Categories: Awesome Belgian GuysBelgian AffirmationsFolkloreLook ProNostalgiaThe HardmenTradition

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/frank@velominati.com/Belgian Compact/”/]

frank

The founder of Velominati and curator of The Rules, Frank was born in the Dutch colonies of Minnesota. His boundless physical talents are carefully canceled out by his equally boundless enthusiasm for drinking. Coffee, beer, wine, if it’s in a container, he will enjoy it, a lot of it. He currently lives in Seattle. He loves riding in the rain and scheduling visits with the Man with the Hammer just to be reminded of the privilege it is to feel completely depleted. He holds down a technology job the description of which no-one really understands and his interests outside of Cycling and drinking are Cycling and drinking. As devoted aesthete, the only thing more important to him than riding a bike well is looking good doing it. Frank is co-author along with the other Keepers of the Cog of the popular book, The Rules, The Way of the Cycling Disciple and also writes a monthly column for the magazine, Cyclist. He is also currently working on the first follow-up to The Rules, tentatively entitled The Hardmen. Email him directly at rouleur@velominati.com.

Next In Memoriam: Jon Lennard, aka @itburns »

Previous « Guest Article: What You Don't Know Will Eventually Kill You

View Comments

Magilla says:

Aug 13 2013 at 7:06 am

@RManneck

I am currently building my new Number 1; going with a 110bcd crankset, giving me the ability to go 52Ã—38, 52Ã—36 or 50Ã—34. I think it is a pretty good compromise. Personally I never felt the need for a 34 chainring, but I am dreaming of riding Mount Evans next summer, where I am sure to find The Man With The Hammer. Maybe the 34 will allow me to delay the meeting.

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...
RichyPea says:

Aug 13 2013 at 7:12 am

I generally love everything written on this site - some entries like 'Solitude' are border line genius. This however is rose tinted tosh...
Balexander says:

Aug 13 2013 at 8:33 am

@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?!
Tiglio says:

Aug 13 2013 at 8:51 am

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.
paolo says:

Aug 13 2013 at 9:47 am

@frank

@DerHoggz

I like Contador's idea of using really wide range cassettes so he can stay in the big ring longer, he uses a 32 out back sometimes. Now if only something to eliminate cross chaining rub was available to the lower component levels ala auto trim and yaw.

I am convinced big-big is the most mechanically efficient ratio for climbing. I'm just waiting to invent the math that proves it, like Newton did.

I'm going to invest in three chain rings in the coming weeks: a 42 for the road (for climbing), 46 for Roubaix (just to look Pro), and a 44T outter for CX (also for climbing - I've yet to find a CX course that has required a 38T - or 39T for that matter, in the US).

@JohnB

I do get the gist of the article and my first road bike, a lovely steel Ciocc had a 52/42 and I did like it a lot...Go compact and just pedal faster. 50 x 12 at a decent cadence is plenty quick. Get yourself some track time and develop souplesse if you want to look really Pro.

Or do all that on a Standard. And go mo'fasta.

At the very least, your bike will look more manly sitting at the cafe while you whimper inside.

We've not all got the guns of a pro but we can pretend. Just saying.

You start off saying you get the gist, and then you close with this. One of us is confused. Take a guess which one.

Oh....so you do know who Newton is after all!
Cyclops says:

Aug 13 2013 at 9:48 am

@frank

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."

Yeah, but the Apostle also rode a Colnago sporting a Group-San so WTF does he know?
scaler911 says:

Aug 13 2013 at 9:52 am

No idea what size rings Big Mig is running here, but I can guarantee it ain't no compact.
PeakInTwoYears says:

Aug 13 2013 at 9:56 am

@Balexander

@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?!

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.
scaler911 says:

Aug 13 2013 at 10:02 am

Pretty sure you don't need to "gear down" for 'cross either.
frank says:

Aug 13 2013 at 10:17 am

@Marko

@Fausto

@RedRanger

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.

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.

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.

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.