Designing a bike solely for climbing...

[XXtwindad]

I would like to build a bike that's focused on going up and then down. A "screw the flats" type of bike. I'm thinking of going really small up front. Possibly a 26/44 (White Idustries) crank with an 11-36 in back. In the Bay Area hills, that's not that impractical. Something for doing a Mt Diablo double, for example. I know there's a bike ride that tackles all of the East Bay's major climbs as well, although I can't remember the name.

Anyone have a similar gearing for that type of terrain? How do you like it?

PS I already have bikes with standard compact gearing. Since I may have a surfeit of bikes, I want a bike with totally different gearing. Also, a nod to HTupolev and Mark McM who have been very helpful with tech questions.

[FlashUNC]

You're gonna want taller than a 44x11. Doesn't take much to spin that out going down Redwood for example, and that's just to the Little Pinehurst turnoff.

[eddief]

my current gearing for all my riding here in Sonoma County is 48/32 front and 11-36 rear. i'm a crappy climber. losing 10 lbs has made me a bit better. with this gearing i spin out downhill at about 26 mph and that's just fine with me.

[XXtwindad]

You're gonna want taller than a 44x11. Doesn't take much to spin that out going down Redwood for example, and that's just to the Little Pinehurst turnoff.

Well, how fast do I really need to be going down those hills? I want to keep pace with cars, but I'm not a speed demon. I coast down Joaquin Miller, for example.

[nublar]

1x, trimming your drops, sub 6.8 kg, and a relatively stiff bike.

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/hill-climb-tech-gallery/

https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/21/2019/10/016_20191006_SB_5DSR_MG_7962-1567c68.jpg?quality=90&resize=960%2C640

[Straz]

I have been running a White Industries VBC with 42/26 and 11-32 for a couple years and really enjoy this setup. I do not enjoy the large jumps found on wide range cassettes and find it annoying when climbing.

Unfortunately, there are not many options out there for a "climbers" crankset, but the VBC does the trick.

[ColonelJLloyd]

my current gearing for all my riding here in Sonoma County is 48/32 front and 11-36 rear. i'm a crappy climber. losing 10 lbs has made me a bit better. with this gearing i spin out downhill at about 26 mph and that's just fine with me.

You mean 36mph or you have tiny wheels?

I ride 42/28 to 11-32 with both 700x35 and 650Bx50 and I really like that combo. I do spin out on extended descents, but it's fine.

[XXtwindad]

1x, trimming your drops, sub 6.8 kg, and a relatively stiff bike.

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/hill-climb-tech-gallery/

https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/21/2019/10/016_20191006_SB_5DSR_MG_7962-1567c68.jpg?quality=90&resize=960%2C640

Well, I really don't want to turn this thread into a 1X/2X flame war, but I won't use a 1X again on a road/gravel bike. At least not where I live. I don't want to be climbing these hills on a 42 or 44t, and descending on a 38t on heavily trafficked streets was dangerous.

[RudAwkning]

I would like to build a bike that's focused on going up and then down. A "screw the flats" type of bike. I'm thinking of going really small up front. Possibly a 26/44 (White Idustries) crank with an 11-36 in back. In the Bay Area hills, that's not that impractical. Something for doing a Mt Diablo double, for example. I know there's a bike ride that tackles all of the East Bay's major climbs as well, although I can't remember the name.

Anyone have a similar gearing for that type of terrain? How do you like it?

PS I already have bikes with standard compact gearing. Since I may have a surfeit of bikes, I want a bike with totally different gearing. Also, a nod to HTupolev and Mark McM who have been very helpful with tech questions.

You're probably thinking of the Nifty-Ten-Fifty:

http://www.niftytenfifty.com/

I did it a few years ago on a bike with a 30/32 low gear and still wishing I had more by the time I got to Volmer Peak.

