Beginners Road Bike

markhewitt1978

Simon Masterson wrote:

So cycling up steep hills is a completely pleasant experience for you?

Pleasant is not entirely accurate, but it can be very enjoyable if you get in the right gear with the right cadence.

markhewitt1978

Chogger wrote:

In the end I went for the felt f95 they have them on a really good offer on wiggle. Thanks for all your help

It has a compact 34-50 with 11-25 cassette. See how you get on with that but you might want to think about changing it to a 28 tooth cassette if you find the hills a bit tough, relatively easy and cheap to do.

neilvx

Chogger wrote:

In the end I went for the felt f95 they have them on a really good offer on wiggle. Thanks for all your help

I love mine, it's been a great starter bike and not a single problem so far :-) and to think I only bought because of the colour lol

ai_1

Simon Masterson wrote:

.......and secondly - and more to the point - gearing does not go all that much lower. I'm guessing that 26x60 is a very easy gear to climb with, but can you buy a standard road bike with that gearing? If a rider isn't fit enough to get up the hill, they will struggle whatever gearing they have.......

No offence intended but this is nonsense. Per my example in the last post, there's a hell of a difference between 39x26 and 34x28 and compacts are probably the easiest chainring configuration to find on an off-the-shelf complete road bike. You don't need to buy standard chainrings unless you want them.

Simon Masterson wrote:

Again, not suggesting it's the easy option, but your example doesn't reflect the scenario within which I am making suggestions. Unfit riders that struggle with hills either aren't going to be attempting the same climbs as you, or will do so in the knowledge that it won't be pretty.

I don't see how my example doesn't cover all scenarios? Can you explain?
I'm fit by non-competitive cyclist standards (I finish top 3rd of the field in most sportives) but I'm not light. I tackle lots of hills that others go up faster and I get up them just fine, but a bit slower. How hard a hill is going to be depends on how fast you go up it. Your minimum speed is dictated either by your gearing or by you going so slow that balance becomes a problem. I've never walked one yet but I've always made sure I had the gears. I've gone up some short 20-25% climbs and would only have been doing maybe 6 or 7km/h in places but I could only do that because I was using a triple with a 30t chainring and 32t at the back. With that ratio the cadence doesn't drop to 50 until you get down to 6km/h which is as slow as most people would cycle before balance becomes a problem. Once you get close to 1:1 gearing, balance is more likely to be the limiting factor on hills plus you're likely to be able to walk just as fast as you can cycle. I normally use a 12-27 cassette with the triple and I can get up anything under 20% with that. I climbed Mt Teide in Tenerife with a 34x28. That's a continuous 35km climb with an average gradient around 6.5% and long sections above 9%. I couldn't have done that on a 39x26.

So argue all you like that 39x26 is reasonable for everyone and they just have to deal with some discomfort on the hills. However, the truth of it is that your advice would restrict a lot of cyclists to much more limited routes which they could enjoy just fine if they buy wisely.

ai_1

Chogger wrote:

In the end I went for the felt f95 they have them on a really good offer on wiggle. Thanks for all your help

Nice bike. I hope it works out well for you!

P.s. Sorry for clogging your thread with over-long posts!

zx6man

Neilvx wrote:

Chogger wrote:

In the end I went for the felt f95 they have them on a really good offer on wiggle. Thanks for all your help

I love mine, it's been a great starter bike and not a single problem so far :-) and to think I only bought because of the colour lol

+1

simon_masterson

Ai_1 wrote:

No offence intended but this is nonsense. Per my example in the last post, there's a hell of a difference between 39x26 and 34x28 and compacts are probably the easiest chainring configuration to find on an off-the-shelf complete road bike. You don't need to buy standard chainrings unless you want them.

I would preface this by saying that you are wasting your time if you think you're going to persuade me that something that I know to be adequate isn't.

But if you have a 26, you can probably have a 28. Maybe even a 30t depending on what rear mech you have, which is only one notch behind 34x28. But not all bikes, particularly lower end ones, have compacts. The Triban 3 may have a triple, but does that mean that it is the only suitable bike in the price range?

Ai_1 wrote:

However, the truth of it is that your advice would restrict a lot of cyclists to much more limited routes which they could enjoy just fine if they buy wisely.

Except that before the gearing you have was available, people still climbed the same hills.

I don't disagree with your logic, and I think that lower gearing makes cycling more accessible, but it is the confusion of 'want' and 'need' that I take issue with.

