Have been reading about the compact cranks for a while now, and have just finished reading the article in Triathlete. Stopped by my local tri shop (Tri-Action in Vancouver) and talked to Greg about it for a while. He asked me a ton of questions about why I wanted to switch over. Having ridden with Greg in the past, he know my riding style and weakness, HILLS.
Here are the reasons for my decission to switch over. Would love to get some feedback on the subject. I am currently riding 53/39 with an 11-23. Will be going with the 50/34 with an 11-21.
One reason is that I am not a great climber and would like to be able to spin a bit more than I do. I could have gone with a 12-25 and just kept my cranks. I want to be able to have a gear that is a bit lower than what I have and be able to get my cadence up to around 75 rpm climbing. I live in a very hilly area and currently can climb any hill in the area but find that my cadence drops to around 60 sometimes. I can work on that more.
I wanted to upgrade my cranks anyways as I am upgrading my bike at the time. I want to be able to drop some weight and was going to go the carbon compact cranks but after putting everything on the scale, there was no way that I was going to pay $200.00 more for carbon to drop 70 grams. I will just switch out the bottom bracket to save some additional weight and stay with the aluminium compact crank.
The main reason for the switch over. I can get tighter grear ratio by going with the 11-21. I like that there will only be a one tooth difference from 11-17 where I will be doing most of my riding.
Other upgrades that the Dual is getting. Cervelo Carbon Post, new brakes as I really do not like the Cervelo brakes, new lighter stem (need a different length anyways) and new Easton EC 90 SL forks. With the cranks and bottom bracket change, the Dual should be lighter, will fit a bit better and will climb better.
Will be going with the 50/34 with an 11-21 I like that there will only be a one tooth difference from 11-17 where I will be doing most of my riding.
Don’t do it! If you need better gearing for the hills, you want the 34x23. You can still ride the 34x21, but the 23 is a great thing to have.
The 50x11 is only useful on fast descents, and is barely noticeable from the 12. Keep the 12-23, or just keep your current setup. Why switch to compact cranks if you are going to keep (virtually) the same gear ratios? It’s wasted money. On flat terrain, you’ll never see the 11; you’ll ride in the 13-17 on the 50.
The reason to use compact cranks is to have lower gearing so that we can maintain a prudent climbing power level, at a comfortable cadence. If you do what you are proposing, you gain nothing over a standard setup. An 11-21 does not have tighter gear ratios than a 12-23. It just has higher gear ratios. The steps between cogs are the same.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me… Why are compact cranks so desireable but triples are not? Is the weight penalty for a triple really so high? Is the shifting really that much poorer? Or is it an ego thing?
The reason I ask is that during my recent race there was only one major hil, short too. I was able to pass 3 or for people (who were much better cyclists than I) on the hill due to having those uber low gears to just spin on up pretty comfortably while they mashed.
I like the 12-21 x 50 when using 10 speed.It gives you two gears lower than the 53 and a 12-21.The 11 won’t help at all unless you find that you can go 35 plus for extended periods.
Cullen
Why are compact cranks so desireable but triples are not?
Sean- yeah that one major hill at UVAS really kicked my ass. I rode it last year on my Trek with a triple and did basically what you said- rode past several obviously stronger riders at the top of that hill. This year I rode it on my Cervelo with a 53/39, 12-25 and it nuked my legs near the top. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I didn’t go with a triple on the Cervelo is because it just won’t work well on a bike with chainstays that short. I did, in fact, try to buy it with a triple and the LBS monkeyed with it for a week before they called me to say that they were giving up and didn’t advise that I buy it with that configuration. So, for me the compact is really the only option. After Sunday’s debacle the compact crankset is definitely at the top of the shopping list.
I’d like to add that the key is the 20 tooth cog.You only get it on the 12-21 10 speed.Most people on this forum could get away with a 48x32 and not suffer to much, if at all.Maybe I should say most tri. competitors
Cullen
Sean- yeah that one major hill at UVAS really kicked my ass. I rode it last year on my Trek with a triple and did basically what you said- rode past several obviously stronger riders at the top of that hill. This year I rode it on my Cervelo with a 53/39, 12-25 and it nuked my legs near the top. I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I didn’t go with a triple on the Cervelo is because it just won’t work well on a bike with chainstays that short. I did, in fact, try to buy it with a triple and the LBS monkeyed with it for a week before they called me to say that they were giving up and didn’t advise that I buy it with that configuration. So, for me the compact is really the only option. After Sunday’s debacle the compact crankset is definitely at the top of the shopping list.
I view them as equally undesirable. On a technical course, aggressive shifting is not conducive to a triple or compact crank set-up, just too far to travel.
I vote for hill training and a 12-27. I just don’t see enough terrain that would require compact cranks unless you go in search of the stuff…and if you are putting on compact cranks (or a triple) to compensate for your weakness in that area, why then would you go a lookin?
A couple of reasons for the EC90 SL instead of EC90 Aero. The main reason is price. I am getting a smoking deal on the SL. Over $200 difference between the two. So for me I look at the cost savings versus the weight savings of what I have on the bike now versus the difference between the to Easton forks. Lets face it. The difference between the Aero and the SL in a wind tunnel is probably not very much. The difference to me on the road (time wise) is probably less. So for $200.00 dollars more it just does not make sense. I can use that money towards other ways to improve the bike. The idea behind the upgrade was to lighten the bike, have better gearing for hills (will play with the 11-21 versus 12-23) and to acheive a better fit with the stem being changed. I just have to shorten the stem a bit.
On another topic. I just can not see spending a ton of money to buy super aero parts. For the average age grouper, I think that a full Syntace set-up is better than any one piece aerobar. More adjustability, lighter and you can probably be more comfortable in the long run. That is the way that I want to set-up my bike. As comfortable as possible, as light as possible and geared for me. Even with what I am putting into this bike, I would still have to spend more to get the P2K. I have been very piticular in what I am getting, the cost that I am getting the parts for and how comfortable I will be.
I’m definitely weakest on the bike, but I just tried a 12-27 Sunday in a Sprint Tri that had a couple of hills. In my 39-27 I was able to climb right up there with the stronger riders and passed a lot of folks in aero. I believe that Slowman, in a post 6-7 weeks ago (or somewhere) mentioned using a 27 for the California 1/2 IM and staying in aero most of the time.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me… Why are compact cranks so desireable but triples are not?
Triples are great! I’ve had one on my road bike for over 10 years. On the race bike, however, the compact has proved simpler and lighter. I change cassettes suited to the terrain. I have everything from 11-21 to 11-27 on hand, and just don’t need the triple on my race bike. On the road bike, I don’t want to fool around with cassette changes, so the triple with a 12-25 gives me all the gearing I need for wherever I might find myself.
I rode the steep first 2 miles at WTH in the 34x27, and I certainly had the lowest gearing of anyone around me. I wasn’t passing any more people than were passing me, but I was having an easier time than anyone else riding at my pace. I averaged 255 watts over 14:59 on that climb. That’s a lot of watts (for a master’s AG’r), and I still stayed in that low gear.