{"id":489,"date":"2013-08-16T19:10:00","date_gmt":"2013-08-16T23:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mikaelstaer.com\/clients\/cbeals\/dev\/?p=489"},"modified":"2015-06-07T20:57:58","modified_gmt":"2015-06-08T00:57:58","slug":"10-reasons-to-consider-compact-cranks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mikaelstaer.com\/clients\/cbeals\/dev\/2013\/08\/10-reasons-to-consider-compact-cranks\/","title":{"rendered":"10 Reasons to Consider Compact Cranks"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cycling is a conservative and dogmatic sport. At the highest level, the pro peloton is slow to embrace technical innovation, often preferring the tried and true over the latest and greatest. This mindset seems to filter down to all levels of cycling.<\/p>\n

Triathletes, on the other hand, are usually eager to whip out their wallets for every trendy or newfangled product. They are unencumbered by the traditions and mores of cycling, perhaps a consequence of the relative youth of their sport. Compression gear? Hologram bracelets<\/a>? Seat leashes<\/a>? Hell yes, I’ll take three! While this tendency sometimes leads triathletes astray, being open minded has its advantages.<\/p>\n

Compact cranksets are becoming increasingly popular, a trend driven not only by aging baby boomers and the rise of recreational cycling, but also by a growing number of competitive athletes realizing their benefits. While compacts are sometimes derided by self-professed “serious cyclists”, some of the world’s best have put compacts to great use<\/a>. The cycling industry has warmed to compacts, with ever more crankset models and compact-specced bikes available.<\/p>\n

After realizing how much I loved the compact on my\u00a0utility\/adventure\/cyclocross\/commuter\/gravel bike<\/a>\u00a0and crunching some numbers, I made the switch to compact on my triathlon bike. In this post, I hope to convince you that compact cranksets merit consideration from cyclists and triathletes of all levels, from beginners to weekend warriors to pros. Compacts definitely aren’t for everyone<\/a> (more on that later), but I believe that the majority of cyclists and triathletes could improve their performance and enjoyment of the sport by making the switch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tyler Hamilton pioneered the use of compact cranks at the 2003 Tour de France with a solo breakaway stage win<\/a>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
What is a compact crankset?<\/b>
\nThe terms “compact” and “standard” refer to the a crankset’s bolt circle diameter (abbreviated as BCD). Modern cranksets for road bikes are typically 110 BCD (compact) or 130 BCD (standard) (with 135 BCD Campagnolo cranks being a notable exception). Compacts most often feature 50\/34 chainrings (i.e. big ring = 50 teeth, small ring = 34 teeth) while 53\/39 is the most common option for standards. More recently, the term “mid-compact” has been used to describe 52\/36 or 52\/38, but strictly speaking, these cranks are compacts (110 BCD).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Compact and standard. Can you spot the difference?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Is compact right for you?<\/b>
\nCompact-curious cyclists come from two camps: those riding triples cranksets and those riding standard double cranksets. For many reasons and for many applications, compacts paired with super wide range cassettes (e.g.\u00a0SRAM WiFLi<\/a>) are supplanting triple cranksets<\/a>. This post is mainly addressed to triathletes and cyclists riding standard doubles.<\/p>\n

Some sources recommend compact or standard cranksets based on power output. Sometimes 4 W\/kg is cited as the threshold above which a standard crankset is a better choice. I don’t see much value in this approach since crankset selection is also a function of preferred cadence, terrain and riding style. For example, although I averaged ~4.5 W\/kg in my last Olympic triathlon<\/a>, I was quite happy with a compact due to the hilly course and my naturally high cadence.<\/p>\n

To determine if a compact is right for you, I suggest reading this article, playing with a gearing calculator<\/a>\u00a0and observing what gears you actually<\/i> ride in (as opposed to what’s on your bike). Specifically, are you ever running out of gears, never using certain gears or having to stand to climb every hill?<\/p>\n

What are the benefits of compact cranks?<\/b>
\nHere are 10 reasons to consider compact cranks:<\/p>\n

1.<\/b> Compacts can provide a\u00a0wider gear range<\/b>, especially at the low end. This makes it\u00a0less likely you’ll run out of gears and be forced into a suboptimal effort level, power output or cadence range (e.g. grinding up a hill). To illustrate this, let’s compare two popular gearing choices: a 53\/39 standard crank with a 12-27 cassette and a 50\/34 compact crank with an 11-25 cassette. The comparison could be done in terms of gear inches<\/a> or ratios, but most people find it easier to relate to speed.<\/p>\n

