Climbing struggles

redbikejohn

Changing the gears turned my bike from something I didn't want to ride into a bike a enjoy riding and now do a 50 mile commute. So now I am fitter but getting there wouldn't of happened if I'd not changed the gearing.

secretsam

Don't forget you're new to this. I ride similar gearing and sometimes it's just case of finding your rhythm and ploughing up the hill. At first, don't try to stay with more experienced riders. Race yourself and try to focus on beating your times, not keeping up with your mates.

gazman1

I am in a similar situation to the op and IMHO manufacturers wouldn't make bigger gears if they weren't meant to be used, put a bigger cassette on you can always swap back when you get fitter.

Moonbiker

Don't see the point in changing a bikes gears just for one or two hills unless the OP lives on top of a 20% 1 mile mountain track & can't avoid the hill every time they go for a ride.

Better imo too have gears suited to the majority of riding you do on average, than geared to suit that one hill at the extreme end of what you ride just so you don't have to walk.



34/30 on the bike so option would be a new triple crankset if you do change & a new front derailleur?

slowbike

Ai_1 wrote:

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?

Fitness isn't a load of nonsense - getting fitter will help.
You've said it in another post though - if you can't walk to the top without needing to stop then easier gears isn't going to help much and it is a case of getting fitter (and usually shedding a few pounds).

Otherwise it's two options - get easier gearing or stick with what you've got and wait till you're fitter.
Getting easier gearing is great if it's a long term thing, but could be a complete waste of money if it's a short term fix.

ben@31

You just need to spend 100's on a pair of shoes made from Panda that was reared on organic gluten free granola. Then by magic you are a climber...

http://www.rapha.cc/gb/en/shop-/shoes/category/shoes

Just add marketing speak into the description for added effect, such as ProLight fabric.

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

Fitness isn't a load of nonsense - getting fitter will help.
You've said it in another post though - if you can't walk to the top without needing to stop then easier gears isn't going to help much and it is a case of getting fitter (and usually shedding a few pounds).

Otherwise it's two options - get easier gearing or stick with what you've got and wait till you're fitter.
Getting easier gearing is great if it's a long term thing, but could be a complete waste of money if it's a short term fix.

There's a nice climb near mine - Nought Bank Hill. Simon Warren rates it at 8 out of 10. Not especially long but steep with hairpins. Can't recall what gearing I used last time - 34-27 probably or 34-29 if I was feeling soft. Took me something under 12 minutes to get up. I was there again at the weekend. Unfortunately, just before we got to Pateley Bridge, my rear mech cable jammed in the shifter (it had started fraying) - fortunately it didn't jam when I was in the smallest sprocket. Instead it jammed when on the 16 tooth. I could have jury rigged it into a lower gear with the bit of cable I keep for the purpose but it was raining and I couldn't be bothered. So I went up Nought Bank in 34-16. It was interesting. Once your cadence has dropped to about 25, you can't actually get out of the saddle to rest your legs. And yes, I had to stop briefly because I just didn't have the strength to turn the gears at that cadence for the whole climb without a quick breather. It took me something over 14 minutes to complete the climb and I can still feel the effect it had on my legs from Saturday.

Extreme example but yes, the right gearing makes the difference between stopping and not stopping or even just being much quicker up the hill and much less tired at the top. And as long as it doesn't need a change of mech, despite what people may think, it isn't a waste of money because it doesn't really cost much. As long as you find enough use for a cassette that you wear it out, in the end having a choice of cassettes doesn't really cost you anything (assuming that you can swap them yourself).

secretsam

Peddle Up! wrote:

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

Seriously, if that is the hill you're struggling up, don't stress, it's a beast!

There's a hill on a ride that I do each year (the Chiltern Challenge, held in spring) which is similarly steep and twisty. Last year as I trudged up, I saw various high end Cannondales, Cervelos, De Rosas etc all trying - and failing. It was hard to walk up the damn thing (MTB shoes :oops: ), let alone ride it.

Mind you, then some bloke on a £400 hybrid went up it in a gear of 26/34 or something nuts. He nearly puked at the top, mind...

Bobbinogs

If he only nearly puked then he was obviously not trying hard enough, bloody lightweight.

polyx

85kg is a lot. You need massive leg muscles to pull your 85 kg chassis over the hill quickly. What is your power to weight ratio ? if you get at least 3 watts per kg you should be fine in a friendly ride.
take it easier than you can go normally from the bottom of a climb and try to spin fastish around 95-100rpm, cadence will drop gradually but you should be fresher towards the hilltop.

markhewitt1978

polyx wrote:

85kg is a lot. You need massive leg muscles to pull your 85 kg chassis over the hill quickly. What is your power to weight ratio ? if you get at least 3 watts per kg you should be fine in a friendly ride.
take it easier than you can go normally from the bottom of a climb and try to spin fastish around 95-100rpm, cadence will drop gradually but you should be fresher towards the hilltop.

