Compact Crank vs Semi-Compact
Comments
-
To be fair, when you're riding a My Little Pony trike and Mummy has a firm grip on your toddler reins , drafting some dizzy old fart at a 13 mph is no mean feat, no mean feat at all !
Have to say though, mean as it sounds, delusion and stupidity can be a very amusing mix at times.... Bless him.0 -
This is thermodynamically incoherent. It doesn't and cannot work like that.Milemuncher1 wrote:As far as I'm concerned. The reason for big gear / low cadence, is to keep my heart rate in zone 2, for as long as possible. If the heart rate goes into 4 or more, you will tire out, there's no coming back from a bonk on a long ride, you will never get the calories in quickly enough, to stay ahead of 'the curve'.
But pedal how you want. I think that because you are riding at a low power, a low heartrate, you can afford to pedal at a low cadence. If I'm dawdling with the children my cadence is probably similar to yours. Spinning faster would just feel like flapping my legs around. To manage a long ride at a higher power (generally, for most people with normal physiologies) a higher cadence is necessary. The flapping overhead is more than compensated by the aerobic efficiency.
I've recently jumped between a 53/39 and 52/36. I'm not sure the difference is actually very obvious unless you are trying to butt a headwind in the little ring when the 36 tends to run out of gears. Or in the Alps where the extra low gear is more than helpful.
Should I post some Strava links?
Paul0 -
Basically, as power output increases then cadence needs to rise to remain efficient. So you can only get away with a low cadence if you are pushing low power numbers. i.e. riding slowly on the flat. The fallacy is suggesting that it is an efficient way to cycle as for most cyclists, it won't be.0
-
Pretty crazy to see that in 135 miles, MM only climbed a bit over 2000ft. Up in the Durham Dales here it's fairly common to have rides with 1000ft of climbing for every 10 miles ridden.
Suppose it shows that gearing really is horses for courses. I'll keep my compact with 11-32 out the back. I can't say I've ever found myself wanting a bigger gear than 50-11 but I've been glad of my 34-32 a few times on the steepest climbs.
Not sure you'll find too many cyclists on Hardknott/Honister etc who'll tell you they've got too many easy gears.0 -
MrB123 wrote:Pretty crazy to see that in 135 miles, MM only climbed a bit over 2000ft. Up in the Durham Dales here it's fairly common to have rides with 1000ft of climbing for every 10 miles ridden.
Suppose it shows that gearing really is horses for courses. I'll keep my compact with 11-32 out the back. I can't say I've ever found myself wanting a bigger gear than 50-11 but I've been glad of my 34-32 a few times on the steepest climbs.
Not sure you'll find too many cyclists on Hardknott/Honister etc who'll tell you they've got too many easy gears.
My standard training ride is blocks of 20k with 400m of climbing, repeated. At the moment I'm using a cx crankset at 46/36 with an 11-32 and I'm glad I have it.
0 -
The same goes for long Alpine climbs. I was trying to find the footage of Wiggins almost coming to a standstill on the Angliru in 2011, while the person who won the stage looked like he had MTB gearing, with his legs spinning round...MrB123 wrote:I can't say I've ever found myself wanting a bigger gear than 50-11 but I've been glad of my 34-32 a few times on the steepest climbs.
Not sure you'll find too many cyclists on Hardknott/Honister etc who'll tell you they've got too many easy gears.0 -
That was exactly my experience in Mallorca last year on the longer climbs.
As long as I was spinning easily in a nice rhythm, letting the heart and lungs do the work, I felt like I could keep climbing all day.
As soon as it became a noticeable muscular effort to turn the pedals then I was looking for another gear or else the pain would start pretty quick!0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
The same goes for long Alpine climbs. I was trying to find the footage of Wiggins almost coming to a standstill on the Angliru in 2011, while the person who won the stage looked like he had MTB gearing, with his legs spinning round...MrB123 wrote:I can't say I've ever found myself wanting a bigger gear than 50-11 but I've been glad of my 34-32 a few times on the steepest climbs.