My Ellis Strada Fango has a 28x42 low on it (and 42x11 high). With a 29x2.1 on there, it comes out to roughly the same as a 26x36 with a 700c road tire so I'm fully aware how spinny that gear inch is. It'll definitely feel faster backwards when you're in it, but if your goal is to save your legs for the next bump, then it might be worth it. Probably only useful when tackling stuff like Hiller or Marin or the last few yards of Diablo. And if you're doing Diablo repeats or Nifty, you're probably not concerned about spinning out your high gear as you'll be wanting to save your legs.

[Ozz]

Our buddy "Climb01742" built a bike like this for his Mt Washington climb...about 15 yrs ago....but here is a description of the parts:

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=10361

Looks like he removed the photos.....

[XXtwindad]

You're probably thinking of the Nifty-Ten-Fifty:

http://www.niftytenfifty.com/

I did it a few years ago on a bike with a 30/32 low gear and still wishing I had more by the time I got to Volmer Peak.

My Ellis Strada Fango has a 28x42 low on it (and 42x11 high). With a 29x2.1 on there, it comes out to roughly the same as a 26x36 with a 700c road tire so I'm fully aware how spinny that gear inch is. It'll definitely feel faster backwards when you're in it, but if your goal is to save your legs for the next bump, then it might be worth it. Probably only useful when tackling stuff like Hiller or Marin or the last few yards of Diablo. And if you're doing Diablo repeats or Nifty, you're probably not concerned about spinning out your high gear as you'll be wanting to save your legs.

This is it I think: https://bayareabikerides.net/the-berkeley-hills-death-ride/

But you get the point. Sounds like our thinking is aligned.

[eddief]

cuz my wheels are those normal big round ones everyone else has :).

You mean 36mph or you have tiny wheels?

I ride 42/28 to 11-32 with both 700x35 and 650Bx50 and I really like that combo. I do spin out on extended descents, but it's fine.

[joosttx]

https://youtu.be/L0NyFjIS_wE

Phil in collabo with Heisenberg. Go to 0:30 minutes if your brain has been damaged by social media....


The bike doesnt matter as much as the fitness and fatness of the rider. I would focus on that more than the bike.

[Spaghetti Legs]

1x, trimming your drops, sub 6.8 kg, and a relatively stiff bike.

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/hill-climb-tech-gallery/

https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/21/2019/10/016_20191006_SB_5DSR_MG_7962-1567c68.jpg?quality=90&resize=960%2C640

There's no way I would ride those handlebars down a technical descent.

[XXtwindad]

https://youtu.be/L0NyFjIS_wE

Phil in collabo with Heisenberg. Go to 2:00 minutes if your brain has been damaged by social media....


The bike doesnt matter as much as the fitness and fatness of the rider. I would focus on that more than the bike.

I'm going to ignore you.

[Dave]

A 44/11 is only 9% lower than my 48/11. I can spin that up to 38 mph, with no problem. If the slopes are steep, you should be hitting 50 mph very quickly. I have some 10-12% grades to climb and hitting 50 on the descent is easy. No pedaling required.

The problem for some bikes will be getting the FD low enough. There is an adapter made to drop a braze-on FD down lower.

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

[joosttx]

A 44/11 is only 9% lower than my 48/11. I can spin that up to 38 mph, with no problem. If the slopes are steep, you should be hitting 50 mph very quickly. I have some 10-12% grades to climb and hitting 50 on the descent is easy. No pedaling required.

The problem for some bikes will be getting the FD low enough. There is an adapter made to drop a braze-on FD down lower.

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

Not saying it is impossible to hit 50mph on Diablo but it is a twisty descent that requires a lot of braking to get around the corners. The OP may be ok with the rec.

[robt57]

I'll make a short point. Each of my climbing bike weight weenie efforts over a few decades ultimately improved going up at the cost of not so great results when traversing a bumpy road surface in a turn at bottoms of subsequent descents.

Now if just a get to the top ride....

But I am never less than 190lb either, a factor certainly.

BB stiffness paramount and good relaxing hard/bar points a must for long climbs. So at least as slow as I go up, I don't mind it so much with the pains in the right places...

[prototoast]

Not saying it is impossible to hit 50mph on Diablo but it is a twisty descent that requires a lot of braking to get around the corners. The OP may be ok with the rec.

