I want compact cranks. Am I a big wussy?

[crazymonk]

I wonder if Seattle is unique in how many and how steep the hills are here? I am worried about mashing up these hills in tall gears. I don't want to destroy my knees. I have a theory that the standard 38/53 is not practical for most mortals, espically in a mountanius area.

Be Gentle.

[Kirk007]

ride what you need. They're your knees dude.

[dave thompson]

I wonder if Seattle is unique in how many and how steep the hills are here? I am worried about mashing up these hills in tall gears. I don't want to destroy my knees. I have a theory that the standard 38/53 is not practical for most mortals, espically in a mountanius area.

Be Gentle.
I live in Spokane where we are surrounded by hills/mountains. I ride bikes with a compact or a triple. Wussy? Not at all, they are needed for me to ride when and where I want.

What others may think of your ride are of no consequence at all. You need what you need.

[EXTREME5]

If it works for you then it is good. Enjoyment must be your first priorty. :beer:

[paczki]

Are you racing? And if you're racing, are you actually any good? If not, no need to care.

[crazymonk]

It is all about having fun... No I don't race. Well not exactly. I race myself. This is Beautiful..... I could beat myself!!

[Samster]

I want compact cranks. Am I a big wussy?
no. you're not.

[rcnute]

I use 48-34 cranks around Seattle.

[Ray]

You're a wussy if you let the non-existent fashion police of cycling reduce your enjoyment of cycling in any way, shape, or form. If you're comfortable riding where you ride with high gears, use high gears. If you like or want lower gears and they make you want to ride more terrain and for longer periods, then get lower gears. There are no rules about how fast you have to go, how much you have to suffer, or how you get to whatever level of cycling you most enjoy, including the equipment you use.

-Ray

[CNY rider]

Not a wuss for wanting compact cranks, but you WOULD be a total loser if you cared so much about what other people think that you let your enjoyment of cycling wane because a few jerk-offs criticized your choice of gearing.

[victoryfactory]

I ride mostly on Long Island. No real need for compacts here. But I have a
set and I slap 'em on when I travel. I need every gear for rides out west.

One thing: if you get a compact that has a choice of rings, it will allow you
to tune the system. a 50/36 vs a 50/34 etc.

It may be hard at first to find a good crusing gear for the flats with a compact
setup. I was always wanting a gear between the big ring and little ring in
front. It took a while to get the combination of cassette/ front rings to make
it click.

good luck, and remember: the real wussies are the ones who are home in their
hidy holes polishing their down tubes when you are out there riding....

VF

[coopdog]

Most folks can't turn a 53x11 appropriately. I race a compact because that's what came on the bike and I don't see a need to change it. I believe Tyler Hamilton used a compact in the Tour stage he won. If you're afraid the gearing will be too low, throw on a 25/11 cassette. Trust me, any looks of scorn will be replaced by looks of envy about half way up a climb.

[Sandy]

It is all about having fun... No I don't race. Well not exactly. I race myself. This is Beautiful..... I could beat myself!!

No. you could tie yourself.


Smart Sandy

[palincss]

One thing: if you get a compact that has a choice of rings, it will allow you
to tune the system. a 50/36 vs a 50/34 etc.

It may be hard at first to find a good crusing gear for the flats with a compact
setup. I was always wanting a gear between the big ring and little ring in
front. It took a while to get the combination of cassette/ front rings to make
it click.


"Compact" refers to nothing more than the bolt circle diameter. 110mm is the most common. A huge variety of chain rings are made in the 110mm bolt circle diameter. My tandem has a 42 or 44 tooth middle ring and a 54 tooth big ring (28 tooth granny, IIRC) on a 110/74 triple. So if you wanted to, you could replicate a 39/53 setup on a 110BCD just as easily as you could make a 34/50 or a 36/48, and both would be compact gearing.

You're absolutely right, the placement of cruising gears is vital. If you need to constantly do double shifts right in the middle the crusing range, you won't be happy with your gearing at all; and this is the downfall of 34/50 for many riders.

Consider the 30/54 with a 10-spd 12-27 cassette:

34 50
-----------------
74.5 109.5
68.7 101.1
63.8 93.9
59.6 87.6
55.8 82.1
52.6 77.3
47.0 69.2
42.5 62.6
37.2 54.8
33.1 48.7

For many riders, the cruising range on level ground is roughly from 77 inches to around 62 inches (excluding pace lines, head and tail winds, etc.). This setup forces a chainring shift between the 69 inch and the 62 inch gear (in other words, every time the grade increases even slightly).

[Sandy]

You're a wussy if you let the non-existent fashion police of cycling reduce your enjoyment of cycling in any way, shape, or form. If you're comfortable riding where you ride with high gears, use high gears. If you like or want lower gears and they make you want to ride more terrain and for longer periods, then get lower gears. There are no rules about how fast you have to go, how much you have to suffer, or how you get to whatever level of cycling you most enjoy, including the equipment you use.

-Ray

You don't belong here on the forum. You simply always make sense. Too much sense. ;) :D

Ray and the others have said it all, plain and simple.



Simple Sandy

[crazymonk]

This is my first year of riding on a real road bike. The past few years I have been riding a mountain bike with sliks. I could ride up any hill over here in seattle with no effort. I am getting stronger but the same hills that I could zip up before are just not fun.

I wonder if there is a threashold that you cross when you have the strength to climb most hills with standard 38 or 39 chainring.

There is one thing I have noticed. Every time I hear someone say that they don't like hills, they are running 39/53.

[Sandy]

"Compact" refers to nothing more than the bolt circle diameter. 110mm is the most common. A huge variety of chain rings are made in the 110mm bolt circle diameter. My tandem has a 42 or 44 tooth middle ring and a 54 tooth big ring (28 tooth granny, IIRC) on a 110/74 triple. So if you wanted to, you could replicate a 39/53 setup on a 110BCD just as easily as you could make a 34/50 or a 36/48, and both would be compact gearing.

You're absolutely right, the placement of cruising gears is vital. If you need to constantly do double shifts right in the middle the crusing range, you won't be happy with your gearing at all; and this is the downfall of 34/50 for many riders.

Consider the 30/54 with a 10-spd 12-27 cassette:

34 50
-----------------
74.5 109.5
68.7 101.1
63.8 93.9
59.6 87.6
55.8 82.1
52.6 77.3
47.0 69.2
42.5 62.6
37.2 54.8
33.1 48.7

For many riders, the cruising range on level ground is roughly from 77 inches to around 62 inches (excluding pace lines, head and tail winds, etc.). This setup forces a chainring shift between the 69 inch and the 62 inch gear (in other words, every time the grade increases even slightly).

What size wheels are you using? He is riding a single. The gear inches above are not for most single bikes, are they? Not 700C wheels. I believe for most singles with the 50/34 and the 12/27, there is no 62 or 69, but a 64.3 and a 71.0, so that might make your arguement even stronger, if I understand it correctly.

I actually have the problem you say but going in the opposite direction. I tend to run out of higher gears on the flats in the 34 and want to shift into the bigger ring as the roads get flatter. Think I use too large gears on the flats (know I do) and go very low, very fast on the hills (too fast).


Sandy

[Ray]

I wonder if there is a threashold that you cross when you have the strength to climb most hills with standard 38 or 39 chainring.
There is a threshold, but lots of us never cross it. Either because we're not built for it or we don't care enough to get there or both. If you want to race and want to get as strong as you possibly can, you have to work for that - hard. And you'd probably have to get to the point where any of Seattle's steep, but not terribly long, hills would be very ridable in a 39x25 or so. But racing is only one small aspect of cycling and its only a VERY small percentage of riders who race. Way more people who ride a lot DON'T race, even strong riders.

Assuming that's not your goal, give yourself all of the gearing options you need NOW. This will keep you on your bike more and get you to ride longer and ride tougher terrain. I, personally, started riding a road bike in '97 after a couple years of mountain biking. I bought a road bike with a 53-39 and 13-26 at the advice of the macho bike shop owner. I was able to ride the hills around here (not that different than in Seattle, but lots less urban) but I hated nearly every minute of the tough climbs. So I learned to avoid most of them and I rarely rode more than 30-40 miles at a time. Then I got a triple (which I've since switched to a compact double, but the low gears are about the same) and I started riding longer and seeking out the climbs because they were FUN instead of TORTURE. As a result, I got to be a stronger climber and, over time, started climbing in higher gears. And as I've aged, my cadence has slowed and I find myself climbing in bigger gears now, more of it out of the saddle. But I'm not as good a climber as I was when I was using smaller gears and spinning them faster.

The bottom line, again, is to ride whatever makes you enjoy it more and keeps you on the bike more. And, if speed is your goal, whatever makes you faster. I was faster spinning smaller gears than I am mashing bigger ones, but your mileage may vary.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

a 36/50 or 34/48 is wonderful for climbing, especially steep stuff. and no one is a wuss for using them in the hills. my issue is trying to ride a compact on the flats or rolling hills. always being on the big ring on rollers means, for me anyway, often being in a less than ideal gear. and when i really want to hump a big gear on the flats (like big ring intervals), a 50 just isn't big enough. but if a 48 or 50 give you enough big gears on the flats, then by all means, go for it. being able to spin on hills is great. just don't dig it so much on the flats. :o

[Ray]

What size wheels are you using? He is riding a single. The gear inches above are not for most single bikes, are they? Not 700C wheels. I believe for most singles with the 50/34 and the 12/27, there is no 62 or 69, but a 64.3 and a 71.0, so that might make your arguement even stronger, if I understand it correctly.

