To what extent should rider specific power influence climbing gears?

[Chance]

The how-to-achieve “lower gearing with large chainrings” thread evolved into a gearing discussion. Mostly why we need lower gearing at all. As usual (from my perspective anyway) Ti Design suggested that most riders shouldn’t change to very low “compact” gears but instead ride what most here think would be too high.

My question is based on this: If average riders can only put out half the power per unit weight as a pro cyclists, why shouldn’t they use a gear that is twice as deep so they can climb the same grades at approximately the same cadence?

The correct answer is probably not a linear function, right? If pros typically selected a 39/23 low gear for a given Tour stage most of us won’t actually use a 30/34 to go up the same road just so we can spin at the same rate. Instead we’d end up with something in the middle and spinning at a much lower cadence than the pros. Is that best?

What defines ideal low gear needed for climbing?

[Chance]

For what it’s worth, my personal view on this is that we should gear bikes so we can spin at least 60 RPM on climbs of more than a minute or two in duration.

Using 42/21 gears at 30 RPM just because we can doesn’t make much sense to me. Even if it doesn’t hurt our knees. Have done it myself but seems pointless now. Just makes for slow and strenuous climbing.

[regularguy412]

IMHO -- As I get older, it's becoming more about balancing how much spin I use versus how much mash I use on a given climb. For me, there comes a point when more spin doesn't really help. I'm not increasing my heart rate range and more spinning just uses more of that up. Just because I 'can' spin at 85 or 90 rpm and go 4 mph, doesn't mean I should. At 4 mph, I have to start concentrating on just staying upright.

On the other hand, I have to measure how much mash I use, so that I don't use it all up before I get to the top.

All this comes down to how well I picked my parents. If I had been lucky enough to have a VO2max like the pros, well,, I'd probably have been a pro -- and not just pack fodder.

The composition of my muscles leans toward a higher percentage of fast twitch. I can 'do' the work during a climb, but I have to be careful about not over-doing it.

The lowest gear I have on any bike is 39/25. If it gets where I can't turn it at a reasonable cadence, I'll get off and walk.

Thanks for listening :-)

Mike in AR:beer:

[rugbysecondrow]

The easy answer: whatever gearing will get you out and riding. The same answer goes for pedals, bike style, seats, bars etc. Whatever gets you off the couch and turning pedals. If somebody needs that low gear to ride up hills where they live, the so be it.

The harder answer, is that gearing should be geared around how you use the bike and where you use it. Frankly, I am not listening to some guy from flat areas like Illinois (where I am from) or Florida about gearing.


I have a SS MTB which I really enjoy, my Tri-bike has a compact as does my touring bike, but my road bike has standard. Different purposes.

[jr59]

I'm sort of with Rugby on this. What ever it takes.

I now live in a place that has ZERO hills, I can ride 250 miles with less than 500 feet climbing. :banana: Yea me, I'm old and broken down.
I ride 42-53 with 25 in the back. No problems!

When I live in N.Ga./ATL, I used the biggest cog I could fit on the back of my bike. Compacts were not so common back then. I learned to climb hills there.
It was a balancing act, you need enough spin to back the top, yet enough power to not burn it all up before you get there.

Then I moved to Denver for a while. Opps! I quickly learned a triple was my friend. VERY quickly! Yet it was the same thing, I could never get in good enough shape to spin to the top of the super long climbs, I had to balance between spin and power.

Having the right tool for the right job is very important. I wouldn't tour on the gearing I am running now.

[BillG]

why shouldn’t they use a gear that is twice as deep so they can climb the same grades at approximately the same cadence?

My guess would be that the ability to climb at 90% at a high cadence is also a big difference between a pro rider and a recreational rider -- i.e. that a recreational rider may not be maximizing their climbing at a similar cadence.

[Ti Designs]

A thread with good timing...

