Gearing for new bike

[michaelh]

Hi folks,

I'm selecting the gearing for my new project, a mid-90s steel frame with an 11 speed Athena drivetrain. I live in San Francisco, so easy climbing is an issue. I was thinking that the 34/50 compact & a 12-29 cassette would be the right approach, but wanted to ask around.

Also, how do I figure out how long I want the cranks to be?

[rnhood]

The new Shimano Ultegra 11 is available with an 11-32 rear cassette. Couple that with the compact (50-34) crank and you're ready to tackle about any SF road. Since you don't currently have a lot invested in your drive train, I recommend making the switch to Shimano.

With regards to the crank arms, as an off-the-cuff general remark I will say, if your frame size is 58 or larger, go with 175. If smaller go with a 172.5.

[michaelh]

It's a 57, so 172.5 then?

I was pretty set on a campy ultrashift shifter, so I didn't want to split that. At the same time, there is a 10% difference at the low end between those two.

[thirdgenbird]

You can run an 11 speed shimano cassette with campy 11, the spacing is the same.

I'm pretty sure potato said campy will cover the 32 but you may want to ask him.

[vav]

FWIW and if cost of Shimano 11 is an issue, both 10 speed Ultegra 6700 and 105 5700 RDs will take an 11-32 cassette with a 50-34 compact.

[Ahneida Ride]

Hmmmm

I for one, don't like compacts. I just find the 34 useless.
not low enough for those 18% grades
and way to low for normal riding ...

Others love compacts ..... Ride one first ... :D ;)

[donevwil]

I find the 16 tooth jump on a compact crank to be excessive. Shifting is fine sure, but the jump always threw me out of my rhythm. 12 tooth jumps are ideal for me. I converted it to a 48-36 run with a 13-29 (10 spd). Unless you really need the extreme gearing (which I prefer to accommodate with the cassette as it's easily changed) I'd recommend CX gearing (48-36, 46-34. etc) or an old fashioned road crank (52-39).

[rustychisel]

or an old fashioned road crank (52-39).

what constitutes old fashioned'?

Current and conventional is 53 x 39, prior to that the norm was always 52 x 42 for race and occasionally 52 x 40 for hills. Often paired with a five or six speed freehub block 14-15-17-19-21-23

[eddief]

Yesterday I rode from the flats of Mill Valley, up Tam, down to Stinson, and then back via the Zen Center in 85 degrees. Holy crap, 3K feet in about 25 miles. Either up or down and not much flat in between.

I was never more glad to have a triple and 34 teeth in the back. I know triples are out of fashion, but, I too, never got comfortable with a compact double. Too much back and forth on the front shifter for my riding style. With triple, you got it when you need it and the rest of the time you can ride as if a normal double.

[joosttx]

The new Shimano Ultegra 11 is available with an 11-32 rear cassette. Couple that with the compact (50-34) crank and you're ready to tackle about any SF road.

I am having my "cross" bike repainted currently and as a result I am upgrading to an ultegra 6800 drivetrain with the same gearing you recommend above. I live across the GGB and the decision simply was more gears for flats in west Marin and more gears for those steep Headland and beyond fire roads.

[Black Dog]

Stick with campy and run the 32 tooth 11 speed ultegra cassette. It will work and you will be able to get up some steep roads.

[ceewho]

I ride around the SF Peninsula a lot and run a compact (50/34) on one bike and a 53/39 on the other (of the two bikes I ride the most...). Definitely love having the compact for those long, hilly days. That bike runs a Campy 10 with 11-27 American Classic (ultegra) cassette.

The higher geared 53/39 runs a 13-26 Campy 9. It can be a bitch on the higher grades...

