Look Pro: The Flemish Compact
Everyone knows that the quality of one’s character is measured by the size gear they can push, particularly when going uphill. It is also a well-established fact that no self-respecting Flemish Pro would ever ride a Compact, no matter what condition their knees are in or how ferocious the gradient. Which, by extension, means that Compacts are for sissies. In fact, a true Flandrian would rather lose their national race than ride a Sissy Gear.
The first time we rode with Johan Museeuw, we were shocked to find him aboard one of his carbon/flax race machines – and a compact chainset. Not wanting to offend an Apostle by suggesting he’s riding his son’s bike, I asked him what he thought of it. “I don’t like it. The big ring isn’t big enough for climbing.”
The standard Flemish chainset is – and has been for as long as the Ancients have tracked these details in their sacred scrolls – either a 53T or 52T outer ring paired to a 42T inner ring. On the occasions when the parcours will see them scaling the Koppenberg or Kapelmuur, the Belgians make a concession and dust off their trusty 41T inner ring in order to shorten the gear by a whopping single tooth. In the mountains or over in Wallonia (the land of savages) where they are far from the prying eyes of their proud public, the Flemish hardman may allow his mechanic to bolt on a lowly 39T ring, so long as no one brings it up at the dinner table. (It is worth noting that in Cyclocross it is standard practice to ride a 38T inner ring.)
Museeuw has never been a grimpeur, not when he was a Pro and not now. On Keepers Tour 2013, we had the opportunity to do several more rides with him, one of which was over the roads of Liege-Bastogne-Liege. It was customary for him to suggest alternate routes that avoided the steep hills, and so it was that he tried to talk us out of riding the Stockeu. We rode up side-by-side, taking our time. As we alternated between pedaling and doing track stands, he asked if I was riding a compact. I feigned a combination of exasperation and insult at such a question and told him it was a Flemish Compact.
“Oh, a 39? Goed.”
[dmalbum path=”/velominati.com/content/Photo Galleries/[email protected]/Belgian Compact/”/]
@Daccordi Rider
Spot on, me also
@ChrisO Yes, this is where the mathematics comes in, a Standard crank can be geared with a block so that it is equivalent to a compact, and a compact vice versa to a standard.
It’s like a lot of things on here, people shouldn’t feel insulted by the article, get all defensive about being less strong, because yes in fact our manhood is being threatened because yes, in fact, riding a hill like The Lion whilst Sur La Plaque is manly. Very manly indeed. And the female riders, well they’d have no problem chicking most of us! As impressive as The Lion to my eyes.
If we prefer to ride a compact and spin up climbs, we’re doing what we think is best.
But clearly we are less strong than someone at our pace or quicker whilst on harder gearing than us. End of story.
When it comes to dropping other amateurs because they choose an inefficient gear for the hills, then I know I am on the right gear for my abilities. Reconciling that with feeling less Machismo compared to the male and female professionals is easy, for riding is something I do to suffer, not for dollars..
@Marko
Brillant timing!
@DerHoggz
Holy shiet! This front moto driver looks like Dr Strangelove’s older fatter brother. What is with the helmets?
@frank
You confuse me sir with someone who is intelligent.
Great article Frank. My steel bike has a 53 x 44 on it and it’s a real mother fo ya! Manly and shifting between chain rings is the best, it’s like going up of down a cog or two in the back. I should bring that fucker to Belgium. KT 2014 Steel is Real Tour. All participants must ride steel. oooof!
This is very disturbing. Being an average 55 yr old in hilly country – frankly I need a 34 inner just to get to the top of my 12% dead-end road. But an 11-23 out back in my defence. But the real issue – are you saying it is impossible to be Rule #23 compliant on a compact ????
@GT
Location, location, location. Museeuw grew up in Belgium. Frank just loves his big chain ring. I loves me a compact now I live on a volcano, ffs!
And your 50 x 11 is a nice long gear, I believe longer than a 53 x12? So spin it out.
I think one of the worse looking thing is having a hug cassette on the back wheel(on a road bike that is)
Id rather see a compact up front with a 11-25 than a big ring with something crazy like in a 32.