I'm in the process of writting content for my coaching website and a number of interesting things have come up. In doing fittings one of the first things I try to get people to understand is that body weight belongs on the pedals, not the handlebars. This is the basis for using larger muscle groups, taking a lot of emphasis off the quads and using a high enough gear to support the body weight. I've written plenty on this before. In a nutshell, if you're in a really low gear and you try to support your body weight on the pedal, it drops to the bottom of the pedal stroke and your body's own defense to falling kicks in and you wind up with your body weight on the handlebars. With a large enough gear, the body weight can ride the pedal down, taking the weight off the bars.

Some people learn this in seconds, some I don't have to teach, for most it's a minute or two in figuring it out, others can't do this at all. What I'm finding is that the gifted athletes can turn off the defense mechinisms and do what they want, others not so much. I created a test for this using two scales and a cam driven platform. The platform goes up and down 1/2", the other side is fixed. I had test subjects stand with a foot on each scale with the instructions to keep equal weight on both sides. Without the motor running the average split was 65/55, with the motor running it jumped to 80/20. We played with the speed of the motor, even offset the cams so the platform just rocked, very little change in results. The brain has a defense against falling - if something is moving under foot, find somewhere else to put the body weight. Pedals move...

Pedaling a bike is anything but simple. You don't have an electric motor built into your hips where current = torque. You have a bunch of muscle groups that move around different pivots which either supply power or fight the direction of the pedals (there's more of that than you think). Climbing involves working against gravity, it requires torque. In teaching my riders how to climb in the saddle the emphasis is to shut down small muscle groups and learn to use the largest of them - the glutes. On the flats there is energy stored in a moving body, any muscle group that can add to that system adds speed. A simple power test along with the weight of a rider doens't tell you if they are better on hills or flats.

[Gummee]

Where I am right now outside DC a 39/25-6 is plenty of gear to get up and over anything. Couple of weeks back I went down past Charlottesville to a buddy's ride (Devil's Backbone) and I spent more time in my 34/27 than I ever have before.

If I coulda gotten one more gear, I would've taken it on some of those hills!

I think that route was the same as the Velocipede 'Ballers Ride' loop till I took the 'short option.' In this case, short does not equal easy! That last hill was the hardest of all of em!

M

[tannhauser]

Depends on what your body can handle and if you're trained enough.

[Chance]

Depends on what your body can handle and if you're trained enough.

Agree 100 percent. But doesn’t this sidestep for the most part that there has to be a right answer for a given set of conditions. Otherwise for a given Tour stage some pro riders or teams would show up with 42/21 low gears and others 34/29. It’s well within their range of available equipment but they are far more predictable than that.

Vast differences never happen so gearing does make a difference even for a pro race. Within a reasonable range there has to be a correct answer.

Why is right answer so hard to pin down, or define? It’s clearly not arbitrary. So what’s involved in defining what’s right?

[tannhauser]

Agree 100 percent. But doesn’t this sidestep for the most part that there has to be a right answer for a given set of conditions. Otherwise for a given Tour stage some pro riders or teams would show up with 42/21 low gears and others 34/29. It’s well within their range of available equipment but they are far more predictable than that.

Vast differences never happen so gearing does make a difference even for a pro race. Within a reasonable range there has to be a correct answer.

Why is right answer so hard to pin down, or define? It’s clearly not arbitrary. So what’s involved in defining what’s right?

I don't think there is a right answer -- it's what the rider feels most comfortable with at a given point.

I regularly go back and forth on climbs btwn standing on a big gear vs. spinning a little one. Rest 'n' recovery, load and build.

Having said that I can't get stronger just spinning.

PS I can't speak for pros -- everything they do barely makes sense to me as a mortal.

[beeatnik]

$%^

[rugbysecondrow]

Agree 100 percent. But doesn’t this sidestep for the most part that there has to be a right answer for a given set of conditions. Otherwise for a given Tour stage some pro riders or teams would show up with 42/21 low gears and others 34/29. It’s well within their range of available equipment but they are far more predictable than that.

