Gears, cadence and being God's gift to the velo

MartinB2444

Browsing through old threads discussing gearing for climbing I've noticed there are always a few guys saying 39/25 is all they've ever needed to get up Winnatts, Hard Knotts, east side of the Empire State Building and so on. Then there are other threads about optimum cadence where some posters would lead you to believe that anything less than 90rpm is mashing.

So, if I want to be "God's gift to the velo" have I got to big up my cadence AND my monster gearing :shock:

lotus49

Keeping up 90rpm up a steep hill would be quite an achievement but yes is the short answer.

rolf_f

There is some irony in forum opinion that it seems generally accepted that 90-100 is an optimum cadence but that you need to MTFU if your smallest gear is bigger than 39-25

PS - the Empire State is pretty much equally steep whichever side you try to cycle up!

southdownswolf

Rolf F wrote:

PS - the Empire State is pretty much equally steep whichever side you try to cycle up!

Yes, but the wind travels down the East Face

LegendLust

Everyone is different. Just find the right way for you. I find that the best way for me to tackle climbs is in a bigger gear, and try and keep on top of it with 'torque', other guys I ride with twiddle up them. It's horses for courses.

Hoopdriver

Rolf F wrote:

There is some irony in forum opinion that it seems generally accepted that 90-100 is an optimum cadence but that you need to MTFU if your smallest gear is bigger than 39-25

PS - the Empire State is pretty much equally steep whichever side you try to cycle up!

You've done all four sides? Chapeau! I hope you maintained your cadence...

Paul 8v

It's like any forum, there's always loads of 'experts' that just regurgitate things they've read elsewhere and everyone takes them as gospel...

Flexisurfer

southdownswolf wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

PS - the Empire State is pretty much equally steep whichever side you try to cycle up!

Yes, but the wind travels down the East Face

I think you will also find it tapers off closer to the top so making it not quite as tough as the Sears Tower in Chicago :roll:

Chinley Churner

whatever gear and cadence gets you up the hill quickest... everyone's legs are different. Macho big gear boys soon hush up when you spin past them. There are no prizes for pushing the biggest gears, just for crossing the line first.

Monty Dog

Empire State was always the Hors D'ouevres, whereas the Twin Towers was always a tougher challenge. particularly from the west side ;-)

I made the original comments about 39x25 getting you up any hill in the UK - some people got the 'hump' that I was somehow criticising them for running lower gears. I'll add to that statement, 30-odd years ago, 42x24 was the roadman's choice of bail-out gear, combined with heavier bikes, toeclips and floppy shoes too - there was near uproar if someone turned out on a club ride with a 'wimpy' 39 chainring.

We used the ride the Manhattan 'loop' which was the Twin Towers, Empire State and Chrysler Building and then take the ferry over to the Statue of Liberty all on 72" fixed!

Chinley Churner

Monty Dog wrote:

I made the original comments about 39x25 getting you up any hill in the UK - some people got the 'hump' that I was somehow criticising them for running lower gears. I'll add to that statement, 30-odd years ago, 42x24 was the roadman's choice of bail-out gear, combined with heavier bikes, toeclips and floppy shoes too - there was near uproar if someone turned out on a club ride with a 'wimpy' 39 chainring.

Not sure what your point is with this statement but, with those mountains you have down in Hampshire, you obviously know what you're talking about regarding hills and gearing

neeb

Ideally it would always be best to have gears low enough to let you spin at 90rpm up any gradient. With long climbs it's good to be able to alternate between lower cadences out of the saddle and higher cadences seated, and if the cadence you ideally would like to select at any given moment is limited by your gears, then that's a disadvantage.

The problem is that there is usually trade-off between lower gears and smaller gaps between gears (assuming you want to keep your 11 or 12 tooth cog for the flat and descending), and the one time you really don't want to find you are "inbetween" gears is on a long climb.

Chinley Churner

neeb wrote:

Ideally it would always be best to have gears low enough to let you spin at 90rpm up any gradient..

Not true, where's the evidence? High cadences might work for some and have become popular since a certain Mr Armstrong spun his way to seven yellow jerseys but we now know a change in cadence wasn't the main contributing factor. Some riders will suit a far lower cadence. A good example of this is triathlete Caroline Steffen. She came from pro-cycling where coaches made her ride high cadence but, once she started working with Brett Sutton, dropped her cadence right down to 60 rpm and started posting better bike splits and running stronger off the bike.

Cadence is not a one size fits all, you've got to experiment to find your ideal. There's nothing to be gained from macho big gear pushing or becoming obsessed with having to spin at 90-100 rpm. What's important is finding a cadence and gearing that allows you to get up hill as fast and efficiently as possible.

LegendLust

Chinley Churner wrote:

whatever gear and cadence gets you up the hill quickest... everyone's legs are different. Macho big gear boys soon hush up when you spin past them. There are no prizes for pushing the biggest gears, just for crossing the line first.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself there?

Chinley Churner

LegendLust wrote:

Chinley Churner wrote:

whatever gear and cadence gets you up the hill quickest... everyone's legs are different. Macho big gear boys soon hush up when you spin past them. There are no prizes for pushing the biggest gears, just for crossing the line first.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself there?

I don't think so... just making the point that everyone's legs are different... maybe I should have added an "and vice versa"...

LegendLust

Chinley Churner wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

Chinley Churner wrote:

whatever gear and cadence gets you up the hill quickest... everyone's legs are different. Macho big gear boys soon hush up when you spin past them. There are no prizes for pushing the biggest gears, just for crossing the line first.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself there?

I don't think so... just making the point that everyone's legs are different... maybe I should have added an "and vice versa"...

You're right. Whatever gear or cadence gets you up the hill quickest. But a big gear guy could beat a spinner up a climb as well.

neeb

Chinley Churner wrote:

neeb wrote:

Ideally it would always be best to have gears low enough to let you spin at 90rpm up any gradient..

Not true, where's the evidence? High cadences might work for some and have become popular since a certain Mr Armstrong spun his way to seven yellow jerseys but we now know a change in cadence wasn't the main contributing factor. Some riders will suit a far lower cadence. A good example of this is triathlete Caroline Steffen. She came from pro-cycling where coaches made her ride high cadence but, once she started working with Brett Sutton, dropped her cadence right down to 60 rpm and started posting better bike splits and running stronger off the bike.

Cadence is not a one size fits all, you've got to experiment to find your ideal. There's nothing to be gained from macho big gear pushing or becoming obsessed with having to spin at 90-100 rpm. What's important is finding a cadence and gearing that allows you to get up hill as fast and efficiently as possible.

90rpm, 75rpm, whatever - the point is that you don't want your cadence to be limited by your gears (ideally, and bearing in mind the trade-off I mentioned). You might be able to get up a hill perfectly OK at a particular cadence, but if you ever feel that you would like to pedal faster, even for just a couple of minutes to give your legs a break, and you can't because of your gears, that is a disadvantage.