To go Compact or Not... (Page 2)

Cappy - 2008-08-14 9:38 AM Wondering... What did people do before compact cranks???

They WALKED the marathon. D'uh!

I'm pretty sure I read it correctly the first time, where you credited your equipment for being "by far the biggest contributor to my better splits." Selfish, egotistical folks like myself would be quicker to credit an additional year of training as the major contributor to improved performance. Nice that you can isolate that equipment change as the factor and give credit where it is due.

So there is no psychological benefit either? 

I'd think that you could possibly give a portion of the performance benefit to the compact crank.  Here's my thinking.  If you were able to choose a closer gear ratio (11x23) for a flat course, or a wider ratio(12x27) for a climbing course and work more efficiently, would that not lead to a benefit of sorts? 

That said, i'd have to say Bear probably hit the nail on the head with the vast majority of the improvement coming from an additional year of training.

BTW, I am a compact user, and will likely never go back to a full sized crankset.

Silverman - I am switching to a compact crank this week...  Living in the flat lands of minnesota and with the climbs there, I looked at the gear ranges and feel more comfortable with the higher RPM on some of the significant climbs that I will see at silverman.

Do I know for sure it will help, but I do know that I am more confident....  I average 95-98 rpm on most rides around here... now, do I switch out everything (current FSA Gossamer) or just the chainrings???  $$$ 

To each his own. On the routes I ride/race, I NEVER use the 39-23, so a compact would be pointless.

If only I was your size.....I do get your point though.  I'm no where near your bike strength, so maybe someday i'll regret using the word never.   But that will be after losing another 60lbs, and a few more years of riding lots.

Nothing against your training mate, he seems like a great athlete to qualify to Kona for so many years; however his suggestions about following a particular rpm are incorrect (per the research and opinions of guys like A Coggan). If you can't generate power at ‘x’ gearing selection is because you lack the fitness to do so; AGAIN it is not because of the crank/gear. you can ride a compact as your preference that's for sure

Based on my experience, I think many IM triathletes (and many triathletes who compete other distances) would do well with a compact crank.  The reasons for this are:

1. Most triathletes are over-geared; I have seen too many athletes grinding (sub 65 cadence) up hills because they have run out of gears
2. It allows you to run a tigheter cassette so it is easier to fine tune cadance
3. With an 11 tooth as the smallest cog, there is no loss in the high end but a fairly significant gain in the low end
4. Although having compact cranks (or a bigger large cog) has no magical properties to save your legs for the run, having proper gearing can help an athlete pace the bike better, especially on hilly courses which in turn can improve run splits due to better pacing on the bike (of course this will often lead to slower bike splits)

However, unless it comes standard on your bike or is an option to switch out for little or no extra cost, then simply having a variety of cassettes to suit the terrain is a much more cost effective alternative.

Shane

Again, going back to simple fact.  If you use a compact front all you are doing is modifying your gear ranges.  That's it, plain and simple.

For everyone saying that they got faster and could ride easier with the compact cranks, please explain.  See last paragraph of this post as to why ........

It is very simple.  Whether you are pushing a 53/17 along at 100 rpms and going 24 mph or whether you are spinning a 50/15 along at 100 rpms to attain that same speed. you are STILL PRODUCING THE SAME RANGE OF POWER AND THE SAME LEVEL OF EFFORT.  Aerodynamic resistance and friction do not change just because you change gear ratios.  Psychological benefit?  Sure, maybe.  But it won't beat physics.

Now, as to the bullsh-t argument that someone shouldn't run a 53/11 because they could never push it???  Those same people certainly can't push a 50/11 either.  C'mon, what kind of crap is that???  The fastest pro level IM splits are still only in the 26 - 28 mph range.  The fastest pro level oly. splits on a flat course are only in the 27 - 29 range.  The f-cking TDF flat TT's are only in the 34 range and that would be spinning a 53/11 at around 95 rpms!!!  And as an side, those guys typically run 54 or 55 up front.

For those that are saying having a wider range or easier gears for climbing?  Sure, that is an option and makes sense.  But the reality is, if you cannot go up a hill at say 10 mph in ANY gear currently on your bike, all that changing out the gearing is going to allow you to do is spin an EASIER gear up the hill at a SLOWER speed.  Changing to a smaller gear ratio is not going to allow you to climb any faster at the same level of effort, only spin an easier gear at a higher rate to go the same speed you were before.  Ain't gravity grand???

It straight forward physics.  You can push out "X" power.  Aerodynamic resistance pushes back "Y" and friction from the road pushes back "Z."  to get faster you have three choices - increase "X," decrease the affect of "Y" and reduce the amount of "Z"  That's it.  There's no other "magic" to it that allows you to go faster without addressing one of those 3 simple things.

LOL. It's not every day you hear someone say they want to be 5'9" and 210.  I guess you envy me for my youth and good looks as well.

An excellent point that is worth repeating.

Shane

But how can this be if it's not written in a book or approved on ST? 

I'll have to work on that .... no reason to spoil my reputation.

Huh?

just meant that going campact makes sense for many triathletes. That seems to be the minority view. like mine.

Because on some hills, if you are 'over-geared' then you are forced to use more power than you should in order to maintain any kind of reasonable cadence.  So either you have to back off more on other sections of the course to recover or you fry your legs more than you should for the run.  This matters for long course races on hilly terrain.

If you have more gears (compacts, cogs...whatever) then you can find a reasonable cadence and maintain appropriate power while you go up the hills.  Yes, you will climb slower.  But you will also ride steadier throughout which should actually result in a faster overall speed.  And set you up better for the run.

Most of your post is true, but you're considering instantaneous speed versus speed over a whole course which is influenced by how you ride each section.  If you can comfortably ride up the hills at very low cadences and not spike your power output too much or too often, then you can ride with 'bigger' gearing.  If you have trouble doing so, then you are better off with 'smaller' gearing.  You can get that through compacts, cogsets, blah, blah, blah... 

It's rider and terrain dependant.  And no set-up is universally right or wrong or better or worse.

I don't think people would argue that if an athlete were overgeared that are really three ways to fix that:

1. Different chainrings
2. Different cassette
3. Some combo of 1 and 2

Where the issue lies is that many believe that just by going to a compact they are going to have a faster bike split (they might but that will be due to improved fitness, better weather conditions, pushing harder, better pacing, etc not the compact) or that it will magically (like the myth about tri-bikes) save your legs for the run.

If someone is overgeared then changing gain ratios makes sense; but it is still the athlete's fitness and pacing that results in going faster/slower over the course.

Shane

Agreed - nice post Rick.

Since the new bike COMES with the compact, I see no reason to spend the money up front to change it based on my current training and races.  I continually look for another gear when I get to my serious climbs, so the stock compact seems like the right choice.

Swap it out later is always an option - of if I move to the flat lands...

Anyway - another side question then.  Work = force x distance.  In cycling, that could be applied to several different "systems" but lets examine pedaling.  You could apply more force over a shorter "distance" (lower rpm means less distance the pedals travel = masher) OR apply less force over a longer distance (higher RPM - spinner) and still do the same amount of work.  Physioligically, what seems to be better for triathlon?  Or is it completely to the individual?

I think I lean towards mashing, as it seems to make be faster on the bike, but I have not had a overly successfull run yet on any longer races (HIM or longer)