Designing a bike solely for climbing...

[Dave]

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

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

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

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by Dave

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

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

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

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

[robt57]

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

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

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

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

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by joosttx

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

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

[zap]

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

[FlashUNC]

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.

[prototoast]

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

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by prototoast

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

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

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

[poff]

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

[Dave]

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

https://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

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

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

[joosttx]

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

[Mark McM]

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.

[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]