Not sure you'll find too many cyclists on Hardknott/Honister etc who'll tell you they've got too many easy gears.
^ indeed.
The first proper mountain you think 'well this isn't too bad' and you will get up with a few cogs to spare.
Second one of the day you begin to explore the lower reaches of your gearing.
Third mountain of the day and you'll begin to wish you hadn't listened to all the tosh about aesthetics and what real men ride etc.
Personally, with not quite a full number of lungs compared to most, I need the low gears towards the end of the day and use a triple (48/36/26) and 11-28. I don't use the inner ring very much, but I am glad it is there when I need it as my damaged lungs can't quite manage the heroics of others on here.0 -
In that case your distance rides are even more impressive... Chapeaumarcusjb wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
The same goes for long Alpine climbs. I was trying to find the footage of Wiggins almost coming to a standstill on the Angliru in 2011, while the person who won the stage looked like he had MTB gearing, with his legs spinning round...MrB123 wrote:I can't say I've ever found myself wanting a bigger gear than 50-11 but I've been glad of my 34-32 a few times on the steepest climbs.
Not sure you'll find too many cyclists on Hardknott/Honister etc who'll tell you they've got too many easy gears.
^ indeed.
The first proper mountain you think 'well this isn't too bad' and you will get up with a few cogs to spare.
Second one of the day you begin to explore the lower reaches of your gearing.
Third mountain of the day and you'll begin to wish you hadn't listened to all the tosh about aesthetics and what real men ride etc.
Personally, with not quite a full number of lungs compared to most, I need the low gears towards the end of the day and use a triple (48/36/26) and 11-28. I don't use the inner ring very much, but I am glad it is there when I need it as my damaged lungs can't quite manage the heroics of others on here.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Why are your lungs compromised Marcus?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:
Over ten or twelve hours, that's enough.Webboo wrote:
You are only burning about 430 calls an hour, that is hardly putting in much effort.Milemuncher1 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Alex99 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Faster than milemuncher I reckon. Seems to average 23-25 on a 2-300km ride.
Big distance rider (he was attempting the HAMR last year).
Thanks. MPH or KPH? What's the rationale for such big gears?
kph
You'd have to ask him or milemuncher. There are a few, and I do mean a few, riders doing long distances on big gears - a few fixed riders using 90+ inch gears (I ride 67 usually, geared up to 71 inch for Paris-Brest-Paris last year, primarily to try and make the long downhills less agonising on m'ars*).
But the reality for most of us mere mortals is lower gears are more important than higher gears. For most of us at the end of a long day, the ability to spin up even gentle hills is far more important than being able to still pedal a bike downhill at 80kph+. I reckon my 11 tooth sprocket on the geared bikes stays pretty clean on most big rides!
https://www.strava.com/activities/508530738
216 Km's today, again big( ish ) gears, the headwind on the return was a nightmare, I kept it on the 50t ring, but I was down to 28t at the back at one point
Fun though.
I had some nuggets trying to wheel suck me, at about 120 miles. They found out that the apparent 'plodder' can still turn the wick up, if some idiot try's to play silly buggers. I decided to 'orbit' one of them, three or four times, before I got bored.
You're trying to convince people that fellow riders tried to wheel suck you at 13mph? jeebus wept :roll:
Yet again, you seem to be confusing 'average' with 'actual' I was moving along at about 20 -21 mph on a lot of the flat sections, which is where the nuggets decided to use me as a wind break. I then cranked it up to 24 -25 mph in order to drop them off, and let them have another 30 (odd) percent wind resistance. It worked.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:I was moving along at about 20 -21 mph on a lot of the flat sections, which is where the nuggets decided to use me as a wind break. I then cranked it up to 24 -25 mph in order to drop them off, and let them have another 30 (odd) percent wind resistance. It worked.