I don't think I've ever hit 50 on Diablo. Most times I don't even hit 40.

[zap]

My favorite road bike is also a great climbing bike, descends well and does just fine on the flats.

[FlashUNC]

Well, how fast do I really need to be going down those hills? I want to keep pace with cars, but I'm not a speed demon. I coast down Joaquin Miller, for example.

If you want to keep pace with traffic, you'll need more than a 44x11 on something like Redwood, or the backside of Bears, or out at Fruit Stand.

Or spin 120 rpm at 35 mph.

[XXtwindad]

If you want to keep pace with traffic, you'll need more than a 44x11 on something like Redwood, or the backside of Bears, or out at Fruit Stand.

Or spin 120 rpm at 35 mph.

Well, you'd be topping out with a 44t going down Claremont? If the descent is greater (roughly) than nine or ten percent, I'm not really pedaling.

[FlashUNC]

Well, you'd be topping out with a 44t going down Claremont? If the descent is greater (roughly) than nine or ten percent, I'm not really pedaling.

It's not Claremont you have to worry about, it's the longer 2-3 % stuff where you just run out of gear and could still safely carry more speed to keep up with the flow of traffic.

Yes, down Joaquin Miller or Claremont you don't need to pedal to get plenty of speed. But there's plenty of other places around the Bay where even a few extra teeth up front make a different. I'm not arguing for a 53x11 or even a 50x11. I just don't understand planning for an uber-low gear fudge factor on one end while accepting a 27mph at 90 rpm top end when there is the whole other half of this equation to consider -- the downhill.

Speaking of, 46x10 is choice.

[prototoast]

I think 44/26 - 11/36 is too easy for road riding around here. I do most of my riding with a 50/34 and 11/32, and there are a few instances where I could use something a little easier, but not many. I think with a 48/32 and 11/36, you'll get what you need for almost every road around here. I think Welch Creek Rd is the only road climb around here where I might want something easier than that.

[joosttx]

I don't think I've ever hit 50 on Diablo. Most times I don't even hit 40.

I am pretty sure I never have also. But I am sure you look on Strava and there are people who have.

Respectfully to the OP 50/34 11x32 at his age and who is a PT should be plenty of gearing. I was only running 52X36 11X28 on a road bike and I am not the best climber by any means. Having a compact crank with a big cassette makes things easy to sources, setup, and maintain which allows you to get out on the bike and train.

[poff]

I live up in Berkeley Hills, have done BHDR and N-1050 many times, and think that a perfect gearing would be 1X12 SRAM AXS with 42 front and 11-52 rear.

[Dave]

If you have to pedal to get to 35, then the slope is not very steep at all. What traffic is it that a bike has to keep up with? With a 44/11 100 rpm gets you 31.5 mph. 110 will get you to 34.5. If the slope won't take you faster, then pedaling up to a higher speed is just a waste of energy.

https://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

I've done the 28 mile descent from the 14,000' elevation of mount Evans 6 times and never had to worry about not having enough top gear. The average slope is only 4%, but it's winding and the road can be in poor shape. I've passed slow poke cars on the way down. If someone really wanted to drive faster, they can always pass me.

I've got a good balance of speed and climbing ability with my 48/32 and 11-34 12 speed. At my age, though, a 12% grade is about my limit.

[joosttx]

I spin out regularly on my MTB 42 x 10T descending Mt Tamalpias. I notice on the flats of the descent my buddies on their gravel bikes pull away by pedaling I just spin out. Speeds could be between 35-50mph.

[Mark McM]

If you have to pedal to get to 35, then the slope is not very steep at all. What traffic is it that a bike has to keep up with? With a 44/11 100 rpm gets you 31.5 mph. 110 will get you to 34.5. If the slope won't take you faster, then pedaling up to a higher speed is just a waste of energy.

On descents where you can hold a tight tuck, this is quite literally true. Above a certain speed (depends on the rider and bike, for me it is around 40 mph), the aerodynamic power savings in a tight tuck are greater than the power I could apply when in a pedaling position. It is not uncommon for me to coast past someone on a steep downhill while I'm in a tight tuck and they are still pedaling.