My main aim for 2015 is to get better at climbing, I'm fine along the flat and slight inclines, but anything reasonably steep them I'm struggling, at least I am compared to all of my cycling friends! But then at 5'6" and 82kg my power to weight ratio is going to be terrible.

Kieran_Burns

85kg is a lot? :shock:

Errr....... :?

I weigh in at 95.... Mind you I do have 18.5" calves and 25" thighs which would go a long way to explaining how I'm able to climb any hill.

Now wait a second. 85kg is 13 1/2 stone. That is not a lot. I would *love* to be that light! I'd fly up hills.

mpatts

Gearing makes some difference, but not half as much as fitness/weight. But, don't let that get in a the way of a a pair of light wheels and a new groupset (it didn't get in my way).

kajjal

Kieran_Burns wrote:

85kg is a lot? :shock:

Errr....... :?

I weigh in at 95.... Mind you I do have 18.5" calves and 25" thighs which would go a long way to explaining how I'm able to climb any hill.

Now wait a second. 85kg is 13 1/2 stone. That is not a lot. I would *love* to be that light! I'd fly up hills.

I am about the same weight and even climb very rough off road tracks. The good thing being heavier is the acceleration down hill

Climbing hills is a combination of the right gear choice for the rider, fitness, technique and experience. All of which you can improve on.

ai_1

There should be no need to debate the fact that a heavier rider needs more power to climb for a given speed.
What is debatable and often is debated is whether a heavier rider is on a level playing field providing the extra weight is in leg muscle rather than either fat or upper body muscle which are not assisting on the bike. I've seen plenty people post that if you're not carrying high body fat you should be able to produce similar power/weight figures and thus climb as fast as a lighter rider. I don't believe this is true. The main reason being that cardiovascular capacity among other systems is not, to the best of my knowledge, proportional to body mass. So while the heavier rider may have enough muscle strength to produce an equivalent power to weight ratio, and may even produce higher power to weight ratios for short bursts (i.e. sprinting), they will be constrained by their CV capacity when climbing.

markhewitt1978

Kieran_Burns wrote:

85kg is a lot? :shock:

Errr....... :?

I weigh in at 95.... Mind you I do have 18.5" calves and 25" thighs which would go a long way to explaining how I'm able to climb any hill.

Now wait a second. 85kg is 13 1/2 stone. That is not a lot. I would *love* to be that light! I'd fly up hills.

It's not absolute weight, it's power to weight ratio.

smoggysteve

Peddle Up! wrote:

Fudgey wrote:

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

Where on earth is that? :shock:

25% is only about 14 degrees. It aint that big a deal

kajjal

Ai_1 wrote:

There should be no need to debate the fact that a heavier rider needs more power to climb for a given speed.
What is debatable and often is debated is whether a heavier rider is on a level playing field providing the extra weight is in leg muscle rather than either fat or upper body muscle which are not assisting on the bike. I've seen plenty people post that if you're not carrying high body fat you should be able to produce similar power/weight figures and thus climb as fast as a lighter rider. I don't believe this is true. The main reason being that cardiovascular capacity among other systems is not, to the best of my knowledge, proportional to body mass. So while the heavier rider may have enough muscle strength to produce an equivalent power to weight ratio, and may even produce higher power to weight ratios for short bursts (i.e. sprinting), they will be constrained by their CV capacity when climbing.

Also assuming they are not just very over weight heavier riders would tend to offer more wind resistance due to being taller and larger. Being a 6ft7 wind break is no fun sometimes

rolf_f

SmoggySteve 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:

25% is only about 14 degrees. It aint that big a deal

And 33% is only about 18 degrees so what is your point?! First find a piece of tarmac that is one in four for a mile and then ride up it and then tell me it ain't that big a deal. 1320 feet in one mile........

Stormtrooper Rog

Ai_1 wrote:

There should be no need to debate the fact that a heavier rider needs more power to climb for a given speed.
What is debatable and often is debated is whether a heavier rider is on a level playing field providing the extra weight is in leg muscle rather than either fat or upper body muscle which are not assisting on the bike. I've seen plenty people post that if you're not carrying high body fat you should be able to produce similar power/weight figures and thus climb as fast as a lighter rider. I don't believe this is true. The main reason being that cardiovascular capacity among other systems is not, to the best of my knowledge, proportional to body mass. So while the heavier rider may have enough muscle strength to produce an equivalent power to weight ratio, and may even produce higher power to weight ratios for short bursts (i.e. sprinting), they will be constrained by their CV capacity when climbing.