@RedRanger
Yup. Cassettes of 11-28T and bigger are for mountain bikes, no matter what Bertie Beefsteak does. Don’t forget they can bolt on heavy bits at will as almost all Pro bikes need ballast to get them above 6.8kg anyway. Expect this to change if the proposed reduction to the UCI weight limit goes through.
@mouse
@mouse
…and surely you mean “all intents and purposes”.
I’ve learned a great deal about gearing over the past few hours.
With a better understanding I’m at peace with my bike’s compact 50-34T. I could add a 16T to the mix by changing to a 12-25 out back but would lose my top gear. Changing to an 11-25 doesn’t get me a 16T but it would smooth transitions on the easier gears. An 11-23 might be my best option.
It really sounds like a 50-34t compact in combination with one of the new 11 speed 11-25 cassettes would be my perfect world. I have put it on the list for N + 1.
@Fausto
These two fellas right here are on to it. I’m not sure I agree with the 11-28 if say Gianni, living on the side of a volcano, needs the 28 to get home. But yes, big cassettes do not look pro. You may as well keep the dork disc on. Seeing a nice petit cassette on a bike gives me wood. In this sense, I’d ride a compact with a small cassette before I would a 53 with a larger one. But I live in the flats and have massive guns so I get to ride a standard and an 11-25. Whoahpaya.
@kixsand
No, I meant “All in tents with porpoises”. No wait,@Marcus said that. @Frank was Museuuw’s tenant who’s cheek was tongued.
And I’m fundamentally wrong.
@kixsand
This is why I like 11 speed. With an 11-23 you can go 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23.
Even with 11-25 you can still go 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25 but I prefer minimal gaps on 12-25 (12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25) if I’m going to go for the lower gears.
Don’t look now but The Lion is in Rule #37 violation.
@kixsand
I can’t stand not having the 16T cog so the race bike has an 11-23 cassette, the commuter is 12-25. Would love 11 speed but budget won’t stretch that far. Yet.
@Marko
Good of you to say so Marko! I’m not sure we are actually, but in sticking to it for now. Hills out of my village range from 10% to 20%+, compact isn’t exactly a necessary evil but it helps stop my knees exploding.
I hope my knees never ring for a compact.
@Marcus
Is this some subtle attempt at humor? Because it is hilarious. All intensive purposes is my favorite misused term of all. Second is road to hoe.
http://grammarist.com/eggcorns/for-all-intensive-purposes/
There is nothing funny about a compact though. Use the right gear for the right terrain/conditions.
great thoughts Frank, as usual
i thought for a moment you were going to make the corollary between gear inches and ones manhood, but no go
Like so many things within the mind of the cognoscentia, its all about soul and spirit, and chiefly attitude. For example, I will never ride a compact, well except when i ride the graveleur. The road bikes all are standard, and I must say, the drop from the 53t to the 39t is like falling off a slope, and the transition to a 42t is sooooo much better, it simply rolls out much better. Granted, this is no mtn gear, and where I ride there are simply millions of short steep climbs and are usually 300-500ft climbs over and over, not long…so this works
But even in the mtns, a 39t is adequate.
I say that to say this, like any gear, its all about the mind, your will and your will being superior to the extent you submit everything else to IT, including your gear. See Rule V for referece
@RManneck
I’m currently considering a conversion from my 53/39 crankset to the 113bcd so i have the option of running 52/36 for the normal courses and swapping out to 50/34 for the occasions the boys decide to hit the mountains on a weekend trip. Seems like a pretty good option with plenty of range, just need to justify the expense. I will however miss the bragging rights of being the last of the Flemish Compacts left in the bunch…
I generally love everything written on this site – some entries like ‘Solitude’ are border line genius. This however is rose tinted tosh…
@gianni is right. 52/42 is where it’s at. Shifting is crazy smooth, all the time, and combined with lots of spokes and some nice heavy steel, that’ll get your legs in Rule V shape. I had a 50/34 on my CX build for a little while because they are super cheap, and it either wouldn’t shift at all, or drop the chain half the time. Drove me crazy.