That's very magnanimous of you...???0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:
Over ten or twelve hours, that's enough.Webboo wrote:
You are only burning about 430 calls an hour, that is hardly putting in much effort.Milemuncher1 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Alex99 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Faster than milemuncher I reckon. Seems to average 23-25 on a 2-300km ride.
Big distance rider (he was attempting the HAMR last year).
Thanks. MPH or KPH? What's the rationale for such big gears?
kph
You'd have to ask him or milemuncher. There are a few, and I do mean a few, riders doing long distances on big gears - a few fixed riders using 90+ inch gears (I ride 67 usually, geared up to 71 inch for Paris-Brest-Paris last year, primarily to try and make the long downhills less agonising on m'ars*).
But the reality for most of us mere mortals is lower gears are more important than higher gears. For most of us at the end of a long day, the ability to spin up even gentle hills is far more important than being able to still pedal a bike downhill at 80kph+. I reckon my 11 tooth sprocket on the geared bikes stays pretty clean on most big rides!
https://www.strava.com/activities/508530738
216 Km's today, again big( ish ) gears, the headwind on the return was a nightmare, I kept it on the 50t ring, but I was down to 28t at the back at one point
Fun though.
I had some nuggets trying to wheel suck me, at about 120 miles. They found out that the apparent 'plodder' can still turn the wick up, if some idiot try's to play silly buggers. I decided to 'orbit' one of them, three or four times, before I got bored.
You're trying to convince people that fellow riders tried to wheel suck you at 13mph? jeebus wept :roll:
Yet again, you seem to be confusing 'average' with 'actual' I was moving along at about 20 -21 mph on a lot of the flat sections, which is where the nuggets decided to use me as a wind break. I then cranked it up to 24 -25 mph in order to drop them off, and let them have another 30 (odd) percent wind resistance. It worked.
Didn't that bugger your averages up?!
You didn't answer my post.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Webboo wrote:
If you upped it 600 calls an hour you'd be home in 8 or 9 hours in time to go out with the missus or your matesMilemuncher1 wrote:
Over ten or twelve hours, that's enough.Webboo wrote:
You are only burning about 430 calls an hour, that is hardly putting in much effort.Milemuncher1 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Alex99 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Faster than milemuncher I reckon. Seems to average 23-25 on a 2-300km ride.
Big distance rider (he was attempting the HAMR last year).
Thanks. MPH or KPH? What's the rationale for such big gears?
kph
You'd have to ask him or milemuncher. There are a few, and I do mean a few, riders doing long distances on big gears - a few fixed riders using 90+ inch gears (I ride 67 usually, geared up to 71 inch for Paris-Brest-Paris last year, primarily to try and make the long downhills less agonising on m'ars*).
But the reality for most of us mere mortals is lower gears are more important than higher gears. For most of us at the end of a long day, the ability to spin up even gentle hills is far more important than being able to still pedal a bike downhill at 80kph+. I reckon my 11 tooth sprocket on the geared bikes stays pretty clean on most big rides!
https://www.strava.com/activities/508530738
216 Km's today, again big( ish ) gears, the headwind on the return was a nightmare, I kept it on the 50t ring, but I was down to 28t at the back at one point
Fun though.
I had some nuggets trying to wheel suck me, at about 120 miles. They found out that the apparent 'plodder' can still turn the wick up, if some idiot try's to play silly buggers. I decided to 'orbit' one of them, three or four times, before I got bored.
Again, very true, however, these rides are designed to get people who want to try an Audax, or 'epic' Sportive, but have only really done commutes, or short stint rides, accustomed to the rigours of longer distances. So much as I could put the hammer down a bit more, that wouldn't work, on a group ride ( albeit a group of four) 0 -
Pinno wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:
Over ten or twelve hours, that's enough.Webboo wrote:
You are only burning about 430 calls an hour, that is hardly putting in much effort.Milemuncher1 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Alex99 wrote:marcusjb wrote:Faster than milemuncher I reckon. Seems to average 23-25 on a 2-300km ride.