I actually have the problem you say but going in the opposite direction. I tend to run out of higher gears on the flats in the 34 and want to shift into the bigger ring as the roads get flatter. Think I use too large gears on the flats (know I do) and go very low, very fast on the hills (too fast).


Sandy
For those of us with NO remaining ego, may I suggest a practical, but highly unfashionable, solution? No? Tough latkes, I'm gonna do it anyway. Smaller big ring and wider range cassette. There, I said it.

For the past SEVERAL years, including some of my strongest years, I've been using a setup with a compact with either a 48 or, more recently, 46 tooth big ring, and the 34 tooth small. I also use a 12-34 mountain bike cassette with an XT rear derailure. With this, I have very very low bailout gears that I almost never use, but I've never been sorry to have. AND, I can ride the 12 through 26 rings easily from the "big" ring. With a 48 or 46 tooth big ring and seven reachable gears in back from 12 to 26 teeth, I can stay in the big ring the vast majority of the time, including the flats and most rolling hills. I pretty much live in the big ring until the climb gets very long and/or very steep. At which point, I have all the gears I need with the little ring. I almost never use the 30 or 34 cogs with this setup, but having them there allows me to reach the 12 through 26 with the big ring, which is a godsend. And "almost never" is not the same as "never". On those rare occasions when I've needed them, I've been quite pleased to have them available.

The only downsides to this approach are not downsides for me, or probably for most non-racers. First, there's spacing. The cogs are farther apart in the back than with a 12-25. I ride a fixed gear enough to be very comfortable at a range of cadences between about 75-115, so the gaps don't bother me. Second is a lower top gear. A 46x12 is not a very high gear, but I can still spin it up to about 35-38 mph on descents and beyond that, I'm better off in a tuck and coasting. Again, if you're racing, you probably still want to be putting power down up to 45-50 mph on those Alpine descents, but that doesn't apply for most of us. Finally, I still use 9-speed gear because the mtb cassettes I favor aren't available in 10-speed. I don't mind this in the least, but this would be downside for someone who has to have (or is already stuck with) the latest and greatest.

Probably too extreme a solution for many. And I have taken my share of abuse about it (not that I care). But very practical and useful for lots of recreational riders.

-Ray

[palincss]

What size wheels are you using? He is riding a single. The gear inches above are not for most single bikes, are they? Not 700C wheels. I believe for most singles with the 50/34 and the 12/27, there is no 62 or 69, but a 64.3 and a 71.0, so that might make your arguement even stronger, if I understand it correctly.

I actually have the problem you say but going in the opposite direction. I tend to run out of higher gears on the flats in the 34 and want to shift into the bigger ring as the roads get flatter. Think I use too large gears on the flats (know I do) and go very low, very fast on the hills (too fast).
Sandy

I used Sheldon's gear calculator, using values for a 700x23 tire, 10-spd 12-27 cassette and 50/34.

As for running out of high gear on the 34T ring on the flats, sure - there is no high gear to be had on the 34. You need to shift to the big ring. And, of course, the problem with that is that you need to shift the front and then downshift 4 to get back in sequence, again right in the middle of the cruising range.

Consider this as an alternative:

36 46
-------------
74.8 95.5
69.4 88.7
64.8 82.8
57.2 73.1
51.2 65.4
46.3 59.1
40.5 51.8
36.0 46.0
32.4 41.4

This is the gearing on the middle and outer rings on my new Velo Orange. The tires are 700x30s, but I'm using Sheldon's figures for a 32mm tire since the Grand Bois 30s are said to actually measure 32mm. The cassette is Sheldon's 13-30 Century Special 9 speed. On the Velo Orange, I can stay on the 46 from 95.5" down to 46" although I typically shift onto the 36T if I need to go below 51.8".

I use the 36T ring from 32" up to maybe 57.2, possibly 64.8 depending on the terrain: if it's generally uphill but occasionally flattens out a little bit, I might stay on the middle ring rather than shift the front if it'll get steeper again very soon. Otherwise, if I've clearly crested the hill, I'll shift to the big ring anywhere from the 40.5 up.

This bike also has a 24T granny ring that gives me several gears lower than the 32.4". I seldom need them, but it's a real treat to have them when they're needed. They came in very handy on Bike Virginia. I didn't show it in the chart because it's not relevant, and I can't control the spacing between the columns, and the numbers tend to run together.

So what, if any, is the problem with gearing like this? Not much of a high gear. On the other hand, I find I don't need much of a high gear. At 0.1 tons +, I find I have no difficulty at all accelerating on downhills, and I can spin that 95.5" gear up to around 34mph on downhills. I do, after all, have a special relationship with Gravity. Beyond 34, I'm quite happy to coast. For others, of course, it would be entirely unsuitable. If you sprint a lot or actually use gears higher than 95.5", this type of a setup might not suit.

I was on Hume Rd. last Sunday east of Leeds Manor Rd. and I hit 40mph on the rollers more than once. That's plenty fast enough for me on a single. On Bike Virginia there were many long downhills, and where the roads were open with good sightlines I'd get it into top gear and spin the cranks, and I found I was often zooming by people with much higher gears who were turning them much more slowly.

As for those roads without good sightlines: I'm happy to let others zoom right by me. Years ago, Popular Mechnics used to have a column entitled "I learned About Flying From This" or something very much like it, that would recount "learning experiences". And I have such a cycling "learning experience".

Back in the early 80s, shortly after moving to the Washington DC area, I was on a club ride. I think we were in the Ag Reserve area, but I'm not sure. What I do remember is being in a group that came down a hill, made a sharp left turn and discovered perhaps 20 yards into the turn this old guy who had a 4-door Studebaker parked right in the middle of the road. He had all 4 doors open, and was vacuuming out his car with a portable vacuum. There was barely enough room for the cyclists to get by his doors, and we came very close to having a very ugly accident.

So whenever I find myself flying downhill going around a blind turn, especially coming from bright sunlight into deep shade, I think of that old SOB with his 4-door Studebaker parked right in the middle of the road, all four doors open, on his knees vacuuming out his car, just waiting for us to crash into his doors... and I slow down enough that if by chance he is there, or maybe there's a hole in the road or a dog or somebody lying face down in the roadway after having had a heart attack (all things I've seen on rides, by the way) I will be able to control the bike and not just crash into whatever's there.

[paczki]

For those of us with NO remaining ego, may I suggest a practical, but highly unfashionable, solution? No? Tough latkes, I'm gonna do it anyway. Smaller big ring and wider range cassette. There, I said it.

For the past SEVERAL years, including some of my strongest years, I've been using a setup with a compact with either a 48 or, more recently, 46 tooth big ring, and the 34 tooth small. I also use a 12-34 mountain bike cassette with an XT rear derailure. With this, I have very very low bailout gears that I almost never use, but I've never been sorry to have. AND, I can ride the 12 through 26 rings easily from the "big" ring. With a 48 or 46 tooth big ring and seven reachable gears in back from 12 to 26 teeth, I can stay in the big ring the vast majority of the time, including the flats and most rolling hills. I pretty much live in the big ring until the climb gets very long and/or very steep. At which point, I have all the gears I need with the little ring. I almost never use the 30 or 34 cogs with this setup, but having them there allows me to reach the 12 through 26 with the big ring, which is a godsend. And "almost never" is not the same as "never". On those rare occasions when I've needed them, I've been quite pleased to have them available.

The only downsides to this approach are not downsides for me, or probably for most non-racers. First, there's spacing. The cogs are farther apart in the back than with a 12-25. I ride a fixed gear enough to be very comfortable at a range of cadences between about 75-115, so the gaps don't bother me. Second is a lower top gear. A 46x12 is not a very high gear, but I can still spin it up to about 35-38 mph on descents and beyond that, I'm better off in a tuck and coasting. Again, if you're racing, you probably still want to be putting power down up to 45-50 mph on those Alpine descents, but that doesn't apply for most of us. Finally, I still use 9-speed gear because the mtb cassettes I favor aren't available in 10-speed. I don't mind this in the least, but this would be downside for someone who has to have (or is already stuck with) the latest and greatest.

Probably too extreme a solution for many. And I have taken my share of abuse about it (not that I care). But very practical and useful for lots of recreational riders.

-Ray

+1 on spinning!

[chuckred]

then I am...

Oh well...

[chuckroast]

You are not alone friend as you can see. I had my first compact installed this last winter after 20+ years of adult cycling and it has been great. No regrets and I don't care what people think. That's a great benefit of getting older, I care much less about what people think about the accepted way to do things and instead focus on what works for me.

[ridemoreoften]

I ride a 39/52 on one bike and a 34/50 compact on the other. Compact is easier for climbing for sure, only criticism is tend to spin out in the 34 when not climbing.

[Kervin]

+1 For the lowest gearing that you can get.

Here's my story:
Many moons ago, I got bit by the style bug for picking out parts for my bike. I wanted to have what the pro guy had. I ended up riding a 52/42 with a 12-17 "corn cob". Boy did my bike look cool (except when I had to ride it up hill). Very slowly, like my climbing, I went to lower gearing. First using a 21, then going to a 39 in the front, then a 23 and finally a 25. I'm pretty fit at the momment and I can spin up a grade faster now than I ever could "push" a big gear. I look back and see how "wimpy" I was to not using the gearing I need to ride the way I wanted to.

