Compact Cranks - Why?

[zray67]

I normally ride 165mm cranks. Even my much maligned Schwinn Varsity has a 165mm arm. I truly do not understand what a compact crank is. Why it exist. And, what it is good for.

[bagochips3]

"Compact" refers to the size of the rings, not the crank arm lengths. 50/34 being typical compact crank ring sizes.

[palincss]

It's a crank with a 110mm bolt circle. You can get a small ring as small as 34T, while the smallest ring you can get with a 130mm bolt circle is 38 or 39T. That gives you more flexibility in designing gearing than you can get with a larger bolt circle: you can, for example, get a low gear comparable to what you find on many so-called "road triples" without the third chain ring.

[avalonracing]

It can also make for a lighter drivetrain. Smaller chainrings, smaller cassette, and fewer chain links. Even a little more ground clearance if you need to ride up a curb. :D

[riceburner]

What they said. Also FYI, Zipp has a system which can accomodate both types of rings on a single crank.

[Jack Brunk]

What they said. Also FYI, Zipp has a system which can accomodate both types of rings on a single crank.
So does the Extralite E bones. It's a slick system.

[Ti Designs]

I truly do not understand what a compact crank is.

On this we agree.

And, what it is good for.

I'm a little confused on that point too.

[false_Aest]

On this we agree.



I'm a little confused on that point too.


Ti,

Let me refer you back to the dude/blogger from the NY Times who was trying to be awesome by blogging about how he was riding a really expensive Cervelo and riding hills in Central Park in order to try to ride up one of the mtns in the tour.

IIRC the only way he could ride up the thing is to put a 34 in front and some stupid big gear in the back.


They help people who might suck not seem to suck so bad.

They helped me when I got back into riding last year after 6 years off. It was kind've like training wheels for a 53/39.

[RPS]

What they said. Also FYI, Zipp has a system which can accomodate both types of rings on a single crank.
Is that the VumaQuad or something newer?

The VumaQuad is listed in the Zipp page as both 50/34 and 53/39 with 110 bolt circle (appears to be 4-bolt pattern only but I'm not sure; although I expect name "Quad" comes from that feature). Going to bigger rings on a compact is nothing new -- I've been running a 54-tooth chainring on a tandem for years.

[Dekonick]

Another way to look at it -

At the gym - anyone who squats what you do looks at 2.5lb plates and wonders why they exist.

When you first start lifting, you need the little weights.

Not everyone can ride a 53/39 11/21

Also depends on location (how steep) and how much someone + bike weighs.

So - the REAL question is - why bother with a compact when you can go with a tripple? Nothing wrong with a triple...you don't find many mountain bikes with a double do ya?

I tired a compact briefly - didn't like it. I live in an area with lots of hills. Not mountains, for certain but hills that are steep (some 18-20 + degree)

There are times I wish for the third ring I don't have - but never enough to make me like a compact.

Dunno.

Obviously there must be some good uses for a compact or pro's wouldn't have used them in major tours.

[chuckred]

On this we agree.



I'm a little confused on that point too.

Try a 45 mile, 9,000 foot climb to 14,000 feet when you're in your 50s and compact cranks may not seem like a horrible idea...

[Ken Robb]

[QUOTE=Dekonick]Another way to look at it -


So - the REAL question is - why bother with a compact when you can go with a tripple? Nothing wrong with a tripple... except the spelling-- :)


Dunno.
another smarty-pants chimes in.

[don compton]

Try a 45 mile, 9,000 foot climb to 14,000 feet when you're in your 50s and compact cranks may not seem like a horrible idea...
they also have there place with the more "mature" riders. i do not need a 53-11 or even a 53-12. but, my 50/34 with my 12-25 rear gives me a great 50-19 gear that i ride at 18-20mph. when i am with the hardcore crowd, my 50 with 12-17 straight block is perfect. in the hills i have a super low with my 34-25 and also a great range in my small ring. racers have no use with compacts, but for us baby boomers, compacts and 10spd cassettes are a super combination.
don c.

[zray67]

I thank everybody for their responses. At least I now know what a compact crank is. I probably will give them a try on my Mercks next year. This year is quickly disappearinng and I am behind in all my bike projects. Never mind my other responsibilities, duties and obligations. I get out of bed in the morning with the thoughts - Just do the best you can. Be grateful for what I get accomplished. And, do not beat myself up for what is left undone.

[Dekonick]

[QUOTE=Dekonick]Another way to look at it -


So - the REAL question is - why bother with a compact when you can go with a tripple? Nothing wrong with a tripple... except the spelling-- :)


Dunno.
another smarty-pants chimes in.

LOL - didn't catch that until you pointed it out. I shouldn't proof 'red' (little red vino...)

[rustychisel]

they also have there place with the more "mature" riders. i do not need a 53-11 or even a 53-12. but, my 50/34 with my 12-25 rear gives me a great 50-19 gear that i ride at 18-20mph. when i am with the hardcore crowd, my 50 with 12-17 straight block is perfect. in the hills i have a super low with my 34-25 and also a great range in my small ring. racers have no use with compacts, but for us baby boomers, compacts and 10spd cassettes are a super combination.
don c.


Pretty much the perfect answer. Only to add that no-one has ever dropped me through my lack of upper end gearing (& I like to spin). Another thought: depending on the terrain a little more front shifting is required but on a well set up bike that has never been an issue.

[andy mac]

didn't some guys ride them in le tour a few years back in a mountain stage?

(tyler? george? can't remember...??)

[dd74]

Tyler, I believe. But only after he broke his collarbone in a bad crash and needed something a bit easier through the rest of Le Tour.

I had a compact crank for about a month. I ran out of gear quick on the high end of a 12-26, and on the low end, I suffered no less going uphill.

I think a good alternative to the abilities of a compact crank in the hills is a 12-27 or 12-28 with a 53/39. There was nothing I couldn't climb with a 27 tooth gear that a 34-26 made easier. Up is still up.

[palincss]

Try a 45 mile, 9,000 foot climb to 14,000 feet when you're in your 50s and compact cranks may not seem like a horrible idea...

A 110/74 triple with a MTB cassette doesn't seem like a horrible idea, either. In fact, some highly knowledgeable builders of loaded touring bikes provide as the lowest gear a 22T inner ring and a 34T large sprocket in back.

[palincss]

Another thought: depending on the terrain a little more front shifting is required but on a well set up bike that has never been an issue.

Maybe not, but for some, including some on this forum, a compact double forces constant front shifts right in the middle of their crusing range, driving them crazy. It depends a lot on the rider and the terrain whether this happens or not.

[Tobias]

Try a 45 mile, 9,000 foot climb to 14,000 feet when you're in your 50s and compact cranks may not seem like a horrible idea...
That seems like it could be a horrible idea depending on maximum grades. A triple may be in order. ;)

[palincss]

I think a good alternative to the abilities of a compact crank in the hills is a 12-27 or 12-28 with a 53/19. There was nothing I couldn't climb with a 27 tooth gear that a 34-26 made easier. Up is still up.

What crank are you using that lets you set up a 53/19? You can't even make that with a TA Pro V Vis. TA Zephyr? And even if you can fit the rings, that's one hell of a lot of shifting once you have to make a change up front:
41.6 116.1
38.4 107.1
35.7 99.5
33.3 92.9
31.2 87.1
29.4 81.9
26.3 73.3
23.8 66.3
20.8 58.0
18.5 51.6

[Tobias]

didn't some guys ride them in le tour a few years back in a mountain stage?

(tyler? george? can't remember...??)Triples have also been ridden in other tours (spain I think) but the grades were much steeper than what is normally seen in TDF.

[Tobias]

I think a good alternative to the abilities of a compact crank in the hills is a 12-27 or 12-28 with a 53/19. There was nothing I couldn't climb with a 27 tooth gear that a 34-26 made easier. Up is still up.
You are only comparing a 10 percent difference.

That's like one extra cog, nothing to write home about. :confused:

[Kevan]

lessen you're a casual rider. My Ebisu is dressed with one and I absolutely love it.

Try one and you'll understand.

[endosch2]

I live and ride in northern NH - very hilly, lots of epic climbs, almost everyone is riding a compact. It gives you a lot of options, but the thing I like best is the ability to stay in the big ring a lot more and use the whole cassette in back. The shift to the small ring is significant but is only done for longish climbs.

[r_mutt]

didn't some guys ride them in le tour a few years back in a mountain stage?

