Gearing down
step83
Posts: 4,170
Did my first sportif yesterday, was great bar the stupid amount of cramping I got in one leg. Also some of the hills, it was billed as a gently rolling course 11 & 16% gradients are not gentle! Lots of us were over geared having to admit defeat and walk up the hill
Im not hugely fit. I tried to give myself a chance upping the rear cassette from 11-28 to 11-32 which im going to say helped I could spin up hills quick enough. My front gearing though is a little too steep for me at the moment. Im running a 53-39T up front. Anyone able to suggest a more hill friendly pairing for up front?
Im not hugely fit. I tried to give myself a chance upping the rear cassette from 11-28 to 11-32 which im going to say helped I could spin up hills quick enough. My front gearing though is a little too steep for me at the moment. Im running a 53-39T up front. Anyone able to suggest a more hill friendly pairing for up front?
0
Comments
-
"Semi compact" could also be an option - 52/36
But I suppose it could be an expensive exercise to experiment with both compact and/or semi compact
Keep a watch in the classifieds on here and you might pick up a 2nd hand compact or semi-compact for reasonable money.
For example this ad for a full 5800 groupset but seller says he may well split if enough interest is shown
viewtopic.php?f=40091&t=13038726
Could be worth asking a price in the 50/34 chainset included in the groupset.0 -
That would be tempting but I have the joys of a SRAM 130 BCD so that would be a very expensive exercise indeed. the 50-34T sounds tempting gives close to a 1:1 ratio in the crawling gear with the size of the cassette.0
-
I'm afraid I agree with the description. Your fitness is the problem, but a compact would suit you.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19730529#p19730529]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:I'm afraid I agree with the description. Your fitness is the problem, but a compact would suit you.
This and losing some weight (if appropriate)"You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19730529#p19730529]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:I'm afraid I agree with the description. Your fitness is the problem, but a compact would suit you.
To be fair, unless we're wearing yellow or the WC colours, our fitness is all of our problems. And of course a compact is sensible for 16% gradients even if it just means you can choose a closer ratio cassette at the rear.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
My fitness is a big part or the problem I know that Ihave the joy of a job where moving away from your desk results in death stairs from management, also doesn't help weight loss. I am losing weight though shed 5kg in just over a month with a diet change bringing me to about 83.5 kg.
I think in my infinitely lacking wisdom as the bike is lighter than my usual mountain bike I'd be alright with the larger gears. I'll double check the BCD and hobble over to the LBS, cramped my leg that badly it's still hurting now!0 -
I would say 53/39 is pretty pointless for most 'normal' riders. The 'compact' is pretty much standard for normal people these days 50/34 with a 28T on the back.0
-
I would say 53/39 is pretty pointless for most 'normal' riders. The 'compact' is pretty much standard for normal people these days 50/34 with a 28T on the back.
Agreed - the 53/39 is more of a badge of honour than anything. I'm sure they're great if you're wafting along in the middle of a peloton at recovery HR. That said, I have one on my NL bike with a 12-23 cassette on the back. But then most of my rides here are totally flat and gears are there for the epic winds. A compact will take you up to 40-45mph which is quick enough for most riders - after which tucking in and letting gravity do the work will get the job done.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
For the most part it's the low end of the range which is the most important. How many times per ride do most riders find themselves spinning out 50/11? And if they do, do they need to go any faster?
As usual in these threads there's 'get fitter', well yes, of course. But you can have two riders, one doing the climb using 'mans gears' with 39/25 and the other with 34/28 and the rider using lower gears could quite likely be putting out more power.0 -
If your idea is to stick with your existing chainset spider and just fit smaller chainrings then you have very limited scope.
With 130 BCD, the minimum inner chainring size is 38t so you'll hardly see any difference from your existing set-up. In theory you could drop the large chainring to a 50t but that's not really addressing the problem.
If you want to run a smaller inner chainring (34 or 36) then you'll need to sell off your 53/39 and buy a 110 BCD chainset0 -
Yeah looks like itll be a new crankset, I was sure it was a 110BCD but it is 130. Annoying but not the end of the world really if it means I can do hills then all the better.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19730529#p19730529]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:I'm afraid I agree with the description. Your fitness is the problem, but a compact would suit you.
To be fair, unless we're wearing yellow or the WC colours, our fitness is all of our problems. And of course a compact is sensible for 16% gradients even if it just means you can choose a closer ratio cassette at the rear.
True - though with 11 speed, the gaps aren't huge with 11-28 anyway. Ultimately if you carry on answering the question with 'lower gears', you will eventually run out of gears. This debate never ends well, but unless you have health problems, I don't see why you should need 34x28 to deal with the sort of hills the OP is describing. A lot of people these days seem to think they can/should try to climb like Chris Froome.