Chogger

To be honest I didn't mind the gearing discussion being a beginner it's nice to hear how other people prefer to set up and what works best for them. In the future it gives me a bit of a better idea of set ups as I didn't have a clue about any of that before

slowbike

Ai_1 wrote:

I don't see how my example doesn't cover all scenarios? Can you explain?
I'm fit by non-competitive cyclist standards (I finish top 3rd of the field in most sportives) but I'm not light. I tackle lots of hills that others go up faster and I get up them just fine, but a bit slower. How hard a hill is going to be depends on how fast you go up it. Your minimum speed is dictated either by your gearing or by you going so slow that balance becomes a problem. I've never walked one yet but I've always made sure I had the gears. I've gone up some short 20-25% climbs and would only have been doing maybe 6 or 7km/h in places but I could only do that because I was using a triple with a 30t chainring and 32t at the back. With that ratio the cadence doesn't drop to 50 until you get down to 6km/h which is as slow as most people would cycle before balance becomes a problem. Once you get close to 1:1 gearing, balance is more likely to be the limiting factor on hills plus you're likely to be able to walk just as fast as you can cycle. I normally use a 12-27 cassette with the triple and I can get up anything under 20% with that. I climbed Mt Teide in Tenerife with a 34x28. That's a continuous 35km climb with an average gradient around 6.5% and long sections above 9%. I couldn't have done that on a 39x26.

So argue all you like that 39x26 is reasonable for everyone and they just have to deal with some discomfort on the hills. However, the truth of it is that your advice would restrict a lot of cyclists to much more limited routes which they could enjoy just fine if they buy wisely.

My first road bike (still got it and put it back on the road) had a 39/52 chainset and 26-13 cassette (8 speed) - as a first time buyer I had no idea what I was buying - other than it was entry level but certainly not a supermarket special ...
I rode around here (south downs) quite happily for a couple of years before buying a carbon bike.
I rode a few sportives too ...

For round here, the 39/26 got me up every single hill I could ride - yes, the 20% ones were hard - and the 25% gradient on the sportive was really tough - but I still rode up it without stopping or falling off ...

The carbon bike came with compact chainset and a 28-11 cassette ... wow ... what a waste! I found that I'd quickly bailout into my bottom gear and whilst my cadence was slightly higher I felt I was working hard yet was still quicker climbing on my old bike....
20% gradients are tough - heck even 10% can make you puff and if I lived in a mountainous area then I'd consider sticking with a compact ... but fact is - for a rolling hills area like we have in this country, a standard chainset is absolutely fine.
I changed (I wont' say upgraded because it's not an upgrade) my carbon bike from the compact chainset to a standard one and I've tackled the 20% gradients again - yup, it's tough - but not that tough ...

I select my gearing to suit the vast majority of my riding - not the small fraction that I'll ride infrequently ...

ai_1

Slowbike - what weight were you? And how fast were you going up those climbs?

A lot of guys say this stuff with the attitude that if one person can do it everyone can. Not so.
I weigh about 88kg. A lot of that's muscle but my heart and lungs are likely similar in size to people my height who may weigh 70% what I do. Cardiovascular systems are not scaled in proportion to body weight. In a sprint or very short climb I've got the anerobic power to hold my own but on a long climb that's simply not possible. On a given hill at the same speed a lighter rider is doing considerably less work and yet by giving a blanket endorsement to specific ratios you seem to think it's reasonable to suggest that the same gearing suits everyone? I think not.

Your argument like Simon's simply doesn't reflect the facts. This isn't a matter of opinion. Riders do vary and the same equipment does not suit them equally.
If you can provide evidence that the level of sustainable power that can be generated by riders of differing ages, fitness levels and physiques is proportional to weight then I'll take that all back and apologise for wasting your time. Otherwise, my argument is correct, no?

simon_masterson

Unfortunately, your version of 'the facts' is the problem. The hills have not changed. The gearing has.

ai_1

Simon Masterson wrote:

Unfortunately, your version of 'the facts' is the problem. The hills have not changed. The gearing has.

Facts don't have versions. That's why they're facts.
I'm not sure if you don't understand what I'm saying or if you're just messing with me at this point. I've explained exactly why the same hills but different gearing equals a different ability to climb. It's neither rocket science nor controvertial. If gearing was pointless everyone would ride single speeds.

Tell me exactly what is factually incorrect about my assertions and I'll address your points. If you find a real flaw I'll listen but if the above is all you've got then forget it. However you should stop giving advice if you can't explain it.

simon_masterson

It's very simple: I take issue with the assertion that something proven to work does not. That's it.

ai_1

Simon Masterson wrote:

It's very simple: I take issue with the assertion that something proven to work does not. That's it.