(tyler? george? can't remember...??)


there's a guy that goes by the name of lance...


i'm a sprinter, so on those long, long, 7% climbs, my 39/26 feels heavy when i'm trying to race with 19 year old former mountain bikers. i'm curious about compacts.

do the pros use special gearing when going up the alps?

[Ti Designs]

they also have there place with the more "mature" riders. i do not need a 53-11 or even a 53-12. but, my 50/34 with my 12-25 rear gives me a great 50-19 gear that i ride at 18-20mph. when i am with the hardcore crowd, my 50 with 12-17 straight block is perfect. in the hills i have a super low with my 34-25 and also a great range in my small ring. racers have no use with compacts, but for us baby boomers, compacts and 10spd cassettes are a super combination.


And this is why I'm riding with a lot of kids who are half my age... It's a knee jerk reaction to say "I'm older now, I need lower gears". As a result, bikes are now geared for lower speeds and everything is slowing down. More expensive bikes, lots of carbon fiber, slower rides - and this seems right to you? I'll use lower gears when I need lower gears. I have no idea when that'll be, but at 45 I still don't see the need.

By far the biggest issue I have with this need for lower gears is the assumption by the bike companies that everybody needs lower gears. Which bikes below $2000 come with racing gears? Here's one that makes me laugh, the Cervelo P2C comes with compact cranks - it's a TT bike! Gearing should be based on the rider and where they ride. If you ride in the mountains, you're probably going to need a wider range of gears. On the flats I try to gear based on average cruising speed putting me somewhere in the center of the cassette while in the small ring. On group rides there's always someone making lots of chain noise - that's the guy with compact cranks and geared all wrong for the average speed.

[Onno]

Compacts are for riding the Highlander!

Seriously. The only time I put one on. You think you're tough riding normal gearing over the first few hills, but by the end your knees will be throbbing, and you'll be crying like a baby for the 34 ring.

http://www.highlandercycletour.com/highlander.htm

[Ti Designs]

but by the end your knees will be throbbing, and you'll be crying like a baby for the 34 ring.


Wish I had a dime for every time someone said climbing hills in big gears will hurt my knees... Climbing hills in big gears with bad technique will damage the knees, so the options are lower gears, good technique or hurt knees.

[sg8357]

but by the end your knees will be throbbing, and you'll be crying like a baby for the 34 ring.

http://www.highlandercycletour.com/highlander.htm

Get a fixed gear and learn how to spin slow, trad gear is a 65in
for British clubmen.

I can climb most of the hills fine, descending is another issue. :)

I do have compact, compact triples, 48/36/24, 50/34 is an annoying combo.
The old rando compact was a 46/28, 50.4 bcd TA/Stronglight.

Scott G.

[Acotts]

I use a compact on my cross bike. I like it.

[coopdog]

The difference in compact and standard seem pretty minor to me. I'm pretty sure a 50/11 is a bigger gear combo than a 53/12. Maybe a difference of 5 rpm on the low end?

[fiamme red]

By far the biggest issue I have with this need for lower gears is the assumption by the bike companies that everybody needs lower gears. Which bikes below $2000 come with racing gears?Back in the 1980's and 1990's, most racing bikes came with extremely aggressive gearing, as if they were all used for racing criteriums. I'm talking about gearing like 52/42 x 12-19 or 12-21.

If a racer climbs a mountain at 15 mph, and a recreational rider climbs that mountain at 8 mph, why should they be using the same gearing?

[Tobias]

The only real difference is the size of the bolt circle. What you do with that is up to you.

You can always go to bigger chainrings but can't go smaller; so I hope the industry standarizes on 110 bolt circle so we can get off this "which is better" roller coaster.

If Shimano and Campy made 53/39 and 53/42 ring sets for their compact cranks they'd have an instant winner.

[fiamme red]

The only real difference is the size of the bolt circle. What you do with that is up to you.

You can always go to bigger chainrings but can't go smaller; so I hope the industry standarizes on 110 bolt circle so we can get off this "which is better" roller coaster.

If Shimano and Campy made 53/39 and 53/42 ring sets for their compact cranks they'd have an instant winner.The larger the BCD, the stiffer the crank. That's why high-end track cranks have a 144 BCD.

[Tobias]

If a racer climbs a mountain at 15 mph, and a recreational rider climbs that mountain at 8 mph, why should they be using the same gearing?
Exactly. I've also made that argument before, as have others.

If pros like Lance climb with a 39/23 low gear, someone with half his specific power need gears twice as low to be able to spin at the same rate -- which is the most efficient way to generate power.

One can argue that it's not necessary because non-pros may be as strong (as in strength and not power) and therefore can use the same gearing, but it doesn't address power or efficiency.

[Tobias]

The larger the BCD, the stiffer the crank. Why do you think high-end track cranks have a 144 bcd?
Isn't it the opposite?

The larger the bolt circle the more flexible the crank arms. However, the chainring is made more stiff. ;)

Besides, most of us don't flex chainrings all that much. And the new generation of large rings (where you'd expect a flex problem) are sculptured so they can have stiffness built into their shape.

[goonster]

The larger the BCD, the stiffer the crank. That's why high-end track cranks have a 144 BCD.
I thought that was just holdover from the old Campy standard, in a marketplace that was (heretofore) extremely conservative and low volume, and where components last much longer than they do on the road.

Besides, track rings see almost no side forces, as there is no derailer and the chainline is always straight.

[fiamme red]

I thought that was just holdover from the old Campy standard, in a marketplace that was (heretofore) extremely conservative and low volume, and where components last much longer than they do on the road.That's true.

But looking at it from a mechanical standpoint, a larger BCD would be preferable. For a given force, a larger diameter would mean less torque where the spider and ring meet.

[RPS]

That's true.

But looking at it from a mechanical standpoint, a larger BCD would be preferable. For a given force, a larger diameter would mean less torque where the spider and ring meet.That's correct. But on a practical basis, does it make much difference if it doesn't break?

Think about the amount of shear at the granny ring bolts on a triple used on a tandem with two strong/large riders.

I too would like to see a new bolt circle standard. And with the availability of 11T and 12T cassettes, the time to reduce it from 130/135 to 110 seems about right to me. OTOH free market forces will decide what's right. ;)

[goonster]

But looking at it from a mechanical standpoint, a larger BCD would be preferable.
I agree with RPS; mechanically it is a complete non-factor. Properly installed chainring bolts don't shear off, or wear out, due to high torque.

But I just thought of a real advantage of the larger BCD that is unique to the velodrome:

Trackies sometimes swap chainrings between events. This work is easier if the bolts are further away from the bottom bracket, allowing better access with tools.

[dd74]

What crank are you using that lets you set up a 53/19? You can't even make that with a TA Pro V Vis. TA Zephyr? And even if you can fit the rings, that's one hell of a lot of shifting once you have to make a change up front:
41.6 116.1
38.4 107.1
35.7 99.5
33.3 92.9
31.2 87.1
29.4 81.9
26.3 73.3
23.8 66.3
20.8 58.0
18.5 51.6
I wrote that incorrectly: I meant 53/39, and corrected it above. Sorry about that.

[jlwdm]

I think everybody knew what you meant.

Jeff

[dd74]

I think a good alternative to the abilities of a compact crank in the hills is a 12-27 or 12-28 with a 53/19. There was nothing I couldn't climb with a 27 tooth gear that a 34-26 made easier. Up is still up.

You are only comparing a 10 percent difference.

That's like one extra cog, nothing to write home about. :confused:
Yeah, but a 34-26 is a 6-tooth difference from my other bike which has a 39-27, and all I'm saying in that regard is I noticed very little difference.

I even think "spinning" the 34-26 with the hope it would make a difference wore me out faster than the 39-27.

[dd74]

Here's one other thought in lieu of swapping out cranks: what about changing out bottom brackets to something that spins easier w/ less resistance?

I swapped out a regular BB for a higher end model with ceramic bearings. My pedaling effort and rotation improved quite a bit.

This was also at the time that I swapped out the compact cranks for a standard 53/39.

[Tobias]

Yeah, but a 34-26 is a 6-tooth difference from my other bike which has a 39-27, and all I'm saying in that regard is I noticed very little difference.

I even think "spinning" the 34-26 with the hope it would make a difference wore me out faster than the 39-27.
I agree. I was just poining out that you don't notice much difference because there is little difference.

You could also compare your 34/26 to a 30/23 triple and see that that also doesn't make much difference. Except that when in the middle or large ring (which is most of the time for triple riders) you'd be riding a tighter cassette.