And the whole thing about normal people and double chainsets is silly. There are few hills within quite a large radius of where I live that convincingly require low enough gears to justify having a compact. I use 53/39 and 54/42 at the moment. I did Buttertubs and some others this summer just gone on my 12kg steel bike, and was a bit overgeared on 39x20, but still made it.0 -
Well, of course it's possible to mash your way up hills but pretty much everything written suggests optimum power comes from a much higher cadence. No-one's suggesting the OP gets a triple. And you need to do a bit of work to get faster at climbing - 10 years living in the Highlands has taught me that. But there's nothing clever about mashing a massive gear either. A 34x28T is perfectly reasonable for an average cyclist climbing a 16% slope of any length. Mashing a big gear is old Skool and old hat.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
I'd agree - assuming on about 75 rpm. If you need 34x28 to get up fairly shallow slopes, your fitness is the problem; apart from anything else, what are you going to do if you want to try anything that's actually steep?0
-
Except you'd be better off at around 90rpm. And 16% isn't shallow by any standards except a mountain goat's. By the time you reach 20%+ you can happily lift a front wheel of you stay seated.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
I don't agree with that at all; higher isn't always better. Apart from anything else, unless your fitness is rather good, you won't manage to sustain 90rpm on harder climbs. But short steep climbs account for many of this country's best hills; last I checked, we haven't many alps.0
-
Well I'm not surprised you think that given the gearing you use
Stay seated, stick it in a low gear, and spin up. And there's plenty of long hills around me either on or off road. And, of course, there's no single right answer: we're all different shapes and sizes (regardless of fitness) and the hills, thankfully, are pretty different. ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Well I'm not surprised you think that given the gearing you use Stay seated, stick it in a low gear, and spin up. And there's plenty of long hills around me either on or off road. And, of course, there's no single right answer: we're all different shapes and sizes (regardless of fitness) and the hills, thankfully, are pretty different.
Ive always found I can spin at a higher cadence in a low gear rather than use a lower gear and end up mashing the pedals. Im happy to admit im as fit as I could be and using a higher gear and lower cadence is just going to end up me mashing the gears an likely doing my legs a mischief.
Numbers from Le Garmin for the ride
Speed Av 12.6mph max32.8mph
Heart Rate Av 165bpm max190bpm
Cadence Av 81 max112
HR shows yes im unfit but cadence is actually about normal for me on the road bike.
Im not defending why I need a compact gearset im just trying to show that not everyone is built the same some have lots of power on demand an can use bigger gears others dont but others can spin at a higher rate in a lower gear to get similar results. Im defiantly the latter which Meanredspider seems to fit into as well.0 -
Im not defending why I need a compact gearset im just trying to show that not everyone is built the same some have lots of power on demand an can use bigger gears others dont but others can spin at a higher rate in a lower gear to get similar results.
If you have the appropriate gearing then you can work on developing both styles "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0 -
Well I'm not surprised you think that given the gearing you use Stay seated, stick it in a low gear, and spin up. And there's plenty of long hills around me either on or off road. And, of course, there's no single right answer: we're all different shapes and sizes (regardless of fitness) and the hills, thankfully, are pretty different.
Ive always found I can spin at a higher cadence in a low gear rather than use a lower gear and end up mashing the pedals. Im happy to admit im as fit as I could be and using a higher gear and lower cadence is just going to end up me mashing the gears an likely doing my legs a mischief.
Numbers from Le Garmin for the ride
Speed Av 12.6mph max32.8mph
Heart Rate Av 165bpm max190bpm
Cadence Av 81 max112
HR shows yes im unfit but cadence is actually about normal for me on the road bike.
Im not defending why I need a compact gearset im just trying to show that not everyone is built the same some have lots of power on demand an can use bigger gears others dont but others can spin at a higher rate in a lower gear to get similar results. Im defiantly the latter which Meanredspider seems to fit into as well.
I think there's an issue of terminology here - 75 rpm is a good pedalling cadence. 50 and under is more like 'mashing', but even then, I'd agree with Charlie on this - if you actually want to be good at climbing, both are useful for training. And spend some time out of the saddle as well.
The bottom line is that it's as easy to go too high as it is to go too low - spinning too low a gear too fast can raise your HR and waste your energy. As said above, just because an aerobic marvel like Chris Froome does it doesn't necessarily mean that you or I should.0 -
For most people I think a compact is the best bet, with 12-28 or 12-30 (11 speed) at the back.
If you're racing then sure, there will be times when you need to continue putting down power past 50 kph, and for that 53-12 will come in useful. You'll also be spending quite a bit of time over 45 kph where a standard or mid-compact will move you up a sprocket at the back and give a better chainline.