The implication of this is that for very steep terrain, you don't need to increase your high gears in inverse proportion to your low gears. If it is steep enough to require a 32/34 to go up, you may go faster tucking and coasting on the way down than by pedaling.

[robt57]

@ 200 lbs, a good tuck, and reasonable 8.5 bar drop from my saddle, not to mention my old Motocrosser balz...

I have passed spinning out non Clyles more often than not on descents, no pedaling.

Just sayin... ;) [has been]

[colker]

I would love to try a pair of Hyperons. Man... those climbing wheels are the Victoria Secret of cyclingdom.
Sure, gearing.. and something steep as seat angle. Other than that, lighten up the bike and watch Pantani videos.
Having said all that i don´t like climbing.

[colker]

I have been running a White Industries VBC with 42/26 and 11-32 for a couple years and really enjoy this setup. I do not enjoy the large jumps found on wide range cassettes and find it annoying when climbing.

Unfortunately, there are not many options out there for a "climbers" crankset, but the VBC does the trick.

I want a campagnolo triple crankset and a 13/26 cassette if i am on big mountains. Call me old. I don´t care.

[joosttx]

I would love to try a pair of Hyperons. Man... those climbing wheels are the Victoria Secret of cyclingdom.
Sure, gearing.. and something steep as seat angle. Other than that, lighten up the bike and watch Pantani videos.
Having said all that i don´t like climbing.

Those are excellent climbing wheels. The Lightweight gipfelsurm are in the same class. However, I would recommend tubulars for both wheels.

[Lionel]

No point in re-inventing the wheel. Existing gearing is perfectly adequate for the bay area, or anywhere else actually.

[joosttx]

No point in re-inventing the wheel. Existing gearing is perfectly adequate for the bay area, or anywhere else actually.

Lionel don’t you have hyperons on your climbing crumpton bike?

[Spdntrxi]

I spin out regularly on my MTB 42 x 10T descending Mt Tamalpias. I notice on the flats of the descent my buddies on their gravel bikes pull away by pedaling I just spin out. Speeds could be between 35-50mph.

gravity is my friend... I coast by others that are still spinning.

[colker]

tubulars for both wheels.

Of course.

[Hellgate]

Indeed! What a wonderful set of wheels. I had a set of Gen one's on my Ti Davidson with Record 10. I could climb all day on that bike. Granted, I was 18 years younger then.

I would love to try a pair of Hyperons. Man... those climbing wheels are the Victoria Secret of cyclingdom.

[Ti Designs]

Nobody has brought up biomechanics or how the system changes as the grade increases... I noticed something in the data with my clients who use the Kickr Climb, when the front fork is elevated their torque drops off. That's because their body weight is no longer over the pedals. With steeper grades the rider position must also adapt.

As for gearing, to keep the largest muscle engaged you need to stay within a very narrow cadence range. The big jumps in an 11-34 are way too large. You would be better off running a mountain bike small cog like a 20T and running something much tighter in back.

But what do I know about climbing?

[joosttx]

Nobody has brought up biomechanics or how the system changes as the grade increases... I noticed something in the data with my clients who use the Kickr Climb, when the front fork is elevated their torque drops off. That's because their body weight is no longer over the pedals. With steeper grades the rider position must also adapt.

As for gearing, to keep the largest muscle engaged you need to stay within a very narrow cadence range. The big jumps in an 11-34 are way too large. You would be better off running a mountain bike small cog like a 20T and running something much tighter in back.

But what do I know about climbing?

For the sake of discussion... if I want to design a bike for a 10 mile 8% grade hill race. What would you suggest? And yes I agree you know a thing or two about climbing.

[colker]

Nobody has brought up biomechanics or how the system changes as the grade increases... I noticed something in the data with my clients who use the Kickr Climb, when the front fork is elevated their torque drops off. That's because their body weight is no longer over the pedals. With steeper grades the rider position must also adapt.

As for gearing, to keep the largest muscle engaged you need to stay within a very narrow cadence range. The big jumps in an 11-34 are way too large. You would be better off running a mountain bike small cog like a 20T and running something much tighter in back.

