Difference in bike weight/gear ratio choice for older rider

Middleaged

Got back into cycling after a 25 year lay off - got a touring bike with a wide ratio triple gears setup.
I can get up almost anything on the lowest "26x32" with effort but never push more than "48x14" max.
I am now hankering after a lightweight bike, I believe the current buzzword would be 'sportive'.

My basic question is what gearing is suitable given the lower weight? My tourer has rack/guards and panniers etc on it so will be no lightweight. Maybe a decent sportive bike would be several Kg less.

I am now on the wrong side of 50 with less muscle mass than in my younger days when my 'racer' had 52/42 and 13/23 sprockets. Currently 50/34 and 11/28 seem the usual choice but I'm not sure if the 34 is low enough and whether I'd have the strength to ever use the 11 and 12 sprockets.
I could stick with a triple I suppose but aesthectically it doesn't look right on a 'sporty' bike

Any other 'semi-wrinklies' on here done the same thing, ie come back to cycling and care to comment on gear ratios?

markos1963

Most decent LBS(local bike stores) should be able to set up your new bike with the gearing of your choice. Would be easy to pop on a 48t ring on a compact chainset and then a cassette of your choice, you can get them with bottom sprockets of around 32t now so low enough for anything you want

EarlyGo

A triple is the simple answer!

If you don't want to go that way then you could have a MTB cassette and derailleur fitted. Get a 12-36 tooth MTB cassette and a 30 tooth front ring and you'll get up the side of a mountain easy!

Regards,

EarlyGo

wishitwasallflat

SRAM APEX - 50/34 11-32 big gaps on the back yes but when struggling on a hill I don't care!

Gizmodo

OK so I'm a youngster at 44 (45 next month eek) clinically obese and haven't cycled sine I was 16 years old and discovered a driving license at 17. I bought a bike at the end of Aigust last year, it had a standard 52/39 which I must admit I found hard going on the hills where I live. I have since changed to a compact 50/34 lighter bike which I do find easier, but a triple - no way. I'm with though, triples are for Mountain Bikes (sorry if that offends anyone), they just don't look right on sporty bikes.

Go for the "sportive" bike (comfy geometry) with a compact chain set (50/34 or lower) and the more you can ride, the easier it will get. As for being the wrong side of 50, if I can cycle to and from Radiotherapy treatment for Cancer at 44 years old, then ride 30 miles at the weekends, it shouldn't be a problem.

Good luck, and whatever your decision, enjoy your cycling.

simon_e

Gizmodo wrote:

triples are for Mountain Bikes (sorry if that offends anyone), they just don't look right on sporty bikes.

Perhaps you ought to spend less time 'looking' and more time riding

I find a triple gives me that ideal 39T middle ring for general riding, 50T top ring for time trials and getting places quickly and the 30T granny ring for winching me up the hills of south Shropshire. Even if you don't like the look of triples yourself that doesn't mean they aren't a good idea for the OP.

That's not to say compacts are bad, each is a way to achieve effectively the same low gearing. Sram Apex was introduced to allow MTB size cassettes like 12-32T to 'officially' work well with a 50/34 chainset. Sram make a big deal of Apex making triples obsolete, but that's only because they don't make a 3-ring road chainset.

To the OP I'd say: triple or compact, either should help, but don't expect a lighter bike to make hills that much easier.

tx14

If you're happy on a triple, why change it? Just swap the fd and left shifter. it would look odd, but looks are superficial.

neeb

I can get up almost anything on the lowest "26x32"

Is that a 32 in front and 26 at the rear? If so, a compact 50/34 with a 12-27 should provide almost exactly the same lowest gear, and you have a simpler system that's probably easier to adjust and maintain.

Incidentally at 50, I think it's the time off the bike rather than age that's the issue!

skyd0g

For most people on average terrain, a compact set-up with 50/34 on front and 12/25 on the rear will cover most situations.

If you've got some ideas of gears, try Sheldon Brown's gear calculator:
http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Middleaged

Thanks for the advice. My tourer's lowest gear is 26 front, 32 rear (ie very low).
I'm in 2 minds - either get a compact and keep getting the miles and strength in or build up my own and use a super compact. As buying a bike, esp those on sale, is cheaper than self build it may well come down to that one.
I did manage to try a CX bike with 36 front and 26 back and just got up most hills with a lot of effort so a compact should just about do it. Now, which to choose .......

neeb

Middleaged wrote:

Thanks for the advice. My tourer's lowest gear is 26 front, 32 rear (ie very low).

Wow, I didn't know you got gears that low! The granny ring at the front must be tiny!

Middleaged wrote:

I'm in 2 minds - either get a compact and keep getting the miles and strength in or build up my own and use a super compact. As buying a bike, esp those on sale, is cheaper than self build it may well come down to that one.
I did manage to try a CX bike with 36 front and 26 back and just got up most hills with a lot of effort so a compact should just about do it. Now, which to choose .......

If you can just about manage the hills with a 36 - 26 then a standard compact (50/34), giving you a 34 - 27 even just with normal short cage rear derailleur should be fine if you put the effort in (especially as you improve, which you will, a lot!).

keef66

Well I came back to road bikes the wrong side of 50 and following knee surgery. I went for a 105 triple 50/39/30 with a 12-25 cassette. That way I have a reasonable range of gears with no big gaps between sprockets, which means I can keep spinning away at my preferred cadence.

I know many of the ratios are duplicated, and I could get the same range of gears with a compact double and a bigger cassette, but I don't think it would be as practical.

