Building up a road bike and have two sets of cranks. One is a compact set and the other is "standard" 110 pcd. I know that the rings are way different sizes but what are the benefits over each other please?

If you ride lots of hills and go for a compact.

If you have legs of iron or live in the flatlands get a normal

Road compact is 110 is it not?

Ah, yes I meant 130 for normal. Sorry, I know MTB's but not much road stuff!

Compact all the way unless you are a man of steel.

Two sets, do they use the same BB?
Anyway standard for UK assuming 52/42 or 53/39. Personally I found the 34 nice for steep climbs, but very slow. And you can't use it for general riding, where as you just about can with a 39.

***taps foot*** Road bike? ***taps foot***

😆

stick to standard and if needed get a bigger cassette on the rear. Found i constantly spun out on my compact. Standard gives you more range

I normally use 53/39 around North Yorkshire where it is fine for me with either a 25 or 27 on the back. I've experimented with a compact at the Etape du Dales this year. They were both shimano chainsets so easy swap – dropped the front mech a couple of mm, tightened the cable a bit to compensate and that was it – no need to shorten the chain or anything. It was good on the silly steep stuff with tired legs where I just wanted to winch myself up. If you've got both why not just give it a go and see what suits?

If you use an 11-whatever cassette instead of 12-? you loose the possible disadvantage of running out of gears going downhill. Other than that the only disadvantage could be traditionalists taking the pi$$. I'm sure one will be along soon ;o)

53/39 everytime….alter the cassette if you need lowergears (i.e. 27) -ran a compact on a winter bike and found I seemed to be constantly switching between the inner and outer to find the right gear which i dont seem to do on a normal.Run a 23 most of year and I live in pennines.

Stick with a standard, I use a 53/39 chainset and 12-23 cassette. Done loads of Sportives with this setup. I was undergeared for the Tour of the Black Mountains but got through it fine. If you use a 27-12 cassette you'll be fine. One chap I spoke to said you'd need a 27 for the Hardknott Pass on the Fred Whitton or Etape du Dales.

Living in the Lakes I use 50/34 and 12-28 (I think – SRAM)
I can ride comforatbly up any of the passes, without causing exploding knees. Don't use the 50 x 12 much, so can't see why I would want standard.
Don't tell anyone, but I've a triple on my CX/commute bike.

Just come back from a weekend in North Wales running 39/52 & 12-25 & managed everything, was hard work in places, but that's all part of the fun! Stick with the standard unless you're heading abroad.

I have run a compact for a few years and only noticed the lack of top gears when road racing, on the flat, in a bunch going way faster than my fitness should have allowed.

I think for normal riding they are much better, but i do like to spin my legs quickly.

Alternatively, try the compact with a nice close ratio cassette instead of something that looks like a dinner plate cluttering up your rear wheel – anything wider than 27t & you'll probably need a long cage mech too which looks gopping.

All these people that complain about the jump between the 34 & 50 are doing it wrong. Use the 34 for proper climbs, where you'll appreciate the lower gear, & the 50 for everything else.

If you have to ask then you probably want the compact, I'd certainly start with that

I would use the Compact as it's lighter and then chose chainrings to suit. I use a 36 inner and 50 outer. I can then put on a 34 if I'm going to be doing lots of lakeland passes. Sure, you can get some big cassette out back if you want, but I would much rather have a closer range cassette.
I cannot believe you spin out a 50 chain ring, Eddie Mercx did very well on a 50 (apparently). 50×11 is also a bigger gear than 53×12.
Many pros are using compact, so the macho thing is no longer the case.

Traildog, Very few PRO's use compact's and even when they do its usually on a mental off road TT climb like in the Giro, even then only a hand full of the midgets use them.

Compacts are for sissy homo's. Similar to the granny ring, dont go there.

Compact or triple. But then I'm not a pro cyclist, nor ever will be.

Compact here, find I ride on the 50 most of the time, 34 for steep stuff, spinning is better for your knees than using 53-39 just coz some **** who can't escape the stereotype says it's more manly

Yup – compact for the fat/unfit.

Living in S Wales and having ridden both, I used to get up everything on 39:27. But when my old cranks died I had no hesitation in switching to compact!

As others have said, depends on your riding style and where you live. I'm skinny, quite high cadence and regulary ride long 10%+ climbs, whereas obviously if you're a rouleur living in the Fens you might require a different setup! Only disadvantage to compact is the smaller crossover between small and big ring, but I find I spend 90% of the time in big ring and only use the 34T for proper hills.