But what do I know about climbing?

Fact> a triple crankset is the best solution in this case.

Fiction> you can drill holes on everything to "make the bike lighter". Remember those times?

[joosttx]

Fact> a triple crankset is the best solution in this case.

Fiction> you can drill holes on everything to "make the bike lighter". Remember those times?

https://youtu.be/L0NyFjIS_wE

they are still happening. Fast forward to 0:30 seconds.

[colker]

https://youtu.be/L0NyFjIS_wE

they are still happening. Fast forward to 0:30 seconds.

I watched it. Good stuff.

[Lionel]

Lionel don’t you have hyperons on your climbing crumpton bike?



Well, yes ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charliedid]

Or just go fixed: https://www.bikeradar.com/features/routes-and-rides/can-one-gear-really-work-for-hill-climbs/

[Mark McM]

Nobody has brought up biomechanics or how the system changes as the grade increases... I noticed something in the data with my clients who use the Kickr Climb, when the front fork is elevated their torque drops off. That's because their body weight is no longer over the pedals. With steeper grades the rider position must also adapt.

I've noticed this as well. When climbing steep slopes, I often find that I need to slide toward the front of my saddle to keep high force on the pedals. Unfortunately, sliding forward on the saddle also decreases effective saddle height, which is generally not what you want on a climb.

When I set up my bike for a hill climb race, I readjust my saddle forward (less setback). This is great for going uphill, but unfortunately this shifts my weight forward and isn't great for going downhill (particularly through switchback descents).

[David Tollefson]

I did this last year for the High Pass Challenge, with the intent of posting a PR for the ride (I was successful to the tune of some 32 minutes). I started with going to 650c wheels, a light fork, then built the rest of the bike around those. Duplicated my standard road position, didn't weight weenie the parts spec too much (SRAM Red crank, Shimano 600 single pivot brakes, full carbon saddle), but turns out this bike is my "fastest" on any road ride. Went with a 34/26 low gear, lower than the 34/28 I had on the same ride previously (700c wheels).

My point -- you might consider dropping down a wheel size or two.

[jamesdak]

A 44/11 is only 9% lower than my 48/11. I can spin that up to 38 mph, with no problem. If the slopes are steep, you should be hitting 50 mph very quickly. I have some 10-12% grades to climb and hitting 50 on the descent is easy. No pedaling required.

The problem for some bikes will be getting the FD low enough. There is an adapter made to drop a braze-on FD down lower.

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/163817821.jpg

Speaking of Wickwerks. I ran thier 53/34 setup for years on my Lemond. Worked great and shifting was flawless.

https://wickwerks.com/products/road-bike-ultra-wide-53-34/

Last year I built up a climbing bike with a triple using their chainrings too. That works amazingly well too.

[Dave]

In my responses, I was never thinking about racing up or down the slopes, just having enough gear to get up without any severe lack of gear for the trip down. FWIW, on normal rides, I put my energy into the climb and won't waste energy on a long descent. I've ridden the same 10 mile descent about 700 times and never gave any thought to my top gear, but it was either a 53/12 with a triple and probably a 50/12 with a compact. Either one gave me all the speed I needed. If I used my top gear, it was only for a short time. Gravity did most of the work, because the road was too winding to waste bursts of energy and then have to scrub off the extra speed for corners. I wasn't racing down, just getting down relatively fast.

As for the too-large jumps with an 11-34, I don't find that to be the case, but perhaps that's because I need the 34 to maintain a cadence in the 70's on the steepest slopes. The 29 is 15% lower, but that's only about 11 rpm, and the 25 is about a 14% lower gear, the 22 another 12%. I can climb efficiently with a cadence in the 70 to 83 rpm range, no problem. I don't like to pedal a lot slower or a lot faster on a steep climb. If I can even hit 83 rpm in my 32/34, then the climb isn't very steep and the 29 will do the job. I have easy climbs where the 22 and 25 are used.