[fogrider]

I just put together a steel ron cooper from the mid 90s and I too concerned with the gearing. gearing really depends on the total build out of the bike. even though the frame weighs at 4.6 pounds, the complete bike is about 17.5 pounds. and the big trick that makes any bike climb and accelerate faster is super lightweight carbon tubulars. I'm not a good climber and I'm running campy 10s with 50/34 with 11/26 cassette. my training bike runs 53/39 with a 12/29 with alloy tubulars.

[Ralph]

Yesterday I rode from the flats of Mill Valley, up Tam, down to Stinson, and then back via the Zen Center in 85 degrees. Holy crap, 3K feet in about 25 miles. Either up or down and not much flat in between.

I was never more glad to have a triple and 34 teeth in the back. I know triples are out of fashion, but, I too, never got comfortable with a compact double. Too much back and forth on the front shifter for my riding style. With triple, you got it when you need it and the rest of the time you can ride as if a normal double.

I never got used to the big gap in front of a compact either. Although around here, you don't need low gears, and I use a 52/39 a lot, on one of my bikes I run a 30-42-52 (switched out the 53) Record triple with a 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26 cassette with Med cage Chorus RD. I ride it like a double, with that 30 tooth front ring there when I go to places where I can use it. And a 30/26 about same gear as a 34/30, and I have a 12-30 cassette if I go to mountains. A triple works so good for me, even on flats. The old guys I ride with spend a lot of time N of 20 MPH in a 52/18. 52/17, 52/16, 52/15, etc. With great chain line. For normal riding, just stay in the 42 with great chain line. If I lived in SF, the Athena triple with 30-39-50 (or 30-39-52) and 12-29 looks mighty good. Gives all the cassette cogs except 18, and good chainline on middle ring, where you ride a lot. And sure.....I can usually get over the hills in a 39 front ring, and easly in a 34 front ring, but a triple just gives you more. I understand.....they just aren't popular now.

[oldpotatoe]

You can run an 11 speed shimano cassette with campy 11, the spacing is the same.

I'm pretty sure potato said campy will cover the 32 but you may want to ask him.

Since the big cog 11s shimano stuff is so new, I just don't know. 'Probably', but a 29 and a 32..small differences, IMHO. I'd just do the 12-29 and not sully the group up with shimano or sram stuff.

BOTW mid and long cage Athena 11s rear ders are compatible with all things Campagnolo, btw. So try a short cage or do the Athena mid cage up front and get the shimano 11s 11-32.

[Black Dog]

I just put together a steel ron cooper from the mid 90s and I too concerned with the gearing. gearing really depends on the total build out of the bike. even though the frame weighs at 4.6 pounds, the complete bike is about 17.5 pounds. and the big trick that makes any bike climb and accelerate faster is super lightweight carbon tubulars. I'm not a good climber and I'm running campy 10s with 50/34 with 11/26 cassette. my training bike runs 53/39 with a 12/29 with alloy tubulars.

Yea well, the reality is that light weight carbon wheels do not make a bike climb and accelerate faster if there is a rider on the bike. The mass and rotational mass advantages get cancelled out by the massive amount of additional mass that is the rider. Placebo effect and cognitive bias, yes, actual detectable differences not so much. The physics does not lie, reality is not always our perception. :D

[michaelh]

Hrmm... I'm willing to be swayed by the argument for the triple, but now even more conflicted since I had been planning on swapping out the shifters with chorus for ultrashift. I suppose that doesn't matter on the front, and that they'll work correctly.

I hadn't realized that the shimano 32 would work in the rear on a small cage derailleur.

Also, yeah, the pounds I'd lose from being able to comfortably go up more hills would drastically overcompensate for any change in the wheels.

[oldpotatoe]

Yea well, the reality is that light weight carbon wheels do not make a bike climb and accelerate faster if there is a rider on the bike. The mass and rotational mass advantages get cancelled out by the massive amount of additional mass that is the rider. Placebo effect and cognitive bias, yes, actual detectable differences not so much. The physics does not lie, reality is not always our perception. :D

Bing, bing, bing....'The physics does not lie, reality is not always our perception'

[thirdgenbird]

Hrmm... I'm willing to be swayed by the argument for the triple, but now even more conflicted since I had been planning on swapping out the shifters with chorus for ultrashift. I suppose that doesn't matter on the front, and that they'll work correctly.