[christian]

I'm going to go against the grain here. I had 50x34 and 50x36 gearing on a few bikes. Ok for riding around and seeing the scenery, I guess, but too much crossover at 20mph cruising and so on.

I found I was happiest with a 50x39. Which can be accomplished with either a 130 or 110 bcd. But ultimately it depends on where you ride - in NY/NJ/CT there are a few steep hills but most are very short so you can power over them. In the alps, I was happy for a 34.

[eddief]

i was waiting for someone to say something about mt rear derailleur and honking cassette and you had the nerve to actually say it. now that others know i am a member of that coven, i hope they won't come and take away my glasses-mounted rear view mirror.

[Ray]

i was waiting for someone to say something about mt rear derailleur and honking cassette and you had the nerve to actually say it. now that others know i am a member of that coven, i hope they won't come and take away my glasses-mounted rear view mirror.
First, I have absolutely NO pride. So, I'll say damn near ANYthing.

Second, and ironically, the older I get the less I spin the little gears. I'm not riding as much or as far or as hard as I used to and, for some reason, I'd usually just as soon stand up and grind up the steep hills around here in my 34x23 and only occasionally even drop down into the 26. Since I'm only riding 30-40 miles 2-3 times a week anyway, I figure I'm not going to burn too many matches that way and don't worry about it. Back when I was riding longer and harder, I used the low gears a lot more and was faster and much better at resource management, because it mattered. Now, the ride'll be over soon and I'll take a couple of days to recover, so it doesn't matter. So, now, I could probably do OK with a 53-39 and a 12-27 or a Campy 13-29. But I like the option low gears give me and I like being able to live in the big ring 80% of the time, so I'm not going back.

-Ray

[dogdriver]

Imho-- Get a triple. You keep all your 53-39 gearing, thereby avoiding all the compact double shift issues, and when the Big Nasty looms, drop into the 30 and laugh at all the poor souls blowing out their knees. I use mine 5-6 times a year, but breathe easy knowing its there. Of course, I did once have a 105 pound girl call me a pussy, but felt much better after beating her up the hill and challenging her to a wrestling match (she didn't accept).

There was a great thread here a few years ago that went through both arguments (for compact vs triple, not wrestling 105# girls). I think it even had spreadsheets comparing gear combos, etc.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong, Chris

[pdxmech13]

I decided on a compact for my winter bike as during that time of year its nice to stay seated and spin a little more of a lighter gear. Its also has been great for recovery rides this summer when my legs are tired after a long/hard ride the previous day. Go for it as I don't think you'll regret it. One thing I will say is don't over gear the high end as no one here on this board realistically needs an 11t cog.

[RPS]

One thing I will say is don't over gear the high end as no one here on this board realistically needs an 11t cog.I argue the very opposite. Many riders should have an 11T cog cassette.

Notice the greater number of 11T cassettes being offered by major manufacturers? Do you think they are all wrong?

[RPS]

Imho-- Get a triple.
........snipped.........
Just my opinion, I could be wrong, Chris+1

[RPS]

I wonder if there is a threashold that you cross when you have the strength to climb most hills with standard 38 or 39 chainring.

There is one thing I have noticed. Every time I hear someone say that they don't like hills, they are running 39/53.I don't think it will be like throwing a switch and having it come on all of a sudden. You also have to define what cassette you are running with 39/53.

I prefer to run a 52/42/30 triple with an 11-21 when I travel to the Texas Hill Country (typical grades limited to about 15 or 16 percent), but have also climbed with a 53/42 and 12-27.

For speed I'm actually faster when I install the 12-27 with the triple. The faster cadence allows me to produce more power. So due to muscular "strength" I don't need the lower gears, but to go faster I do.

[palincss]

I argue the very opposite. Many riders should have an 11T cog cassette.

Notice the greater number of 11T cassettes being offered by major manufacturers? Do you think they are all wrong?

Yes, actually. Manufacturers are targeting racers, elite athletes in their 20s. Their bodies, their strength and abilities, and the type of riding they do, are not very representative of most riders, or even "average" riders.

There was a time when they were all making oval chainrings and round was out of fashion. Then they stopped, and round was in again. Were they wrong when they were making Biopace, or are they wrong now?

I think those 11T cassette sprockets are often matched up with 53T big rings, and provide high gears suitable for tandems. Ordinary riders generally don't really need gears any higher than 100" -- equivalent of 52x14, which was good enough for the man who probably remains the strongest, most powerful racer to have ever lived, to win the Tour de France on; why on earth would I need a higher gear than that?

[gdw]

"Ordinary riders generally don't really need gears any higher than 100" -- equivalent of 52x14, which was good enough for the man who probably remains the strongest, most powerful racer to have ever lived, to win the Tour de France on; why on earth would I need a higher gear than that?"

No offense but you probably don't spend much time in the mountains or are rather conservative on the downhills. I enjoy fast descents and used to spin out regularly in 52x12 and would have needed a 53x11t to catch some of my heavier friends.

[Ray]

"Ordinary riders generally don't really need gears any higher than 100" -- equivalent of 52x14, which was good enough for the man who probably remains the strongest, most powerful racer to have ever lived, to win the Tour de France on; why on earth would I need a higher gear than that?"

No offense but you probably don't spend much time in the mountains or are rather conservative on the downhills. I enjoy fast descents and used to spin out regularly in 52x12 and would have needed a 53x11t to catch some of my heavier friends.
At 100 rpm, a 53x11 gets you up to about 39 mph. You rarely spin much faster than that on fast descents. I don't have gears that will get me up that high, but on fast descents, I've surely gone a good bit faster. And when you watch the pros descending in the Alps, they're not pedaling all that much except getting back up to speed coming out of corners before they tuck again. So I'd say descending speeds in the mountains have a whole lot more to do with bike handling, cornering speed, and how aerodynamic you get while coasting. And the size of your balls (figuratively, for the women in the audience). Maybe at the elite end of the rider spectrum, descending speed is limited somewhat by gearing, but I seriously doubt it is for the average (or even above average) recreational rider.

-Ray

[taylorj]

I argue the very opposite. Many riders should have an 11T cog cassette.

Notice the greater number of 11T cassettes being offered by major manufacturers? Do you think they are all wrong?

+1. Compacts are great with an 11 cog.

[sg8357]

Back in the day, you rode a 53/42, a 39 wouldn't even fit on a Campy crank.
A 39 on racing bike is a sign of moral turpitude.

Cyclotourists rode a 46/28, Stronglight 49d

Once you put gears on your bike, you are a wuss.
At least according to Henri Desgrange.


“I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn’t it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer. We are getting soft… As for me, give me a fixed gear!” [Henri Desgrange, L'Équipe article of 1902]

Scott G.
over 45, hence variable gears, 48/36/24.

[pdxmech13]

I argue the very opposite. Many riders should have an 11T cog cassette.

Notice the greater number of 11T cassettes being offered by major manufacturers? Do you think they are all wrong?

Yes.....only sprinters at a pro level will really be able to spin a 53x11 out on a flat road. Twice in my 14yrs of riding have a spun a 53x13 out completely. Both occasions were due to a howling 35mph tailwind. Anyone that thinks they need an 11t gear for going down hill is just silly. I see more people using brakes at inappropriate times just to then have to push some gear to get back up to speed again. Manufacturers are just stoking the ego's of the customers.

Nick.

[97CSI]

This is my first year of riding on a real road bike. The past few years I have been riding a mountain bike with sliks. I could ride up any hill over here in seattle with no effort. I am getting stronger but the same hills that I could zip up before are just not fun.

I wonder if there is a threashold that you cross when you have the strength to climb most hills with standard 38 or 39 chainring.

There is one thing I have noticed. Every time I hear someone say that they don't like hills, they are running 39/53.Yep. And, when you reach 55, or so, you'll find that a triple is your best friend.

[happycampyer]

I wonder if there is a threashold that you cross when you have the strength to climb most hills with standard 38 or 39 chainring.

I got hooked a while back on using a power meter, and I periodically have had my anaerobic threshold (AT) tested. Right now my AT is around 250 watts, give or take. A friend of mine is a CAT 1 racer and his AT is around 360 (the pros are 400w+). If I need to generate 300 watts to go up a long, steep climb at 10 mph, I'm already 20% over my AT, so I'm already burning matches. OTOH, my friend is just cruising easily (and a pro could probably do that one-legged in the big ring). If I'm running a 53/39 and, say, a 12-25 cassette, my cadence might be 55-60 rpm. To go the same speed at the same wattage with a compact crank and the same cassette, my cadence is much higher, which produces less stress on my muscles, knees, etc.

The only way to get myself up the hill faster without blowing myself up is to either lose (more) weight and/or increase my AT. I may have another 5 or so pounds to lose and, given time constraints, it's getting harder and harder to increase my AT, so the compact is not going anywhere. I do have a bike with a standard crank that I love to ride when I'm not hitting the hills, but if I could only have one bike, it'd have a compact on it.

[crazymonk]

I got hooked a while back on using a power meter, and I periodically have had my anaerobic threshold (AT) tested. Right now my AT is around 250 watts, give or take. A friend of mine is a CAT 1 racer and his AT is around 360 (the pros are 400w+). If I need to generate 300 watts to go up a long, steep climb at 10 mph, I'm already 20% over my AT, so I'm already burning matches. OTOH, my friend is just cruising easily (and a pro could probably do that one-legged in the big ring). If I'm running a 53/39 and, say, a 12-25 cassette, my cadence might be 55-60 rpm. To go the same speed at the same wattage with a compact crank and the same cassette, my cadence is much higher, which produces less stress on my muscles, knees, etc.