Vast differences never happen so gearing does make a difference even for a pro race. Within a reasonable range there has to be a correct answer.

Why is right answer so hard to pin down, or define? It’s clearly not arbitrary. So what’s involved in defining what’s right?


Maybe, I would also say that many of us are built differently. An example is upper body. I know guys that can do 100 push ups but not bench 150. I know guys that can bench 200 and not do a pull up. Each person will play to their strength. For me, as a former rugby player, I used to power up hills, driving out of the saddle, but that was less because it was my choose and more because I didn't have the leg fitness and endurance to spin. Now, I try to blend the two, focusing on one over the other depending on the purpose. If I am racing a triathlon, I might do more spinning that mashing.

I might also might be misunderstanding your question as a whole.

[Chance]

A thread with good timing...

I'm in the process of writting content for my coaching website and a number of interesting things have come up. In doing fittings one of the first things I try to get people to understand is that body weight belongs on the pedals, not the handlebars. This is the basis for using larger muscle groups, taking a lot of emphasis off the quads and using a high enough gear to support the body weight. I've written plenty on this before. In a nutshell, if you're in a really low gear and you try to support your body weight on the pedal, it drops to the bottom of the pedal stroke and your body's own defense to falling kicks in and you wind up with your body weight on the handlebars. With a large enough gear, the body weight can ride the pedal down, taking the weight off the bars.

Some people learn this in seconds, some I don't have to teach, for most it's a minute or two in figuring it out, others can't do this at all. What I'm finding is that the gifted athletes can turn off the defense mechinisms and do what they want, others not so much. I created a test for this using two scales and a cam driven platform. The platform goes up and down 1/2", the other side is fixed. I had test subjects stand with a foot on each scale with the instructions to keep equal weight on both sides. Without the motor running the average split was 65/55, with the motor running it jumped to 80/20. We played with the speed of the motor, even offset the cams so the platform just rocked, very little change in results. The brain has a defense against falling - if something is moving under foot, find somewhere else to put the body weight. Pedals move...

Pedaling a bike is anything but simple. You don't have an electric motor built into your hips where current = torque. You have a bunch of muscle groups that move around different pivots which either supply power or fight the direction of the pedals (there's more of that than you think). Climbing involves working against gravity, it requires torque. In teaching my riders how to climb in the saddle the emphasis is to shut down small muscle groups and learn to use the largest of them - the glutes. On the flats there is energy stored in a moving body, any muscle group that can add to that system adds speed. A simple power test along with the weight of a rider doens't tell you if they are better on hills or flats.

Thanks. Excellent argument against proportional gearing…..

Wanted to think about this and analyze in-depth before replying. Particularly from a physics standpoint and how it would affect different riders based on different power and or strength levels. And it does complicate matters a lot.

Your “don’t fall through the pedals” theory, if correct, and it probably is in large part, would explain why so many riders can’t “physically” pedal up a hill efficiently while standing for any extended duration. Regardless of how strong they are, if a rider lacks specific power to match the road conditions, your pedaling technique predicts there can be no mathematical solution for “ideal” gearing that would allow them to maintain an efficient steady-state rhythm (i.e. – an optimum pedaling cadence) while standing out of the saddle. Under the right road conditions (i.e. – resistance) they may be able to take a few pedal strokes but trying to stay standing for any length of time would either lead to needing an inefficiently-slow cadence (to lower power demand) or else they would speed up to the point that they couldn’t develop the needed power. Either way they are screwed.

Your “don’t fall through the pedals” technique leads to the best explanation of why gearing can’t be lowered in proportion to rider specific power. And we know from equipment observations that it typically isn’t. Probably because it wouldn’t work well. Makes perfect sense to me now why that’s the case – but only while standing. While sitting it’s an entirely different problem with different solution.

