Designing a bike solely for climbing...

[XXtwindad]

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

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

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

[FlashUNC]

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

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

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

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

[Straz]

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

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

[colker]

Originally Posted by Straz

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

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

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

[zap]

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

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

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

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

Or spin 120 rpm at 35 mph.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

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

Or spin 120 rpm at 35 mph.

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

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

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

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

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

Speaking of, 46x10 is choice.

[Dave]

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

https://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

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

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

[joosttx]

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

[robt57]

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

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

Just sayin... [has been]

[Spdntrxi]

Originally Posted by joosttx

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

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

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Dave

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

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

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

[eddief]

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