Speed at a cadence of 90 rpm*<\/u><\/b><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nCompact\u00a0<\/b><\/td>\nStandard<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Top end<\/b><\/td>\n\n
50\u00d711 = 51.5 km\/h<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
53\u00d712 = 50.1 km\/h<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Bottom end<\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
34\u00d725 = 15.4 km\/h<\/td>\n39\u00d727 = 16.4 km\/h<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
*Assuming 700c wheels, 23mm tires. Choice of cadence does not affect conclusions.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Here is the same example shown graphically with my favourite gearing app<\/a>:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So in this example, the compact not only provides a lower gear, but also a higher gear than the standard!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
2.<\/b> Compacts are more than enough for most<\/b>. The previous example showed the surprising fact that 50\u00d711 is actually a bigger gear than\u00a053\u00d712. But you may be thinking, “hold on, I have a standard with an 11 tooth sprocket in my cassette”. The question is, will you really miss your\u00a053\u00d711 top gear?\u00a0Think about how much time you spend pedaling above 50 km\/h. The answer for most cyclists in most circumstances is “not much” (with some exceptions listed below).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
53\u00d711 at 90 rpm is about 54.6 km\/h, or about 3 km\/h faster than\u00a050\u00d711. Is it worth giving up the lower gearing of a compact for the marginally higher top gear of a standard? I would argue that it’s potentially a lot more damaging to your overall performance to run out of gears at the low end (e.g. on a big hill) than at the top end (e.g. on a big descent). Ask anyone grinding up a climb if they would trade their top gear for some lower ones!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Compacts are still capable of some serious speed. Let’s assume that you “spin out” around 110 rpm, the maximum cadence you could comfortably pedal at for short periods of time. At this cadence, 50\u00d711 nets you 63 km\/h! Personally, this is about the speed at which I stop pedaling, get low on my bars, tuck in my knees and coast.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
3.<\/b> Not only can compacts provide a wider range, but they allow tighter gear spacing<\/b>. You can have your cake and eat it too! With a standard, many cyclists require a big cassette such as 11-28. With a compact crank, a smaller cassette, such as 11-23 or 11-25, may suffice under most circumstances. Smaller cassettes have smaller jumps between gears making it easier to find the perfect gear. With tighter gearing there is also less disruption in cadence and power output when shifting.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
An 11-23 road cassette and 11-38 MTB cassette. These two extremes show how gear spacing increases with cassette size.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

4.<\/b> Compact setups can have fewer redundant gears<\/b>\u00a0compared to standards. Looking at the graph above, you can see that there is less overlap in the ranges covered by the big and small chainrings. This is because compact 50\/34 rings have a 16 tooth differential (the max most front derailleurs can effectively accommodate) compared to a 14 tooth differential for standard 53\/39 rings.<\/p>\n

5.<\/b> Compacts can\u00a0improve chainline <\/b>resulting in\u00a0improved drivetrain efficiency.\u00a0<\/b>Chain drives are very efficient provided the chain runs in a fairly straight line. “Chainline<\/a>” refers to how straight the chain runs between a chainring and a cassette sprocket. Perfect chainline occurs when the chainring and rear sprocket are in the same plane. The more crooked the path of the chain, the greater the power-sapping frictional losses and wear on drivetrain parts. For this reason, you should avoid certain gearing combinations: big chainring to biggest rear sprocket and small chainring to smaller rear sprockets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The gearing combinations on the left maintain good chainline. Every time you cross-chain,\u00a0Rob Ford<\/a>\u00a0scraps a bike lane. Diagram adapted from “How to Shift Gears Correctly on Your Bicycle<\/a>“.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

From my own experience and from observing other cyclists, people who are overgeared on standard cranks (i.e. many people) spend too much time in their small chainring and small rear sprockets or even *gasp*\u00a0cross-chained<\/i><\/a>. Since switching to compact, I’m able to avoid these bad gearing combinations.<\/p>\n