Proven how and by who? It has not been proven at all.
I'm well aware the current choice of gear ratios was not available on road bikes in years past and yet cyclists still climbed hills. They were not doing it by choice but by necessity and were more limited in the hills they could successfully tackle as a result. Incidentally, I believe prevalence of knee injuries among pro cyclists has also reduced as gear selection has improved. I've no evidence of a link to hand but I think most people would agree it's reasonable to suggest there is one given knee loading on climbs has been reduced dramatically. You're aware I presume that the pros do use these newfangled gear choices including, occassionally, compacts on particularly hilly stages. Are they also missing something?
Are you really claiming to believe it's a proven fact that anyone who can ascend a hill with other gear combinations can therefore also do it with a 39 x 26?

simon_masterson

There are people who avoid hills with today's gearing. Go to your cycling club and you'll probably find old blokes who weren't racing snakes but still did Hardknott and such - I know at least one. If you can prove conclusively that cyclists avoided more hills then than now, I will concede. But of course I'm not suggesting that. I suspect however that - however soft - many who rely on really low gears could with some training manage with harder gears. Should they, given the choice? Never did I suggest so.

But I've stated in every post that I don't disagree with the use of compact gearing. It seems pretty obvious that you have a chip on your shoulder about double chainsets, but the opposite is not true of me; I don't think anyone using it be they amateur or pro is 'missing' anything. (though 42t is nice for climbing out of the saddle)

ai_1

I've no issue with double chainsets and certainly not a chip.
I do take issue with a relative beginner being told the following: "39x26 is not a tough gear for hills. It isn't the easiest one either, but there is only so much lower that typical road bike gearing goes without switching for MTB mechs and cassettes and triple chainsets."
This is simply misleading and could make many beginners very miserable if they believed it. Thus my response.

The thread is "Beginner Road Bike". The majority of beginners and many experienced riders will seriously disagree with your opinion that ""39x26 is not a tough gear for hills." Outside of competitive cycling I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd be happy going for a properly hilly ride with that ratio as their last option.

simon_masterson

On the other hand, it's misleading to call it a tough gear, because gearing doesn't get all that much lower. Certainly not easy, but 39x21 is a tough(er) gear for climbing. Compact with 12-25 (lowest gear same as 39x28) is one of the most common gearing configurations and a great many beginners have it, because it's what their bike comes with. Since I understand that not everyone is yet another sportive rider, I'm more than happy to commend to someone a bike they're considering on a limited budget that has a double; not every beginner attempts really serious hills (in many parts of this country they are hard to find). Perhaps if it had 54/44 and a straight through 6 speed freewheel, it might be different.

ai_1

You're absolutely right Simon. My earlier reasoned explanation for why you were factually incorrect now seems silly. I'm so glad you ignored my invitation to point out where I might be going wrong. It's now clear to me that you simply know better. I apologise for attempting to trick people into thinking otherwise.

P.S. Don't you just hate those sportive riders?

simon_masterson

The only way that you could prove me 'factually incorrect' is (for a start) to demonstrate that more cyclists avoided more hills in 1970/1980/1990 than they do now. I have a hunch that you aren't going to manage to do that.

With that in mind, I would suggest that you stick to recommending that for serious hills, compact or triple with a wide range cassette is more comfortable, and that in general, most cyclists have little to lose by opting for a compact. Advising someone to buy a bike that allows them to climb up hills that they may not be interested in attempting is rather like suggesting disc brakes because they don't overheat rims on alpine descents. If someone is just interested in buying a new road bike and the ones they are looking at have doubles, there is no reason why they shouldn't buy.

But if the majority disagrees with me, why do so many of them use 50/34 with 12-25?

sparklehedgehog

Zzzzzz.....

ManOfKent

Simon Masterson wrote:

The only way that you could prove me 'factually incorrect' is (for a start) to demonstrate that more cyclists avoided more hills in 1970/1980/1990 than they do now. I have a hunch that you aren't going to manage to do that.

With that in mind, I would suggest that you stick to recommending that for serious hills, compact or triple with a wide range cassette is more comfortable, and that in general, most cyclists have little to lose by opting for a compact. Advising someone to buy a bike that allows them to climb up hills that they may not be interested in attempting is rather like suggesting disc brakes because they don't overheat rims on alpine descents. If someone is just interested in buying a new road bike and the ones they are looking at have doubles, there is no reason why they shouldn't buy.

But if the majority disagrees with me, why do so many of them use 50/34 with 12-25?

