Silly commuting racing

Bassjunkieuk

GT, nice sig :-D

DDD, I fully agree with you about it being down to personal preference. As I accidentally outted myself the other week about what gear I normally use it is, as you say, all down to personal preference. I think it also comes down to what you'll be riding. I tend to not go down onto the grann ring up front unless I REALLY have to, but I was thankful I had that smaller ring as I got towards the end of my charity ride as I don't think my legs would have made it up there using the 42/26 I then had.

It was my first ride of that type and lenght and it was great fun! I have no doubt I would have got by with a compact 50/34 as I spent most of the rest of the ride on the middle or large ring, and could probably have maintained a comfortable speed on the 50 up front.

It really would be a case of test riding a bike with the gearing over some of the steeper roads I have near me, which aren't particularly long but can really pick up at some points to see if I would be comfortable using it.

One day I'd love to take part in some of the longer rides and even try to tackle some proper hills over in Europe, alas tho with current family commitments it will be a good few years before I can even consider this! Still it gives me plenty of time to train :-D

greg66_tri_v2.0

jashburnham wrote:

50/34 is ideal for us amateurs; allows for the nasty short steep hills you get in the UK

Like the col du pont du Putney?

Or does that need a triple? Or a zig zagging across the bus lane?

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

50/34 is ideal for us amateurs; allows for the nasty short steep hills you get in the UK

Like the col du pont du Putney?

Or does that need a triple? Or a zig zagging across the bus lane?

Actually, I think this topic has legs.

cjcp

DonDaddyD wrote:

biondino wrote:

Along with Jash I'm happy to represent the mincing spinning mimsy-boys of bikeradar and DDD, I think you're being very foolish disregarding a 34-inch chainring.

Just going on your posts here, you're not the strongest or lightest rider but you love riding, right? So on steep hills do you kill yourself, or get off and walk? If you have a compact chainset you can climb even 20% hills, as long as they're not too long, without having a hernia. I don't spent hours in 34/27 but I do use it - for example on my 5th lap of Richmond Park the other day, the last 30 yards of Dark Hill, and no-one would pretend that's a challenging climb.

For riders who aren't pretty strong, or avoid hills like the plague, or require the ability to go 50mph+, the compact chainset is a godsend without any disadvantages. 50/34 is plenty for 99.9% of the riding you're going to do, and on steep climbs it's the difference between a challenge and a nightmare.

I think none of you are taking into appreciation "individual preference".

I currently own a bike with a 52/39/30. The only ring I use is the 52 even up hills. Very steep hills like the 1in7 (or something, steep fcuker) in Norbury sees me on the 39 though I go around and up not simply up it. I've never liked the smaller rings on any bike I've ever ridden since I was a teenager.

Maybe you are right I may need a 34 but I know my thighs and it just seems a little on the small side.

Just to clarify I don't get off my bike and walk anymore. That's just not cricket.

DDD - I've missed a lot of this - work got in the way, I'm afraid.

What's your personal preference and what do you think you need at the moment? Will your present needs change in the future e.g. you want to do sportives etc?

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

Like the col du pont du Putney?

Or does that need a triple? Or a zig zagging across the bus lane?

I zig zag across the bus lane so that I can deter overtaking manoovers. I've also cut the top off a bottle and keep pea gravel in it.

If I feel an attack coming in I "deploy" the gravel James Bond Style in their path. My experiments in ejector seats have not been entirely succesful however....

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

greg66_tri_v2.0

cjcp wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

50/34 is ideal for us amateurs; allows for the nasty short steep hills you get in the UK

Like the col du pont du Putney?

Or does that need a triple? Or a zig zagging across the bus lane?

Actually, I think this topic has legs.

Yeah. And speaking of legs, I'm really having trouble with our hairy 14 stone friend portraying himself as a

mincing spinning mimsy-boy

Does le pont du Putney not have a weight limit?

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

50/34 is ideal for us amateurs; allows for the nasty short steep hills you get in the UK

Like the col du pont du Putney?

Or does that need a triple? Or a zig zagging across the bus lane?

Actually, I think this topic has legs.

Yeah. And speaking of legs, I'm really having trouble with our hairy 14 stone friend portraying himself as a

mincing spinning mimsy-boy

Does le pont du Putney not have a weight limit?