As Americans have gotten bigger and heavier, it makes sense to me (from math and physics standpoint) that more riders will find climbing while seated more efficient than standing because they can spin faster and hence more efficient. Additionally, if your pedaling theory is correct simply being stronger (not to be confused with more powerful) will not overcome that limitation. And obviously spinning faster while seated will require lower gears for those that must climb slower due to lower power. May help explain why we have so many compacts and triples.

[Wilkinson4]

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~scotte/gearing/gearing.html

mIKE

[jr59]

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~scotte/gearing/gearing.html

mIKE

Good find here!

[rugbysecondrow]

Thanks. Excellent argument against proportional gearing…..

Wanted to think about this and analyze in-depth before replying. Particularly from a physics standpoint and how it would affect different riders based on different power and or strength levels. And it does complicate matters a lot.

Your “don’t fall through the pedals” theory, if correct, and it probably is in large part, would explain why so many riders can’t “physically” pedal up a hill efficiently while standing for any extended duration. Regardless of how strong they are, if a rider lacks specific power to match the road conditions, your pedaling technique predicts there can be no mathematical solution for “ideal” gearing that would allow them to maintain an efficient steady-state rhythm (i.e. – an optimum pedaling cadence) while standing out of the saddle. Under the right road conditions (i.e. – resistance) they may be able to take a few pedal strokes but trying to stay standing for any length of time would either lead to needing an inefficiently-slow cadence (to lower power demand) or else they would speed up to the point that they couldn’t develop the needed power. Either way they are screwed.

Your “don’t fall through the pedals” technique leads to the best explanation of why gearing can’t be lowered in proportion to rider specific power. And we know from equipment observations that it typically isn’t. Probably because it wouldn’t work well. Makes perfect sense to me now why that’s the case – but only while standing. While sitting it’s an entirely different problem with different solution.

As Americans have gotten bigger and heavier, it makes sense to me (from math and physics standpoint) that more riders will find climbing while seated more efficient than standing because they can spin faster and hence more efficient. Additionally, if your pedaling theory is correct simply being stronger (not to be confused with more powerful) will not overcome that limitation. And obviously spinning faster while seated will require lower gears for those that must climb slower due to lower power. May help explain why we have so many compacts and triples.

I am not certain how spinning faster, lower gears relates directly to slower climbing. Someone could spin a lower gear at a cadence which actual makes them climb faster than the bloke mashing a bigger gear at a lower cadence.

In addition, I actually think the heavier Americans might be in an advantageous position to learn TIs climbing technique. I have practiced what he said and I think I have gotten it down, at least to where it works well for me. Staying over the pedals, using my body weight, but heft to upshift to a larger gear than somebody else might because I can turn it easier out of the saddle.

I agree with most of what you wrote up until your conclusions, they seem incorrect.

[FlashUNC]

Like bikes, I've found the appropriate gear to have on a long climb is always n+1, with n being whatever my current granny gear is.

Have I mentioned I'm fat and go uphill slowly?

[Chance]

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~scotte/gearing/gearing.html

mIKE

Excellent data. However, to Ti Design’s point, is one where to simply use lower gears in proportion to the amount of power as this article suggests (and many like me suggested), it wouldn’t work very well at all in real-life pedaling when the rider stands out of the saddle. A Pro’s 400 watt pedaling motion cannot be duplicated on the same hill when a rider of equal weight only produces 100 watts instead of the pro’s 400 watts. Simply changing gearing from 63 to 16 inch-gear in proportion to available power doesn’t scale in order to maintain the same cadence. That’s where it all gets very complicated. While seated yes, but not while standing. It’s impossible to balance scaled-down forces, torque, and power under these conditions.

Will admit that up to recently the data in this article made enough sense to me but now realize it’s more complicated on an analytical basis than simply scaling gearing down.

[Chance]

I am not certain how spinning faster, lower gears relates directly to slower climbing. Someone could spin a lower gear at a cadence which actual makes them climb faster than the bloke mashing a bigger gear at a lower cadence.