The only way to get myself up the hill faster without blowing myself up is to either lose (more) weight and/or increase my AT. I may have another 5 or so pounds to lose and, given time constraints, it's getting harder and harder to increase my AT, so the compact is not going anywhere. I do have a bike with a standard crank that I love to ride when I'm not hitting the hills, but if I could only have one bike, it'd have a compact on it.

I Now totaly understand. I don't have a PowerTap. This Wisdom really makes it all clear.

My Lust for a power tap is now re-kindled. Dammit, I thought I had that under control.

[Ti Designs]

Ordinary riders generally don't really need gears any higher than 100

So let me get this straight, you'll spend $10K on the best bike but you'll settle for being an ordinary rider. Time to stop putting all the emphasis on the bike for a while. As for the gearing, that's up to the individual. I run a 55/11 for a big gear 'cause that's where the fun is at. And for those who push the ever lower gears, if you don't like hills, why spend half an hour on a 10 minute hill? Learn how to pedal the bike, it gets you up hills faster, is better for your knees, faster on the flats and more it's comfortable - just my opinion, check back with me when I turn 50.

[paczki]

So let me get this straight, you'll spend $10K on the best bike but you'll settle for being an ordinary rider. Time to stop putting all the emphasis on the bike for a while. As for the gearing, that's up to the individual. I run a 55/11 for a big gear 'cause that's where the fun is at. And for those who push the ever lower gears, if you don't like hills, why spend half an hour on a 10 minute hill? Learn how to pedal the bike, it gets you up hills faster, is better for your knees, faster on the flats and more it's comfortable - just my opinion, check back with me when I turn 50.

Is it mutually exclusive that he/she might want lower gearing and want to improve his/her pedaling?

[Ti Designs]

Is it mutually exclusive that he/she might want lower gearing and want to improve his/her pedaling?

What is mutually exclusive and what really happens are two different things. In auto racing there are the tuners who spend countless hours working on their cars and there are the showroom stock drivers who spend the same time working on the driver. You would think there would be some grey area between them, but it's rare.

I've been on the forum for a while, I've always pushed cycling skill over equipment. I went to the open house, they talked about equipment non stop. Trust me, it wasn't the equipment that needed work.

Lower gears and good technique aren't mutually exclusive, but they're like cell phones and thinking. As soon as you replace thinking with calling, it's hard to change. Low gearing is a crutch that people use. At some point it's time to take the crutches away.

[paczki]

What is mutually exclusive and what really happens are two different things. In auto racing there are the tuners who spend countless hours working on their cars and there are the showroom stock drivers who spend the same time working on the driver. You would think there would be some grey area between them, but it's rare.

I've been on the forum for a while, I've always pushed cycling skill over equipment. I went to the open house, they talked about equipment non stop. Trust me, it wasn't the equipment that needed work.

Lower gears and good technique aren't mutually exclusive, but they're like cell phones and thinking. As soon as you replace thinking with calling, it's hard to change. Low gearing is a crutch that people use. At some point it's time to take the crutches away.

Fair enough. I got to get me a 10K bike :banana: :banana: :banana:

[pdxmech13]

Low gearing is a crutch that people use. At some point it's time to take the crutches away..

I agree with this statement ! However you gotta start somewhere.

[RPS]

Yes, actually. Manufacturers are targeting racers, elite athletes in their 20s.I respectfully disagree. They may target racers to introduce new products, but their volume and hence profit comes from ordinary buyers.

My personal opinion is that 11T cassettes give better overall gearing when combined with compact chainrings. They also give taller gearing for tandems and others who are very fast on descend.

I’m not all that fast on downhills in part due to my size, but I often pedal into the 40s. I also use my 11T quite often with my 52T ring to simulate hills by riding into strong head winds. It's the only way I can train for hills year round.

And on tandems – particularly those with 26-inch road tires -- ian 11T is a no brainer.

[Ray]

Low gearing is a crutch that people use. At some point it's time to take the crutches away.
Is it mandatory that everyone has the same goals for riding? Even people who ride a lot? I know I'm a bit of a broken record on this Ti and I realize you've forgotten more about bikes and riding than I'll ever know. But you're a bit of a broken record too, and I occasionally feel the need to call you on it.

I've ridden with bigger gears and smaller gears. When I was riding a lot and was in much better shape than I'm in now, I used the smaller gears a lot more than I do now. These days, I'm fine with bigger gears for reasons explained earlier, but not because I eliminated a crutch. Primarily because I was into riding longer distances and preferred to work my very well conditioned cardio system rather than stressing my legs more - pure resource management. I'm riding less now and its far less of an issue if I overextend early in a ride cause I'm not going all that far anyway. And I don't care if my legs are more sore the next day because I'm probably not riding the next day, like I was when I was using smaller gears more. I was a better rider back then whether measured by speed, endurance, even enjoyment.

FWIW, I don't have a $10,000 bike, but I have probably a $4,000 bike by the time all is said and done. It never was about making me faster or "better" - it was about feeling remarkably balanced under me so I barely noticed the bike. About sublimely intuitive handling. About enjoying the ride as much as possible given my goals, abilities, limitations, etc. Its been worth everything I paid for it and if I'd had to spend $10,000 to get it, it would have been worth that too.

If I'd been at the open house, you'd have concluded that it wasn't my bike that needed work. I'd agree with you. But I don't feel like I need much work either (my life includes plenty of 'work' - riding is for something else). Unless I was trying to meet your criteria, in which case I'm sure I'd need all sorts of work. In terms of meeting mine, though, I'm pretty much there. I had different riding goals a few years ago and met those too. None of those goals would have been yours, but so what? Why would I need to necessarily ride with bigger gears for any of this?

Sorry. I go on this rant every now and then. This seemed to be the right time.

-Ray

[RPS]

Ordinary riders generally don't really need gears any higher than 100" -- equivalent of 52x14, which was good enough for the man who probably remains the strongest, most powerful racer to have ever lived, to win the Tour de France on; why on earth would I need a higher gear than that?Honestly, do you think he would have raced today with a 52X14 top gear?
Good enough or was that all that was available? If no other choice, what does it prove? :confused:

[RPS]

Yes.....only sprinters at a pro level will really be able to spin a 53x11 out on a flat road. Twice in my 14yrs of riding have a spun a 53x13 out completely. Both occasions were due to a howling 35mph tailwind. Anyone that thinks they need an 11t gear for going down hill is just silly. I see more people using brakes at inappropriate times just to then have to push some gear to get back up to speed again. Manufacturers are just stoking the ego's of the customers.

Nick.Nick, what makes you think I'm arguing for an 11T to be used exclusively with a 53T? :confused:

In the past if a rider needed lower gearing, he had to look at a larger cassette because his chainring options were mostly limited to 53/42 or 53/39.

That's no longer the case. And it's a very good thing. If you take the time to run the numbers, you'll see that it is normally numerically better to run smaller cassettes with smaller rings.

If you have the power of a Pro, go 53/11. If not, maybe a compact with a 44/11 is more your speed.

[SadieKate]

Is it mandatory that everyone has the same goals for riding?
.............

FWIW, I don't have a $10,000 bike, but I have probably a $4,000 bike by the time all is said and done. It never was about making me faster or "better" - it was about feeling remarkably balanced under me so I barely noticed the bike. About sublimely intuitive handling. About enjoying the ride as much as possible given my goals, abilities, limitations, etc. Its been worth everything I paid for it and if I'd had to spend $10,000 to get it, it would have been worth that too. :beer:

[happycampyer]

So let me get this straight, you'll spend $10K on the best bike but you'll settle for being an ordinary rider. Time to stop putting all the emphasis on the bike for a while. As for the gearing, that's up to the individual. I run a 55/11 for a big gear 'cause that's where the fun is at. And for those who push the ever lower gears, if you don't like hills, why spend half an hour on a 10 minute hill? Learn how to pedal the bike, it gets you up hills faster, is better for your knees, faster on the flats and more it's comfortable - just my opinion, check back with me when I turn 50.

Or, spend 10 minutes on a 10 minute hill, just at a higher cadence. If the wattage is the same, you'll go up the hill at the same speed. That's why those guys were running triples and compacts on the Plan de Corones. After previewing the course, Contador decided to ride a 34 x 30, instead of a 34 x 28 as he originally planned. Why? Because even though he can produce 400+ watts continuously going up the climb (or more importantly, 7 watts/kg give or take), he needed that gearing in order to maintain a decent cadence. Perhaps he should just take your suggestion and learn how to pedal.

I agree that some people use gearing as a crutch--they keep dropping their gears and go slower and slower. OTOH, if you are riding an extended climb at 20% above your functional threshold power, it's going to feel a lot better at 80 rpm then at 50. rpm. Ask Alberto if you don't believe me.

[Kirk007]

I run a compact with an 11/23 in Eugene cause I like having the option of putting a wider range cassette for big mountains and keeping a double. I used a 13-29 for three weeks in the Alps; it was great except the 50-13 couldn't keep up with the pack on small gradient descents when we were pushing it - I can't spin 150. The 11 is very much "needed" by me with a compact - I use it all the time in Eugene. Sure I could go back to 53/39 or something but I don't need to do that, yes I end up shifting more but double shifts are not difficult.