6.<\/b> Related to the previous point, a compact allows you to tackle more terrain\u00a0in your big chainring meaning\u00a0less front shifting<\/b>. This produces less wear on the chainrings, chain and front derailleur. There is also less risk of dropping your chain. An added bonus is that frictional losses are minimized in the big ring because the chain makes a wider radius bend than in the small ring.<\/p>\n

7.<\/b> Compacts are more versatile<\/b> due to\u00a0more\u00a0chainring options<\/b>. The smallest chainring compatible with standard cranksets is a 38, while compacts can go as low as 33. At the other end of the spectrum, compact chainrings are commonly available in 53 and can be as monstrous as 56 teeth<\/a>! So you can effectively turn your compact into a standard if need be.<\/p>\n

Chainrings can be relatively inexpensive and swapping them only takes a few minutes. It can therefore be practical to have a selection of rings to choose from based on course conditions. For example, 50\/34 serves me well for most triathlon courses, but I may opt for 52\/36 on a course with a long gradual downhill or tailwind section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Just because most compacts come with 50\/34 rings doesn’t mean you’re stuck with that combo.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

8.<\/b> Here’s one for triathletes: Compact gearing is conducive to pedaling with a higher cadence which\u00a0may benefit off-the-bike running<\/b>. At least one study\u00a0found that\u00a0increasing cycling cadence benefited subsequent running performance<\/a>. But the research is conflicting with other studies finding that\u00a0a lower cadence benefits running<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0no relationship between cadence and running performance<\/a>. One caveat is that the duration of exercise examined in these studies was much shorter than most triathlons (<1 hour). In summary, a higher cadence may improve your off-the-bike running and you should experiment to find out.<\/p>\n

9.<\/b> Compacts are\u00a0lighter<\/b>\u00a0due to the smaller spider, smaller chainrings, shorter chain and potentially smaller cassette. All of these factors could add up to a modest weight savings of 100 grams or more.<\/p>\n

10.<\/b>\u00a0Compacts may facilitate shorter cranks.\u00a0<\/b>There has been a trend towards shorter crank arms among triathletes and time trialists, primarily to allow a lower and more aerodynamic position by opening the hip angle<\/a>. This, in turn, can lead to improved off-the-bike running. While crank length remains controversial, some studies have shown that its effects on power output<\/a>\u00a0or metabolic efficiency<\/a>\u00a0are small or insignificant. Assuming this is the case, cyclists are free to choose crank length based on comfort and aerodynamics.<\/p>\n

With shorter cranks, some cyclists will naturally choose a higher cadence. Consider this example from\u00a0Cervelo’s Ask the Engineers series on crank length<\/a>\u00a0(recommended reading):<\/p>\n

“For example, the difference between 165 and 175 [mm crank arms] is about 5%; some athletes find themselves in a gear about 5% easier than before, with a matching cadence about 5% higher. Coincidentally, the difference between a \u201ccompact\u201d 50 tooth chain ring and a 53 is close to 5%.”<\/i><\/p>\n

However, the opposite may be true for cyclists who do not increase their cadence after switching to shorter cranks. Bike fit guru John Cobb made this rather counter-intuitive observation:<\/p>\n

“. . . there was a recurring theme I was noting in my work with athletes: in order for shorter cranks to \u2018feel right\u2019 to my riders, they had to start turning bigger gears.\u201d <\/i>(from Crank Length: Coming Full Circle<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Unfortunately there is no obvious conclusion regarding crank length and gearing. You’ll have to try it out for yourself!<\/p>\n

BONUS<\/b>: Compact gearing may be\u00a0slightly<\/i>\u00a0more aerodynamic<\/b>\u00a0due to the smaller chainrings and cassette. Yes,\u00a0aeroweenies<\/a>\u00a0think like that.<\/p>\n

If compacts are so great, why isn’t everyone riding them?<\/b>
\nThere is an unfortunate stigma attached to compact cranks\u2014the idea that they are the wimpy option for weak cyclists. Snobby roadies and bike store employees have been known to sneer at compacts. While some measure their manhood by the size of their big ring<\/a>, smart cyclists choose equipment based on performance optimization, not vanity. People also like to emulate elite athletes. They want to ride the same frame as their favourite pro, so why not the same crankset? Um…<\/a>
\n
\n<\/b>
\nBut compacts definitely aren’t for everyone. Here are some cases when a compact might not cut it:<\/p>\n