Climbing struggles

davidbroad1

Hi all

Been riding for around a month now on my new specialised allez c2. It comes with an 8-speed shimano claris groupset. When out for long group rides, im really struggling to stay in the saddle longer when climbing compared to my peers. it feels like my lowest gear is just resisting to much to get me up the hill and my cadence has suffered as a consequence. is this because the groupset is quite bog standard? or is there a way i can improve this set up?

cheers

david

jordan_217

To be blunt:



The only way to get better on hills is to ride up them more. Are you at your optimal weight/can you lose a bit? It all helps.

How are you climbing (seated/standing)? How are you pacing yourself up the hills? Are you grinding too big a gear at the bottom and paying for it towards the top?

kajjal

The gearing on the bike is fine for going up any hill really. It is probably more down to the other riders being fitter and more experienced. Are you struggling when using the smallest gear at the front and the largest gear at the back climbing hills ?

davidbroad1

Yeah i have been using strava for the past month and have noticed an improvement in my PBs and quicker times.

Think i need to stop kidding myself that theres any short cuts that come for free in cycling haha.

As they say, it never gets easier, you just get quicker!

redbikejohn

Most beginners do, as I am too. Its no good saying "don't upgrade " if you are not enjoying it. for the small cost of a set of gears at the back it'll make life easier - and when you are fitter just don't gear down so much! A few weeks in and I can power up some hills now that I'm getting fitter. But some of the hills were too steep for stock gearing so I wasn't enjoying it even with a triple up front. Hell 40 MPH is fast enough for me on the downhills so I'll not changing back!

markhewitt1978

What's your lowest gear?

Jules Winnfield

You need to get fitter and that's the long and short of it.

Philby

The only way to improve on hills is to do them more often. Go up at your own speed and try not to compare yourself to other riders - they may be lighter and/or fitter than you are, or are more used to hills. Assuming you have 50/34 chainrings at the front and your largest gear at the rear has 28 teeth you should be able to get up most hills.

MancMissile

A lot of it comes down to weight on the hills... I'm 85kg and people seem to creep away from me going up long hills. I'm good on the short steep ones but the weight advantage means I can catch them up on the decent

larkim

You might get some benefit if the power available to your legs can't maintain a good efficient cadence in the lowest gear, compared to your fellow riders. But the real solution is to provide your legs with more power, which I guess means ride more and develop that power output. Temporarily changing your available gearing might help with maintaining a more efficient cadence whilst that power develops though.

ai_1

This "just get fitter" attitude is a load of nonsense. Your gearing requirements will differ depending on the terrain you want to ride and the condition you're in. If you're finding that your cadence is dropping too low but you're still moving fast enough not to fall off then the gearing is too big for you on that hill. Telling you to get fitter is, in reality, agreeing that your gearing is inadequate but instead of accepting that you might be happy with changing the machine to suit the person they're doing that silly macho cycling thing of telling you to change to suit your machine.
By all means get fitter. And if you do then you might want bigger gears. However, if you can put on a bigger cassette now so that you're cycling effectively with good technique and not grinding excessive gears for your ability, then you should do so. You're allowed ride hills even if you're not Alberto Contador.

diamonddog

If you are riding the 2014 model and it has the 50/34 and 11/30 cassette you wont find a much better set up for the hills unless you start upgrading cranksets which can be an expensive route to take. IMO the best option is to keep riding and your fitness will improve, after all you have only been riding a month.

lakesluddite

diamonddog wrote:

If you are riding the 2014 model and it has the 50/34 and 11/30 cassette you wont find a much better set up for the hills unless you start upgrading cranksets which can be an expensive route to take. IMO the best option is to keep riding and your fitness will improve, after all you have only been riding a month.

^This. To some extent I agree with Ai_1, but given the gearing you do have, then any change to a larger rear or smaller front ring would mean you would probably "grow out" of this fairly quickly - the 34/30 ratio will pretty much get you up anything once you get some practice in. It might take a while, but you'll be easing up ascents that today you struggle on. There is a short-but-steep climb near me that the first time I attempted it I had to get off and push, but now a few years later it doesn't even make me get out of the saddle.

frisbee

It'll just sort of all come together one day and you'll be able to grind up almost anything in the saddle. Not that getting out of the saddle is a bad thing, look at Horner, look at Contador.

A month isn't a long time, even if you were extremely fit generally, it just isn't enough time to develop the cycling specific muscles to stay in the saddle and generate force around enough of the pedal stroke to keep your cadence up (even if your lungs weren't about to explode!).

simon_masterson

MancMissile wrote:

A lot of it comes down to weight on the hills...

Once you reach a certain level of fitness - and it also depends on what your weight consists of; the strain on your body that having a big gut imposes will hamper you much more than the weight itself (and Chris Hoy would beat most amateurs, however light, up most hills). Fitness matters exponentially more than weight does, and it dwarfs any advantage you can gain by losing weight until you reach a very high level. You may read a great deal about losing weight to aid climbing, but it matters far more if you are a member of Sky that can ride in the mountains at x watts all day every day. If your climbing has its ups and downs figuratively as well as literally, it is training you need.