[veggieburger]

Ok...another question. My wife has a 53/39 9 speed Shimano crank, with regular 135 BCD. What's the smallest ring we can put on there? Do they make a 36?

And more importantly, if they do, does anyone have one for sale?

Merci!

[Ken Robb]

I have read about 38 tooth rings but have never seen one. That's the smallest as far as I know.

[Tobias]

Here's one other thought in lieu of swapping out cranks: what about changing out bottom brackets to something that spins easier w/ less resistance?

I swapped out a regular BB for a higher end model with ceramic bearings. My pedaling effort and rotation improved quite a bit.

This was also at the time that I swapped out the compact cranks for a standard 53/39.BBKT bearings account for such a small percent of total torque and power (much less than one percent) that it shouldn't be compared to differences in gearing -- easily 20 percent or much more. These are different orders of magnitude.

It's a good discussion on its own, but not in the same light.

[Ken Robb]

A friend has that 9 speed dbl on his CSI and when he goes to the BIG mountains he swaps his DA cogs and derailer for an XT with 11-34 cassette and says it shifts fine.

[fiamme red]

Ok...another question. My wife has a 53/39 9 speed Shimano crank, with regular 135 BCD. What's the smallest ring we can put on there? Do they make a 36?

And more importantly, if they do, does anyone have one for sale?

Merci!Shimano uses 130 mm BCD, which allows a 38t chainring. 135 mm is the Campagnolo standard.

[Tobias]

Ok...another question. My wife has a 53/39 9 speed Shimano crank, with regular 135 BCD. What's the smallest ring we can put on there? Do they make a 36?

And more importantly, if they do, does anyone have one for sale?

Merci!
FYI: Shimano is 130, Campy 135.

For Shimano 130 a 38T ring is the smallest you can use without an adaptor. Keep in mind Shimano has also been making 110 cranks for a long time. Those can go down to 34T (actually 33T is possible).

[I Want Sachs?]

Wish I had a dime for every time someone said climbing hills in big gears will hurt my knees... Climbing hills in big gears with bad technique will damage the knees, so the options are lower gears, good technique or hurt knees.

It hurts my knees because I will scraped my knees when I fall over from not having enough power to climb the steep hills.

[Onno]

What technique is there to climbing a 20% grade for over a mile in a big gear? So you climb at about 30 rpm? How is any kind of technique going to ease the pressure you are putting on your knees, unless you mean switchbacking, which is effectively the same as getting a smaller gear?

I know a super fit kid who did the Highlander on a fixed gear, and he finished, but was zonked for a week or two afterwards. The only point of doing that would be to brag that you'd done it. There is no inherent virtue or intelligence involved in riding such a hilly course in a fixed gear. It's like driving across the country in reverse. Sure you could do it, but why?

[Tobias]

It hurts my knees because I will scraped my knees when I fall over from not having enough power to climb the steep hills.
Awesome visual. :beer:

We should start a new thread asking riders if they have ever fallen over because they ran out of strength on a really steep climb.

[dd74]

BBKT bearings account for such a small percent of total torque and power (much less than one percent) that it shouldn't be compared to differences in gearing -- easily 20 percent or much more. These are different orders of magnitude.

It's a good discussion on its own, but not in the same light.
Well, it sure feels a lot better when pedaling. I do know that.

[RPS]

What technique is there to climbing a 20% grade for over a mile in a big gear? So you climb at about 30 rpm? I've only climbed short 20 percent grades with a relatively high 39/23 and that slowed me down to about 25 RPM. At that low cadence way too much effort is wasted.

When I've gone back and done the same climbs with proper gearing it was not only easier but faster too.

[dd74]

Yeah, but what's easier and faster? Are you putting in the same effort but just with a lower gear?

I believe if you put in the same effort, i.e. not ease up because of the compact crank, and manage to go the same speed or faster, it's a payoff. Oddly, it didn't work that way with me.

Yeah, and 25-30 RPM is way too slow for anything. That'll just burn out your motor. I would think 50-60 RPM is better - there's some return on each rotation of the cranks.

[RPS]

Yeah, and 25-30 RPM is way too slow for anything. That'll just burn out your motor. I would think 50-60 RPM is better - there's some return on each rotation of the cranks.
I’ve tested myself on a calibrated ergonometer and know that between 50 and 25 RPM I can’t double the torque. That is, by rotating at half speed, I can’t spin the cranks with twice the average force (i.e. – torque); hence I develop much less power. Less power to rear tire equals slower climbing.

It’s been a while since I tested myself, but as I recall at cadences below +/- 60 RPM I couldn’t develop much more torque, if any. The torque curve is fairly flat and actually dropped off as I approached 25 RPM. Bottom line is my power drops off quickly at cadences below 60 RPM.


When talking about extreme grades in the range of 20 percent, few riders can spin a 39/27 gear at 50-60 RPM. I can't. ;)

[nahtnoj]

And this is why I'm riding with a lot of kids who are half my age... It's a knee jerk reaction to say "I'm older now, I need lower gears". As a result, bikes are now geared for lower speeds and everything is slowing down. More expensive bikes, lots of carbon fiber, slower rides - and this seems right to you? I'll use lower gears when I need lower gears. I have no idea when that'll be, but at 45 I still don't see the need.

By far the biggest issue I have with this need for lower gears is the assumption by the bike companies that everybody needs lower gears. Which bikes below $2000 come with racing gears? Here's one that makes me laugh, the Cervelo P2C comes with compact cranks - it's a TT bike! Gearing should be based on the rider and where they ride. If you ride in the mountains, you're probably going to need a wider range of gears. On the flats I try to gear based on average cruising speed putting me somewhere in the center of the cassette while in the small ring. On group rides there's always someone making lots of chain noise - that's the guy with compact cranks and geared all wrong for the average speed.

+1

I was going to write a nasty response to your first post, but you saved me from having to do that by making total sense here.

[Ti Designs]

What technique is there to climbing a 20% grade for over a mile in a big gear? So you climb at about 30 rpm? How is any kind of technique going to ease the pressure you are putting on your knees, unless you mean switchbacking, which is effectively the same as getting a smaller gear?


You're right. There's no technique to cycling, this coaching thing is a scam and I can't get up anything steeper than 2% without permission of my knee surgeon.

[avalonracing]

Shimano uses 130 mm BCD, which allows a 38t chainring. 135 mm is the Campagnolo standard.

T/A Specialties made a 38 small. I have one on a 9-speed D/A crank. It was (until now) my secret weapon. :cool:

[Louis]

Ok...another question. My wife has a 53/39 9 speed Shimano crank, with regular 135 BCD. What's the smallest ring we can put on there? Do they make a 36?


Sheldon Brown Knows (knew) All (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_bo-z.html#bcd)

[I Want Sachs?]

Awesome visual. :beer:

We should start a new thread asking riders if they have ever fallen over because they ran out of strength on a really steep climb.
I had that happened to me on mountainbike when I was in the middle ring. I ride a compact to prevent such thing from happening to me on the road. It would be even tougher when one has the cleat on a tighter setting.

[GuyGadois]

I've switch over to compacts for most of my bikes and love it. I only have "regular" cranks on my crit bike (which I also use on flat races). My compact cranks cover almost all gearing my regular ones do and do it better. I get better highs and lows too. The gearing today is 10 and 11 speed in the rear cluster which means increased overlap of gear ratios. The compact spreads those numbers out.

If you choose the correct rear cluster a compact crank will cover all a regular crank does and more. Don't believe me then run the numbers on a gear calculator.

I did the Santa Cruz Mtn Challenge with my compact a couple of weeks ago and motored up the mtns passing the grinders like they were Jan Ullrich. I did fairly well on the Jamison Creek TT (pat-pat on back).

-GG-

[GuyGadois]

OK, here is another reason - Barron Canyon - the ride I did last weekend. Avg of 16.9% grade for .65 miles. It doesn't sound like much but it was insane. My 34/26 wasn't enough. I don't think I could have even thought about this bad boy with my regular crank. The way down way just as gnarly, complete with smoking brakes and white knuckles. Did I mention I love riding a compact?

-GG-

(line on chart is gradient and the shades of yellow show the different gradient zones. The grades are on the right axis.)

http://img.skitch.com/20090808-dqqc3thn28iktfrfny19grq42j.jpg

[chuckster12]

And this is why I'm riding with a lot of kids who are half my age... It's a knee jerk reaction to say "I'm older now, I need lower gears". As a result, bikes are now geared for lower speeds and everything is slowing down. More expensive bikes, lots of carbon fiber, slower rides - and this seems right to you? I'll use lower gears when I need lower gears. I have no idea when that'll be, but at 45 I still don't see the need.