I hadn't realized that the shimano 32 would work in the rear on a small cage derailleur.

Also, yeah, the pounds I'd lose from being able to comfortably go up more hills would drastically overcompensate for any change in the wheels.

If you were going with a compact and 32, you may want a mid cage rd.

[fogrider]

Yea well, the reality is that light weight carbon wheels do not make a bike climb and accelerate faster if there is a rider on the bike. The mass and rotational mass advantages get cancelled out by the massive amount of additional mass that is the rider. Placebo effect and cognitive bias, yes, actual detectable differences not so much. The physics does not lie, reality is not always our perception. :D

well, I'm not sure how many hills are in your part of the county, but as eddief has pointed out, a ride out to stinson beach and back, is over 3,000 feet of climbing. I do that ride from sf, so add another 1,200 feet for me. I've done that ride on clinchers, alum tubulars and carbon tubulars. my daily ride has alum tubulars and are not heavy but the carbon tubulars are crazy light! the physics really is simple, if your power remains the same, and you have less mass to spin up, you go faster!!! I know, when you add the mass of the rider, the weight is not that much, but the weight of the rim is similar to a mass being moved by a lever since it is about 13" away from the hub. if weight of equipment isn't an issue, and didn't affect performance, we would all still be riding 23 pound bikes.

[bluesea]

Hi folks,

I'm selecting the gearing for my new project, a mid-90s steel frame with an 11 speed Athena drivetrain. I live in San Francisco, so easy climbing is an issue. I was thinking that the 34/50 compact & a 12-29 cassette would be the right approach, but wanted to ask around.

Also, how do I figure out how long I want the cranks to be?




Get the 12-29 and work it out from there. If you can't make the top try again next week, and the week after etc.

Some riders like triples--many don't. Its a valid alternative but realize its definitely a leap.

[Black Dog]

well, I'm not sure how many hills are in your part of the county, but as eddief has pointed out, a ride out to stinson beach and back, is over 3,000 feet of climbing. I do that ride from sf, so add another 1,200 feet for me. I've done that ride on clinchers, alum tubulars and carbon tubulars. my daily ride has alum tubulars and are not heavy but the carbon tubulars are crazy light! the physics really is simple, if your power remains the same, and you have less mass to spin up, you go faster!!! I know, when you add the mass of the rider, the weight is not that much, but the weight of the rim is similar to a mass being moved by a lever since it is about 13" away from the hub. if weight of equipment isn't an issue, and didn't affect performance, we would all still be riding 23 pound bikes.

Rotational mass only matter during acceleration. Since on a bike a big change in acceleration is usually less than 10km/h the energy input differences between two wheels with different rotational masses is, in fact, very very small. Plug in the numbers and you will see that it will a few watts and only during the acceleration phase. As for bike mass, again, when added to the total rider plus bike unit the difference is not huge. Look at the average speeds in the Tour de France from the 80's on 23 pound bikes to today on 15 pound bikes. Not very much difference, especially if you remove the EPO boost from the 90's on. Bikes are lighter because it can be measured easily for marketing and at the pro level where the few seconds count it matters.

Go to bike calculator (http://bikecalculator.com) and see for yourself how much difference a few hundred grams of wheels makes.

[fogrider]

Rotational mass only matter during acceleration. Since on a bike a big change in acceleration is usually less than 10km/h the energy input differences between two wheels with different rotational masses is, in fact, very very small. Plug in the numbers and you will see that it will a few watts and only during the acceleration phase. As for bike mass, again, when added to the total rider plus bike unit the difference is not huge. Look at the average speeds in the Tour de France from the 80's on 23 pound bikes to today on 15 pound bikes. Not very much difference, especially if you remove the EPO boost from the 90's on. Bikes are lighter because it can be measured easily for marketing and at the pro level where the few seconds count it matters.