Have to agree here, at just over 100kgs, I give at least a 20kg advantage to other riders I ride with. I can happily lift 280kg with my legs at the gym, out on the bike, come to a climb, they blast away, and I am gasping and sweating a storm by the time I reach the top, on flats we are par, on descents I blast away and get a higher top speed, I can also accelerate quicker. I am working on my CV fitness, and am getting quicker on climbs, but a long way to go.

smoggysteve

Rolf F wrote:

SmoggySteve 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:

25% is only about 14 degrees. It aint that big a deal

And 33% is only about 18 degrees so what is your point?! First find a piece of tarmac that is one in four for a mile and then ride up it and then tell me it ain't that big a deal. 1320 feet in one mile........

Yawn, Been there, done that.......I lived in Bavaria for a year which is like that on every direction.

rolf_f

SmoggySteve wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

SmoggySteve 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:

25% is only about 14 degrees. It aint that big a deal

And 33% is only about 18 degrees so what is your point?! First find a piece of tarmac that is one in four for a mile and then ride up it and then tell me it ain't that big a deal. 1320 feet in one mile........

Yawn, Been there, done that.......I lived in Bavaria for a year which is like that on every direction.

Really? Must be much steeper than the French Alps at least. Barely much more than about 12% there which is not even 7 degrees. If you really do have lots of roads that run at 25% for a mile, I am surprised that you would apparently regard that as easier than the norm (given that something that 'aint that big a deal' must presumably be rather easier than the norm surely? Partucularly given that we are in the beginners section here) - you must be extremely awesome!

Personally, I'd swap the 1 mile at 25% for the Col de la Columbiere and the Joux Plane put together any day. Those two would be much easier.

smoggysteve

I don't live there any more. I live near the dutch border which is as flat as a pancake for most of it. Only place to get a decent climb is if I can be bothered to ride out to Valkenburg. I know its not easy. Its bloody hard. (I thought you would have caught the tongue in cheek way I said it!)

But even so, that gradient for that distance is not beyond the capability of a reasonably fit amateur in the right gear. Maybe not very fast but its possible. My wife managed to do similar climbs on an alu Cube Peloton with a compact / 12-30 cassette.

rolf_f

SmoggySteve wrote:

But even so, that gradient for that distance is not beyond the capability of a reasonably fit amateur in the right gear. Maybe not very fast but its possible. My wife managed to do similar climbs on an alu Cube Peloton with a compact / 12-30 cassette.

It is surprising what you can get up once reasonably fit. A gear cable failure meant I ended up doing Nought Bank Hill near Pateley Bridge in 34-16. That gets over 20% and in that gear it dropped my cadence to mid 20s - too low to get out of the saddle. I did stop briefly at one point but I managed to get going again - arguably the toughest bit was the easier gradient at the top.

Probably a mile at 25% on smooth tarmac with MTB gearing would be pretty straightforward - but rather tougher on road bike gearing.

smoggysteve

If its a nice wide road zig zagging can help alot if you need to take a breather. If its narrow or busy you're screwed.

polyx

markhewitt1978 wrote:

My main aim for 2015 is to get better at climbing, I'm fine along the flat and slight inclines, but anything reasonably steep them I'm struggling, at least I am compared to all of my cycling friends! But then at 5'6" and 82kg my power to weight ratio is going to be terrible.

IMO, being lighter with less muscles beats being heavy with more muscles on hills, as muscles do need to carry their own mass up hill as well. At that height you should be able to come around 75kg mark relatively easy, by just watching your food.
I'm 5'7" and in the past was 95kg (obese lol), 85kg, and 75 kg and difference is massive, with 75kg I average 20kmph on Boxhill zigzag segment).

ai_1

polyx wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

My main aim for 2015 is to get better at climbing, I'm fine along the flat and slight inclines, but anything reasonably steep them I'm struggling, at least I am compared to all of my cycling friends! But then at 5'6" and 82kg my power to weight ratio is going to be terrible.

IMO, being lighter with less muscles beats being heavy with more muscles on hills, as muscles do need to carry their own mass up hill as well. At that height you should be able to come around 75kg mark relatively easy, by just watching your food.
I'm 5'7" and in the past was 95kg (obese lol), 85kg, and 75 kg and difference is massive, with 75kg I average 20kmph on Boxhill zigzag segment).

Yep, if you've been 75, 85 and 95kg at different time, even if that difference was all muscle (bet it wasn't ), I suspect you were using the same heart and lungs? So extra muscle bulk is only likely to be really useful for short bursts.

Trisross

Stick with what you have and just keep at it. It will come and you will get better the more you ride.

smoggysteve

Trisross wrote:

Stick with what you have and just keep at it. It will come and you will get better the more you ride.

+1

Just get out and enjoy riding.

Remember what uncle Greg says - It doesn't get easier, you just get faster.

itboffin

Rolf F wrote:

SmoggySteve 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:

25% is only about 14 degrees. It aint that big a deal

And 33% is only about 18 degrees so what is your point?! First find a piece of tarmac that is one in four for a mile and then ride up it and then tell me it ain't that big a deal. 1320 feet in one mile........

Col du balham?