It does now, following the meteor-crater-like pothles caused by him on the south side of the bridge.

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

Yeah. And speaking of legs, I'm really having trouble with our hairy 14 stone friend portraying himself as a

mincing spinning mimsy-boy

Does le pont du Putney not have a weight limit?

For a lawyer you have piss poor attention to detail....

The only wait you should worry about is the time it takes for you to start pissing, at your age your prostrate is probably the size of a football.

cjcp

Greg T wrote:

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

Yes. Pull harder and

M.
T.
F.
U.


Oil, assuming alu on alu.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

Oh, lots (alternatives, not cumulative):

1. 3 in 1 oil left to work in over night. Then repeat for another night. Then try.
2. Strip the BB out, invert and pour Coke into the seat tube. Leave overnight
3. Put the head of the seatpost in a vice and turn the frame.
4. Melt the seatpost out (had to do have that done once. Comes with a free respray of the frame).

Greg T

Greg T wrote:

My experiments in ejector seats have not been entirely succesful however....

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

Jaysus.

I really do have to spell it out........

I fitted an ejector seat to my bike.... and now I have to "remove" the seat post "saddle still attached"

Are we there yet?

Keep up....

greg66_tri_v2.0

On second thoughts, CJ is right (again).

Have you tried bouncing up and down on the saddle though? You should be able to drive it into the frame unless it is fused at the molecular level.

cjcp

Greg T wrote:

Greg T wrote:

My experiments in ejector seats have not been entirely succesful however....

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

Jaysus.

I really do have to spell it out........

I fitted an ejector seat to my bike.... and now I have to "remove" the seat post "saddle still attached"

Are we there yet?

Keep up....

Not with you.

lost_in_thought

This thread is extra-hilarious today... my keyboard is now liberally coated in coffee and my co-workers are suspicious...

Greg66, how do you melt a seatpost out of a frame?

My commute in today was again slightly marred by a cold, but unlike man-flu sufferers I got on the MTFU train and overtook everyone I saw on the way in.

Luckily I didn't see a single roadie. :oops:

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

Greg T wrote:

My experiments in ejector seats have not been entirely succesful however....

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

Jaysus.

I really do have to spell it out........

I fitted an ejector seat to my bike.... and now I have to "remove" the seat post "saddle still attached"

Are we there yet?

Keep up....

OOOOOOHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

It was a joke!

Yes, I think I see it now.

You really should give us some warning that they're coming in future though. Perhaps post something first thing you arrive to say that one will along later that day... :twisted:

attica

Not wishing to side with the Mimsy Twiddlers (New album out soon on K-Tel)

Buuut

Surely your choice of gearing has nothing to do with it, but it's your speed on the road that gives a true measure of your MTFU-ness.

I ride a 69 (dude) inch gearing, yet happily beat roadies when I meet them, on the other hand one of my road bikes has 52 42 up front doesn't stop me getting around quite fast on either.

We should all just MTFU and pedal harder/faster (delete as appropriate)

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

but unlike man-flu sufferers I got on the MTFU train and overtook everyone I saw on the way in.

Good girl :twisted:

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Greg T wrote:

My experiments in ejector seats have not been entirely succesful however....

Anyone got any top tips for removing very jammed seatposts (saddle still attached)

Jaysus.

I really do have to spell it out........

I fitted an ejector seat to my bike.... and now I have to "remove" the seat post "saddle still attached"

Are we there yet?

Keep up....

OOOOOOHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

It was a joke!

Yes, I think I see it now.

You really should give us some warning that they're coming in future though. Perhaps post something first thing you arrive to say that one will along later that day... :twisted:

Greg T - on fire today, mate. On. Fire.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66, how do you melt a seatpost out of a frame?

I don't know lits, how *do* you melt a seatpost out of a frame?

Oh. That wasn't a joke. Sorry. GT's humour interlude had me off balance for a while.

Well, you take it to Condor, who try to remove it, then suck their teeth, then say it has to go the frame builder to see if he can prise it out. They they ring you and say he can't, and the only way forward is for him to melt it out.

Alu post + steel frame. I'm guessing he chooses a temperature between their melting points. Not to be recommended for carbon fibre frames.