Just recently I was riding back and forth with a couple of college age guys who could easily get out of the saddle and leave me in the dust on a steep climb. On one of the descents, I shocked one of them by using my 140 lbs to coast right by him and catching up to the lead rider. Don't know what that rider was doing wrong, but he was slow on the descent.

[XXtwindad]

https://youtu.be/L0NyFjIS_wE

Phil in collabo with Heisenberg. Go to 0:30 minutes if your brain has been damaged by social media....


The bike doesnt matter as much as the fitness and fatness of the rider. I would focus on that more than the bike.

Well, since you addressed racing in another post ...

[XXtwindad]

For the sake of discussion... if I want to design a bike for a 10 mile 8% grade hill race. What would you suggest? And yes I agree you know a thing or two about climbing.

Here.

What does that have to do with my original post? I didn't mention anything about racing. I'm also not sure what I can glean from that video. Gaimon and Nate are professional racers. I am not. Nor, for that matter, are you. I just want to enjoy myself on a bike ride with extended climbing.

I should also point out that the concept of "fitness" you referred to earlier is much more involved than just going up a hill at a good clip. How is your balance? Flexibility? Functional strength, etc.

[joosttx]

Here.

What does that have to do with my original post? I didn't mention anything about racing. I'm also not sure what I can glean from that video. Gaimon and Nate are professional racers. I am not. Nor, for that matter, are you. I just want to enjoy myself on a bike ride with extended climbing.

I should also point out that the concept of "fitness" you referred to earlier is much more involved than just going up a hill at a good clip. How is your balance? Flexibility? Functional strength, etc.

My first post was referencing Phil Gaimons video about loosely creating hill climb bike. They were getting silly about lighting the bike. Body weight and cardio fitness (that’s the fitness I am talking about) or watts/kg I think are more important than the bike. hence the silliness err satire of Phil.

Regarding my question to Ti designs he knows a lot, is smart, and has thought about the subject. I would like to know how crazy a bike design (geometry-wise) would be to design a bike that engaged the right muscles at an 8% grade hill.

[tomato coupe]

I would like to build a bike that's focused on going up and then down. A "screw the flats" type of bike. I'm thinking of going really small up front. Possibly a 26/44 (White Idustries) crank with an 11-36 in back. In the Bay Area hills, that's not that impractical. Something for doing a Mt Diablo double, for example. I know there's a bike ride that tackles all of the East Bay's major climbs as well, although I can't remember the name.

Anyone have a similar gearing for that type of terrain? How do you like it?

PS I already have bikes with standard compact gearing. Since I may have a surfeit of bikes, I want a bike with totally different gearing. Also, a nod to HTupolev and Mark McM who have been very helpful with tech questions.

Well, since you seem to be interested in gearing and not weight, isn't the obvious solution a triple crankset?

[colker]

Well, since you seem to be interested in gearing and not weight, isn't the obvious solution a triple crankset?

If going up and down, a triple w/ 12-25 cassette is right. If only climbing then start taking parts off the bike.

[tomato coupe]

If going up and down, a triple w/ 12-25 cassette is right. If only climbing then start taking parts off the bike.

He suggested both up and down:

I would like to build a bike that's focused on going up and then down.

[Dave]

If going up and down, a triple w/ 12-25 cassette is right. If only climbing then start taking parts off the bike.

For many years, I used a 12-25 10 speed cassette and 53/39/28 triple crank. I changed one of my bikes to a triple, just before I moved from the Kansas City area to Highlands Ranch in 2003.

When 11 speed came out late in 2008, I switched to a 50/34 and 12/27. Now that I'm older and slower, the new 48/32 and 11-34 are working well.

[XXtwindad]

Lots of good insight here. Flash's concerns aside (and he might be right) the idea of a 26/44 married to an 11-36 really appeals to me. I don't mind coasting on hills greater than nine or ten percent.

I'm fortunate (or foolish) enough to have multiple road bikes, so this bike would be designed solely for a specific purpose.