By far the biggest issue I have with this need for lower gears is the assumption by the bike companies that everybody needs lower gears. Which bikes below $2000 come with racing gears? Here's one that makes me laugh, the Cervelo P2C comes with compact cranks - it's a TT bike! Gearing should be based on the rider and where they ride. If you ride in the mountains, you're probably going to need a wider range of gears. On the flats I try to gear based on average cruising speed putting me somewhere in the center of the cassette while in the small ring. On group rides there's always someone making lots of chain noise - that's the guy with compact cranks and geared all wrong for the average speed.

I made the non- knee jerk switch to compact from 53/39 4 years ago when I was 46. I can assure you that there is nothing inherently slower with a compact setup. (I ride with lots of kids in their 20's and 30's as well.) I kind of like having the 34/25 or 27 on the 12% grade at the end of a 10,000 ft vertical day.
As far as flatter group rides go - I'm in the 50 the whole time - no chain noise here.
That being said, if you like your 53/42 or whatever, that's great.
Lots of folks here in Colorado ride triples - those are cool too :beer:

Chuck

[CNY rider]

Lots of folks here in Colorado ride triples - those are cool too :beer:

Chuck

Oh, no you are not getting away with that. :butt:
I ride triples; not only am I not cool but the triples aren't either! ;)

[RPS]

You're right. There's no technique to cycling, this coaching thing is a scam and I can't get up anything steeper than 2% without permission of my knee surgeon.
Can you have and use proper technique without having proper equipment?

[RPS]

Oh, no you are not getting away with that. :butt:
I ride triples; not only am I not cool but the triples aren't either! ;)
Cool or not, many professionals used them I think on the 55th 2000 Vuelta a Espana.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/sep00/sep14news.shtml

I think many Shimano riders went with triples, and many Campy riders went with 29 on back. And it wasn’t the only time. If we do a search you’ll find references in subsequent Vueltas.

[endosch2]

And this is why I'm riding with a lot of kids who are half my age... It's a knee jerk reaction to say "I'm older now, I need lower gears". As a result, bikes are now geared for lower speeds and everything is slowing down. More expensive bikes, lots of carbon fiber, slower rides - and this seems right to you? I'll use lower gears when I need lower gears. I have no idea when that'll be, but at 45 I still don't see the need.

By far the biggest issue I have with this need for lower gears is the assumption by the bike companies that everybody needs lower gears. Which bikes below $2000 come with racing gears? Here's one that makes me laugh, the Cervelo P2C comes with compact cranks - it's a TT bike! Gearing should be based on the rider and where they ride. If you ride in the mountains, you're probably going to need a wider range of gears. On the flats I try to gear based on average cruising speed putting me somewhere in the center of the cassette while in the small ring. On group rides there's always someone making lots of chain noise - that's the guy with compact cranks and geared all wrong for the average speed.


Ti,

I am trying to understand what you mean by saying that the guy on the group rides with the compact making all the noise. A compact essentially has all of the gears that a full size crank does, only more climbing ratios.

I ride in cat 2/ 3/ group rides with my compact on flats at 28-30mph, the only difference is I may be in a 50/13 or a 50/14 as opposed to someone else being in a 53/16 or 17. If anything my chainline is straighter. What is the difference?

I think you mean someone who has no clue about shifting -it has nothing to do with whether you have a compact or not. Am I missing something??

[Pete Serotta]

If you get out and ride as a result of being on a certain bike or riding a certain crank....THEN DO IT!!

Over the years I have ridden Compact, Triple, Regular, and motorcycle cranks....They all work.


Additionally I have had the opportunity to be spun off the back of the pace line in all instances...... :D


There is no good or bad - there is just the one that works for you....


PS - I assure you Lengend ti is more than a 2 percent guy even on a fixie :bike: :bike:

[Kirk007]

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long. I'm with Pete. Figure out what works best for you and go with it. Cross-chaining? noisy rider? That's not the cranks fault.

Choice of bike parts isn't a measure of manhood, coolness or anything else (although not riding what works best for you because of someone else's opinion maybe a measure of something....)

[jlwdm]

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long. I'm with Pete. Figure out what works best for you and go with it. Cross-chaining? noisy rider? That's not the cranks fault.

Choice of bike parts isn't a measure of manhood, coolness or anything else (although not riding what works best for you because of someone else's opinion maybe a measure of something....)


+100 Thank you. Everybody is not the same. No one setup is right for everybody.

Jeff

[avalonracing]

Choice of bike parts isn't a measure of manhood, coolness or anything else


So true. I was doing Tour de Toona Cat 3 race a few years back which had a long, gravel climb up Blue Knob mountain (which I think is the highest public mountain in PA). As the peleton made its way out of town I remember guys bragging that they left their 21 or 23 on the back. I also remember not seeing them again once we started the long, steep climb.
I changed my cassette to a 27 for that stage of the race. It was the only time I have ever used that cassette and I still think that it was a good purchase for that day alone. ;)

[Gothard]

Wish I had a dime for every time someone said climbing hills in big gears will hurt my knees... Climbing hills in big gears with bad technique will damage the knees, so the options are lower gears, good technique or hurt knees.

That is utter bullcrap.
Bigger gears equal less revolutions for the same total energy outlay, or more energy per revolution (we're talking uphill here).
More energy means more tension on the quadriceps, therefore more pressure on your kneecap, and patellar cartilage.
So unless you climb with locked straight legs (which will *also* exert pressure on your cartilage), a lower gear will reduce the potential damage to your cartilage.

The cartilage can withstand a certain amount of pressure forever with zero damage. Past a threshold, damage occurs.

Aaaannnd... cartilage *never* grows back. Once it's gone, it's painful. Forever.

[Ken Robb]

I've had both knees' repaired for torn meniscus (menisci?). The surgeon said spinning for rehab was good but mashing would be disastrous.

Brother ti design keep track of little pains and twinges you may feel in your knees. When I was your age I had no physical problems/symptoms what-so-ever. By my mid-50's all the years of athletics began to catch up with me and my knees. When the first one went I couldn't believe that it was anything more serious than one of those little age-related twinges so I rested it, iced it and kept playing tennis on cement courts 4 times a week. This allowed the torn/loose bits to rough up my "bearing surfaces" so the surgery and recovery were more involved than they might have been.
When I tore the other knee the first time on the tennis court after rehabbing #1 I knew right away what happened and had surgery in 3 days leading to less damage and quicker recovery.

If you are still riding when you are 66 you too may appreciate compacts and triples to help save your body and get you up some hills. Heck I've got an old lugged steel beauty with all Nuovo Record Gruppo that is a sweet ride but I really have to plan my rides on it to avoid all but moderate hills because I can't ride them in a 42 tooth "small" ring.

[93legendti]

Gothard, if I may, I think Ti Designs is referring to his technique of using glutes and body weight to use bigger gears for climbing- saving your quads (and knees) for accelerating.

...Something to think about when next you get on your bike: 1) Pushing on the pedal is going to raise your heart rate and tax your muscles. Pushing on the pedal only delivers power to the back wheel if done in the right direction. Pushing down at the very top or bottom of the pedal stroke does nothing to move the bike forward. 2) Muscles are like rechargeable batteries, they need to be recharged longer than they can be used. A duty cycle of a muscle that's longer than 30% will become an anaerobic exercise in time simply because the muscle fibers don't get blood flow under tension. That common complaint about the quads burning while climbing is about the duty cycle the quads are used, not how hard the hill is. The most common mistake is using muscles far too long and in the wrong place. Lots of people use their quads from the top of the pedal stroke to the bottom of the pedal stroke - a duty cycle of 50%. The quads extend the leg at the knee, so in isolation they would force the knee up and forward. At 3:00, the pedal isn't moving up or forward, yet most people are firing their quads - wrong muscle to use.

Most of my coaching program is about getting riders to reprogram their bodies to only fire muscles where they should, and relax them where they need blood flow. Another component of this is the use of gravity on the pedals, which is what I call the best trade-off in cycling. learning how to "fall into the pedals" and use the glutes to support the body weight also takes the weight off the hands, which makes the whole ride more comfortable. More power and more comfort - seems like a worth while goal. A few people on this forum have tried this technique and have had "holy ****" moments when they realize they can power a big gear without much effort.

Most coaching programs are about building power. I can't see doing that without first working on efficiency, if you gain 10% in power but you're working at a 15% loss in efficiency, that's a smaller gain over an already reduced base number. If you reduce you power loss to 5% you're at the same point, and you haven't started intervals yet!...