BTW. Who knows this? If you leave a bare carbon seatpost in a bare carbon frame, they will eventually fuse. You should remove and reinstall from time to time.

Who says this place isn't educational? It's like the flipping' Open University here, it is. We should hand out mortarboards.

attica

Greg66 wrote:

Yes, I think I see it now.

You had to look didn't you.

GT, Assos do a cream for it I think

greg66_tri_v2.0

Attica wrote:

GT, Assos do a cream for it I think

They do indeed. But here's the thing.

Who at Assos had this conversation

"So, we've got this cream, right, and you put it on your chamois, right. Or you apply it - ahem - directly. Right?"

"yeah"

"So how about we put Deep Heat in it"

"Fcukin' A! Do it man!"

There must be a youtube vid of the little dance you do after direct application.


{and yes, I know, MTFU. Real men put burning oil on their 'nads and leave it there for days whilst sliding down bannisters made of bits of broken glass and razor blades etc, etc... )

ansbaradigeidfran

Greg66 wrote:

Alu post + steel frame. I'm guessing he chooses a temperature between their melting points.

Nope, not neccesarily. Different metals expand at different rates. There's a thermometer at the Ontario Science Centre that works on the difference in thermal expansion between two girders!

Aluminium expands and contracts roughly twice as fast as the metal. Given that it's on the inside, you'd want to heat the metals, then try to displace the seatpost as they cool. (Not guaranteed to work)

greg66_tri_v2.0

ansbaradigeidfran wrote:

Nope, not neccesarily. Different metals expand at different rates. There's a thermometer at the Ontario Science Centre that works on the difference in thermal expansion between two girders!

Aluminium expands roughly twice as fast as the metal. Given that it's on the inside, you'd want to heat the metals, then try to displace the seatpost as they cool. (Not guaranteed to work)

Won't it be guaranteed to fail unless the alu cools more rapidly than the steel? And if they're in contact, that could be a neat trick.

ansbaradigeidfran

Greg66 wrote:

ansbaradigeidfran wrote:

Aluminium expands roughly twice as fast as the metal. Given that it's on the inside, you'd want to heat the metals, then try to displace the seatpost as they cool. (Not guaranteed to work)

Won't it be guaranteed to fail unless the alu cools more rapidly than the steel? And if they're in contact, that could be a neat trick.

Yeup, it contracts twice as fast too, that's why you catch it mid-cooling. (original post corrected)

DonDaddyD

Reading all these posts would I be wrong in saying that most slight frame people would prefer to spin a smaller gear. Whereas most larger people prefer turn a big crank at a slower cadence to get the same effect?

Also my original post for not wanting a 50/34 is mostly not because of speed but what I find comfortable.

CJCP,

My preference: When going up hills I prefer to push the bigger ring as oppose to spinning a smaller ring. In fact it is uncomfortable (always has been) turning the smaller ring really really quickly (maybe I don't have great fast twitch muscles). I enjoy putting power down on the big ring. As I'm riding more getting stronger and fitter I'm finding this is the case more often than not.

My journey now and for the forseeable future doesn't include many, if any, hills that would be steep enough for me to go down to a ring smaller than my 39t.

Bass,

I take your point and stamina aside when I've been exhausted going down to a smaller front ring, when tired, has always had a worsening effect on me. I'd sooner stay on the 52t and just travel up the back cassette to an easier gear.

Maybe for me the jump from a 52t to a 39t is too steep. But I find the 39 too small for my riding style as whenever I drop down to it, I slow right the way down and hate having to spin easy gears to maintain my speed.

Push rather than spin that's my preference.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think none of you are taking into appreciation "individual preference".

I currently own a bike with a 52/39/30. The only ring I use is the 52 even up hills. Very steep hills like the 1in7 (or something, steep fcuker) in Norbury sees me on the 39 though I go around and up not simply up it. I've never liked the smaller rings on any bike I've ever ridden since I was a teenager.

Maybe you are right I may need a 34 but I know my thighs and it just seems a little on the small side.

Just to clarify I don't get off my bike and walk anymore. That's just not cricket.