Also, making changes to gearing is not an 'upgrade' in my book, any more than changing an uncomfortable saddle for a comfortable one.

MichaelW

Which hills?
Around Hastings and Eastbourne, I needed a 28/28 to climb some slopes.

slowbike

Ai_1 wrote:

This "just get fitter" attitude is a load of nonsense.

No it's not...

Three years ago I had to stop 1/2 way up a big hill ... Last year I rode up it with panniers non stop

3 years ago I wouldn't have attempted a 100 mile with8500 feet of climbing .... This year I did it.

Nothing to do with gearing and all to do with fitness ...

If you are only struggling up certain climbs then that's fine - either avoid those ones for now, or be selective when you tackle them. If you're struggling up any climb and it's significantly restricting your route options then think about gearing ...
There is a hill out there that all of us would struggle with, no matter what our gearing ... We just need a bit more fitness to crack it ...

fudgey

I have only had a road bike for just under 5 months now and there are a few hills on my regular routes, at first i struggled like hell to get up them in granny, now the closest decent hill i am staying one gear higher..
Yet to try another gear all the way up.

But how do you improve with good effect?
One hill in particular is about 1.5 miles from home, so instead of doing a 30-40 mile ride with around 1500ft of climbing would it be a good idea to just go and ride up and down said hill a few times on say one ride a week?

The closest hill is 170ft elevation at 1.8% gradient going to 6.8% over 0.6 miles on the steeper part.

Or about 10 miles away is a bigger bugger at 330ft and 4.4% gradient going to 11.3 over 1.4 miles. I am usually on the verge of puking by the time i get up this one!

Done a climb yesterday that was about a mile long, and 25% grad. First time i have been beaten. Got over halfway up but was wheel spinning if standing and lifting the front if seated. It was wet and greasy and fucking steep! Had to get off and push part of it!

larkim

[quote="Simon Masterson"Fitness matters exponentially more than weight does, and it dwarfs any advantage you can gain by losing weight until you reach a very high level.[/quote]
How do you measure "fitness" though (certainly in order to make such a claim about exponential gains)?

The simple physics or power / work / energy make it simple to demonstrate how much more effort is required to get an extra 5kg of body weight up a hill of varying angles.

What measure would you use to give the OP the target of a certain level of fitness? And is this aerobic fitness, or strength? Or some lactic measure?

Peddle Up!

Fudgey wrote:

Done a climb yesterday that was about a mile long, and 25% grad.

Where on earth is that? :shock:

fudgey

Peddle Up! wrote:

Fudgey wrote:

Done a climb yesterday that was about a mile long, and 25% grad.

Where on earth is that? :shock:

Not far from you by the looks of it, Bushcombe lane in glos! Not too far from winchcombe. Goes up to a golf course, where the road turned into a gravel track so turned around then went down cleeve hill into cheltenham. That was fun!

Peddle Up!

Fudgey wrote:

Peddle Up! wrote:

Fudgey wrote:

Done a climb yesterday that was about a mile long, and 25% grad.

Where on earth is that? :shock:

Not far from you by the looks of it, Bushcombe lane in glos! Not too far from winchcombe. Goes up to a golf course, where the road turned into a gravel track so turned around then went down cleeve hill into cheltenham. That was fun!

Bushcombe! It had to be. Excellent performance then. Local knowledge has it that the sharp left-hander touches 33% on the inside.

This video gives a feel for the brutality of the beast, Not me, sadly.

Bobbinogs

Bushcombe is pretty horrid at the best of times, not least because of the mildew on the road surface and the fact that if you happen to meet a car coming down then it means dismounting...and you won't get started again. A far better option for climbing would be to do Cleeve Hill itself from Cheltenham and then do a tight right turn in Winchcombe into Castle Street and then up the Sudeley Hill via Camden Lane:

http://www.strava.com/segments/1894331

Peddle Up!

Bobbinogs wrote:

Bushcombe is pretty horrid at the best of times, not least because of the mildew on the road surface and the fact that if you happen to meet a car coming down then it means dismounting...and you won't get started again. A far better option for climbing would be to do Cleeve Hill itself from Cheltenham and then do a tight right turn in Winchcombe into Castle Street and then up the Sudeley Hill via Camden Lane:

http://www.strava.com/segments/1894331

Now that one I can do!

fudgey

Cheers for the tips. As for local knowledge i didnt have a clue where we were! We just set off to do an 85miler and made the route up as went along. The other two i was with knew the area better as they grew up around there but i still dont think they had planned to go up there!
As you said tho i was really struggling and a car came up behind me so i kind of ended up using letting him pass as an excuse to stop. But i couldnt get going again so pushed probably 200 yards.
Sadly one mate had pulled his groin on thursday and that finished him off. We managed 55 miles which was a shame as i was in the groove for once and could have done the 85 or more.
Nay mind these things happen. The week before it was me that hit the wall at 50, just abput managed 68 that time.
The 100 will come soon!

ugo.santalucia

Blaming the equipment for poor climbing is a bit like blaming the ingredients when the food is crap... the reality is that you can't cook and you are out of form. When you are in good form, you can drop your club mates riding a Halfords MTBike

Peddle Up!

ugo.santalucia wrote:

...a bit like blaming the ingredients when the food is crap...

