Need help decyphering marketspeak

[Squat'n Dive]

What does "Compact" or "Compact Drive" refers in the new bike ads?

[Nick Payne]

These days it usually means a road crank with a 110mm BCD vs the 130mm BCD
Shimano and 135mm BCD of Campagnolo.

It used to mean an MTB 94BCD crank vs the 110BCD cranks that used to be the
standard.

Nick

"Squat'n Dive" <sndive@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5a73494-9c5d-4b4c-ba86-b17f1ab8b743@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> What does "Compact" or "Compact Drive" refers in the new bike ads?

[A Muzi]

Squat'n Dive wrote:
> What does "Compact" or "Compact Drive" refers in the new bike ads?

'Compact' now just means neither a 52 nor a 53t outer ring. After that,
many many variants, 22-32-42 to a 36-50.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[bicycle_disciple]

On Jan 16, 3:05*pm, "Squat'n Dive" <snd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What does "Compact" or "Compact Drive" refers in the new bike ads?

Compact drivesets offer lower teeth chainrings with 110 bcd, they help
for things like climbing without the need for a traditional three ring
setup. I think.

B.D

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:05:12 -0800 (PST), "Squat'n Dive"
<sndive@gmail.com> may have said:

>What does "Compact" or "Compact Drive" refers in the new bike ads?

"Compact drive" = small front sprockets. On a mountain bike, this
usually means 42T or 44T on the big ring. On a roadie, it's a bit
bigger, but still below the more historically customary 53T. The
advent of the 11T sprocket on rear cassettes is most of the reason why
these exist; if they kept using the larger front sprockets, you'd be
likely to spend more time riding with a gear combo that stayed off the
11T sprocket, which would mean that your cluster would last longer.
By going to the smaller fronts, they increase the likelihood that
you'll wear things out faster overall. (Not that I suspect a
conspiracy here, you understand; it's doubtless just one of those
additional consequences that naturally obtains as a result of a
decision made for valid reasons of economization opportunity resulting
from new design feature availability.)

"Compact" by itself often refers to a frame with a non-horizontal top
tube, whose seatpost must be considerably longer than would otherwise
be required. The merits of this are debated from time to time.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Squat'n Dive]

On Jan 16, 2:57 pm, "Nick Payne" <some...@nowhere.au> wrote:
> These days it usually means a road crank with a 110mm BCD vs the 130mm BCD
> Shimano and 135mm BCD of Campagnolo.
>
BCD being Bolt Circle Diameter or smth?
How does that affect the rider?

> It used to mean an MTB 94BCD crank vs the 110BCD cranks that used to be the
> standard.
>
Why did the bike makers move to 130/135?

[still just me]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:11:15 -0800 (PST), "Squat'n Dive"
<sndive@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 2:57 pm, "Nick Payne" <some...@nowhere.au> wrote:
>> These days it usually means a road crank with a 110mm BCD vs the 130mm BCD
>> Shimano and 135mm BCD of Campagnolo.
>>
>BCD being Bolt Circle Diameter or smth?

Bolt Circle Diameter.

>How does that affect the rider?

Not at all. Anything you can do with a compact gear set I can do with
a not so compact.

With 10 speed rear clusters sporting 11 teeth on the low side, you can
use a smaller set of front chainwheels, making the compact practical
in terms of having adequate gear range. Whether or not it aids
shifting in any way... I doubt it... but one of the more modern riders
can probably comment more authoritatively.

>> It used to mean an MTB 94BCD crank vs the 110BCD cranks that used to be the
>> standard.
>>
>Why did the bike makers move to 130/135?

Same reason for most other bike changes: fashion. :-)

[A Muzi]

> "Nick Payne" <some...@nowhere.au> wrote:
>> These days it usually means a road crank with a 110mm BCD vs the 130mm BCD
>> Shimano and 135mm BCD of Campagnolo.

Squat'n Dive wrote:
> BCD being Bolt Circle Diameter or smth?
> How does that affect the rider?

> More "Nick Payne" <some...@nowhere.au>:
>> It used to mean an MTB 94BCD crank vs the 110BCD cranks that used to be the
>> standard.

Squat'n Dive wrote:
> Why did the bike makers move to 130/135?

'Why' introduces conjecture. Suffice to say fashion and marketing are
powerful forces here, well beyond utility.

Classic 151mm road cranks limit low gear to 44t. Many riders seemed to
prefer 144m with a 42t limit* until the Japanese format 130mm (39t
low*). Campagnolo, with a raging infection of "not invented here"
countered with 135mm (39t low as well).

In sales, the classic pitch is "the crap we sold you last year is no
good; here's the new model", however nicely phrased.

So, with a widely established base of various touring formats (110/74
triple for example) the 110mm 'road compact' is hot as mountain bikes
have moved on to four-bolt (104mm/64mm) and 94/58mm format. Campagnolo
carbon compact cranks use a 110/112 asymmetric ring (one bolt askew).

in some of those formats, aftermarket 'cheater' rings one tooth
smaller are/were available such as 144mm 41t, 130mm 38t, etc. They may
require filing the end of the crank arm spider.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Clive George]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f24to31ou5mj3d7ibpmqr7i03003nmja0o@4ax.com...

>>How does that affect the rider?
>
> Not at all. Anything you can do with a compact gear set I can do with
> a not so compact.

On an MTB? The compact MTB drive allows lower gears than 110/74. Taking the
small sprocket down to 11t and the big ring to 42 or so also means more
ground clearance.

On a road bike, the 110 BCD twin (modern 'compact' gearing) is typically
used to get a lower bottom gear - 135mm gives you 39t AFAIK, whereas you can
stick 34t on a 110. Which means no need to use a triple if you want lowish
gears.

>>> It used to mean an MTB 94BCD crank vs the 110BCD cranks that used to be
>>> the
>>> standard.
>>>
>>Why did the bike makers move to 130/135?
>
> Same reason for most other bike changes: fashion. :-)

The move from 110 to 94 on MTBs gave lower gears and more clearance.

The 130/135 was on road bikes - there was no move from 110 to 130/135.

And I write all this secure in knowledge that our tandems all have 110/74,
including the MTB, and nice small rings are rather harder to find for that
than 94/56 (or whatever compact MTB is) :-(

cheers,
clive