I think the point I'm trying to make is this: Busting up steep hills on the big ring is no problemo providing the hill is short (so pretty much any hill in London). I think what you need to think about is what you'll be using the bike for. Do you venture out of London at the mo, and do you plan on taking the new bike over to the continent, or to wales or other hilly areas of the UK? If so then you probably will need a 34 (along with judicious rear cassette selection). Why? Well because the 34 comes into its own on long climbs when sitting down and spinning becomes a must (Actually I'm of the opinion that high cadence is a must for any long cycle ride). Of course this is doable on a 39, but (and please don't take offence) your prior posts suggest that you are on the larger side of 13 stone and don't cycle much outside of your commute (sincere apologies if this is wrong). Given that, you may find you'll struggle on proper hills if you go for a double. I'd suggest you tackle some of the Surrey hills, say Box Hill and Leith Hill before buying. If you can do them no sweat on a 39 then go for it, if not I'd really recommend a 34. Remember as well that cassettes are easily changed. I run an 11/23 most of the time but if I head anywhere mountainous then I'll usually stick a 13/27 on the back which makes a huge difference. I did the Dragon ride back in June after a years worth of Etape training and even then I was bloody glad of my 34. My training buddy Tom uses a triple and he just came 11th in class in the UK ironman (and is a 14 stone ex rugby playing beast!) so I really would not worry about compact or triples slowing you down, they won't.

At the end of the day it is of course down to individual preference, but test first if you can as swapping from a double to a compact can be costly.

Cheers.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Push rather than spin that's my preference.

There's a good article on Bikeradar re Spinning:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ters-16394


Basically it is worthwhile in the longrun but it is something many of us have to train ourselves to do. My natural instinct is to grind, but on long rides I've really found spinning to help. Actually riding SS for the commute has done wonders for my pedalling technique.

attica

jashburnham wrote:

. Actually riding SS for the commute has done wonders for my pedalling technique.

+1 for that

lost_in_thought

Attica wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

. Actually riding SS for the commute has done wonders for my pedalling technique.

+1 for that

+1

Also for my strength and endurance.

DonDaddyD

jashburnham wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think none of you are taking into appreciation "individual preference".

I currently own a bike with a 52/39/30. The only ring I use is the 52 even up hills. Very steep hills like the 1in7 (or something, steep fcuker) in Norbury sees me on the 39 though I go around and up not simply up it. I've never liked the smaller rings on any bike I've ever ridden since I was a teenager.

Maybe you are right I may need a 34 but I know my thighs and it just seems a little on the small side.

Just to clarify I don't get off my bike and walk anymore. That's just not cricket.

I think the point I'm trying to make is this: Busting up steep hills on the big ring is no problemo providing the hill is short (so pretty much any hill in London). I think what you need to think about is what you'll be using the bike for. Do you venture out of London at the mo, and do you plan on taking the new bike over to the continent, or to wales or other hilly areas of the UK? If so then you probably will need a 34 (along with judicious rear cassette selection). Why? Well because the 34 comes into its own on long climbs when sitting down and spinning becomes a must (Actually I'm of the opinion that high cadence is a must for any long cycle ride). Of course this is doable on a 39, but (and please don't take offence) your prior posts suggest that you are on the larger side of 13 stone and don't cycle much outside of your commute (sincere apologies if this is wrong). Given that, you may find you'll struggle on proper hills if you go for a double. I'd suggest you tackle some of the Surrey hills, say Box Hill and Leith Hill before buying. If you can do them no sweat on a 39 then go for it, if not I'd really recommend a 34. Remember as well that cassettes are easily changed. I run an 11/23 most of the time but if I head anywhere mountainous then I'll usually stick a 13/27 on the back which makes a huge difference. I did the Dragon ride back in June after a years worth of Etape training and even then I was bloody glad of my 34. My training buddy Tom uses a triple and he just came 11th in class in the UK ironman (and is a 14 stone ex rugby playing beast!) so I really would not worry about compact or triples slowing you down, they won't.

At the end of the day it is of course down to individual preference, but test first if you can as swapping from a double to a compact can be costly.

Cheers.

Thanks for the advice, its not that I think any of you are wrong and in all honesty, having stepped away from my PC and thought about it, my preference is based on my riding right now and not what I may be doing in time to come.

I do need to try a 34 to judge it. I'm just sceptical because I've never felt comfortable with a smaller ring on any kind of road, is all.