In addition, I actually think the heavier Americans might be in an advantageous position to learn TIs climbing technique. I have practiced what he said and I think I have gotten it down, at least to where it works well for me. Staying over the pedals, using my body weight, but heft to upshift to a larger gear than somebody else might because I can turn it easier out of the saddle.

I agree with most of what you wrote up until your conclusions, they seem incorrect.

Here is an example that may help you understand what was meant by higher cadence. It seems you read my point out of context. Or else wasn't written clearly.

If a Pro produces 6 watts per kilogram of weight and can climb a steep hill at 10 MPH, an average rider that can only produce 3 watts per kilogram will only be able to climb at approximately 5 MPH. Give or take. Now, if he uses the same gearing as the Pro because he is strong enough, his cadence will only be half as fast. If the Pro was spinning at 60 RPM, the average rider will only be able to spin at 30 RPM. And that’s kind of slow for efficiency.

The remedy is to use a much lower gear so he can spin back to near 60 RPM like the Pro is doing. Although at half the bike speed. That requires a much lower gear ratio. Twice as low to be exact. However, while he may be able to spin that comfortably while seated, if he tries to stand it will seem way too low. And that’s the problem why it all can’t be proportioned down based on power alone.

By the way, my response to Ti Design’s post wasn’t comparing an average rider using lower gears versus using higher gears. You miss read that. It only compared two “DIFFERENT” riders of very different abilities. It’s not a similar comparison at all. What you bring up of different gearing for the same rider is another issue entirely.

[ultraman6970]

Agree on this, power and gears in climbing are not like related proportionally.

There are other factors, you can have a guy with a lot of power but his mass is big, then the power- weight ratio will kill him in a climb no matter how light or how fast he can move the pedals. If it was true that if a guy that can't climb can just change the gears and catch up with the climbers then cancellara would have won probably all the big tours several times already, and until today that hasn't happened and it won't happen.

The bike helps too but pretty much in climbing or you have it or you dont, gears IMO don't do that much and many people instead of train better for climbing they cheat changing the gears and it doesn't work like that at all. Seen here in the forums and other forums asking about changing gears for climbing, and sincerely w/o training that change is useless. LBS will sell them a 50T cog if that makes the client happy but if the rider just sucks and dont train then nothing to do, specially in climbing. Then others will come with the knees saving issue... well... there are exercises to strength all the muscles around the knees...a lot of stuff had been moving around for centuries, some are real depending on the person, age and cycling level.

In the flats is almost the same situation, the easy fix, just go from the 14T to the 11T to catch up in the back of the group. Then the try to stay with a faster group they are already in the 11T and now they need a 9T because they can't catch up. The cheat used to compensate for training in both cases is the same, in one they think using less gear will do it, in the other to add more gears will do it, since there is a limit for both then why not just fix the rider?

CHeers :D




The remedy is to use a much lower gear so he can spin back to near 60 RPM like the Pro is doing. Although at half the bike speed. That requires a much lower gear ratio. Twice as low to be exact. However, while he may be able to spin that comfortably while seated, if he tries to stand it will seem way too low. And that’s the problem why it all can’t be proportioned down based on power alone..

[rugbysecondrow]

I think I must be missing the point then. I saw these questions:

My question is based on this: If average riders can only put out half the power per unit weight as a pro cyclists, why shouldn’t they use a gear that is twice as deep so they can climb the same grades at approximately the same cadence? I don't know that the assumption is the true. Is threshold or max power the only functional variable for climbing? Nope. What about less power output but for a sustained period, something the mechanical advantage of a compact gearing might allow?

The correct answer is probably not a linear function, right? If pros typically selected a 39/23 low gear for a given Tour stage most of us won’t actually use a 30/34 to go up the same road just so we can spin at the same rate. Instead we’d end up with something in the middle and spinning at a much lower cadence than the pros. Is that best? There is not a best.