Go to bike calculator (http://bikecalculator.com) and see for yourself how much difference a few hundred grams of wheels makes.

these calculators are not real world. while you are correct to say that the big inputs in energy are in acceleration, these are critical points of the climb. if there's an attack and you need to get on the wheel, you need to get on fast. if there's a short steep grade going around a hairpin, you need to spin up and power through. again, riding is not about plugging numbers into a calculator...its dynamic conditions and response. its about what feels right for each rider. and riding up hills is very different from riding the flats. while more weight may only be a few seconds difference on a climb, it will use up more energy. it's not the first or even the second climb that I'm concerned with, its that last climb after climbing 4,000 feet already. I honestly don't think someone can talk about it without riding the hills on carbon wheels.

here's an interesting vid that shows the difference in power required for a heavier bike. tomorrow is going to be 4,000+ feet of climbing and I'll be doing it on carbon rims!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRQwKREgvI

[oldpotatoe]

these calculators are not real world. while you are correct to say that the big inputs in energy are in acceleration, these are critical points of the climb. if there's an attack and you need to get on the wheel, you need to get on fast. if there's a short steep grade going around a hairpin, you need to spin up and power through. again, riding is not about plugging numbers into a calculator...its dynamic conditions and response. its about what feels right for each rider. and riding up hills is very different from riding the flats. while more weight may only be a few seconds difference on a climb, it will use up more energy. it's not the first or even the second climb that I'm concerned with, its that last climb after climbing 4,000 feet already. I honestly don't think someone can talk about it without riding the hills on carbon wheels.

here's an interesting vid that shows the difference in power required for a heavier bike. tomorrow is going to be 4,000+ feet of climbing and I'll be doing it on carbon rims!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRQwKREgvI

It's not because they are light, they 'feel' fast because they are stiff.

Mass of the bike and rider determines acceleration of a bicycle. a 160 pound rider on a 20 pound bike or a 165 pound rider on a 15 pound bike..when I lose my 'SBW(Standard Bike Weight=20 pounds)..my bike will weigh...zero!!

[Black Dog]

these calculators are not real world. while you are correct to say that the big inputs in energy are in acceleration, these are critical points of the climb. if there's an attack and you need to get on the wheel, you need to get on fast. if there's a short steep grade going around a hairpin, you need to spin up and power through. again, riding is not about plugging numbers into a calculator...its dynamic conditions and response. its about what feels right for each rider. and riding up hills is very different from riding the flats. while more weight may only be a few seconds difference on a climb, it will use up more energy. it's not the first or even the second climb that I'm concerned with, its that last climb after climbing 4,000 feet already. I honestly don't think someone can talk about it without riding the hills on carbon wheels.

here's an interesting vid that shows the difference in power required for a heavier bike. tomorrow is going to be 4,000+ feet of climbing and I'll be doing it on carbon rims!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRQwKREgvI


The real world as you call it is very much bound by the laws of physics and no dynamic conditions will ever change that. The calculators do not lie because the numbers are based on what happens every time in reality. A few hundred grams of lost rotational weight will save a watt or two over the few seconds that you are accelerating. This may translate into a few centimetres over the distance that you are accelerating. This gets lost in the noise that the dynamic conditions create.

By the way I have ridden on light weight carbon wheels (on the same dare you are proposing) on rides with over 10,000 feet of climbing and did not notice a real difference except for poorer breaking. Your argument is based around the placebo effect and priming yourself to believe that these wheels are going to make a difference. 250 grams divided into a 7000 gram bike, 1500 grams of water, and 80,000 gram rider yields a fraction of a percent under all conditions (0.285% in fact).