[NHAero]

I really like the Ultegra 11-34, because the jumps percentage-wise are smallest where I do most of my pedaling.
If I wasn't really weight weenie-ing it, and didn't want hydro discs with integrated shifting/braking, I'd use a triple. I still run a 48-36-24 Sugino AT on my Bob Jackson, with a 12-30 10s cassette. But I like the 11-34 better, and have swapped the 11 for a 12 on two bikes because I never was getting into the 11.

In my responses, I was never thinking about racing up or down the slopes, just having enough gear to get up without any severe lack of gear for the trip down. FWIW, on normal rides, I put my energy into the climb and won't waste energy on a long descent. I've ridden the same 10 mile descent about 700 times and never gave any thought to my top gear, but it was either a 53/12 with a triple and probably a 50/12 with a compact. Either one gave me all the speed I needed. If I used my top gear, it was only for a short time. Gravity did most of the work, because the road was too winding to waste bursts of energy and then have to scrub off the extra speed for corners. I wasn't racing down, just getting down relatively fast.

As for the too-large jumps with an 11-34, I don't find that to be the case, but perhaps that's because I need the 34 to maintain a cadence in the 70's on the steepest slopes. The 29 is 15% lower, but that's only about 11 rpm, and the 25 is about a 14% lower gear, the 22 another 12%. I can climb efficiently with a cadence in the 70 to 83 rpm range, no problem. I don't like to pedal a lot slower or a lot faster on a steep climb. If I can even hit 83 rpm in my 32/34, then the climb isn't very steep and the 29 will do the job. I have easy climbs where the 22 and 25 are used.

Just recently I was riding back and forth with a couple of college age guys who could easily get out of the saddle and leave me in the dust on a steep climb. On one of the descents, I shocked one of them by using my 140 lbs to coast right by him and catching up to the lead rider. Don't know what that rider was doing wrong, but he was slow on the descent.

[XXtwindad]

He suggested both up and down:

Well, if you go up, you have to come down eventually, right? Even if the views are great? Or even if there's a great microbrewery?

[joosttx]

Lots of good insight here. Flash's concerns aside (and he might be right) the idea of a 26/44 married to an 11-36 really appeals to me. I don't mind coasting on hills greater than nine or ten percent.

I'm fortunate (or foolish) enough to have multiple road bikes, so this bike would be designed solely for a specific purpose.

You are not foolish if you have multiple road bikes to make a climbing-specific bike. I really don't think you need anything but a compact crank with a big cassette on the back. What I would do is have a killer road bike frame with a compact and then two sets of wheels. 1) Aero wheels with a say 11X28ish cassette and 2) ultralight "climbing" wheels with a big cassette on the back. If you campy bora ultra II and hyperons will serve the purpose.

[colker]

You are not foolish if you have multiple road bikes to make a climbing-specific bike. I really don't think you need anything but a compact crank with a big cassette on the back. What I would do is have a killer road bike frame with a compact and then two sets of wheels. 1) Aero wheels with a say 11X28ish cassette and 2) ultralight "climbing" wheels with a big cassette on the back. If you campy bora ultra II and hyperons will serve the purpose.

I wonder if a very light tubular wheelset w/ nisi, mavic or ambrosio 36 h rims built by someone who knows what he is doing wouldn´t do the trick. Won´t be in the same classe as Bora or Hyperons but not everybody has those. If you keep rims at 350gr light hubs and not that thin spokes you can have a sweet climbing wheelset... w/ tubular tires.

[Dave]

In contrast, I think that the shimano 11-34 would be horrible, but it's also only 11 speed, not 12. It has horrible 11-13-15-17 jumps where they should all be 1T jumps and changes that are too small between the larger sprockets. No thank you.

[XXtwindad]

You are not foolish if you have multiple road bikes to make a climbing-specific bike. I really don't think you need anything but a compact crank with a big cassette on the back. What I would do is have a killer road bike frame with a compact and then two sets of wheels. 1) Aero wheels with a say 11X28ish cassette and 2) ultralight "climbing" wheels with a big cassette on the back. If you campy bora ultra II and hyperons will serve the purpose.

Well, kudos on having one road bike and one MTB. Frankly, I think this is ideal. Maybe one road, one "all-road" and one MTB.