That comment was made in a thread about gearing for climbing. My claim was that given the right technique most people don't need the ultra low gears on their bikes. That technique involves eliminating the smaller muscle groups for the action, making it mostly the glutes doing the work.

It's important to understand that there isn't just one technique to pedal a bike. watch the best riders climb and watch them time trial, it's really not the same. Better yet, put the bike on the trainer, put it in a huge gear, just use the glutes and power the bike as described. Now try to speed up the cadence - you can't without adding other muscles, and at that kind of power output you'll notice it quickly. Why? Because in what I call climbing on power, or isolating the glutes and hanging your body weight over the pedals you're limited to what gravity will sustain. Your body weight will only make the pedal fall so fast, beyond that it's going to take some other muscle group.

When I coach riders I first explain the concept of range of motion - this is the same concept that Paul uses at Signature Cycles for fittings. You have a limited range of motion at the hip, if you can't pedal a small gear all the way around the pedal stroke at very low RPM's with one foot clipped in without lifting your hip or cheating with momentum, you're wasting power pushing one foot over the top with the other foot. I've had people insist they could power the whole pedal stroke in their super hunched over (aero?) position, yet with one foot clipped in I could hold them back from getting the pedal over the top with 1 finger. Once you've figured out your range of motion it's a matter of doing slow 1 leg drills until your body knows the firing order - how long this is depends on the rider, some take days, others take months. With the firing order learned it's time to increase the resistance and learn to isolate individual muscle groups.

The workout with my riders tonight had segments of just glutes firing over the top of the pedal stroke, segments of just glutes pushing huge gears, segments of just hamstrings pulling across the bottom. What good is learning how to control individual muscles? Two reasons for doing it. First, muscle fibers are like rechargable batteries, you need to charge 'em an hour for half an hours use. Muscles that fire for 30% of the pedal stroke and get 70% rest are ready to fire again. Muscles that fire for 50% of the pedal stroke aren't ready to fire again - a muscle under tension doesn't get blood flow. Let's take the glutes for example, assuming KOPS, you're at 100% efficentcy whent the pedal is at 3:00 (from the right side of the bike), you're at 70% efficentcy 1:30 (SIN(45)) and at 4:30. Pushing down much earlier or later is wasted power, pushing down at the very top or bottom is a total waste. The real trick is to train yourself to only put the power down between those two points. At first you'll look at where your foot is and think "push down now!". It's just like in baseball if you swing the bat just as the ball gets to the plate - way too late. If you can teach all of your muscles to fire at the right time, and more to the point, relax at the right time, it's sustainable, efficient and powerfull.

My second reason for leaning to understand the pedal stroke lies in my theory that any 4 guys in lycra on bikes is a race. Hills are more tactical than you may think. Think about any group ride you've done a number of times - the attacks tend to always come around the same place, and hills have a lot to do with that. Let's say you only know one way to get up a hill - you're screwed. My riders will settle into a climbing pace, pushing a good sized gear, only using their upper body weight and their glutes to power the bike. When the attack comes their quads will be rested and ready to power the bike.

[RPS]

Gothard, if I may, I think Ti Designs is referring to his technique of using glutes and body weight to use bigger gears for climbing- saving your quads (and knees) for accelerating.
How do pedaling forces created by glutes and body weight get to the pedals without going through the knees? :confused:

I don't doubt that pedaling forces can be controlled to make them different, but they can't bypass the knees. And if you have bad or fragile knees it may not make any difference.

[93legendti]

I've got the scars to qualify as having bad knees, yet using Ti Designs' technique, I can climb in bigger gears with less effort and certainly less force on my knees. I doubt I can persuade you on line, but I would encourage you to study Ti's technique and try it once.

[Ti Designs]

Choice of bike parts isn't a measure of manhood, coolness or anything else

Damn, there go my top reasons for keeping the 55/11 on...


Chain noise: My area doesn't have any extended climbs, we have these short, sometimes steep things that the locals call hills. Too much of a hill for the 50, not enough for the 34, so they wind up in the 34/14 going over the top with the chain pinging the side of the big ring. Probably not a problem where you can settle into a climb, but the group rides I go on never settle down to the sort of climbing speeds that compact gearing is best suited for.

Knee problems: Anyone who's taken my pedal stroke class over the winter knows there are four major muscle groups active within the pedal stroke, each one has an efficient range of motion and any of my students and use or shut down any one of them while turning the pedals. The knee pain you're talking about is based on sheer force generated across the inside surface of the patella from the connective tissue that runs over the patella. Most of that tension is generated by the quads. Beyond that destructive force, the greatest amount of force on a pedal while seated is limited to you own body weight. Without firing the quads, climbing in a large gear is no more destructive than walking up a set of stairs.

When I say "climbing in a large gear", I'm talking large in relation to the grade and length. There's a difference between being a good climber and being stupid...

The funny thing about this thread is that there are lots of people here warning me that as I get older I'm not going to be able to walk or ride, while at work I have a half dozen knee surgeons sending me clients for rehab. One of my riders tore her ACL in a ski accident two years ago, once she had the range of motion her rehab was on the bike. She spent lots of time on the trainer with a laser line on her femur, regenerating a clean orbit of the knee. The bike (given good alignment) turns out to be the best rehab tool as she was able to see more low stress cycles in one workout than most people see in a week of PT. On the training day she did a 1:15 up Mt Washington, with a 39/32 as her low gear. There may be something to this technique thing...

[CaptStash]

Damn, there go my top reasons for keeping the 55/11 on...


....On the training day she did a 1:15 up Mt Washington, with a 39/32 as her low gear. There may be something to this technique thing...


Umm, am I missing something here? You suggested earlier in this thread that compacts were unnecessary, but here you are advocating for this gal who used a 39/32? How is that in any way superior to a 50/34 with a 12/27?
The gearing is darn near identical, without haviong to have a ridiculous bunch of jumps on your cassette. Personally, I have screwed around a bit looking for the best combo for me, and have found that for intensive climbing, the compact with an 11/25 cassette workls great, and on the flats, a standard 53/39 with a 12/23 or 11/23 is way fun. I have the luxury of two bikes, and have one set-up for climbing and one for flatter stuff. I also have been known to switch cassettes around on a daily basis. It's not like it's that hard, 10 minutes and I am on my way.

So Ti, what am I missing here? Also, would love to see a video of the technique you are teaching or learn more. Too bad I live so far away, would love tyo take the class.

Captstash....

[Ti Designs]

Umm, am I missing something here? You suggested earlier in this thread that compacts were unnecessary, but here you are advocating for this gal who used a 39/32? How is that in any way superior to a 50/34 with a 12/27?

No, what I said earlier was:

Gearing should be based on the rider and where they ride. If you ride in the mountains, you're probably going to need a wider range of gears.

Mt Washington is a mountain - trust me on that one. She'll go up Mt Washington twice this season, up Ascutney once and up Equinox once. Other than that, she doesn't need the lower gears. So, it becomes an issue of parts and labor. It's a Dura-Ace equipped race bike and she'll be switching back and forth between race gearing and climbing gearing 4 times. The compact option means buying a crank, a cassette and a chain, but doing the work is far more involved because of the change in height of the front derailleur. In contrast, the switch to the larger cassette takes the cassette, a chain and a rear derailleur but I can get the whole thing changed out in about 5 minutes.

[Gothard]

Gothard, if I may, I think Ti Designs is referring to his technique of using glutes and body weight to use bigger gears for climbing- saving your quads (and knees) for accelerating.

You can have the biggest glutei in the world, but unless you have fused knees, you *will* apply pressure on your patellar and trochlear cartilage in direct relation to the effort required to climb a definite gradient, and to the cadence youre pedaling. There is no going around that.
There is only one muscle that extends the knee: the quadriceps; and you can turn the problem in any way you like, but as long as you pedal with your legs, higher gear/lower cadence means more pressure on your femoro-patellar cartilage.
It is not a matter of training acumen, opinion, or technique. Some knowledge of anatomy is necessary before devloping bio-mechanical strategies.

[dd74]

Some knowledge of anatomy is necessary before devloping bio-mechanical strategies.
Which (stupidly) I don't really have. So I'm paying pretty close attention to this argument. I climbed a long three to four kilometer grade today that wasn't too steep -- just long, and my right knee was feeling it a bit.

Granted, I was grinding in a 23 gear (with a 39) at an "okay" pace. I did have the 26 to fall back on if things truly started going...ur...downhill.

