Climbing - Zero to Hero?

pr1mate

Hello all,
I've been cycling for several years but I'm a complete newbie when it comes to riding in events. Etape, Sportives etc. I'm not a member of any clubs so I cant ask advice from folks about stuff.

I recently took part in the Kinross Sportive and having thought I was fairly fit I got destroyed when it came to climbing the hills. Although the engine could always do with some work I'd like to run the specs of my bike past you all. I'm concerned my granny gear isn't 'easy' enough.

I ride a Trek 1000, I'm 182cm tall weighing in around 13 stone.

Cassette (8 speed) 11-28t
Front Crank 39-53t
frame 58cm

I remember upgrading my rear cassette a couple of years ago which did make it easier to climb but still I find I'm up and out of my seat a LONG time before efveryone else.

Advice very much appreciated.

holker

Why not try a compact 50/34 chainring. This is much better for most. 53/39 only suitable for really fit young racing types, or very flat terrain. 34-28 will get you up just about everything.

Bobbinogs

Compact seems the way to go if you are doing steep hills and are a mere mortal, IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I know a few cyclists who can survive with a standard double (and good on 'em) but I know many more that need the 34 that a compact offers. The standard offering these days seems to be a 50/34 matched with a 12-25 but I would still struggle to remain sitting on 34/25 when hitting a 10%+.

On a couple of my bikes I run a 39/28 combo too and it is pretty good for most rides but I find that big (as in very steep) climbs will inevitably lead to standing at some point and I cannot see that changing much going forward (but one never knows). I have another bike with a triple that runs 30/25 and I only need to stand to climb for the odd brute so it is my tough sportive/audax machine of choice. Bear in mind the inches:

39/28 = 38.5
34/25 = 37.5
34/28 = 33.5
30/25 = 33

Mind you, some folks in my club seem to be up out of the saddle fairly quickly so I think it is often a choice thing (I prefer to sit as long as poss since I find spinning much faster).

Stu07

I'd say that a compact would be a good investment. Having ridden both it makes a MASSIVE difference.

It might cost a bit unless you shop savvy, but might be worth it.

The only other option is to build in some more hill work/reps into your training
:twisted: :twisted:

Slack

Not running a compact myself - smallest gear being 39x27 - I think compact is the way to go. I would, but whilst being financially embarassed, I must endure for now.


You see, the compact will allow you to maintain a higher cadence. Higher cadence means you're putting the power out, but using less muscle energy. A slower cadence, or grind, will just use up more energy out of your leg muscles.

So, unless you're a pro with high sustainable power output, who could spin a 39x25 up a big hill, I would seriously consider a compact.

Futhermore, hill climbing out of the saddle raises the heart rate by several beats per minutes, so you just end up using more energy again!

pr1mate

thank you all.

Ok so I suppose the next question is would a Compact 50/34 be compatible with my current 8 speed cassette?

I'll be fitting it myself. Obvious pitfalls? TOOLS REQUIRED? Compatibility issues with my bike?

Trek 1000 2007 Full Spec

* Frameset SIZES: 43, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 63cm
* FRAME: Trek Alpha SL bttd alum
* FORKS: Bontrager Carbon w/alloy str Wheels
* WHEELS: Formula alloy
* TYRES: Bontrager Select 700x25c Drivetrain
* SHIFTERS: Shimano Sora STI
* FRONT DERAILLEUR: Shimano 2203
* REAR DERAILLEUR: Shimano Tiagra
* CRANKSET: Bontrager Sport 53a/39s or Bontrager Sport 52a/42s/30s
* CASSETTE: Sram PG850 12-26 8spd
* PEDALS: Alloy/nylon w/toe clips Components
* SADDLE: Bontrager Race Lux Basic
* SEATPOST: Bontrager Carbon
* HANDLEBARS: Bontrager Sport
* STEM: Bontrager Select/17d(43cm-Sport/17/d)
* HEADSET: VP sealed
* BRAKESET: Promax RC452 w/cart pads

note i changed the rear cassette to a 11-28

lochindaal

Ok so I suppose the next question is would a Compact 50/34 be compatible with my current 8 speed cassette?

I have a simlar issue for my wifes bike and it is a problem. I think all compacts are for 10 speed so this means changing nearly the whole groupset

Would be delighted if someone can show me otherwise

mostly harmless

lochindaal wrote:

I have a simlar issue for my wifes bike and it is a problem. I think all compacts are for 10 speed so this means changing nearly the whole groupset

Would be delighted if someone can show me otherwise

Most compacts are indeed for 9/10 speed but these will work perfectly well with an 8 speed chain and cassette as the newer chainset will have narrow rings. So all you need to change is the chainset (and possibly the bottom bracket depending on what system you move to)

Zoomer37

Im getting rid of a compact set if anyone wants it

80 big ones and you get a new 105 chainset, 12-25 casette and bb.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12772250

BelgianBeerGeek

You probably won't have any issues with the cassette/rear mech, but the front mech will need some readjusting. If its a clamp-on then this also shouln't be too much of an issue. The only way to get over hills (literally and psychologically) is to ride them and people have different techniques. Remember - it's only a hill!

nickel

Quick question but can the OP not just swap out the 53 and 39t chainrings for 50 and 34t? And thus not have to buy a new crankset? Or am I just being stupid?

woodywmb

The chainrings are unlikely to fit onto the spider. You should buy a crankset that fits the bottom bracket already in the frame. I think that model may have had an Isis BB. These are expensive but not long-lasting, especially on potholed roads. You can change it to
an old fashioned square tapered BB which costs £12-£16. Also, there are loads of cheap cranksets in compact form - even mountain bike ones will fit your road bike, both Isis and Shimano UN54. Alter the front derailleur (move it down) and it will work fine with your existing 8-speed chain and 8-speed cassette. The 2300 basic derailleur is easy to maneouvre - lots of movement for small turns of the barrell adjuster at the lever end.