What defines ideal low gear needed for climbing? I don't think you can.




There are other factors, you can have a guy with a lot of power but his mass is big, then the power- weight ratio will kill him in a climb no matter how light or how fast he can move the pedals. If it was true that if a guy that can't climb can just change the gears and catch up with the climbers then cancellara would have won probably all the big tours several times already, and until today that hasn't happened and it won't happen.

The bike helps too but pretty much in climbing or you have it or you dont, gears IMO don't do that much and many people instead of train better for climbing they cheat changing the gears and it doesn't work like that at all.
CHeers :D

I disagree on this Ultraman. Weight alone is not going to determine how the climb will turn out nor just the blanket assumption that bigger guys are doomed to fail just because they are big. Strength to weight ration is huge here, is there power and strength that can be couple with mechanics (bio and bicycle) to over come weight?


Also, I disagree that changing gears is cheating. Pros don't use the same gearing for all events, stages etc. You tailor the tool (bike) to the event, just like a football player will change their spikes depending on the surface, a baseball player will wear sunglasses or golfer his club.

Gearing options are available for all purposes, rider types and abilities. Trying to define the best gearing for a climb is like saying the best baseball bat for a homerun is X dimension and Y weight. The player, the athlete and their strength, speed and power generation will determine which tool suits their needs best. It is not cheating to pick a different tool which might suit your needs better.

[firerescuefin]

No one's touched on Anaerobic vs Aerobic power. Big difference between a 1500 watt sprint, digging for 500W for 90 seconds... and a guy that has a high FTP number and can turn 300W for 90 minutes. Most people on here aren't sustaining 300W for any meaningful period of time...and whoever mentioned 60 RPM sustained climbs doesn't climb very often. 60 is not a good place to live. Lactic acid isn't your friend. Most people breathing hard after hard efforts have to do with their body not clearing the lactic acid efficiently/ bodies that go anaerobic really quickly (producing lots of lactic acid) There is a reason that Cobo at the Angliru was riding a 34/32 and rode away from everyone....and it wasn't necessarily about who could produce the most absolute power. Wiggins and Froome talked about how they were undergeared with a 39/28. Wiggins was struggling turning the pedals over out of the saddle towards the top...may/probably cost him the race.

[redir]

Where I am right now outside DC a 39/25-6 is plenty of gear to get up and over anything. Couple of weeks back I went down past Charlottesville to a buddy's ride (Devil's Backbone) and I spent more time in my 34/27 than I ever have before.

If I coulda gotten one more gear, I would've taken it on some of those hills!

I think that route was the same as the Velocipede 'Ballers Ride' loop till I took the 'short option.' In this case, short does not equal easy! That last hill was the hardest of all of em!

M

I did that Devil's Backbone ride too, that was a hella lot of climbing and darn steep too. I was on a 38x27 and could easily used more gear. For me there is a certain threshold of steepness where I just shut down. Having a granny gear in those cases would be helpful. I don't like to have to stand on climbs.

[Ti Designs]

Makes perfect sense to me now why that’s the case – but only while standing. While sitting it’s an entirely different problem with different solution.

Spend a day or two (or in my case 15 years) watching people ride, the only difference between standing and sitting is that one is falling, the other is pivoting forward from the hip. The brain sees both as falling.

[smead]

+1 on Ti Designs position, while I learned this stuff in a much less scientific/structured way, I certainly arrived at the same conclusion. My method was to take a fixie geared relatively high (around 76") and go do my local climbs again and again and again .. That is a cheap and simple way to learn how to climb efficiently out of the sadddle - sink or swim.

With enough repeats, you eventually learn how to stay out of the saddle for long periods of time without pegging your HR. If your form is right, you are not stressing your knees any worse than you would be in the saddle. That's been my experience anyway, and I've seen it work for a couple of fixed gear buddies as well (PeterB for one) who regularly drop most compacts on any given climb ..