I mean, overall, I felt okay, and sure, maybe I should have geared down to the 26, but the 23 wasn't unbearable -- at least not then. I now and then shifted my seat positioning to the front and back depending upon how I fared when the climb increased in grade. In the end, I came through okay.

But if there's a better way to climb, I'd sure like to know it. Much of my riding is hills. I left 42-tooth chainrings so I could ascend seated (though I still use a 42-23 on the hills for strengthening).

[palincss]

The compact option means buying a crank, a cassette and a chain, but doing the work is far more involved because of the change in height of the front derailleur. In contrast, the switch to the larger cassette takes the cassette, a chain and a rear derailleur but I can get the whole thing changed out in about 5 minutes.

You could save yourself a couple of minutes by just leaving the wide range rear derailleur in place. it works perfectly fine on narrower-range cassettes.

[93legendti]

You can have the biggest glutei in the world, but unless you have fused knees, you *will* apply pressure on your patellar and trochlear cartilage in direct relation to the effort required to climb a definite gradient, and to the cadence youre pedaling. There is no going around that.
There is only one muscle that extends the knee: the quadriceps; and you can turn the problem in any way you like, but as long as you pedal with your legs, higher gear/lower cadence means more pressure on your femoro-patellar cartilage.
It is not a matter of training acumen, opinion, or technique. Some knowledge of anatomy is necessary before devloping bio-mechanical strategies.

My right leg has a Thompson (sic) rod from ORIF of my femur, missing meniscus and a partial tear of the ACL.

I was skeptical until I tried the technique. It works for me with zero knee pain.

If others do not want to try it, I respect that.

As a side note, I remember asking my allergist why I was allergic to our hypoallergenic Portuguese Water Dog. He replied "there's the laboratory and there's the real world".

[Andreas]

That is utter bullcrap.
Bigger gears equal less revolutions for the same total energy outlay, or more energy per revolution (we're talking uphill here).
More energy means more tension on the quadriceps, therefore more pressure on your kneecap, and patellar cartilage.
So unless you climb with locked straight legs (which will *also* exert pressure on your cartilage), a lower gear will reduce the potential damage to your cartilage.

The cartilage can withstand a certain amount of pressure forever with zero damage. Past a threshold, damage occurs.

Aaaannnd... cartilage *never* grows back. Once it's gone, it's painful. Forever.


This post displays such a solid misunderstanding of the basics of cycling biomechanics, fundamentals of cartilage metabolism and turnover as well as risk factors for OA - it is just breathtaking.

Bunch of pseudo knowledge in one post - impressive.

POTD :banana:

[93legendti]

1. 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.

2. The workout with my riders tonight had segments of just glutes firing over the top of the pedal stroke, segments of just glutes pushing huge gears, segments of just hamstrings pulling across the bottom. What good is learning how to control individual muscles? Two reasons for doing it. First, muscle fibers are like rechargable batteries, you need to charge 'em an hour for half an hours use. Muscles that fire for 30% of the pedal stroke and get 70% rest are ready to fire again. Muscles that fire for 50% of the pedal stroke aren't ready to fire again - a muscle under tension doesn't get blood flow. Let's take the glutes for example, assuming KOPS, you're at 100% efficentcy whent the pedal is at 3:00 (from the right side of the bike), you're at 70% efficentcy 1:30 (SIN(45)) and at 4:30. Pushing down much earlier or later is wasted power, pushing down at the very top or bottom is a total waste. The real trick is to train yourself to only put the power down between those two points. At first you'll look at where your foot is and think "push down now!". It's just like in baseball if you swing the bat just as the ball gets to the plate - way too late. If you can teach all of your muscles to fire at the right time, and more to the point, relax at the right time, it's sustainable, efficient and powerfull.

My second reason for leaning to understand the pedal stroke lies in my theory that any 4 guys in lycra on bikes is a race. Hills are more tactical than you may think. Think about any group ride you've done a number of times - the attacks tend to always come around the same place, and hills have a lot to do with that. Let's say you only know one way to get up a hill - you're screwed. My riders will settle into a climbing pace, pushing a good sized gear, only using their upper body weight and their glutes to power the bike. When the
attack comes their quads will be rested and ready to power the bike.[/QUOTE]


3. The down part of the pedal stroke gravity is taking care of - don't worry about it. The bottom of the pedal stroke is hamstrings. Think about putting a little bit of force on the ball of your foot and try to pull your foot out of the back of the shoe. This happens from 4:30 to 7:30, it helps to have a mirror next to you to see what's really going on. At slower speeds you can feel which muscle group is working, if your hamstrings are still active past 7:30 you're pulling back on a pedal that's no longer going in that direction. As the pedal is on it's way up the hip flexors are working - as soon as you start this you'll know which muscle group that is. DO NOT overwork the hip flexors when you start this. I take no blame if you can't walk up stairs later. The hip flexors need to fire all the way to 12:00, but the quads need to fire from 11:00 to 2:00. This is kinda like rubbing your stomach and patting your head at the same time, you need two muscle groups overlapping when they fire. With the quads, think of pushing forward over the top, not down. You should hear the sound of the trainer as you accelerate over the top, that sound should be centered at 12:00. Most people find they accelerate the pedal to 3:00. This is like the first time you swing at a baseball pitch, you wait for the ball to get to you and then swing - too late! If you want your quads to center the force at 12:00 you need to think about starting sooner and ending sooner.

With practice you'll find you can trace the pedal circle without any thunking noises or hesitations within the pedal stroke. With a lot of practice you almost have to try to make it thunk. Now comes leg speed work. Do one minute on each side of the one legged pedal stroke drill. Then clip both feet on, do the exact same thing you were just doing - getting the pedals over the top of a circle, but drive out the speed. At some point you will find you start bounging, so back it down a bit. It's one minute each leg, one minute both feet on driving it out, one minute rest, repeat. With each set you'll find you get a little smoother and a little faster...[/QUOTE]


4. Hip flexors move the hip as do the glutes. Hip flexors fire, glutes relax. When people get to a hill they think "push harder", but what they really do is push down longer. As soon as the hip flexors get into the action this problem goes away. Another part of the pedal stroke that benifits from the direction of force generated by the hip flexors is at the top where the quads kick the pedal forward. If you draw an arc around the knee you'll notice that the curve is in the wrong direction, you're trying to cut into the circle instead of going around it. The hip flexor firing all the way to 12:00 is what allows the quads to start working at 11:00.


5. Here's how I smooth out out of the saddle climbing: Set the bike up on a trainer, it works best if the front end is up higher than the back end. You're going to need a huge gear to support your body weight. In what I call survival mode - climbing out of the saddle with mostly just body weight, I'm looking for the hip to be directly over the pedal, or way forward. Your body should be a vertical column of mass, leg straight as possible to minimize the use of the quads. As the pedal gets to around 5:00, twist your hips. This twisting motion replaces the hamstrings pulling the pedal back, and gets the other hip forward for the next pedal stroke.[/QUOTE]

6. The problem with a low gear is that you use it. Mt Washington is about not losing momentum and rolling as much gear as you can without struggling. There are a number of ways of climbing, everybody understands the down shift and spin method, few master climbing on power. Climbing on power - using your own body weight as leverage and using the big muscle groups to turn a big (big being a relative term) gear, is how one gets up the mountain quickly. Working on technique so those big muscles only have a 30%
duty cycle is the key, along with having the most ways of climbing (standing, sitting in a small gear, climbing on power...). It all comes down to one simple fact, overwork one muscle group and you're all done.

...My advice is to throw in a few steep hill training days a week. First, he needs to show up with his legs and lungs - no late nights drinking, no killer rides the day before. It's just like speedwork, the workout only pays off if he starts out rested and ready. Find a steep hill, something steady and around 15%. This is about climbing it, not hammering it, so the goal is to settle into a pace that could be sustained for a while. The other part of the goal is to find the gear that keeps him right at the edge of struggling to turn it over. There is a technique to this, there are also little cheating ways of thinking about this. I tell my riders to think about "glide ratio". Glide ratio is a term used for gliders to describe how far forward they go for each foot they drop. In cycling terms I use it to describe how far up you go before the next pedal stroke. It's something I pay attention to becuase whey you're in glide mode there should be zero tension on the muscles of your legs. Muscles don't recover without blood flow, blood flow doesn't work with tension on the muscle fibers. Far too many riders never learn to relax, so they're good for about 50 feet before their arobic system fails them. When climbing on power it's push, then rest, rest, rest. It's a short, choppy pedals stroke and like I said, maybe 30% duty cycle, the rest is recovery...[/QUOTE]


7. Pure climbing position: This is what giordana93 is talking about, the torso beind a vertical column of weight over the hip, the hip is directly over the pedal, geared low enough so the pedal sinks with just body weight. It's more like climbing stairs, the ene\rgy
spent it mostly in raising up the body weight for the next pedal stroke.