With people talking about running 27T or more, its worth pointing out that I have had some difficulty finding a 9spd 27T cassette without paying ££££.

kingkongsfinger lots of the pros admit to training on compact tho, train easy fight hard 😉

Compact = Gay. Fact.

I bought a s/h bike that had one on, swapped it for a 39/53 as I didn't have the gears for pedalling down hill, and as someone else said, you spend an awful lot of time flapping around between chain rings to find the right ratios.

Compact = Gay. Fact.

I bought a s/h bike that had one on, swapped it for a 39/53 as I didn't have the gears for pedalling down hill, and as someone else said, you spend an awful lot of time flapping around between chain rings to find the right ratios.

50/11 = 119.5 inch 50/12 = 109.5 inch
53/11 = 126.6 inch 53/12 = 116.1 inch

as you can see a compact with a 11 cog is a bigger gear than a standard with a 12 cog

doesnt look much difference for non race types to me tbh

39/53 = Gay.Fact

I bought a s/h bike that had that on, swapped it for 59/60 as I didn't have the gears for pedalling on the flat and as someone else said, you spend an awful lot of time flapping around between the chainrings to find the right ratio.

also 34/23 is 38.8 inch and 39/27 is 38 inch 😉

It all comes down to how fit you are!

Personally I'd now always go for a compact. I'd be interested to know how fast the guys who spin out in 50:11 were going but it must have been 50+mph which isn't a regular race speed for me as it's only achieved on very long or very steep downhills which aren't included in many races.

From the macho point of view it is far more noticeable that someone is running a big casette than a compact chainring so a compact, small spaced block looks more match IMO. It might also be better in terms of small gaps between gears.

I would class myself as fit. But even top level amateurs are much better than me. Top level pros are something out of this world so to try and compare the gears they use is futile. In fact I'd argue that to use the same gear set up as any pro tour rider probably means you are using the wrong ones as they are much better than you.

Actually, lots of pros will use 110 cranks but may run something like 52/36 (Carlos Sastre apparently likes this). The mental climbs of the Giro where many use 34T inner ring are often no steeper than many UK climbs. Alps climbs are not actually that steep.

I still don't get anyone who says they are always spinning out on a 50T chainring. Are you saying that you have to spin a 53×11 because a 50×11 is a bigger gear than a 53×12. More likely you cannot spin your legs quickly and mash a 53×12 at 45kph thinking your some sort of big-ring riding god.

David Millar was quoted recently as saying that he and his team mates always use Compacts in training and then 'proper' chainsets for racing

I've not found anything in the UK that can't be climbed with a 39/25. I don't like the jump between 34 and 50, and have found quite a few descents, especially here in the Peak, where 50/12 spins out too easily and my pedalling style is definitely spinny rather than a masher.

11 tooth sprockets aren't as widely available, especially on 9-speed stuff. And they're not available on shimano cassettes with anything bigger than a 23 IIRC.

I ride a 12/25 sprocket with 39/53 chainrings and can get up anything I ride in the Pennines. Yes, I could spin up stuff slowly with smaller chainrings, but at the end of the day, it's a race bike and there's no point riding like a vicar!

When I had a compact on, I was spinning out over about 40mph – a speed I expect to exceed several times every ride. Yes, I could have changed sprockets, but I find a proper chainset combined with a 25/12 cassette gives me the perfect range of gears, and I don't have to keep shifting chainrings to find them.

David Millar was quoted recently as saying that he and his team mates always use Compacts in training and then 'proper' chainsets for racing

…but then they don't win much 😉

As someone up there noted, if you have to ask, ignore the internet hardmen, and get a compact. I run a 50/34 with 11-23 for everyday and 12-27 for silly hills/winter/when I'm unfit. Last time I went to the peak I was going up winnats in 34-23, and of course you can do it, but I KNOW I'd be quicker on 34/27 up there as it is a gear that a normal human being can turn.

So, shibboleth/spokescycles, what sort of cadence do you push up winnats on a 39/25?

I've not found anything in the UK that can't be climbed with a 39/25.

I've seen a good few fail on this one – more than 33% in places

No idea, I couldn't give a shit about what my cadence actually is so long's it feels right. Don't think I've ever bothered doing Winnats- I tend to road bike to the north of home where the climbs are a bit steeper but shorter, and like I say, I'm a spinner not a masher.

Haha, there's a place called Low Bell End on that map!

Ian, don't use a cadence metre.

Spokescycles has ridden all the UK roads, don't question him OK?

There's a road hill near me that was almost unrideable for me on 32/27. It was so steep that I couldn't get off for fear of falling down the hill on the tarmac.