53/39 is acceptable, especially with all these fancy, post 1990 chainrings, but if you need a compact for the road, you better be out doing hill repeats trying to bust the damn thing in half so you can buy a real one. There will be races where you spin out, and there is nothing worse than watching people pull away as you spin wildly, trying to keep up. There’s a race around here every year where whoever brought a 60T wins it, and for the short time I was riding 14-23 in the back, every descent was pure torture. Compacts are for Greenway heros and commuters. Are we not Velominati?!
Thanks Frank. This is an amusing, well written article. Exactly what I expect from The Keepers.
However, as others have already pointed out, the ‘science’ behind recommending big chain rings is sketchy at best.
Loved the clip of Cancellara and Boonen on the Muur. I know a physiologist who works a lot with cyclists and dreams of watts versus HR. He once told me that it was estimated that Cancellara had sustained 1300 watts for 30 seconds on that climb! I’m not so sure a few teeth either way would have made any difference.
@frank
Oh….so you do know who Newton is after all!
@frank
Yeah, but the Apostle also rode a Colnago sporting a Group-San so WTF does he know?
No idea what size rings Big Mig is running here, but I can guarantee it ain’t no compact.
@Balexander
Hm. Yes, back in the day I ran 52/42 and climbed everything on offer with a 23, maximum, in the back. And I like a good macho rant as much as the next guy. But the claim that compacts don’t shift adequately is silly. Just adjust the thing properly and it’ll shift perfectly well.
If you’re spinning out, you want a bigger gear, obviously. An 11 in the back helps. And one can learn to turn the cranks quicker, too, of course–unless one’s stroke is already Cavendish-fast.
I do wish my legs and knees were as strong as they were 25 or 30 years ago. Maybe after another season or two back on the bike I’ll have re-hardened up enough to go back to my old gearing and be a man again–and grind my old knees to shit finally. Until then, I’ll have to ride the Category 1 and HC climbs in my region on my Greenway compact.
Pretty sure you don’t need to “gear down” for ‘cross either.
@Marko
This is the best-looking cassette on the planet. (I’m literally figuratively speaking.) And my old 11-21 I had in Minneapolis was the next best thing. My mountain 26T is already pushing it. Lets not even allow mountain bike blocks to be discussed publicly – falls under the SPDs on road bikes regulations of Rule #34.
@Marko
Eyewear always goes under hairnets for the same reason they go over helmets, which is to say the Ancients on Mt Velomis have made it so without explanation. ( Rule #37 only applies to helmets.)
@PeakInTwoYears I’m with you. With diligence I have stocked 52s and 42s in the flat drawer. 11-21 is a good choice most all season. And 13-26 in winter just to say that all things may slow down — as most might expect. I believe — that 52/42 also demands that you do not indulge any current or previous habit of cross-chaining.
@Souleur
Poetry.
@Balexander
I’ve been watching with bemusement as more and more compacts wind their way onto CX bikes. The outer ring is too big for grinding the steep stuff, and the 34 is waaaaaay to small to keep traction going. I have never once used the inner ring on a CX course; you can ride the short steep bits on a 42T or 44T outer ring and keep your traction going (admitting full well that you’ll be crossing the chain in some cases). No need for small BCDs on CX rigs.
On gravel rigs, its a totally different matter – in fact, I was very tempted to get a compact and if I’d have been able to find one under the circumstances (long story) I would have taken it for that situation. Gravel forest roads can get seriously steep.
@scaler911
Great shot, and some belly breathing to boot. It always amazed me how much his legs sweat. Next Look Pro will have to be on sweaty legs.
It’s true, though, looking at big rings and a straight block is exciting–like looking at the muzzle of a big-bore revolver.
@scaler911
Two in a row. Top marks, my man. Top marks.
Those are manly CX tires, too. I’m guessing 28mm file treads.
And with this we close the question and answer portion of “Why is Roger DeVlaeminck More Manly Than You?”
@unversio
Good point, what is the quality of your character when you’re in the 53 but crossed over into your 32T in the back?
None quality.
@PeakInTwoYears
Machine gun jumblies? How did I miss those?
@Cyclops
His glasses are also under his helmet straps. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Fun article, thanks Frank.
Back in the day, when I was a teenager, my race/summer bike had 52-42 x 13-18, and on principle I never used the 18 cog. There was something psychological about not using the lowest gear, even when I was dying a death and chewing my Benotto tape; it would have been like having my back to the wall with nowhere to go. Just couldn’t do it. My winter bike had 52-42 x 13-21, so that I had a 19 cog as a bail-out gear for when the man with the hammer had paid me a visit. This is in South Wales, with plenty of 15-20% climbs.