Re climbing. I'm working on spinning (80-90 rpm) as big a gear as I can at or just below my AT. On some hills thats a 34-23 or even 25 on a different wheelset. I'm working on getting stronger and this gearing helps me. And I don't care if someone 20 - 30 years younger thinks I'm a wuss. At 50 I really don't care what anyone other myself cares about my bikes or my riding.

People need to ride what they need and should be given and encouraged to have the confidence to do so. The points about crutches etc. are good ones but the blanket statements of what's good or bad or necessary are overbroad. I hope folks like the OP, an admitted relative newcomer to road riding, gets the gears he needs to have fun and not hurt himself rather than being discouraged to try a set-up or gear ratio because folks on the 'net who appear to know more than him opine that its not proper or necessary.

[I Want Sachs?]

Yes, for thinking that riding compact makes one.

Nothing better than having that extra spin to get you up a hill.

[Ti Designs]

Ray,

I'll answer your rant with one of my own (I'm in a bad mood and feel like insulting some people - not to say this is going to be insulting but almost anything I say here is taken that way so...)

Most people wouldn't know climbing technique from chocolate ice cream (I know a bit about at least one of these). I'm going to step back here and use the example of walking: People learn to walk in stages, first they crawl, then they almost learn to balance on both feet and fall a lot, pretty soon they are walking. You don't see many people learn how to walk all wrong because there's guidence along the way. OK, back to cycling. You learn to balance a bike and that's about it - you can ride! Going up hill is just a matter of pushing harder, right? I've spent years coaching new riders, I'm always amazed at how poorly they ride. They get to a hill and try one of two things. The more common is to push harder, the alternative is to down shift and try to spin up the hill. When their brain says "push harder" the signal to the legs is translated to "push longer" which means they're pushing down at the bottom of the pedal stroke and at the back. You would think that never happens, but in my years of coaching it's never failed to happen. The people who try to spin up the hills are making one wrong assumption, which is that all the muscle groups in the legs are of equal strength - I'll explain later.

First to address Ray's question of goals. Our goals may be different, but I've never seen anyone dragging a cinderblock behind the bike on a chain - why? 'cause it doesn't fit in with anyone's goals. If there's a way to go up hills with less effort, more comfort or just plain faster and you didn't take it... (you can finish that line all by yourself)

OK, back to climbing. First to explain the difference between riding on the flats and riding up hills. On the flats you're adding energy to a system of your body weight traveling at speed. There's no significant change in the speed of the bike based on where the pedal is in the pedal stroke. So, on the flats you can use smaller muscle groups to help add energy to the system. Going up hills that all changes. The resistance to the pedals is constant all the way around and there can be significant changes based on which muscles are working and where the pedals are. Trying to pedal in circles makes the assumption that all four muscle groups are of the same strength - they're not. My method of teaching climbing is to seperate out the function and timing of each muscle group. In climbing I start with the glutes, firing just between 2:00 and 4:00 with the center of gravity perched directly over the pedal. When I teach this on a trainer people find they can turn the biggest gear on the bike and feel like they're falling into the pedal but doing very little work in the process. This is where a lot of the power comes from, yet so few people use their glutes. The other large muscle group to be used is the quad, but most people use them at the wrong time or for far too long. The goal of learning both usage and timing of each muscle group is to limit the duty cycle. If a muscle is used 30% of the pedal stroke and then gets the other 70% to recover it's a sustainable exersize. As that duty cycle closes in on 50% there's not enough recovery or blood flow to make it sustainable. You know all those people with burning quads on the hills? Either that's their goal or they're doing something wrong.

I'm gonna stop there 'cause this rant wasn't intended to explain climbing technique, it was intended to insult people! I just needed to go deep enough into climbing technique to show most people that you've never given this that much thought, climbing was always something you just did. Isn't that the common advice for people who want to get better at climbing? Climb lots of hills... I've seen people climb lots of hills are really teach themselves how to suck at it. But I'll betcha all know how to buy cranks and cassettes and talk gearing - that took some thought, didn't it???

[Kirk007]

Is this the idea Ti Designs:

Might be related to the following post by TI Designs (a very useful post--hope he doesn't mind that I copy it here):

"I use a trainer to teach climbing technique because it eliminates all other variables and lets the rider concentrate on one thing. Before you even get on the trainer, find a chair or bench to sit on. There are two ways of sitting, leaning back like you're sitting on the sofa or leaning forward like you're at your desk. The difference is where you pivot when you change position. If you move forward all of the change in back position should happen at your hips, not your upper back. This flat lower back position is called neutral spine, it's the basis for using your glutes which is the strongest muscle group in your body. While you're sitting that waywith your feet on the floor just slightly ahead of your knees, lean forward. Did you fall on your face? Your center of gravity shifted forward from your hips, so that weight wound up on your feet. You don't notice yourself working while you sit and lean forward because the glutes are strong muscles and your weight transfer isn't that much. Now I want you to look at your foot and push down on the floor - which muscle just fired? Most people will notice their quads fire, which is really the wrong muscle to use, but that's how you're wired. If people were to hold themselves up with their quads all day you would see people falling on the floor as their muscles gave out. So the trick is to learn howto isolate just the glutes within the pedal stroke.

OK, time to get on the bike on the trainer and put it in the biggest gear you have. You may want to put a mirror next to you to check your position on the bike. Step 1: neutral spine. Reposition yourself on the saddle so your lower back is flat and changes in position all happen at the hips. Now, if you put the cranks at 3:00, lean forward and take the weight off your hands, thatforward pedal will see your body weight and will go down - that's free power. Don't think about pushing down on the pedal to hold your body position, think about lifting your torso from the hips. The difference is which muscle is activated. When you think about pushing down at the foot you fire the quads, when you extend from the hip you fire the glutes. The pedal stroke where pushing down has good mechanical advantage is rather short, just before 2:00 to just past 4:00, the rest of the time is recovery for the glutes. So it's a series of dropping your weight onto the pedals and then waiting for the other pedal to come around and do the same thing. You should feel nothing but your glutes working, and you should find it's a sustainable motionn - most of what you're doing is leveraging your body weight and using your glutes to hold your position, you do that while sitting.

Just a little note about how muscles work and why the standard idea of a round pedal stroke doesn't work well in climbing. Take one of those hand exersize grip things and squeeze it in and hold it for 10 minutes - good luck. The reason that doesn't work is muscles as steady state motors are defective by design. Their fueling and ignition are exclusive. If a muscle is under tension it doesn't get blood flow and can't maintain the workload. Think of your muscles as rechargable batteries, there is loss built into the system so you have to charge them longer than you use them. If a muscle has a 30% duty cycle during the pedal stroke and 70% rest cycle, it's a sustainable effort. If you're pushing down from top dead center to bottom dead center you have a 50% duty cycle and a whole lot of wasted energy - it's not sustanable. The trick in the glutes isloation exersize is to only fire the glutes for that short period of time between 2:00 and 4:00 in the pedal stroke, then completely relax the muscle and get recovery."

So that I'm clear then, its almost all glutes with little pushing by the quads etc. and not actively using the other muscles to complete the rotation as in the often heard adivice of pulling across the bottom and back up so that you are consciously trying to pedal a circle with power at all phases?

Thanks.

[Ray]

I'm gonna stop there 'cause this rant wasn't intended to explain climbing technique, it was intended to insult people! I just needed to go deep enough into climbing technique to show most people that you've never given this that much thought, climbing was always something you just did. Isn't that the common advice for people who want to get better at climbing? Climb lots of hills... I've seen people climb lots of hills are really teach themselves how to suck at it. But I'll betcha all know how to buy cranks and cassettes and talk gearing - that took some thought, didn't it???
Poor job Ed - didn't piss me off even a little bit. You can do better! :beer:

My curiosity is such that I wish I'd ridden with you at some point back when I was doing 4-6,000 miles a year. I live in a hilly area and do LOTS of climbing. I've ridden in mountainous areas with longer steadier climbs rather than the shorter, steeper, and highly variable climbs around here. I *FEEL* like I got to be a pretty efficient climber and a pretty efficient cyclist in general. Other people told me so as well, but not a coach per se. And I never got fast or tried particularly hard to go fast. Partly because I wasn't that interested in working all that hard, and partly because I liked doing longer days and sometimes several of them back to back. Which meant saving my muscles and stressing the cardio system a bit more. So I'd be sort of interested in what your take would have been of my riding back then. But on the other hand, I always really liked climbing. I could certainly blow up on a climb if I tried to ride with someone much stronger than I, but as long as I stayed within myself, I always loved the feel of climbing, both in the saddle and out. When I'm in shape (or even early in rides now, when I'm not), I can feel like I'm floating up the hill. Also, FWIW, when Tom Kellog fitted me for a bike, he altered my position slightly and I fine tuned it a bit from there and I might have become SLIGHTLY more efficient, but not enough to matter.

In any case, on one level I'm curious about whether you'd "validate" me or not. But on another level, I don't give a rip. I loved the way I rode. I couldn't have enjoyed it much more than I did. Perhaps I could have gotten faster, but I was happy enough riding with the B groups and having a social good time of it. And I loved doing multi-day tours, which my kind of riding was well suited for - which is probably why my riding developed the way it did.

To really piss me off, you'd have to tell me I suck at climbing and riding, but you can't do that any more than you can tell me I'm great at either. So I'm likely better off not getting your opinion and floating through life and riding with my own particular combination of reality and illusion.