However, if you just want to ride a little faster over local routes, you'll be faster tucking up once over 50 kph and saving the energy for hills... in which case a compact will:
- save you weight
- give a more efficient chain line
- have lower climbing gears
At average speeds of 12 mph you may want to consider a mtb cassette out back (11-34) too. Or a triple.
*EDIT* just noticed the top speed of 32mph, which means you likely had one or two gears that you probably never used.
The other thing about standard gearing, is that they come from a time when the smallest sprockets on the cassette were 14t or 15t. People of the time sacrificed having to grunt up hills so they wouldn't spin out over 45 kph. Poor front derailleurs limited the drop in teeth at the front too leaving a compromise of 53-39. With 11t sprockets at the back, and better front mechs this is no longer a sacrifice we have to make... yet many people continue, just to 'look strong'.0 -
I always think threads about what gearing is "normal" can be very misleading.
The gears you need are a function of several factors.
How powerful are you?
How heavy are you and your bike?
How hard do you want to work?
How fast do you want to pedal?
What terrain are you riding on?
Where I live we have lots of short (less than 1km) slopes between 10% and 20%.
Where I holiday its mainly long climbs, 5km plus, at 5% to 10%.
At an FTP of around 3w/kg a 50/34 32/11 setup means I can spin up the long climbs and still get up the steep stuff, without going into the red, in the saddle, without resorting to low cadences. My average ride cadence is about 80. This is what I want to do.
There are lots of tables and calculators on the web where you can input your data and it will determine the gearing that suits your riding profile.0 -
That bit about front mechs is hilarious- where did you get it from? It's not like 53/39 has been the most common configuration forever anyway, 52/42 was very common at one point. Big drops at the front really aren't ideal; though before triples became standard kit, some tourers in the '70s and '80s came with chainsets that permitted a smaller bcd 32 ring to be fitted, with a 50t big ring.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19731806#p19731806]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:That bit about front mechs is hilarious- where did you get it from? It's not like 53/39 has been the most common configuration forever anyway, 52/42 was very common at one point. Big drops at the front really aren't ideal;
http://www.bikehugger.com/m/view/the-rise-of-the-compact-crank
[/quote]Though double cranks with 110mm bcd had existed in the past, they were never really common for road bikes nor did they have the 16-tooth jump between the rings typical of today. An important hurdle to overcome was chainring design that would allow smooth shifting with the chainring size difference, which is greater in the modern compact double than ever before. Sophisticated ramps and pick-up pins (and sometimes compact specific front derailleurs) were necessary to help lift and guide the chain during front upshifts. Shimano had been an industry leader in this technology going back a decade or more, but another company beat them to the punch in marketing similar techniques in a compact double.
You might find it hilarious but it is pretty well accepted that what made compacts effective was the ability to shift effectively through a larger range.
You might be happy with your 53-39, but the OP is averaging less than 13mph, and has average cadence of 81... Which likely would be higher if he wasn't running out of gears. Anyone giving sensible advice would recommend him a compact, triple, or Mtb bike gears out back.0 -
Why do you want a 16 tooth difference? Front mechs don't work very well with big jumps by nature of their design; there's only so much you can do to improve on it. A smaller gap at the front is better, which is a common reason for opting for 50/36. 10 teeth is better still.0
-
Silly argument... Following that you'd run a single speed.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19731848#p19731848]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:Why do you want a 16 tooth difference? Front mechs don't work very well with big jumps by nature of their design; there's only so much you can do to improve on it. A smaller gap at the front is better, which is a common reason for opting for 50/36. 10 teeth is better still.
Having ridden both, I know a modern compact shifts better over 16t than vintage gears over 53-39. The point of gears is to give you a range of gears so you can self select cadence. If you are running out of gears there is no logical reason to limit yourself when compacts, triples, and MTB rear cassettes all offer great solutions.0 -
-
You won't get no kudos when you're having knee replacements after mashing 39/25 up Mortirolo.0
-
Oh god what have I started :shock:
I have picked up another Apex crankset with a smaller spider. Was easier than faffing with a different BB type as most others appear to be FSA which would mean changing to a BB30.
Gearing is now 34-50T with an 11-32T cassette rear The mech wont take a 34T cassette its only a medium. I'll fit it at the weekend and go play with the hills in Woburn see what happens.0 -
53/39T chain sets can work. For the op they may not the present. I don't grind big gears all time sometimes I spin often, I use a big gear for strength training. These chain sets are not a badge of honour. A compact does not suit me but it suits many others. use what suits you but do not think for a moment that there are riders that don't benefit from a 53/39T chain sets.
The reason why I don't use a compact or semi compact is with a 12 25T cassette I'll be spinning at 90 rpm on a 10% hill but the hills here are not too long.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0
