Go Compact or change cluster

Jocato

I am a 58 year old "fun-rider", taking part in club races of up to 120km on hilly courses.I normally finish the longest rides within 5.5 hours
My weight is about 85kg and I carry a couple of extra Kg's of liquid and emergency equipment in my Camelbak.
My Orbea Roadstar, as it stands on the start line is 10.25kg. It is equipped with Dura Ace componentry, being 53/39 chainring and 12/25 cluster
During last summer I found myself slower and slower on steep and long climbs, which was most disconcerting.
My request is for general advice on
1)Changing to a compact 50/34 set up. What else will I have to change on the bike to make things work properly?
2)Changing my cluster to say 13/28, or whatever, and,similarly,what else will I have to change to make things work properly
or 3)Should I just get a fancy lightweight bike?

I will appreciate any comments which could help me come to a decision

aracer

1) Obviously the bottom bracket, but apart from that nothing else - though you'll have to move your front mech down and readjust it.
2) Probably nothing - a 13-28 should work fine with standard road mechs, though you could get problems if you go for any bigger a cog than that. Depending how careful you are to avoid big/big and how long your chain is now you may need a new longer chain.
3) Do the maths - your total weight now is ~97kg, a really light bike will only drop that to about 94kg. That's really not going to make that much difference. Much cheaper might be to dump some of the stuff you're lugging in your camelback - from the way you say it I do wonder if you're carrying loads of unnecessary tools with you. Curious whether you're originally a mountain biker, as it's usually those who find it difficult to divorce themselves from the camelback - it really is a lot more comfortable on the road to carry water in bottles and tools/tubes in a seatpack leaving you unencumbered.

nick hanson

aracer wrote:

.
3) Do the maths - your total weight now is ~97kg, a really light bike will only drop that to about 94kg. That's really not going to make that much difference. Much cheaper might be to dump some of the stuff you're lugging in your camelback - from the way you say it I do wonder if you're carrying loads of unnecessary tools with you. Curious whether you're originally a mountain biker, as it's usually those who find it difficult to divorce themselves from the camelback - it really is a lot more comfortable on the road to carry water in bottles and tools/tubes in a seatpack leaving you unencumbered.

It does amaze me when people use this rationale,when telling you that the weight of the bike won't change your performance level.
Think about it,after toiling all winter on your old bike,clad with mudguards,pannier rack,lights,old ,heavy components & not exactly the most modern,lightweight frame,can you honestly tell me your pace does not increase a couple of MPH when you go over the same routes on your best bike?
Of course it does.

Jocato

aracer
Originally started as a mountainbiker, still mountain bike in winter

aracer

nick hanson wrote:

aracer wrote:

.
3) Do the maths - your total weight now is ~97kg, a really light bike will only drop that to about 94kg. That's really not going to make that much difference. Much cheaper might be to dump some of the stuff you're lugging in your camelback - from the way you say it I do wonder if you're carrying loads of unnecessary tools with you. Curious whether you're originally a mountain biker, as it's usually those who find it difficult to divorce themselves from the camelback - it really is a lot more comfortable on the road to carry water in bottles and tools/tubes in a seatpack leaving you unencumbered.

It does amaze me when people use this rationale,when telling you that the weight of the bike won't change your performance level.
Think about it,after toiling all winter on your old bike,clad with mudguards,pannier rack,lights,old ,heavy components & not exactly the most modern,lightweight frame,can you honestly tell me your pace does not increase a couple of MPH when you go over the same routes on your best bike?
Of course it does.

It amazes me when people totally ignore the physics and attribute gains due to increasing fitness etc. to a very small loss in weight (relative to the total package) on the bike. Yes a 7kg race bike is a lot lighter than a 12kg lump of a winter bike, and it feels so much more lively, but in real terms, even for a lightweight 10st rider the difference is only 7% in the total weight - which is what you have to haul up the hills. So on the very steepest hills where it's all down to weight you'll go 10.7mph instead of 10mph. On the flat, the weight makes even less difference. How on earth do you think losing 7% in weight can gain you 10% in speed on the flat, when most of the resistance there is down to the air drag which the weight doesn't affect?

Yes I go faster on my summer bike than my winter bike, but most of that is down to a better aero package of not having mudgaurds (I don't have a rack and panniers on my winter bike, but they'd make even more difference to the aero). In this case we're only talking about losing weight, nothing else.

It was an easy guess, Jocato. As I said before, try dumping the camelback and all you're lugging around with you and use bottles instead.

cougie

I really think people get too carried away with weight savings on the bike. Has anyone noticed their bike riding better at the end of a ride with empty water bottles vs the start when you have an extra 1.5Kg on ? I've not been able to detect it.

How fast are you spinning on these long climbs ? Do you actually need a lower gear to keep the cadence up or do you maybe just need to work on your climbing ?

And do you need a new BB for a compact ? I'm not sure I understand this ? You may need a longer rear mech to take up the slack that you will get with having a bigger gap between the chainrings ?

aracer

cougie wrote:

And do you need a new BB for a compact ? I'm not sure I understand this ? You may need a longer rear mech to take up the slack that you will get with having a bigger gap between the chainrings ?

I was kind of thinking that you'd need a new BB to suit the new crank - if the new crank goes on the BB you already have, then no need to change.

Shouldn't be any need for a new rear mech - a typical 50/34 is only 2 teeth more jump than a 53/39. Even with a 13/28, a short cage should cope with this much difference.

PhilthyPhil

cougie wrote:

I really think people get too carried away with weight savings on the bike. Has anyone noticed their bike riding better at the end of a ride with empty water bottles vs the start when you have an extra 1.5Kg on ? I've not been able to detect it.