-Ray

[imm]

... Low gearing is a crutch that people use. At some point it's time to take the crutches away.

I'm not a racer, I train for distance only. I care little how fast I am. In 1994 I had an L4/L5 lamenectomy and deal with the resultant scar tissue/pain as a matter of course. My goal is not to add to the existing pain and be as comfortable as possible on the bike. In 2006, I developed micro-tears in a patella tendon, bad enough that it slowed the season to the point that, as someone else in this forum noticed, I "slog" up hills. Prior to that I would mash my knees out up everything I could find - and love it.

Now, I ride a compact, crutch as you call it, (R700) and spin instead of slog. Without it, and a 12-27, I wouldn't be getting up as much as I can get up now given where I live (no flats, at all). I find it a good combo and frankly don't even really need the 12 since descents here usually at 36-40 anyway, no middle ground and I'm never in 12 unless I'm going downhill anyway.

Call it a crutch, but it works for me.

[Ti Designs]

My goal is not to add to the existing pain and be as comfortable as possible on the bike. In 2006, I developed micro-tears in a patella tendon, bad enough that it slowed the season to the point that, as someone else in this forum noticed, I "slog" up hills. Prior to that I would mash my knees out up everything I could find - and love it.

And there's that age old concept that pushing big gears is bad for the knees. In this case you even bring up an injury, but it's the patella tendon which is put under tension from the quads. By telling me what "works for you" you're telling me what's NOT working for you.

Next time you have some time to waste, set up your bike on a trainer, stop the pedals at 3:00 and 9:00, then look down at your forward foot and push down on that pedal - I'll bet the quad fires and you'll feel the results of the injury. It's the wrong muscle to use, only pushing you back in the saddle, but it's how you're wired (the evolution of the human body hasn't yet adapted to the bicycle yet). Next, stop looking down at your foot, think about sitting on the saddle like it's an office chair, lower back flat, and lift the torso just enough to take the weight off the hands. That's the same amount of weight on the pedals, but you should be able to all but relax the quads. No tension on the quads, no tension on any of the connective tissue that goes over the patella.

I'm starting to feel like Vic Braden who spent most of his coaching career in tennis dispelling myths. In his case there was one simple fact that nobody could really grasp - the ball is only on the strings for about 2 milliseconds, so why you think is happening probably isn't. In one case he took two rackets, one just standing up, the other clamped in a vise and he fired balls at each one. He asked a crowd which one would return the ball longer - everyone picked the one clamped in the vise. No difference. Still, few of them could grasp that the ball is off the strings before the unheld racket moved. Just like nobody belives that they're using the wrong muscles during the pedal stroke. I've done testing with strain gauge pedals which shows both how poorly new riders pedal and how much gain there is to be made with a winter of pedal stroke work (not that anyone would ever do that), but I really need to show which muscles fire to get the point across. There's never a biolocomotion lab that's looking for a project when you need one...

[RPS]

Most people wouldn't know climbing technique from chocolate ice cream (I know a bit about at least one of these). By far my favorite flavor. Unfortunately I haven’t enjoyed real ice cream in years. I have to settle for the soy variety now.

OK, back to climbing. First to explain the difference between riding on the flats and riding up hills. On the flats you're adding energy to a system of your body weight traveling at speed. There's no significant change in the speed of the bike based on where the pedal is in the pedal stroke. So, on the flats you can use smaller muscle groups to help add energy to the system. Going up hills that all changes. The resistance to the pedals is constant all the way around and there can be significant changes based on which muscles are working and where the pedals are.Coach, at what speed do you believe that going up hills changes all? I need a number to be able to relate to your concern, or point of view. If I can’t quantify the issue in some way it won’t register with me.

Are we talking about climbing below 10 MPH, 6 MPH, or what? Or should your area of concern be measured in cadence rather than bike speed? Help me out. :confused: How do you see the difference between a pro climbing at 15 MPH and a typical rider on flats at 15 MPH?

BTW, as full disclosure, I think there is a logical exception to your premise which leads many here to disagree with you based on their personal riding experiences. It’s not to say your theory is not correct most of the time, but I think it may not apply to all riders equally.

[Kirk007]

I tried Ti Designs method yesterday. I'm sure I have a long way to go to really getting it down but making a conscious effort to really put more of the workload on the glutes and have those muscles firing as the primary drivers definitely kept me a few cogs lower than usual.

[fiamme red]

So let me get this straight, you'll spend $10K on the best bike but you'll settle for being an ordinary rider. Time to stop putting all the emphasis on the bike for a while. As for the gearing, that's up to the individual. I run a 55/11 for a big gear 'cause that's where the fun is at.So let me get this straight: you mash a 55/11 six months of the year, then you have to spend the next six months in a 42/18 learning how to spin again? :rolleyes:

[fiamme red]

I also use my 11T quite often with my 52T ring to simulate hills by riding into strong head winds. It's the only way I can train for hills year round.I'm not sure that I understand how grinding away in a huge gear into the wind is good training for hills, unless you also climb hills in huge gears with a very slow cadence.

[DukeHorn]

Just wondering, if you had a patellar tendon graft for an ACL injury, would that be affected when climbing hills? If you're missing part of your patellar tendon, would that account for some soreness while climbing in a bigger gear?

Problems can occur at the donor site (the area below the patella where the graft was taken from the knee). A major drawback of taking out a piece of the patellar tendon to reconstruct the ACL is that most patients end up having difficulty kneeling down long after surgery. Lingering pain in the front of the knee is also common.

A portion of bone is taken from the bottom of the patella during the graft procedure. This can weaken the patella. In rare cases, heavy use of the quadriceps muscle (on the front of the thigh) can cause the patella to fracture. This often requires a second surgery to repair the broken patella.

Based on the above, if I can use less quad, sounds like that will be better for me.

Also, wondering if a spinning class would help with this glute technique. When the instructor tells you to stand and pedal for the duration of a song, that's all glute work (isn't it)?

Anyway, I think this thread is pretty informative, I'm still trying to learn how to climb after moving to the Bay Area. So thanks!

[crazymonk]

I can see that my climbing technique needs some work. I will work on that for sure. I really appreciate Ti's explination. I also think that I will need some "Crutch Gears" for now and maybe forever. I really don't care much about what others think. I guess my Compact Gears will go well with my Camelbak!

This question started when I tried to take my wife (very new to cycling) on a ride that was not the flat trails we always do. She was not a happy camper. I watched her struggle and I could see she was not going to enjoy cycling if that is what it was all about. She is tough. She has only been riding for 2 months and can pretty easily do 50 miles several times a week at 15 mph, on the flats. However here in Washington the best rides are not around Lakes or along rivers. They have climbs.

I then saw that I was going to need to re-gear her bike. As I thought about that I thought that I would also benifit from compact cranks. Maybe not forever or not all the time but certainly for now. Like I said in the begining. I just didn't enjoy the hills anymore. I would guess it is because they were just too steep. Before, I would just climb up all the steepest hills in my part of town. It would usually be about 1700 feet in 15 miles or so. My speed was typicaly about 6 MPH up the hills. As my new bike is geared that would be a cadence of about 50 average. Now this was when I was in good shape.

I does seem odd that there very few compact cranks on E-Bay. Tons of standard cranks people are selling. Kinda makes you think. Maybe it is nothing.

[paczki]

Ray,

I'll answer your rant with one of my own (I'm in a bad mood and feel like insulting some people - not to say this is going to be insulting but almost anything I say here is taken that way so...)


What's with the persecution complex? We're all totally digging the info!

[jeffg]

Ti,

I think talk of technique is great and needed.

To stick with Braden (you are dating yourself here, seriously), tennis is a sport where without technique you are just lost and can barely get any enjoyment from playing. I played tournaments, high school, Div III, etc.

I love just doing drills in tennis, so I am strange.

In cycling, I do not do as much as I should but try to work on cornering, sprinting, climbing technique.

One thing I am missingabout your "method" is whether it works at high cadences as well (one would assume so).

If what you are getting at is that by firing the right muscles people can significantly improve their climbing FTP, great and that is true no matter what folks like Ric Stern say (I'd rather drink the orange juice with Ferrari on pedaling efficiency).

But even if you increase FTP, at some point it's just watts/kg, no?

So, when you see the pros climbing the Mortirolo and the live GPS showing 10 km/h for long stretches (and that's the lead group), imagine what gears mortals need to even manage 50 rpm! I used a 34x29, rode the whole way during a gran fondo (after climbing the Gavia) and had a blast (I think).

So, my gripe is why lower gearing and technique are at odds?

[Ti Designs]

One thing I am missingabout your "method" is whether it works at high cadences as well (one would assume so).

Well, there's a second part to that. In the simple format of understanding how the glutes are used to leverage body weight, there needs to be enough resistance at the pedals to support the body weight, so the simple answer is no. The advanced class is where you learn that each muscle group is most effective within a very small portion of the pedal stroke, start adding quads kicking over the top and the RPMs go up. This becomes a timing problem as what and when you think you're doing isn't always what is going on down there. Example: firing the hamstrings at the bottom of the pedal stroke - sounds easy, right? With one foot clipped in on a trainer in a moderate gear, isolating just the hamstrings, you should hear the acceleration peak as it gets to BDC. Look forward and try it while a friend watches, it's like swinging at a pitch just as the ball gets to the plate - way late!