I can't speak for the majority, or even perhaps a large minority, but in my club on the North Downs most ordinary members have at least a 27 on the back. Contrary to your opinion, those extra two teeth on the back make a considerable difference to the average non-racing cyclist.

During my recent hunt for a new mid-range bike, compact and 12-27 seemed to be the most commonly-offered combination. Personally I ride 34x25 and hardly ever use the 25, but that doesn't mean a beginner would (or I should). In the distant past I rode up a half-mile 10% hill on an 81-inch gear. That such hardman climbing feats are possible, and used to be obligatory, doesn't mean a beginner ought not to take advantage of improved technology.

simon_masterson

ManOfKent wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

The only way that you could prove me 'factually incorrect' is (for a start) to demonstrate that more cyclists avoided more hills in 1970/1980/1990 than they do now. I have a hunch that you aren't going to manage to do that.

With that in mind, I would suggest that you stick to recommending that for serious hills, compact or triple with a wide range cassette is more comfortable, and that in general, most cyclists have little to lose by opting for a compact. Advising someone to buy a bike that allows them to climb up hills that they may not be interested in attempting is rather like suggesting disc brakes because they don't overheat rims on alpine descents. If someone is just interested in buying a new road bike and the ones they are looking at have doubles, there is no reason why they shouldn't buy.

But if the majority disagrees with me, why do so many of them use 50/34 with 12-25?

I can't speak for the majority, or even perhaps a large minority, but in my club on the North Downs most ordinary members have at least a 27 on the back. Contrary to your opinion, those extra two teeth on the back make a considerable difference to the average non-racing cyclist.

During my recent hunt for a new mid-range bike, compact and 12-27 seemed to be the most commonly-offered combination. Personally I ride 34x25 and hardly ever use the 25, but that doesn't mean a beginner would (or I should). In the distant past I rode up a half-mile 10% hill on an 81-inch gear. That such hardman climbing feats are possible, and used to be obligatory, doesn't mean a beginner ought not to take advantage of improved technology.

Definitely - It's not contrary to my opinion - Never would I claim that the extra cogs don't make a difference, nor that - given the choice - anyone should eschew the benefits of modern gearing.

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

For round here, the 39/26 got me up every single hill I could ride - yes, the 20% ones were hard - and the 25% gradient on the sportive was really tough - but I still rode up it without stopping or falling off ...

That doesn't mean much - what works for you doesn't work for everyone. When I did the Fred, on 34-29, in the end I had to get off and walk up the steepest parts of Hardknott. That's despite me being a flyweight fastish climber. While I walked, I watched blokes with huge thighs very slowly grind past me on standard chainsets and small cassettes barely turning a cadence faster than my foot pace. When the gradient eased, I got back on my bike and overtook them again. Some people can get up anything in pretty much any gear - some people can't. Don't assume everyone is the same as you.

Simon Masterson wrote:

Unfortunately, your version of 'the facts' is the problem. The hills have not changed. The gearing has.

You keep saying this but how do you know? Today, we are drawn like magnets to the steep climbs - 30,40 or more years ago was this the case? And were the people back then doing recreational sport cycling (probably a vastly smaller number than today) representative more of us lot or the top end of ability?

You talk a lot of sense a lot of the time. Just not on this thread! Me? Mostly I use 34-27 as my lowest gear and I wouldn't want it any other way. Even on my commute I'd not want to go less than 34-25. That 100feet climb straight out of my front door is no place for 39-26. (Though I did go up it on Friday in 50-13 as I really do need to do something to avoid that Hardknott thing from happening again! )

markhewitt1978

Simon Masterson wrote:

On the other hand, it's misleading to call it a tough gear, because gearing doesn't get all that much lower..

39/26 = 1.5
My bike's lowest = 34/30 = 1.13

You're lowest is approx 33% 'harder' than mine, to get to it would involve 3 or 4 upchanges.

simon_masterson

Rolf F wrote:

You keep saying this but how do you know? Today, we are drawn like magnets to the steep climbs - 30,40 or more years ago was this the case? And were the people back then doing recreational sport cycling (probably a vastly smaller number than today) representative more of us lot or the top end of ability?

