different), so they behave almost the same except that the latter is slightly higher.
I mean, if one rider prefers a 52-36, and a second cyclist pedals about the same but at a 5% lower torque and 5% higher cadence, the second rider would find a 50-34 to behave nearly the same for them as the 52-36 behaved for the first person. And the ability and pedaling-style spectrum of racers in general is much, much wider than this.
It's about it just not being evident. Even among the cat 4s and 5s, I very rarely see 50-34s (I usually check out bikes and gear). Granted, this could be a regional thing as I don't live in the mountains, and my travel experiences are more related to elite fields in which they're almost nonexistant (again, I don't race up mountains, so that may play into it), but they just aren't commonplace.
And to take that a step further in relation to the original quote, I'd be even more surprised to see "plenty of people" winning races with them. Just isn't true in my region, and I'd hazard a guess it's not true in most.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
That's something that's significantly helped me in crits, too, as I typically don't ever get out of the saddle coming out of corners, but I still race with a 53.
#23
commu*ist spy
Thread Starter
i can only see compact being relevant for really steep stuff.. like >15%. besides that, i can really notice a difference, especially on descents, which is where a lot of the separation is made. i can definitely feel the difference between compact and semicompact. mind you, it's not a 2% difference, more like 4-6%. that's not small. that's the difference between spinning optimally at 37 vs 39 mph. it's not uncommon to get to those speeds in a p/1/2 race. sprinkle in some tailwind into the finishing straight, and I can see compact to be a real hindrance.
anyway, I ordered a 53/39
anyway, I ordered a 53/39
#24
out walking the earth
i can only see compact being relevant for really steep stuff.. like >15%. besides that, i can really notice a difference, especially on descents, which is where a lot of the separation is made. i can definitely feel the difference between compact and semicompact. mind you, it's not a 2% difference, more like 4-6%. that's not small. that's the difference between spinning optimally at 37 vs 39 mph. it's not uncommon to get to those speeds in a p/1/2 race. sprinkle in some tailwind into the finishing straight, and I can see compact to be a real hindrance.
anyway, I ordered a 53/39
anyway, I ordered a 53/39
Your original question:
I'm wondering if anyone has raced on compact craksets,
and whether the lower top end has limited them.
situations i can imagine are down hill and really fast sprint finishes,
which i feel like are few and far in between,
#25
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
The queen stage of GMSR is 100+ miles long and ends with a 3 mile climb where the last 500m is like 20%. 36/28 is NEVER enough for that, compacts have their place for sure.