On a technical point, sometimes the food is crap because the ingredients are crap.

Cartebleu

Something that no one has mentioned (although it may not be relevant in this case) is the transition through the gears when approaching and climbing a hill. This is something I still struggle with often, but basically I often lose momentum at the start of a climb as I will either change down too soon or too late. Getting that smooth transition where you can change down gears and keeping the momentum without slowing down too much is tricky for beginners like me.

Mikey23

Yes good point...

Ive done 16k miles and 300k of climbing and still working out how to ride, what gear to be in and when, what cadence to be in, when to be in the drops or hoods etc etc

ai_1

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Blaming the equipment for poor climbing is a bit like blaming the ingredients when the food is crap... the reality is that you can't cook and you are out of form....

Yes, it is somewhat like that.
I'm a decent cook. Give me good ingredients and I'll put a tasty meal in front of you. Give me a load of rotten rubbish and I'll really have to be on top of my game to produce something appetising. Likewise a novice or mediocre cyclist can get up a reasonably tough hill with appropriate gears but will either have to improve their form or throw everything at it to get over the same hill with completely inappropriate gears.
I'm puzzled why this topic is controvertial. I think it comes down to interpretation.
Cyclists, like me, consider small gears a tool for tackling steep hills. Serious cyclists ready that as giving up and consider the failure to be in the rider. My position is and will always be: The right gear is the one that makes it possible to ride the routes you want to ride.

["quote"]When you are in good form, you can drop your club mates riding a Halfords MTBike[/quote]
And when you're not in good form should you just go home and sit in front of the TV?

Here's the conversation that keeps happening here:

OP - I'm finding it tough getting over hills. Should I get easier gears?
A - Yes, you need smaller gears and you'll be fine.
B - No, you are not fit enough to climb these hills. Get fit and then try again. Only fitness matters, gearing is irrelevant.
C - Assuming you can generate sufficient power to keep going on the hills you have in mind without being so slow that you lose balance (i.e. say 6km/h+) but if your cadence is much lower than you're comfortable with, then yes.
D - You have a compact chainset and mid-range cassette. That should be enough for anyone. Man up.

A is over-simplistic.
If you don't have sufficient fitness to progress up the hill at walking pace without stopping for breath then smaller gears aren't likely to help much. This may well be the problem for heavy riders who need to produce much more power to maintain a given speed up a steep gradient. (When I say heavier riders I don't mean someone who is 5kg over their racing weight. I mean someone with say 20%+ body fat. Anything from upper end of "normal weight" to "obese" for the general population)

B is the attitude of lots of experienced cyclists
In my opinion this misses the point and comes across as very ignorant. Obviously the best way to get better at climbing hills is to get fitter. No-one's debating that. However, there's no need to hide from hills until you can spin up them in 39/23. It's possible for lots of relatively weak cyclists to get up pretty steep gradients without killing themselves just by configuring the bike to suit their needs. Experienced cyclists tweak their bike to suit their requirements all the time so I think it's highly hypocritical to say novices should adapt to their equipment and not the reverse.

C is the position I would take
If my equipment is what's preventing me doing something, there's nothing wrong with changing equipment. It's beside the point to say if i was fitter I wouldn't need to change. I'm not fitter! If I am in the future I can change again. Why suffer and restrict my options in the short term in the hopes that in a year's time I will be able to get by with what I've got? That's a recipe for dis-illusionment with cycling and will likley lead to less training, not more and certainly less enjoyment of the sport.

D is again missing the point and a variation on B
The fact that it's a compact doesn't mean it's enough gearing for anyone. If your cadence is uncomfortably low while you're moving fast enough not to fall off then a smaller gear is still an option that can expand your choice of terrain.

ai_1

Slowbike wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

This "just get fitter" attitude is a load of nonsense.

No it's not...

Three years ago I had to stop 1/2 way up a big hill ... Last year I rode up it with panniers non stop

3 years ago I wouldn't have attempted a 100 mile with8500 feet of climbing .... This year I did it.

Nothing to do with gearing and all to do with fitness ...

If you are only struggling up certain climbs then that's fine - either avoid those ones for now, or be selective when you tackle them. If you're struggling up any climb and it's significantly restricting your route options then think about gearing ...
There is a hill out there that all of us would struggle with, no matter what our gearing ... We just need a bit more fitness to crack it ...

Yes it is!

It's nonsense to suggest all other changes are invalid because fitness is the problem. That assumes the cyclist aspires to being a highly fit and capable cyclist. What if they just want to ride their road bike over a mountain in their current condition? If smaller gears will allow them do so what's wrong with that?