8. Watch Greg Lemond climb (the best example I've seen on tape was the '90 tour when he got away with big Mig) You'll notice his body is moving, his upper body mass starts going in the direction of the pedal, then the glutes fire and transfer that momentum to power at the pedals. The position of the hips don't need to change much like the fulcrum of a lever system.


9. That lack of feeling anything while transfering all your body weight to the pedal is what should allow you to push a huge gear without working....Hill climbing is a game of torque, which means that all the small muscle groups which make up a smooth, fast pedal stroke on the flats need to be taken out of the picture. I teach my riders a technique on the trainer where they use only their own upper body weight and their glutes to push the largest gear they have on the trainer. The glutes are so strong that after 5 minutes of this I'll ask which muscle group is working and they say "none", yet they're pushing a huge gear.

This doesn't take spectacular strength or fitness. I started with a slightly overweight rider who was somewhat new to the sport and in 6 months he climbed Mt Washington in 1:42 with the standard Shimano Ultegra triple. On the open house weekend I did the climb up to Desolation Lake in my 44x19 without much effort. It's all about technique, not gearing.[/QUOTE]

[SoCalSteve]

Originally Posted by Gothard
That is utter bullcrap.
Bigger gears equal less revolutions for the same total energy outlay, or more energy per revolution (we're talking uphill here).
More energy means more tension on the quadriceps, therefore more pressure on your kneecap, and patellar cartilage.
So unless you climb with locked straight legs (which will *also* exert pressure on your cartilage), a lower gear will reduce the potential damage to your cartilage.

The cartilage can withstand a certain amount of pressure forever with zero damage. Past a threshold, damage occurs.

Aaaannnd... cartilage *never* grows back. Once it's gone, it's painful. Forever.




This post displays such a solid misunderstanding of the basics of cycling biomechanics, fundamentals of cartilage metabolism and turnover as well as risk factors for OA - it is just breathtaking.

Bunch of pseudo knowledge in one post - impressive.

POTD :banana:

Gothard (George) happens to be a Doctor.

Please tell us what your qualifications are, Andreas.

Just askin'

Steve

[RPS]

I've got the scars to qualify as having bad knees, yet using Ti Designs' technique, I can climb in bigger gears with less effort and certainly less force on my knees. I doubt I can persuade you on line, but I would encourage you to study Ti's technique and try it once.
I think you misunderstand – it’s not about convincing me about the value of Ti’s pedaling technique, but convincing me of the logic being applied to this argument.

The real problem I see (and have seen for some time since this topic keeps coming up) is that we continue to commingle two possible sources of sore knees as if they are fully linked; and IMHO they are not. When a rider states that they get sore knees when they climb/ride with a high gear, how do we know that poor technique is the real cause? How do we know that they are not already riding with the correct technique Ti teaches? Or for that matter, a technique that’s even easier on the knees?

Technique and gear ratios are two separate issues that may be connected, or may not be connected at all depending on the individual rider. I’m guessing that it’s cumulative – ride with poor technique and/or push too tall a gear and you may screw your knees up. In your case maybe your gearing was OK but your technique was inadequate. Ti fixed your technique and your knees appreciated it. That’s an awesome accomplishment in itself but it doesn’t suggest to me that every rider with sore knees gets them from poor technique.

A logical question I’d like to ask is that if Ti’s technique reduces stress on the knees then why won’t it reduce stress on the knees more with lower gearing than with higher gearing? No one is arguing that we shouldn’t pedal with proper technique, but why object to smaller gears? Are big gears an inherent part of his technique as you understand it – that pushing a big gear is necessary to make it work?

It seems this “knee-problem” versus “technique-deficiency” controversy comes up frequently. My question is why be so quick to challenge the possibility that riders with good technique can get sore knees when pushing gearing that is too tall, or that different riders may have significantly different “knee-problem” thresholds and can only ride with low gearing? The argument often made that it’s about technique implies (actually flat out states) that those with knee problems are not pedaling with proper technique or otherwise they wouldn’t have problems. That logic is flawed and I doubt you’d ever convince me otherwise.

Regarding the value of his technique itself I have no issues. The applied logic I do.

[Ti Designs]

You can have the biggest glutei in the world, but unless you have fused knees, you *will* apply pressure on your patellar and trochlear cartilage in direct relation to the effort required to climb a definite gradient, and to the cadence youre pedaling. There is no going around that.
There is only one muscle that extends the knee: the quadriceps; and you can turn the problem in any way you like, but as long as you pedal with your legs, higher gear/lower cadence means more pressure on your femoro-patellar cartilage.
It is not a matter of training acumen, opinion, or technique. Some knowledge of anatomy is necessary before devloping bio-mechanical strategies.

Do these glutes make my ass look big?


I'm going to suggest we back this down to a mechanical model first and look at what the limits of force generated are, and at what vectors they are generated. My technique uses body weight centered around a point where the pedal is traveling straight down. The limit of transfered force is going to be the rider's own body weight minus the weight on the bars and the saddle. In other words, nothing the knee doesn't see all the time. The claim that the quads must fire to pedal the bike is flat out wrong. Maybe your quads have to fire, but the data from when I was the test subject says otherwise. But if we must talk about forces on the knee, take a look at the snapshot of what's going on if the pedal is at 3:00 and the quads are firing. The quads extend the knee, so the foot is being pushed forward. The pedal is at 3:00, there is no more forward component, it's going down. Most of the energy is wasted between pushing yourself back in the saddle and pulling yourself forward from the bars.

Technique and gear ratios are two separate issues that may be connected, or may not be connected at all depending on the individual rider.

Well, there's some physics to it, and a lot of tricking the body into using different muscles based on position and weight transfer. The human body has been around a bit longer than the bike, how muscles are used is based on a rather simple gravity based system. Standing, sitting, walking - the body knows which muscles to use. The bike is a geared system where a pedal goes around in a circle. The human body is tricked into doing the wrong and often descructive things. An example would be when a rider is well fit on the bike but their hips rock. That's what I call a lazy rider, using one foot to push the other over the top of the pedal stroke. The force adjusts the SI joint and takes the lower spine with it. In the case of the climbing technique, the body is tricked into firing the glutes instead of the quads because it's your nature when you sit with your feet in front of you. That means the bike must simulate the static position of a person sitting on a chair - the pedals must support the body weight, thus the higher gear. When I teach the technique I have the rider get into the biggest gear on the bike so they can support the weight on the pedal, take their weight off the bars and fall forward from the hips. In a smaller gear the technique doesn't work at all.

[link]

I'm down with this.

In the winter time I spend a lot of time bump skiing on free heel gear. Bump skiing is the most demanding type of terrain to ski because it requires the most continuous dynamic response. I think hill climbing on a bike might be very similar.

Telemark skiing is in many ways like pedaling. Learning to distribute the firing and releasing of different muscles through the entire range of a telemark turn while keeping good core tension and "stacking" your skeletal structure will keep a skier charging hard all day long.

It really is all about the complementary relationship of proper technique and solid conditioning. Each one begets the other.

[WadePatton]

technique allows one to expand the range of gear he/she utilizes.

oh and bcd be damned--this setup will take a 24-38 inner and a 38-52 outer:http://www.whiteind.com/images/640_roadvbc.jpg

[Gothard]

This post displays such a solid misunderstanding of the basics of cycling biomechanics, fundamentals of cartilage metabolism and turnover as well as risk factors for OA - it is just breathtaking.

Bunch of pseudo knowledge in one post - impressive.

POTD :banana:


Fine by me.
Without quadriceps, a human being can not walk, not even stand.

No matter how we look at it, there is tension on the quadriceps while we pedal, therefore pressure on the patellar and trochlear cartilage. less revolutions for the same altitude gain equals more effort and more pressure on the cartilage.

You need to show me *one case* where abraded cartilage, down to the subchondral bone has grown back by itself. Just one. Pretty please.

Ti designs says: "Maybe your quads have to fire, but the data from when I was the test subject says otherwise."

Oh, really? Wonder what these 2 are doing wrong... :rolleyes:

[Gothard]

Do these glutes make my ass look big?