So, my gripe is why lower gearing and technique are at odds?

They aren't. There are times to use each, the best riders can both spin a smaller gear and push a larger one. Working with my riders before the Fitchburg stage race I had them turning a smaller gear up the hills for the first lap(s) of the road race, only late in the race were they allowed to use the bigger gears.

And just to make a statement about big gears and knee problems, Kristen took 6th overall, 5th on the road race in women's cat3. She had an ACL replacement 4 months ago.

[RPS]

I'm not sure that I understand how grinding away in a huge gear into the wind is good training for hills, unless you also climb hills in huge gears with a very slow cadence.When I climb steep grades at about 5 to 6 MPH in my lowest gear, I'm only spinning about 50 RPM or a little higher.

Since I live in a very flat area, standing into the wind in a tall gear is a practical way to simulate hills as a workout to build muscle strength. I know it's not the same, but it's better than nothing.

A 52/11 happens to give me enough resistance into a typical wind that will allow me to push hard at about the same 50 to 55 RPM without accelerating. It works out to about 20 MPH. Obviously if the wind is too strong I use a slightly lower gear, but that's rare since I normally want a lot of resistance.

[Dave]

Ti Designs,

I'd be curious to get you take on a saddle fore/aft position and weight balance issues. Over the years, I've tried KOP as my most forward position and as much as 2-3cm further back, but never really came to any conclusions whether one position was a lot better than another. At my furthest forward, I start to notice more weight on my hands than I care for, even though I have a strong midsection.

I've been running the more forward position most of the year, but starting today, I switched from a 120mm stem to my normal 110mm and moved the saddle back about 8mm. The reduction in weight on my hands was noticeable on a short test ride. Tomorrow, I hope to hit my regular 10 mile mountain climb and work on using the glutes.

All the talk of big gears has me wondering about cadence. I'm a spinner, compared to most folks and would normally never pedal slower than 70-75 rpm. I've followed some much younger racers for awhile and find them nearly always using a cog or two smaller, even though we're riding at the same speed.

Another thing I see is riders going up the mountain in the big ring at the recommendation of their coach. Recently, I rode side by side with another rider for at least 5 miles, while he mashed a 50/26 (big/big) most of the time. I mentioned that he could get about the same ratio in a more chain friendly 34/17, but he decided to stay in the big/big. I've got no clue if these riders are also attempting to use their glutes, but it sure makes for some slow climbing. I can keep up quite easily spinning 80+ in a lower gear.

[Ti Designs]

I'd be curious to get you take on a saddle fore/aft position and weight balance issues. Over the years, I've tried KOP as my most forward position and as much as 2-3cm further back, but never really came to any conclusions whether one position was a lot better than another. At my furthest forward, I start to notice more weight on my hands than I care for, even though I have a strong midsection.

I always use the office chair with the feet on the ground as the static test. If I put my feet about 1cm ahead of my knees and lean forward I can support myself with my glutes, putting almost my full weight on me feet, and doing almost no work in the procss. There's no weight on my hands at all. This is my neutral position as I can take all the strain off my quads. Move my feet forward and my hamstrings start to fire to stabalize the position, move back and the quads fire. Where this position works for you depends on a number of variables. Let's start with a simple target, let's say it's center of gravity directly over the feet. Femur length is going to set up where the knees are, knee angle is going to set up where the feet are and the combination of torso length and hip angle are going to set up where the center of gravity fall. As you can see, body proportions are going to change everything.

Fore/aft position is set by some basic static testing and a bunch of rides with an allen wrench. The static testing is the office chair position, figure out where you can relax just about everything 'cept your glutes and still have your center of gravity over your feet. That's your starting knee over pedal measurment. From there it's a lot of test rides to find a balance between use of the quads vs. use of the glutes. This is something that any serious rider should understand because producing power in any position is an adaptive process. It's a matter of making a change, riding for a week or so and seeing what the result is. Having a fitter do this would cost hundreds of dollars, an allen wrench is less than a buck...

As for your forward position putting more weight on the handlebars, it's somewhat easy to explain. Think of the relationship between the center of gravity and where your feet are on the floor. If your center of gravity is behind your feet you have more weight on the chair, less on the pedals, none on your hands. If the center of gravity is beyond your feet the weight shifts forward and onto your hands (or you fall on your face).

I spend a lot of time working with my riders on saddle to pedal relationship, it's the motor of the bike. Both the Serotta Fit School and Andy Pruitt spend next to no time on the subject, I don't get that...

[imm]

And there's that age old concept that pushing big gears is bad for the knees. In this case you even bring up an injury, but it's the patella tendon which is put under tension from the quads. By telling me what "works for you" you're telling me what's NOT working for you...

I tried your test and my back hurt when I tried to push w/o using my quads. BTW: I didn't hurt the patella tendon cycling, but cycling made it hurt more from, as you point out, using my quads (which is intuitive).

I've gone as "far" as buying a custom bike, which has helped, but it seems like being comfortable on the bike, for me, may be a bit more little tweaks. Still, you'll have to pull the compact crank from my hands, there's no way I'm getting up Wachusett w/o it.

[Ray]

As for your forward position putting more weight on the handlebars, it's somewhat easy to explain. Think of the relationship between the center of gravity and where your feet are on the floor. If your center of gravity is behind your feet you have more weight on the chair, less on the pedals, none on your hands. If the center of gravity is beyond your feet the weight shifts forward and onto your hands (or you fall on your face).

I spend a lot of time working with my riders on saddle to pedal relationship, it's the motor of the bike. Both the Serotta Fit School and Andy Pruitt spend next to no time on the subject, I don't get that...
Here's something I agree with Ti on completely, while claiming far less than .1% of his level of expertise. Peter White addresses this in his article on fitting a bike quite well. His emphasis is more on comfort and where you're carrying your weight (and the appropriateness for the kind of riding you want/plan/like to do) than on power transfer and muscle recruitment, although he mentions those as well. This article did as much as anything in my early riding days to help me get comfortable on the bike. The bit on saddle fore/aft is about halfway down and it wouldn't hurt anyone to read it (the whole article is worth a read in that its aimed at the end user, rather than the expert, but that section is particularly on point here):

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Peter's also a great source if you're running low on WMDs. No afflication, just a satisfied customer!

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/wmds.htm

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

So let me get this straight: you mash a 55/11 six months of the year, then you have to spend the next six months in a 42/18 learning how to spin again? :rolleyes:

In-season, you would be hard pressed to get me out ofmy 44/19 in the first 10 miles. You can use the big chainring if you want, I've got some leg speed. I've maybe used the 55/11 a dozen times this year, but when you can roll off the front on a downhill sprint it's not really called mashing. As for my winter training, I break down cycling into it's individual components. Going downhill on the fixed gear I'll go over 200 RPMs, at the gym I'm pushing 1100 pounds on the leg sled. If I can put together 80% of that on the road bike come spring I'm having a great season.

[RPS]

I want compact cranks. Am I a big wussy?
Some suggest that everything changes when riding uphill versus flats, and much does. On the other hand, we should also look at what doesn’t change – the laws of physics.

Let’s assume for an instance that we have an older guy in his 50s :rolleyes: who has put on extra weight over the last couple of decades and is now on the high side of 200 pounds. Let’s also assume he is fairly strong but can’t develop the power of a professional athlete – he’s down to maybe 250 watts on a good day. Most importantly, let’s assume this poor heavy old guy is very good at pedaling and can spin as efficiently as any pro.

Compared to a professional racer who maybe weighs 150 pounds and produces 400 watts for an hour, the laws of physics will guarantee that this poor rider will climb at least 50 percent slower. Even if we assume he has all the climbing skills of a pro, his speed can not be greater than 50 percent as fast. This is a fact and not open to debate.

Which gets us back to gearing. If Lance Armstrong climbed using a 39/23 low gear in most races, this poor old overweight rider is going to need the equivalent of a 39/46 to be able to spin as fast as LA on the same climb. Debating this won’t change a thing – it is what it is.

Obviously there is no 46 cog, so maybe a 24/29 may be what this guy needs to match LA’s cadence on the same grade. And then there are grades that are even steeper than what LA raced on, right? From my recollection de Tour seldom goes much over 12 percent, so for those who ride 15 to 20 percent grades they may need an even lower gear than 24/29.

The bottom line is that only you know what you need, and shouldn’t let racing and professional-athlete standards dictate what is a crutch.

We should all learn to pedal efficiently. However, that doesn’t make the use of low gearing a crutch. These are two separate issues.

[palincss]

Some suggest that everything changes when riding uphill versus flats, and much does. On the other hand, we should also look at what doesn’t change – the laws of physics.

Let’s assume for an instance that we have an older guy in his 50s :rolleyes: who has put on extra weight over the last couple of decades and is now on the high side of 200 pounds. Let’s also assume he is fairly strong but can’t develop the power of a professional athlete – he’s down to maybe 250 watts on a good day. Most importantly, let’s assume this poor heavy old guy is very good at pedaling and can spin as efficiently as any pro.

Compared to a professional racer who maybe weighs 150 pounds and produces 400 watts for an hour, the laws of physics will guarantee that this poor rider will climb at least 50 percent slower. Even if we assume he has all the climbing skills of a pro, his speed can not be greater than 50 percent as fast. This is a fact and not open to debate.