I find the difference between full waterbottles and empty/no waterbottles to be very noticable on steep climbs. For me 1.5 kg is about 2% of the overall weight of me, my bike and all my gear, I guess if your overall weight is quite large the difference would not be so noticable. I do find it strange that some people get so anal about shedding every possible gram from their bike and then put two big heavy bottles of water on it.

cougie

:shock: I'm not fat - I'm big boned !!! :shock:

maddog 2

Jocato wrote:

1)Changing to a compact 50/34 set up. What else will I have to change on the bike to make things work properly?

Nowt. Obviously you'll need the correct BB for the c/set, as mentioned. You may also need to shed a link or two from your chain, but this isn't always the case

2)Changing my cluster to say 13/28, or whatever, and,similarly,what else will I have to change to make things work properly

If you're on Shimano, then any more than 28ish teeth would require a mtb rear mech. A long cage raod mech won't suffice - a mtb mech is needed.

or 3)Should I just get a fancy lightweight bike?

of course. but you don't need us to answer this question...

fatfreddy

Jocato wrote:

2)Changing my cluster to say 13/28,

max rear sprocket on Dura Ace is 27T

as Maddog says you'll need an MTB rear end

aracer

fatfreddy wrote:

Jocato wrote:

2)Changing my cluster to say 13/28,

max rear sprocket on Dura Ace is 27T

as Maddog says you'll need an MTB rear end

In fact Maddog like me suggested 28 would probably be OK, since Shimano are quite conservative with their specs. It's only if you want to go bigger than that you're likely to have a problem.

larmurf

Not sure exactly what the ratio is as bikes get lighter and more expensive
I will suggest 2kg per £1000
Someone suggested a few years ago that it would be a better (cheaper)
idea to go on a diet and lose the few pounds involved.

After a gruelling run in some hills that were not exactly the Alps I am tinkering
with Dr Atkins' much maligned diet which from previous experience I know
does work. Read somewhere recently that Michael Rasmussen lubricates his Muesli
with water instead of milk to keep down his fat intake. Now that is what one
calls dedication

SteveR_100Milers

The weight of your bike is only relative to the riders weight: so if you are light, then its worth making the bike light. If you're heavy (<80Kgs) then there is no point in chasing weight, stiffness is probably a more important consideration. Calculate your bikes weight as a % of the total weight (you+bike) when you were at your fastest, and use that as a target to compare to other riders who are faster than you are.

shimano do a 12-27 10 spd cassette (or cluster) which works fine with a standard dura ace rear mech, and a 50/34 fron compact chainset. It would be one hell of a hill that defeats a 34 x 27 ratio, that's about a 35" gear!

oldwelshman

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

The weight of your bike is only relative to the riders weight: so if you are light, then its worth making the bike light. If you're heavy (<80Kgs) then there is no point in chasing weight, stiffness is probably a more important consideration. Calculate your bikes weight as a % of the total weight (you+bike) when you were at your fastest, and use that as a target to compare to other riders who are faster than you are.

shimano do a 12-27 10 spd cassette (or cluster) which works fine with a standard dura ace rear mech, and a 50/34 fron compact chainset. It would be one hell of a hill that defeats a 34 x 27 ratio, that's about a 35" gear!

Bet you still havent tried that route I suggested previousy and go over the hill to Abertridwr also? You would probably use the 35" there

aracer

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

It would be one hell of a hill that defeats a 34 x 27 ratio, that's about a 35" gear!

I could think of a few. Even the climb up Ankerdine which was part of the local ToB stage (and the associated Sportif) was pretty hard work for me in 39/27 after 35 miles - I'd imagine that for someboidy heavier and less fit than me it would be a real struggle in 34/27. Meanwhile Hardknott etc. are even steeper than that.

wildmoustache

To say i'm shocked at a 10.25kg DA equipped bike is an understatement. Is that including full bottles? Normal way of weighing bikes is with pedals, whatever cages and computers you use, but without bottles.

Moving from a 53/39 and 12/25 to a 50/34 with 13/28 is a VERY big change is gearing. I'd go for the compact first and see how you get on with the existing 12-25 cassette.

i don't know what the orbea roadstar is like. What is the frame like? You could pretty easily get a bike that is 2.5 to 3kg lighter than the one you have. it might be more responsive as well, which could futher improve things.

it's hard to respond to this one without knowing how this orbea roadstar performs.

my advice is for you to test ride a lightweight road bike and see what you think.

maddog 2

larmurf wrote:

Michael Rasmussen lubricates his Muesli
with water instead of milk to keep down his fat intake.

and then he sprinkles it with special sugar........... :shock:


mmm muesli and water........... don't they make houses out of that somewhere...


34-27 will get you up pretty much anything but Hardknott is something else. I used 34-32 on the Fred Whitton and only just got up Hardknott.

larmurf

maddog 2 wrote:

larmurf wrote:

Michael Rasmussen lubricates his Muesli
with water instead of milk to keep down his fat intake.

and then he sprinkles it with special sugar........... :shock:


mmm muesli and water........... don't they make houses out of that somewhere...


34-27 will get you up pretty much anything but Hardknott is something else. I used 34-32 on the Fred Whitton and only just got up Hardknott.

Yea - was waiting for a reply of that nature
Michael's only crime was too make a simple geographical error He thought he was in
Mexico when he was actually in the North of Italy and for that he gets turfed
out of the TDF Half the population of Liverpool think they are on Mars every
weekend. As for making houses out of Muesli & water I think the current state of British
craftmanship just makes them look that way