As said before, I know at least one. I'm sure you do as well. None of the older cyclists I know are or were elite athletes. Cycling culture has changed a great deal, and there definitely are more fat knackers on bikes doing 100 mile sportives with big hills, and 'less rotund but still not pro' riders managing the same climbs without needing the sick bucket, and all points in between, but generalisations in either direction are difficult to make, and of limited worth anyway.
To my mind it's a moot point, and a side-issue here - The key issue is gearing generalisations. People new to cycling should probably be cautioned against getting overly stiff gearing if they live in the Lakes, but if they live in a flat area and don't intend to try Hardknott in the first 6 months, and have a limited budget anyway, they shouldn't be deterred from buying the bike they have in mind just because the lowest gear is 39x28. I'm very glad no-one was telling me that when I got into cycling - Where I live in North Herts, you have to go out with some intent if you want to encounter anything worthy of a gradient sign. I didn't even know what chainrings or cogs I had for the first year, I don't think. Plenty of other newbies are quite clearly - knowing no different - leaving bike shops with 12-25 cassettes too. It's unhelpful to generalise, but when in doubt, something that was adequate 20 (or 15-10, for that matter) years ago should still be now. There's plenty of other stuff you can't have on a limited budget...

Rolf F wrote:

You talk a lot of sense a lot of the time. Just not on this thread! Me? Mostly I use 34-27 as my lowest gear and I wouldn't want it any other way. Even on my commute I'd not want to go less than 34-25. That 100feet climb straight out of my front door is no place for 39-26. (Though I did go up it on Friday in 50-13 as I really do need to do something to avoid that Hardknott thing from happening again! )

Well I'll thank you for the compliment, of course.

Incidentally, I'm expecting delivery of a 13-20 freewheel this week; I'll report back. :shock:

simon_masterson

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

On the other hand, it's misleading to call it a tough gear, because gearing doesn't get all that much lower..

39/26 = 1.5
My bike's lowest = 34/30 = 1.13

You're lowest is approx 33% 'harder' than mine, to get to it would involve 3 or 4 upchanges.

34x30 is a really low gear. Some would tour on it.

But if you look below at the scale of "Poulidor" to "Fully loaded tourer" (gain ratios courtesy of Sheldon Brown using 700x23 and 170mm crank length), you should be able to appreciate that your options for a gear lower than 39x26 are pretty limited within the bounds of standard road mechs and cassettes. You should also be able to appreciate that - even excluding the superhuman gears - 39x26 is hardly at the low end of the scale; I'm not pretending that the percentage differences don't matter, nor that it is an easy gear to climb with, but in purely semantic terms it makes little sense to call it a 'tough' gear.

44x17: 5.1
42x17: 4.9
39x17: 4.5
42x20: 4.1
42x21: 3.9
34x17: 3.9
39x20: 3.8
39x21: 3.6
42x23: 3.6
34x20: 3.3
39x23: 3.3
34x21: 3.2
39x24: 3.2
39x25: 3.1
34x23: 2.9

39x26: 2.9

34x24: 2.8
39x27: 2.8
34x25: 2.7
39x28: 2.7
34x25: 2.6
39x30: 2.6
34x26: 2.5
34x28: 2.4

39x32: 2.4
34x30: 2.2
34x32: 2.1
34x34: 2.0
34x36: 1.9

rolf_f

Simon Masterson wrote:

It's unhelpful to generalise, but when in doubt, something that was adequate 20 (or 15-10, for that matter) years ago should still be now. There's plenty of other stuff you can't have on a limited budget...

But you know what - just about the only development in bike technology in the last 40 years that has really made a real difference has probably been the compact crankset. Even the slant derailleur doesn't really make such a difference. STI shifters? Not until you need to change gear when standing out of the saddle. Carbon frames? Love them but they make far less of a difference than a compact. Spinniness is good.......

If my Raleigh had a compact, it would be so much easier to ride over the Sussex hills. But it doesn't and never will because look at the crankset! (42-28 lowest gear fwiw) You'll never get a compact crankset that looks this nice so I get to suffer! I still get the rides in but they are harder and slower and it always reminds me how effective the gearing of my modern bikes is.



PS - crank length makes no difference to the bikes gearing!

simon_masterson

I do love that, but sod the crankset, I have chainring cleanliness envy!

Mad_Malx

Rolf F wrote:

Stuff...

That looks very nice. The big ring doesn't look like it's been used much though.....

rolf_f

Mad_Malx wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stuff...

That looks very nice. The big ring doesn't look like it's been used much though.....

Believe it or not, I took that pic just after I bought the bike and before I'd cleaned it! I had great fun scraping out the blackness from inside each of those holes - it doesn't go out in the rain much!

Funny thing is that the bike had certainly been used (the frame is presentable but far from mint and it had lost it's original wheels) but there really wasn't much sign of it anywhere in the drivetrain. The freehub sprockets look pretty new as well.

Compared to compact the gap between the chainrings seems very small. Every time I drop into the smaller chainring on this bike I think 'was that it?!'