New ultegra (R8000) ?

[A_Bear]

For those of you using an 11-34: any problems with chain slap, retention, etc.?

My first inclination was to go with an 11/34 on the back, but I've been reading a bunch of comments by people complaining about the large jumps between the larger cogs.

I think for the hills I'm riding it might be nice to have a 34.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by A_Bear

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned a 52/36 because that's the direction I was leaning. Now have to go read about 50/34s.

For me, I don't feel I need any more top end than a 50 big ring will provide (and the bikes I have purchased have all had a 50/34).. if I had a 52/36, that just makes it a little harder to get that 1:1 ratio I mentioned earlier. It all depends on your particular desires and fitness I think..

*52/36 on a road bike is a bit of a new concept (for me anyway), for years it was either 53/39 or 50/34..

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by A_Bear

For those of you using an 11-34: any problems with chain slap, retention, etc.?

My first inclination was to go with an 11/34 on the back, but I've been reading a bunch of comments by people complaining about the large jumps between the larger cogs.

I think for the hills I'm riding it might be nice to have a 34.

I have one bike with an 11-36 and one with an 11-34.. no issues on either and neither one has a "clutch" that you find with the aforementioned GS RD (plus might have a bit longer cage for better shifting). If I was buying new, I would get a RD with a clutch though..

as for the jumps, doesn't seem to bother me.. does it shift as smoothly as an 11-28? No, but I don't mind as I'm spinning up that steep grade instead of grinding up it or having to stop..

[msl819]

The question you ask about going uphill is a valid one. So getting your gearing sorted will be a need. That said, you are a touch larger than me (6’3” 225ish) but I would also have questions about descending those 3 mi 7% grade climbs. What is safe, what will be best given all the factors? I have nothing to add to that because I live in Louisiana where descending any hill take 10 secs, is basically straight down, and almost never involves sharp turns or extended time on the brakes. All that to say, a group (or bike) is more than just gears going up. While you are obviously attached to your Klein my guess is a newer (maybe even disc braked) bike would give advantages going down that may be worth factoring into the conversation before you make a purchase.

[Coffee Rider]

Originally Posted by A_Bear

For those of you using an 11-34: any problems with chain slap, retention, etc.?

My first inclination was to go with an 11/34 on the back, but I've been reading a bunch of comments by people complaining about the large jumps between the larger cogs.

I think for the hills I'm riding it might be nice to have a 34.

I haven't had any issues, though I'm within spec. for my parts. When I need the larger cogs, I'm thinking a lot less about jumps and more about turning my legs.

[Xrslug]

Former Bay Area resident here — the good news is you’ve moved to an incredible place for bike riding in basically every direction. Tom Ritchey probably lives not too far from you if you’re still n the peninsula. I was until recently 6’2” and 225 or so, and fit not overweight. At that weight and with pretty significant climbs (now in SoCal) I was OK with a 34/32 combo.

[A_Bear]

Originally Posted by msl819

The question you ask about going uphill is a valid one. So getting your gearing sorted will be a need. That said, you are a touch larger than me (6’3” 225ish) but I would also have questions about descending those 3 mi 7% grade climbs. What is safe, what will be best given all the factors? I have nothing to add to that because I live in Louisiana where descending any hill take 10 secs, is basically straight down, and almost never involves sharp turns or extended time on the brakes. All that to say, a group (or bike) is more than just gears going up. While you are obviously attached to your Klein my guess is a newer (maybe even disc braked) bike would give advantages going down that may be worth factoring into the conversation before you make a purchase.

All valid points.

Notably the major driver behind me looking at new components is brakes.

I had my bike overhauled by a LBS when I started riding again a few months ago, and my brakes have been giving me trouble since then. They scream (shriek) when they get hot. I brought them back into the LBS to fix the issue but to no avail. I've since picked a new bike shop, and thought I would buy a new component group and have it installed. I don't have the space and/or experience to do it myself yet.

To your point about hills. Yes. Hills. I think my normal climb takes me about 30 minutes to get up, and I descend a more sweeping route that takes about 10 minutes. The descent is fast, and I ride my brakes for a good part of the way to avoid having to slam on the brakes for hairpins.

[A_Bear]

Originally Posted by Xrslug

Former Bay Area resident here — the good news is you’ve moved to an incredible place for bike riding in basically every direction. Tom Ritchey probably lives not too far from you if you’re still n the peninsula. I was until recently 6’2” and 225 or so, and fit not overweight. At that weight and with pretty significant climbs (now in SoCal) I was OK with a 34/32 combo.

Yes. The area is nice.

Is Tom on the paceline forum or someone else I'm supposed to recognize? Would be glad to find some people to ride with.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by A_Bear

Is Tom on the paceline forum or someone else I'm supposed to recognize? Would be glad to find some people to ride with.