Old Tuggo

holker wrote:

Why not try a compact 50/34 chainring. This is much better for most. 53/39 only suitable for really fit young racing types, or very flat terrain. 34-28 will get you up just about everything.

My advice would be to save your money and keep working on your fitness, you should be able to climb most hills on 39 x 28.

unixnerd

Most compacts are indeed for 9/10 speed but these will work perfectly well with an 8 speed chain and cassette as the newer chainset will have narrow rings.

I'm running a 10 speed Dura-Ace front crank with a 9 speed rear and it's fine.

My advice would be to save your money and keep working on your fitness, you should be able to climb most hills on 39 x 28.

Depends where you live. I run a triple on both my road bike and tourer with a 12-25 rear. I'm pretty fit and no stranger to hills so I seldom need the granny but if you're tired on a really steep hill it's worth it's weight in gold. Running a 12-25 instead of a 27 / 28 means the gaps between the gears are smaller.

mostly harmless

Nickel wrote:

Quick question but can the OP not just swap out the 53 and 39t chainrings for 50 and 34t? And thus not have to buy a new crankset? Or am I just being stupid?

Not a stupid question but you can't do this as standard uses a bolt circle diameter (BCD) of 130mm whilst a comact uses 110mm. The clever thing to do is to initially spec/fit a compact and add larger rings if needed. SRAM, TA and others make these. I run 38/52 TA 110mm BCD rings on the best bike and can swap down to as low as 33/48 for the really big hills.

nickel

mostly harmless wrote:

Nickel wrote:

Quick question but can the OP not just swap out the 53 and 39t chainrings for 50 and 34t? And thus not have to buy a new crankset? Or am I just being stupid?

Not a stupid question but you can't do this as standard uses a bolt circle diameter (BCD) of 130mm whilst a comact uses 110mm. The clever thing to do is to initially spec/fit a compact and add larger rings if needed. SRAM, TA and others make these. I run 38/52 TA 110mm BCD rings on the best bike and can swap down to as low as 33/48 for the really big hills.

Ah right I see. Im used to MTB cranks which generally are generally universal.

Stuy-b

not at all trying to be helpful but i ride a 52-39 on a 12-25 cassette and am yet to find anything i cant climb with it. tbh i very very rarely use the 23 or 25 at the back. just stick with what you have and ride more.

Anonymous

You can do the hills you are on with the gears you have, having a compact isn't going to make you any faster up them... You'll just be spinning more or even spinning the same amount but going slower.

Stick with what you have and you'll keep improving, you'll be fine...

slowlanejane

I have just converted to a compact which does give me a few extra gears for hills which are welcome, but not ground breaking difference and to be honest I think I preferred the old standard, even tho I was virtually in the granny ring to go over a motorway bridge.

rolf_f

NapoleonD wrote:

You can do the hills you are on with the gears you have, having a compact isn't going to make you any faster up them... You'll just be spinning more or even spinning the same amount but going slower.

You could rephrase that though - "having a standard isn't going to make you any faster up them - you'll just be grinding at an inefficiently low cadence".

Depends what the hills are like - the argument that you don't need lower gears could effectively be used to justify everyone going single speed.

dov2711

Thanks for the heads up on the event, this is my usual raining/riding route and I totally missed this. Will keep my eyes open for next year.

Anonymous

Rolf F wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

You can do the hills you are on with the gears you have, having a compact isn't going to make you any faster up them... You'll just be spinning more or even spinning the same amount but going slower.

You could rephrase that though - "having a standard isn't going to make you any faster up them - you'll just be grinding at an inefficiently low cadence".

Depends what the hills are like - the argument that you don't need lower gears could effectively be used to justify everyone going single speed.

But as you get stronger you grind less.

One of the biggest backward steps in my cycling was going from Standard to compact.Now back on standard again. I was horrendous at climbing, I'm much better now (but still bobbins due to size...)

This is my experience and may not be suitable for everyone but having a standard has made me stronger. If I was doing some ridiculous hills or hill climbs then I'd swap out to compact again but, well, standard for me now...

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

You can do the hills you are on with the gears you have, having a compact isn't going to make you any faster up them... You'll just be spinning more or even spinning the same amount but going slower.

You could rephrase that though - "having a standard isn't going to make you any faster up them - you'll just be grinding at an inefficiently low cadence".

Depends what the hills are like - the argument that you don't need lower gears could effectively be used to justify everyone going single speed.

I'm faster on my single speed going up the short sharp little digs in Richmond park than I am on my roadie with loads of gears....

I'm forced to bury myself to keep moving, and as such, go a fair bit faster.