54/42 Crankset???
Okay, I just got my new Kestrel from Todd at TTBikefit and it comes standard with a Vision TriMaxCarbon 54/42 crankset. I have called him and he is willing to switch it out for a Dura Ace 7950 compact 50/34 which will also work fine with the Shimano Di2 group set. The question I have is, is there any reason to keep the 54/42 crank? I know the stock answer is go compact but is there ever going to be a time when I might wish I still had the 54/42. I am a bigger guy at 6'2" and 190 but I am 54 and only a 270 FTP. I ride mostly flat races with Louisville probably the hilliest. Thanks for the input.
0
Comments
The stock answer of "go compact" is often for purposes of versatility. I too live in Texas (on the even flatter side of the state) and just about all my racing is done at zero elevation. I'd think about going compact more if I lived somewhere with actual hills. I ride 53/39. I was a little concerned about the Syracuse 70.3 last year which had about 3500 ft. of climbing over the 56 mile course. I just swapped out my normal 12-25 (or 12-23) for a 12-27. I did some riding in the 39/27 gear up the largest hill but otherwise it was a non-issue. We have similar FTP's and you're a bit bigger than I am - 6'0" and 170 lb. fighting weight. I don't think Louisville is as hilly as Syracuse. I think it's more rolling. There was an early stretch of Syracuse (I think mile 3 to mile 12) in which the elevation went from 600 feet to 1700 feet. I never once thought to myself, "Damn, I wish I had another gear." That stated, a 42/27 (as opposed to the 39/27) might have been a struggle up that hill. Once again, I don't think there are hills like that at Louisville though.
I don't see a downside to a compact though. It's not like you're going to spin out of gears with a compact unless you plan on pedaling over 35mph. You can also get similar ratios to a standard by using a 11-23 or 11-21 cassette. You can call me Switzerland neutral on the subject because of where you live. I don't see a downside to a compact but I don't see any real advantage either. If you lived in Colorado or whatever then I would tell you 100% to go for the compact.
AND
you are planning to do either Sprint races or open TTs that are flat
AND
you know you can easily average over 26 mph for those races
Then I think you could start to think about keeping it.
Otherwise I would stick with a compact and get an 11-21 for flat/short races, and an 11-26,27 or 28 for the hilly/long races.
FWIW, I have averaged over 26 mph for 16 miles, 24.5 for 56 and rode sub 5 for 112 mi (i think it was 22.6 mph) all with a compact.... and I average around 85 rpm on race day so it's not like I'm spinning at 100 rpm to do that. In the sprint, it may have been nice to have a 53 but by no means did I need it.
The reality is that if you are spinning out a 50/11, you probably are going downhill or have a tailwind and would be better off coast anyway and saving your legs for the run.
Matt (or anyone else for that matter),
I read something the other day about running 52/36 as a compact as a "best of both worlds" option. Any thoughts? I might ask over at ST as well.
The 52-11 give me enough top end and I still have the 36 to climb up whatever I want. I used this setup all of last year. On it I made it up multiple 20% grades (looked like a wall when I was approaching it) and still could hold over 30mph on the flats.
Keep in mind I raced at over 4.7 w/kg last year so my situation and needs may be different than others.
Sell the 54/42, don't even think about it unless your name is Spartucus.
I read your response to my post on ST. I wasn't thinking about the BCD difference and completely ignored that simple fact. Not about to mess around with selling my Quarq just to buy another Quarq.