Which gets us back to gearing. If Lance Armstrong climbed using a 39/23 low gear in most races, this poor old overweight rider is going to need the equivalent of a 39/46 to be able to spin as fast as LA on the same climb. Debating this won’t change a thing – it is what it is.

Obviously there is no 46 cog, so maybe a 24/29 may be what this guy needs to match LA’s cadence on the same grade. And then there are grades that are even steeper than what LA raced on, right? From my recollection de Tour seldom goes much over 12 percent, so for those who ride 15 to 20 percent grades they may need an even lower gear than 24/29.

The bottom line is that only you know what you need, and shouldn’t let racing and professional-athlete standards dictate what is a crutch.

We should all learn to pedal efficiently. However, that doesn’t make the use of low gearing a crutch. These are two separate issues.

Amen. And why stop at 50? In fact, those of us in our mid-60s think of those 50-somethings as "kids"...
:)

[bzbvh5]

I want compact cranks. Am I a big wussy?


Yes you are! If you really want to wuss out properly, get the triple crank that has the 30 for the small crank. That way I'll be in good company.

[jeffg]

Some suggest that everything changes when riding uphill versus flats, and much does. On the other hand, we should also look at what doesn’t change – the laws of physics.

Let’s assume for an instance that we have an older guy in his 50s :rolleyes: who has put on extra weight over the last couple of decades and is now on the high side of 200 pounds. Let’s also assume he is fairly strong but can’t develop the power of a professional athlete – he’s down to maybe 250 watts on a good day. Most importantly, let’s assume this poor heavy old guy is very good at pedaling and can spin as efficiently as any pro.

Compared to a professional racer who maybe weighs 150 pounds and produces 400 watts for an hour, the laws of physics will guarantee that this poor rider will climb at least 50 percent slower. Even if we assume he has all the climbing skills of a pro, his speed can not be greater than 50 percent as fast. This is a fact and not open to debate.

Which gets us back to gearing. If Lance Armstrong climbed using a 39/23 low gear in most races, this poor old overweight rider is going to need the equivalent of a 39/46 to be able to spin as fast as LA on the same climb. Debating this won’t change a thing – it is what it is.

Obviously there is no 46 cog, so maybe a 24/29 may be what this guy needs to match LA’s cadence on the same grade. And then there are grades that are even steeper than what LA raced on, right? From my recollection de Tour seldom goes much over 12 percent, so for those who ride 15 to 20 percent grades they may need an even lower gear than 24/29.

The bottom line is that only you know what you need, and shouldn’t let racing and professional-athlete standards dictate what is a crutch.

We should all learn to pedal efficiently. However, that doesn’t make the use of low gearing a crutch. These are two separate issues.


Agreed, though with one caveat.

My understanding that optimal cadence is related to power, not gradient, i.e. Lance is efficient at 90 up Alpe d'Huez since he putting out 400+ watts, at 250 watts 75 should be roughly equivalent. This still necessitates low gearing, however.

See http://53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27

The other point to tie back to Ti is that it takes training to pedal efficiently at high cadences ...

"In cycling, the efficiency of the pedaling movement has not been studied in depth and has been undervalued by researchers who are more interested in the power of the “motor” (VO2max, anaerobic threshold, strength) than by the economy of exercise.

Yet past cycling tradition placed a lot of importance on the “fluidity” of pedaling, with great use of the fixed pinion both for road and track racing.
The gear ratios used on the flat were much shorter than now and required high cadences, making efficient pedaling essential since it avoids energy waste and helps protect muscle fiber, tendons and joints from problems due to overload.

Lance Armstrong’s recent activity has reawakened technicians’ interest in the biomechanical aspect of the cyclist’s performance, re-evaluating the importance of high pedaling cadence training which is useful for the natural elimination of certain inefficiencies of movement.

As track experts know, cadence changes (especially at high RPM ranges), along with power output variations, are the most effective exercises.

This type of specific training brings out defects in efficiency, obliging the body to make small adjustments that help eliminate them.

Such a process of adaptation requires patience and time (usually one or two years) and must be maintained and repeated during the athlete’s entire career."

[chuckroast]

Wow....what great information here.

Thanks very much to Ti and Ray and all the other smart folks who have contributed info and links to position and fitting and technique. I'm not giving up my compact but I am gonna try some of the stuff referenced here. Thanks again.

[palincss]

Yes you are! If you really want to wuss out properly, get the triple crank that has the 30 for the small crank. That way I'll be in good company.

It's hardly worth the trouble of going to a triple if you're only going to a 30T granny ring. You can go down as far as 24T on a 74mm bolt circle. To quote Crocodile Dundee, "Now THAT is a knife."

[Ti Designs]

Some suggest that everything changes when riding uphill versus flats, and much does. On the other hand, we should also look at what doesn’t change – the laws of physics.

Let’s assume for an instance that we have an older guy in his 50s :rolleyes: who has put on extra weight over the last couple of decades and is now on the high side of 200 pounds. Let’s also assume he is fairly strong but can’t develop the power of a professional athlete – he’s down to maybe 250 watts on a good day. Most importantly, let’s assume this poor heavy old guy is very good at pedaling and can spin as efficiently as any pro.

Compared to a professional racer who maybe weighs 150 pounds and produces 400 watts for an hour, the laws of physics will guarantee that this poor rider will climb at least 50 percent slower. Even if we assume he has all the climbing skills of a pro, his speed can not be greater than 50 percent as fast. This is a fact and not open to debate.

Damn, it's not open to debate...

[RPS]

Agreed, though with one caveat.

My understanding that optimal cadence is related to power, not gradient, i.e. Lance is efficient at 90 up Alpe d'Huez since he putting out 400+ watts, at 250 watts 75 should be roughly equivalent. This still necessitates low gearing, however.

See http://53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27I'm not sure what data it represents. I suspect this graph represents a specific subject (that is, someone who can generate up to about 500 watts) and is not meant to be a general trend line that fits all riders.

[RPS]

Damn, it's not open to debate...We should just send Ray to climb Alpe d'Huez with a 39/23 and compare his time to LA’s. Why debate what can be measured, right? My money is on it taking Ray at least twice as long, hence half the average cadence. :beer:

[jeffg]

I'm not sure what data it represents. I suspect this graph represents a specific subject (that is, someone who can generate up to about 500 watts) and is not meant to be a general trend line that fits all riders.

I read it as being more generalized, and I am fairly certain this is how Ferrari views it in his research. In a nutshell, someone putting out 500 watts needs to spin faster than we do, but we need much lower gears to get to our more modest "ideal" cadences ...

[Ray]

Let’s assume for an instance that we have an older guy in his 50s who has put on extra weight over the last couple of decades and is now on the high side of 200 pounds. Let’s also assume he is fairly strong but can’t develop the power of a professional athlete – he’s down to maybe 250 watts on a good day. Most importantly, let’s assume this poor heavy old guy is very good at pedaling and can spin as efficiently as any pro.

We should just send Ray to climb Alpe d'Huez with a 39/23 and compare his time to LA’s. Why debate what can be measured, right? My money is on it taking Ray at least twice as long, hence half the average cadence. :beer:

First off, a little self-defense. I'm not that guy. I'm actually very similar to Lance size-wise. Similar height. When I was riding a lot, I was about 160-165 while he was a very disciplined 160. Now I'm about ten pounds heavier, but still less than the 20 pounds he recently told Letterman he put on to get to 180. I also have almost a year before I hit 50 and I'm not copping to THAT one until I have to. I have no idea what my peak and average wattage is and don't care. I rarely even know my current or average speed. When I was riding a lot, people told me I rode a lot like Lance, only obviously much slower. I was the American on an extremely hilly tour in Wales back in the summer of 2001 (the age of the innocence, it seems like now) and I was one of the stronger climbers, but while everyone else was riding their English 3-speeds and grunting up everything (not literally, but the point is valid), I had a Bike Friday with little tiny baby gears and wasn't afraid to use 'em. Lance was pretty much at his peak at that point, that year's LeTour had just ended, and everyone there was familiar with his high cadence pedaling style, and called me out for being very similar as I rode by most of them with legs spinning like a banshee. One of the three jerseys I had along on that tour was yellow, just adding to the effect :cool:

To the business at hand. If you guys want to send me to climb Alpe d'Huez, I'll ride myself back into shape and go do it. It will be fun! But not with a 39x23. You could send me with a 39x23 and never get a divisible result, given the mathematical impossibility of dividing by infinity. Send me with my standard 48-34 and 12-34 and I'll make it (it will be one of those very rare times I use the 30 or 34 cogs) and it will take me 2-3 times as long as Lance (I think it took Sheryl three times as long and I'd make a point to ride with her!). At times, at less than 10%, I'd get into a really good rhythm, enjoy the hell out of the climb, and probably look pretty good doing it. And when it got steeper than 12%, I'd struggle a bit, get into the little baby gears (crutches), grind it out, and look like garbage. And I'd be damn happy and proud to get to the top, would have enjoyed most of the climb, and would feel good about the whole experience. Then Sheryl and I will slink off to drink a little wine, eat a little cheese, etc.

When do we leave - Sheryl's gonna need a ticket too.

-Ray

[William]

The non-existent fashion police of cycling say that you are a BIG WUSS!!! Man up and go 53-39 double or else you'll be cited and taken into custody like this dude who got caught changing his 11-23 corn cobb to a 12-26. What a wuss!

http://beforeyougopostal.com/CrunchMeister/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/fashion-police1.JPG






William (who is kidding and says...ride what you like man!)