With the triple chainset I spend 90% of my time in the 39 chainring and the 12-25 cassette gives me the ratios I need. The big chainring is only used for longer downhills or decent tailwinds, conversely the small chainring is for longer uphills or stiff headwinds.

OK, it's not as pretty as a Campag double chainset, but I spend more time riding the thing than gazing at it (only just though)

Legshaver

I had a 30 year lay-off and came back to cycling 1989, buying myself a Raleigh 531 with Shimano Ultegra gears. The 52/42 double coupled with a 13-26 7 speed cassette was a bit high at times and I found that a 50/40 chainring set up was much better.

Eventually, after 60k miles I decided to update the bike with a compact set up, but getting newer designed parts for a 20 year old bike wasn't a good idea, so I bought a Cannondale carbon Synapse. This had a 50/34 chainset and 12-27 cassette, and was pretty close to what I felt happy with. But I'm in my late 60s and I felt that I rarely used the 50 and 12, so I replaced the 50 ring with a 48. I guess some gears might be duplicated, but I don't find that a problem, and spinning in top in favourable conditions is good for you.

Living in a hilly area and going deep into the Cotswolds several times a week, a double is the slickest/fastest option, especially when on an undulating road. Gear changing with triples can be very tiresome, and a 48/34double with a 12-27 cassette gives a really good spread for anything that I've come across. True, I can't get up 30% climbs, but I can live with that at my age! Anything steeper than 25% and I would have to get off anyway, no matter what the gearing. :roll:

ForumNewbie

Middleaged wrote:

Got back into cycling after a 25 year lay off - got a touring bike with a wide ratio triple gears setup.
I can get up almost anything on the lowest "26x32" with effort but never push more than "48x14" max.
I am now hankering after a lightweight bike, I believe the current buzzword would be 'sportive'.

My basic question is what gearing is suitable given the lower weight? My tourer has rack/guards and panniers etc on it so will be no lightweight. Maybe a decent sportive bike would be several Kg less.

I am now on the wrong side of 50 with less muscle mass than in my younger days when my 'racer' had 52/42 and 13/23 sprockets. Currently 50/34 and 11/28 seem the usual choice but I'm not sure if the 34 is low enough and whether I'd have the strength to ever use the 11 and 12 sprockets.
I could stick with a triple I suppose but aesthectically it doesn't look right on a 'sporty' bike

Any other 'semi-wrinklies' on here done the same thing, ie come back to cycling and care to comment on gear ratios?

I'm over 50 as well and have recently bought a carbon bike with compact gearing (lowest being 34*28). I had same concerns about whether low enough as my steel Audax bike has a triple with a low gear of 30*27 - but that is only one gear lower when you look at the ratios, and as the new bike is over 3kg lighter I reckon it probably cancels it out. The new bike won't be coming out again till spring, but I'm confident the gearing will still get me up just about every hill. I think with the compact I'll miss the middle gear that I have on my triple, as the drop from 50 to 34 at the front is quite significant, as when I drop down at the front I tend to need to move up a gear or two at the back straight away to stop spinning.

RoadMeridaBen

Middleaged wrote:

Thanks for the advice. My tourer's lowest gear is 26 front, 32 rear (ie very low).
I'm in 2 minds - either get a compact and keep getting the miles and strength in or build up my own and use a super compact. As buying a bike, esp those on sale, is cheaper than self build it may well come down to that one.
I did manage to try a CX bike with 36 front and 26 back and just got up most hills with a lot of effort so a compact should just about do it. Now, which to choose .......

Christ with gears like that you'l be doing about 2 miles and hour with a cadance of 100 on the slopes, you'l be getting passed by dog walkers going uphill :P

gloomyandy

He may be going slow, but remember that a touring bike may well have enough gear on it to sleep, camp, eat for a week or so. Try carrying that lot on a race frame with a 52/39-11/22! I'm not sure I'd actually want to walk with all of that, though perhaps I could get the dog to carry some of it!

andrewjoseph

Middleaged wrote:

...
I could stick with a triple I suppose but aesthectically it doesn't look right on a 'sporty' bike
...

Maybe not, but walking up hills doesn't look good on any bike.

I'm 51, been mtb'ing for years, have now got a tourer and put mtb range triple on it. i don't particularly care how it/I look, I'm wearing lycra for pete's sake! ;-)

Saying that, I was spinning out too easily in big ring, so I now have a 49-34-24 crankset and 12-36 mtb cassette. not many hills defeat me even when touring fully loaded.

Mettan

Middleaged wrote:

My basic question is what gearing is suitable

Get a 50/34 compact chainset with an 11/32 cassette and a Mtb rear deraileur - it's a simple, flexible and reliable enough setup - it will be slightly more gappy on the flat (relative to a smaller cassette) , but it's hardly a deal-breaker - if you're planning on doing any Sportives in the future, you'll likely be happy being able to access the 32 on 5 % + grads after 50 + miles (especially if you want to spin).

Middleaged

Thanks for the extra tips chaps - esp from the over 50's. The 26 tooth front and 32 rear (soon to be a 34 rear) really are necessary for me. I ride a lot in the Yorkshire Wolds and NY Moors and many of the hills on the OS maps have chevrons on them. Some that don't are still little beasties at times.
Even moderate hills are tough with a few panniers worth of gear on. On day rides with little extra weight on its still nice to have a low gear for when you are cream crackered after 4 or 5 hours in the saddle.
I'm thinking now of a 46/30 front set up and 12-28 rear. That way I can actually use all the gears and have a decent low for the lung bursters. I seem to spend most of my time in 60-70" gears, anything much over 90" and I'm going that fast downhill I start to freewheel anyway (I am crap at descending btw).
cheers.