I'm going to suggest we back this down to a mechanical model first and look at what the limits of force generated are, and at what vectors they are generated. My technique uses body weight centered around a point where the pedal is traveling straight down. The limit of transfered force is going to be the rider's own body weight minus the weight on the bars and the saddle. In other words, nothing the knee doesn't see all the time. The claim that the quads must fire to pedal the bike is flat out wrong. Maybe your quads have to fire, but the data from when I was the test subject says otherwise. But if we must talk about forces on the knee, take a look at the snapshot of what's going on if the pedal is at 3:00 and the quads are firing. The quads extend the knee, so the foot is being pushed forward. The pedal is at 3:00, there is no more forward component, it's going down. Most of the energy is wasted between pushing yourself back in the saddle and pulling yourself forward from the bars.



Well, there's some physics to it, and a lot of tricking the body into using different muscles based on position and weight transfer. The human body has been around a bit longer than the bike, how muscles are used is based on a rather simple gravity based system. Standing, sitting, walking - the body knows which muscles to use. The bike is a geared system where a pedal goes around in a circle. The human body is tricked into doing the wrong and often descructive things. An example would be when a rider is well fit on the bike but their hips rock. That's what I call a lazy rider, using one foot to push the other over the top of the pedal stroke. The force adjusts the SI joint and takes the lower spine with it. In the case of the climbing technique, the body is tricked into firing the glutes instead of the quads because it's your nature when you sit with your feet in front of you. That means the bike must simulate the static position of a person sitting on a chair - the pedals must support the body weight, thus the higher gear. When I teach the technique I have the rider get into the biggest gear on the bike so they can support the weight on the pedal, take their weight off the bars and fall forward from the hips. In a smaller gear the technique doesn't work at all.


Let's try and keep it simple.

From 12 to 6 o'clock, the leg extends. the only extensor muscle of the knee is the quadriceps.
Now if you use any other muscle to exert downwards pressure on the pedal, and you don't use the quad, the knee will flex, and the leg will go nowhere. The quad will determine how much the knee will flex in opposition to the biceps and to a lesser extent, the adductors.
And if you decide to stand, all bets are off. A hint: you can *not* stand without a quadriceps.
There is a reason people with quad palsy can not ride a bike, not even walk without a knee brace.

[Louis]

Everybody knows that if you buy one of these it will

1) Fix all your knee and back problems, and

2) Allow you to climb at least 2 mph faster.

Send $150 (shipped) to "fix_all_your_problems@gmail.com"

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/images/Italian/PMPad1L.jpg

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/images/Italian/PMPcrnkL.jpg

[Onno]

The L stands for LEVERAGE!!

:D :D

[RPS]

Well, there's some physics to it, and a lot of tricking the body into using different muscles based on position and weight transfer. The human body has been around a bit longer than the bike, how muscles are used is based on a rather simple gravity based system. Standing, sitting, walking - the body knows which muscles to use. The bike is a geared system where a pedal goes around in a circle. The human body is tricked into doing the wrong and often descructive things. An example would be when a rider is well fit on the bike but their hips rock. That's what I call a lazy rider, using one foot to push the other over the top of the pedal stroke. The force adjusts the SI joint and takes the lower spine with it. In the case of the climbing technique, the body is tricked into firing the glutes instead of the quads because it's your nature when you sit with your feet in front of you. That means the bike must simulate the static position of a person sitting on a chair - the pedals must support the body weight, thus the higher gear. When I teach the technique I have the rider get into the biggest gear on the bike so they can support the weight on the pedal, take their weight off the bars and fall forward from the hips. In a smaller gear the technique doesn't work at all.
Ti, it’s the bashing of those who prefer to install small gears on their bikes I don’t like to see.

If your technique requires a taller gear for teaching purposes only, then any bike should do since a taller gear can be selected to provide adequate resistance for your procedure during training.

On the other hand, if you are actually suggesting that most riders shouldn’t install small gears on their bikes because it keeps them from climbing with proper technique, then I’ll correct myself and state that I do have an issue with your point of view. Either way I don’t see the need to question those who use compacts or triples. I also don't understand the effort to convince them that it’s not needed.

In really simple terms: without RPMs we can’t convert torque to power. If a professional cyclist with a VO2 of around 80 can occasionally make use of a 39T chainring for climbing, then an accomplished “semi-pro” with a VO2 around 70 may be equally able to use a 34T compact, and a weekend warrior with a modest VO2 of 50 will need MTB gearing to spin at the same rate as the pros on the same climbs. Even a road triple isn’t enough to permit spinning at professional cadence on equal climbs.

With all due respect, it’s not only about technique – cyclists need to be able to spin fast to develop power. Gearing should be in proportion to the rider’s ability and terrain.

[Ti Designs]

Let's try and keep it simple.

From 12 to 6 o'clock, the leg extends. the only extensor muscle of the knee is the quadriceps.
Now if you use any other muscle to exert downwards pressure on the pedal, and you don't use the quad, the knee will flex, and the leg will go nowhere.


In keeping this simple, let's say that all pivots are simple pivots, femur and tib/fib are simple line segments and let's ignore the foot and say the pedal is also a simple pivot. Let's also make the bold assumption that the hip is located in the saddle, the bottom bracket is solidly installed in the frame and it's all a 2 dimensional picture.

The path the pedal takes is easy to calculate, it's a circle. The line segments are constants, as is the top pivot where the rider's hip is. If you change the angle at that pivot (as in using the glutes or hip flexors), and you solve for the position of the foot as it connects with any point on the crank circle, you get two solutions. Last I checked, my knee only bends in one direction, which means changing the angle at the hip determines the knee's travel as the foot's position is controlled by the travel of the pedal. In other words, if you knee flexes and your leg goes nowhere when you push down from the hip, you have a broken leg.


Maybe I should have drawn pictures...

[Gothard]

We are going nowhere fast. You don't want to see the obvious. The Quad is in use while pedaling a bicycle, there is no going around that. Other muscles are used as well, obviously.

Why do the best riders in the world have seriously big quads?

Why do my (and everyone else's I asked) quads hurt when I do long fast climbs.

I will gladly do a femoral nerve block to you (that is part of my job), and then put you on a bicycle, tape it and then youtube it.

While we're at it, please tell the audience where you studied anatomy, muscle function, innervation, pathways of equilibrium, schemes of opposing muscles in different motions.
I did all that in med school in Lausanne, Switzerland, then on my different fellowships on Switzerland and Canada.

I'll stop posting, because I am starting to gett annoyed at all this and wish to remain civil. Quads not used while bicycling. Ha! Look at Theo Bos' thighs, and tell him he does all wrong!

[Ti Designs]

With all due respect, it’s not only about technique – cyclists need to be able to spin fast to develop power. Gearing should be in proportion to the rider’s ability and terrain.


We agree on that last part 100%, but the spinning fast to develop power part isn't as straight forward as it would seem. It's a matter of matching biomechanics with the physics of power a bicycle, both on the flats and on the hills. On the flats the rider's body weight is stored energy as it moves forward, the rider simply adds power to that system. This reduces the peak forces and allows smaller muscle groups to play a part in the action. In contrast, the stored energy model fails on hills and it comes down to muscle groups large enough to supply the torque needed. Watch a rider who gears down on hills, you'll notice they tend to spin faster going up hills than they do on the flats, but the technique doesn't change much. It doesn't allow them to use body weight and their glutes to climb. It does reduce the tension on the quads and thus the sheer force on the patella, but there are far more stress cycles. The logical path that most riders follow is "if lower gears are better for my knees, much lower gears must be much better", and pretty soon it's taking all day to get up a 10 minute climb.

There's no down side to learning technique, 'cept for the time it takes to learn and maintain. Technique is not limited to just using body weight and glutes on the hills. As odd as it may sound coming from me, I probably spin more than most people on this forum. On hills I tend to slow my cadence and turn a larger gear, but it's hardly the only way I can climb. I can spin a small gear, turn a bigger gear, get out of the saddle and drop the body weight into the pedals or lower my torso and climb like a sprinter. How I climb depends on the hill and who I'm riding with. Technique also reduces the stress about the bike and it's gearing. There are lots of threads here about gearing, lots of people here who are a little too quick with the calculator. I don't worry about my gearing, I know most of the hills that are too long and too steep for what's on my bike right now...

[Pete Serotta]

It is time for some wine and some "friendly" talk. (face to face)


So feel free to open another thread but this one has gone about as far as it can. We are coming very close to personal attacks here.. :no:


PETE