Yes, I'd say TR is someone you should recognize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ritchey

WRT to your question on compact (50/34) vs mid-compact (52/36). From the way you've described your motivation to alter your gearing — better suited to climbing — I'd agree with others that compact is the right answer. The main benefit of mid-compact, IMO, is having a high end more akin to standard gearing for higher speeds on flats and descents.

Bear in mind that there are options "below" compact like 48/32 and 46/30 (just for example, there are many options), which take this tradeoff even further. As above, you give up big gears but gain tighter ratios for optimizing your climbing cadence. And the tradeoff is lessened if you opt for a cassette with a really small cog.

When you find yourself over the hill on Jameson Creek or Alba Road you might crave those really low climbing gears!

P.S. Welcome to the forum!

[robt57]

When I spun a younger man's 39/53, pushing for every bit of descending speed seemed important. @ 210 lb and a good tuck I roll past lesser [lighter] riders on long hills anyway.

102-112 GI up top rarely pushed... Sometimes a 42/11 disallows a ramp up in a dip to next undulation/rise.. But I'll need those watts for the next 'up' and using any to hit it a little faster can bite back...

Originally Posted by fourflys

For me, I don't feel I need any more top end than a 50 big ring will provide (and the bikes I have purchased have all had a 50/34).. if I had a 52/36, that just makes it a little harder to get that 1:1 ratio I mentioned earlier. It all depends on your particular desires and fitness I think..

*52/36 on a road bike is a bit of a new concept (for me anyway), for years it was either 53/39 or 50/34..

[msl819]

Originally Posted by A_Bear

All valid points.

Notably the major driver behind me looking at new components is brakes.

I had my bike overhauled by a LBS when I started riding again a few months ago, and my brakes have been giving me trouble since then. They scream (shriek) when they get hot. I brought them back into the LBS to fix the issue but to no avail. I've since picked a new bike shop, and thought I would buy a new component group and have it installed. I don't have the space and/or experience to do it myself yet.

To your point about hills. Yes. Hills. I think my normal climb takes me about 30 minutes to get up, and I descend a more sweeping route that takes about 10 minutes. The descent is fast, and I ride my brakes for a good part of the way to avoid having to slam on the brakes for hairpins.

People our, ahem, size will heat those brakes more and differently than our, shall we say smaller sized cycling comrades. I’d just hate for you to drop $$$ on a new groupset only to find that it wasn’t the best or right option for you. I’d be curious as to what our other, 200+ pound friends think regarding considerations for going downhill safely, and relatively noise free. Really, who wants to listen to screaming brakes all the of the 10 min reward you get from climbing for 30 mins?!?!

[callmeishmael]

Depending on your max comfortable cadence, you'll spin out a 50/11 at c.40-42mph. A 52/11 takes you to about 42-44. Unless you're at the sharp end of racing or a time triallist, the difference is irrelevant. Focus instead on picking a line and recovering the legs from the significant climb that must either have preceded or soon follow such a descent.

Also, a lower bottom gear is something I'd always recommend unless you're a flatlander or a very strong rider (5w/kg or similar). It's better to have a gear you rarely use than not have it when you need it.

Perhaps riding in a hilly part of the UK is different (lots of short but 20%+ gradients), but I find a 1:1 or similar bottom gear invaluable at reducing fatigue on longer rides and, generally, allowing more chilled out/steady/recovery rides when you live somewhere very lumpy.

[foo_fighter]

There are maybe only 2 right handers on that road that hit the peak grade and you could stand for 10 pedal strokes even if it's just for a butt break. BTW, Gaimon broke a long standing record on that climb a couple years back and tried it again recently.

One of the issues is that with all of the climbs, there are lots of nice descents too. So if you don't want to spin out on 84 going down to the coast, you might want the 52/11 instead of the 50/12(I know it's only a 15rpm difference at 40MPH).
I think the 52/36 + 11-32 is probably perfect, but get the SGS so you can run the 32/34/36 if you needed it. Cassettes aren't too expensive to experiment with.
Unless you're doing some of the crazy local climbs that are Hors Categorie for steepness(Bolhman On-Orbit Bolhman if you want to look it up) You'll probably be fine with the 36/32.
The 52 and 36 just feel a tiny bit better than a 50 or 34 but that could all be psychological.

Originally Posted by A_Bear

This is what I'm coming to, that it would be better to spin up the hills. I'm getting to the point now where I can ride up old la honda, a 3 mile climb that averages about 7.5%, and peaks at about 18, without coming out of the saddle in 39x25. But my cadence is terrible, and I have to work too hard to do it.

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned a 52/36 because that's the direction I was leaning. Now have to go read about 50/34s.

[A_Bear]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

P.S. Welcome to the forum!

Thank you. I already appreciate the group.

[A_Bear]

Originally Posted by msl819

Really, who wants to listen to screaming brakes all the of the 10 min reward you get from climbing for 30 mins?!?!

Not me. Been killing my fun the last few rides.