Looking back, I honestly don’t know how I managed it.
These days, I’m 100-odd-% older and 50% heavier, got back into road cycling after some time off road, and went straight to a 50-34 x 12-26. I prefer a high cadence and rarely use anything higher than 50×14, let alone spin it out, so I don’t see the point of bigger chainrings. Maybe when I’ve dropped 15kg and worn my current chainrings out, I’ll give it a go. Or maybe not.
@Cyclops
If you follow that line of reasoning through to conclusion, all Deacon bikes may only be assembled using groupsets built by crazy people in their basements.
@wiscot
(Psst!)
That ain’t a Huffy, and I don’t see a 39 either.
Ahhh, fuck it, time to confess. I ride a 50/36 with an 11-23 at the back. I live in a very lumpy part of SE WI and I hit the big 50 next month. All you young whippersnappers can ride all the 53-42s you damn well like, but I get around quite nicely thank you on my set up. (eg, 92 kms last night. Two bottles, no food, 29kmh/hr average over lumpy terrain) I hate having a big cassette at the back and the 36 looks better than a 34.
I grew up in the age of 52-42 being standard and a 12 straight-through at the back. Try getting up some steep hills on 42-18 and then tell be about how shitty compacts are. Been there, done that, not going back. While I’m at it, I sport an epms. Why? Because I came of age in an era of wool and then shitty acrylic jerseys. I have images burnt in my brain of riders with so much shit in their saggy back pockets that you couldn’t see the saddle. For me, it’s emergency gear in the epms, wallet and cell in the middle pocket, gels in the right pocket, solid food in the left. Other than that, I do my very best to obey the rules, but sometimes age and experience trumps the written word!
@wiscot
Jesus Man!!! What do you think this is? An AA meeting??? Keep that shit to yourself and obey the masturbation principle!
@Buck Rogers
Honestly. Fifty years old! No one needs to know about that.
OK boys and girls, any one want to play frame builder?
Here is the CAD drawing of a carbon frame I’ve ordered from Alchemy (Helios model).
I specified that it was intended to be a “go-fast” bike (haha, I know), not meant to be plush, all-day comfortable.I also specified I wanted a horizontal top tube and a head tube that came in at 23 cm max. The BB-saddle length is correct, as is the setback and saddle tip-bar center reach. My saddle-bar drop was submitted as 10 cm.
This is what I got. Huge head tube, sloped top-tube, reduce saddle-bar drop, ginormous wheel base. Am I asking the physically impossible? Do I radiate so many “old and slow” vibes that the engineer has intervened humanely?
Any comments? Gentle mockery is acceptable.
OK boys and girls, any one want to play frame builder?
Here is the CAD drawing of a carbon frame I’ve ordered from Alchemy (Helios model).
I specified that it was intended to be a “go-fast” bike (haha, I know), not meant to be plush, all-day comfortable.I also specified I wanted a horizontal top tube and a head tube that came in at 23 cm max. The BB-saddle length is correct, as is the setback and saddle tip-bar center reach. My saddle-bar drop was submitted as 10 cm.
This is what I got. Huge head tube, sloped top-tube, reduce saddle-bar drop, ginormous wheel base. Am I asking the physically impossible? Do I radiate so many “old and slow” vibes that the engineer has intervened humanely?
Any comments? Gentle mockery is acceptable.
@Buck Rogers
Sorry fellas . . . slinking off with head hung in abject shame. (In my defence, there did seem to be a few confessions being posted and I must have gotten carried away.)
At 60 years of age I continue to long for the days when I had my Regita corn cob freewheel and 53/42 as the #1, it is #4 on the Coppi. Living in Seattle I continue with the 53/39 and 11-23 on the clinchers but do have 12-27 for the mountains tubulars. It was all power low RMP as a kid. I PROMISED MYSELF NO compact until I retire, Then I hope to be able to ride more and avoid it till death. Just saw the 70 year old guys that did RAAM in 6 days 13 hours. What really matters is getting out and make the guns burn