So, if you can detect a difference of 0.285% of mass in the accelerations that you make please rent yourself out as the worlds most sensitive accelerometer because the best equipment that engineers have at their disposal can barely measure at this level of resolution, which is way beyond human perception. :) Sorry to pound on this, but these claims are made all the time and really do not have any evidence to substantiate them, when in fact all the evidence refutes them.


It's not because they are light, they 'feel' fast because they are stiff.

Mass of the bike and rider determines acceleration of a bicycle. a 160 pound rider on a 20 pound bike or a 165 pound rider on a 15 pound bike..when I lose my 'SBW(Standard Bike Weight=20 pounds)..my bike will weigh...zero!!

^I am reading you 5 by 5 on this^

[fogrider]

stiffness is paramount! that said, on today's ride, a guy came to pass me on the finial run up to the summit...I was able to hold him off and finished with a bike length and a half with a finishing speed of 16 mph! priceless! call it whatever you want, I'll take it every time. but yeah, select the gearing for what you're comfortable with, all I'm saying is that you need to take into account your whole build when deciding on gearing.

[Black Dog]

stiffness is paramount! that said, on today's ride, a guy came to pass me on the finial run up to the summit...I was able to hold him off and finished with a bike length and a half with a finishing speed of 16 mph! priceless! call it whatever you want, I'll take it every time. but yeah, select the gearing for what you're comfortable with, all I'm saying is that you need to take into account your whole build when deciding on gearing.

Are you saying that you held him off because of your wheels? If he had the same wheels as you he would have caught you? You held him off because you were the better rider at that moment. If it was because of the wheels then he was the better rider and you won because of hardware and not talent/effort…seems less noble… :) If you are arguing that wheel stiffness is the issue then read this (http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Debunking_Wheel_Stiffness_3449.html). Great paper on wheel stiffness.

[fogrider]

I honestly don't know if he could have caught me if he had the same wheels, I'm just glad he didn't! I don't know if he was the better rider today but my buddies remembers me spinning through at 16 mph. Sure its not just the wheels, I've lost a few pounds and I've trained hard during the week. But the wheels do feel fast and our performance is the cumulation of everything...our training and our choice of equipment.
Interesting article, it does say carbon wheels are stiffer than alum.

[oldpotatoe]

I honestly don't know if he could have caught me if he had the same wheels, I'm just glad he didn't! I don't know if he was the better rider today but my buddies remembers me spinning through at 16 mph. Sure its not just the wheels, I've lost a few pounds and I've trained hard during the week. But the wheels do feel fast and our performance is the cumulation of everything...our training and our choice of equipment.
Interesting article, it does say carbon wheels are stiffer than alum.

Equipment is there to get you there. More 'races' have been lost, due to equipment(failures) than ever won but if ya like your rig, makes ya want to ride, ride...then good for you.

Like a team mate of Eddy once said, "Eddy can win on my bike, I can't win on his".

[fogrider]

Equipment is there to get you there. More 'races' have been lost, due to equipment(failures) than ever won but if ya like your rig, makes ya want to ride, ride...then good for you.

Like a team mate of Eddy once said, "Eddy can win on my bike, I can't win on his".
Agreed! I'm sure eddy can beat me on any bike he chooses! I'm no eddy! and I know it! But when someone 15 years younger (I'm not exactly sure how much younger he was but I would say at least 10) tries to get around me on the final run into the finish, I can dig deep. As far as equipment, the carbon wheels are crazy light and seem pretty bulletproof...I've found carbon rims to be more durable than aluminum rims. and as far as braking, yeah I don't ride them in rain, but I learned to descend on campy deltas, so dual pivots and carbon rims are feel great. braking power is overrated, unless you're commuting in traffic, I'm not sure why powerful brakes are needed for road bikes. its a false sense of security, sure you will need to slow down on descents, but slowing down too much in a group is not safe! bottom line, ride what you can afford, ride what you want, and ride what works for you. but life is too short to ride a crappy bike you don't like.