[wfournier]

Spend a day or two (or in my case 15 years) watching people ride, the only difference between standing and sitting is that one is falling, the other is pivoting forward from the hip. The brain sees both as falling.

I have always hear that you use more energy standing vs sitting, that sitting is more efficient in terms of power to the pedels. If I am understanding you right you are saying that this is not true? I'm a big guy and looking for any tool I can find to get up hills better.

[Chance]

I disagree on this Ultraman. Weight alone is not going to determine how the climb will turn out nor just the blanket assumption that bigger guys are doomed to fail just because they are big. Strength to weight ration is huge here, is there power and strength that can be couple with mechanics (bio and bicycle) to over come weight?



In my opinion a guy your size is pretty much screwed when it comes to climbing. You’ll never be competitive regardless of how hard you work at it. Yes, you can improve for sure with training. However, it’s unlikely physics will allow a guy your size to win a climbing event against guys half your size when they train equally. Elite climbers over 200 pounds (if there is even such a thing) don’t have the same power to weight ratio as much smaller elite riders. Just look at Pro climbers and see how many come close to 200 pounds.

To be clear, that’s not to say that some talented big guys won’t outperform some smaller riders, but on average the big guys are at a disadvantage when it comes to climbing. The best of the smaller guys will always beat the best of the big guys on tough climbs when everything else is equal.

[Chance]

Spend a day or two (or in my case 15 years) watching people ride, the only difference between standing and sitting is that one is falling, the other is pivoting forward from the hip. The brain sees both as falling.

Get the pivoting thing TD. But the constant that can’t be scaled down when standing is gravity. That’s a constant constant as such.

Sitting is completely different when scaling down gearing between a Pro and an amateur with much less abilities. That saddle under the rider’s butt can be used to control forces, torque, and power at various cadences in ways that standing doesn’t allow.

[Ti Designs]

Get the pivoting thing TD. But the constant that can’t be scaled down when standing is gravity. That’s a constant constant as such.

Sitting is completely different when scaling down gearing between a Pro and an amateur with much less abilities. That saddle under the rider’s butt can be used to control forces, torque, and power at various cadences in ways that standing doesn’t allow.

OK, I get what you're saying. Gravity is what it is, asking that body weight fall into the pedals faster than gravity will accelerate is just isn't going to happen...

[palincss]

Also, I disagree that changing gears is cheating. Pros don't use the same gearing for all events, stages etc. You tailor the tool (bike) to the event, just like a football player will change their spikes depending on the surface, a baseball player will wear sunglasses or golfer his club.


Changing gears hasn't been considered cheating in the Tour de France since 1937.


Gearing options are available for all purposes, rider types and abilities. Trying to define the best gearing for a climb is like saying the best baseball for a homerun is X dimension and Y weight.



Aren't the weight, dimension and construction of a regulation baseball defined by the rules?

The rules of Major League Baseball, section 1.09 states:
// "The ball shall be a sphere formed by yarn wound around a small core of
// cork, rubber or similar material, covered with two stripes of white
// horsehide or cowhide, tightly stitched together. It shall weigh not less
// than five nor more than 5 1/4 ounces avoirdupois and measure not less than
// nine nor more than 9 1/4 inches in circumference."
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/objectives_1.jsp

[rugbysecondrow]

HUH? I didn't know I said that it was.


Changing gears hasn't been considered cheating in the Tour de France since 1937.




Aren't the weight, dimension and construction of a regulation baseball defined by the rules?

The rules of Major League Baseball, section 1.09 states:
// "The ball shall be a sphere formed by yarn wound around a small core of
// cork, rubber or similar material, covered with two stripes of white
// horsehide or cowhide, tightly stitched together. It shall weigh not less
// than five nor more than 5 1/4 ounces avoirdupois and measure not less than
// nine nor more than 9 1/4 inches in circumference."
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/objectives_1.jsp

Oops, should read baseball BAT.

[dd74]

Subscribing.