Big distance rider (he was attempting the HAMR last year).
Thanks. MPH or KPH? What's the rationale for such big gears?
kph
You'd have to ask him or milemuncher. There are a few, and I do mean a few, riders doing long distances on big gears - a few fixed riders using 90+ inch gears (I ride 67 usually, geared up to 71 inch for Paris-Brest-Paris last year, primarily to try and make the long downhills less agonising on m'ars*).
But the reality for most of us mere mortals is lower gears are more important than higher gears. For most of us at the end of a long day, the ability to spin up even gentle hills is far more important than being able to still pedal a bike downhill at 80kph+. I reckon my 11 tooth sprocket on the geared bikes stays pretty clean on most big rides!
https://www.strava.com/activities/508530738
216 Km's today, again big( ish ) gears, the headwind on the return was a nightmare, I kept it on the 50t ring, but I was down to 28t at the back at one point
Fun though.
I had some nuggets trying to wheel suck me, at about 120 miles. They found out that the apparent 'plodder' can still turn the wick up, if some idiot try's to play silly buggers. I decided to 'orbit' one of them, three or four times, before I got bored.
You're trying to convince people that fellow riders tried to wheel suck you at 13mph? jeebus wept :roll:
Yet again, you seem to be confusing 'average' with 'actual' I was moving along at about 20 -21 mph on a lot of the flat sections, which is where the nuggets decided to use me as a wind break. I then cranked it up to 24 -25 mph in order to drop them off, and let them have another 30 (odd) percent wind resistance. It worked.
Didn't that bugger your averages up?!
You didn't answer my post.
It does screw the averages up, I deliberately aim for 14 mph ( give or take a little bit ) and I do achieve it pretty consistently. I do this primarily to try and make sure that I have enough in the tank, to allow me to crank it up, in the event that a mechanical, means that I need to up the pace, in order to still get back in a reasonable time.0 -
So, to precis and paraphrase pretty much every post Milemuncher has made, and will make, here :
:roll:MileMuncher wrote:Rhubarb, rhubarb ,rhubarb ....Me, me, me, me, me .....(repeat)0 -
Pinno wrote:Why are your lungs compromised Marcus?
Missing a chunk of right lung through disease. Pleurodesis to stop pneumothoraces (which in itself should have no real impact on lung capacity). All means less capacity and a good dose of pain when riding hard (especially in the cold and wet weather).
All down to bad lifestyle choices in my 20s.
But you can't regret these things, just get on with doing stuff and accept I am in a far better position than many people and things could be a lot worse.
I'll never go fast, but I can go long these days. To be fair to milemuncher, the stuff about keeping the heart rate down on long rides is totally important (however, pushing a huge gear at 40rpm is not the typical way of achieving this). So measured steady riding is pretty okay for me and I can push out 300km days for several days on the trot (we'll find out just how many this summer if all goes well!).
It just means that climbing is a different game these days and I have to be very measured in my efforts. I just spent 17-18 months riding fixed exclusively and that has really taught me a lot about pacing up the hills.
It does annoy me when you read stuff (especially in a beginners forum) that you should be able to get up anything on a 34/28 and anything less is completely unnecessary. Everyone is different and if you need a 26/28 (as I occasionally do) to get up a hill, so be it. Better that than getting a bike with unsuitable gearing, getting frustrated with it all and giving up and letting the thing rust away in the shed and your body fall to pieces. Go as low as you need.
I rarely have to use the inner ring, but I am thankful it is there when I do need it!0 -
Well said, Marcus. A sensible and welcome alternative view to that of ignorant blowhards boasting about their big gears.0
-
MikeBrew wrote:
Have to say though, mean as it sounds, delusion and stupidity can be a very amusing mix at times.....
Don't be so hard on yourself, I imagine there are plenty of people that would gladly do that job for you.0 -
Mercia Man wrote:Well said, Marcus. A sensible and welcome alternative view to ignorant blowhards boasting about their big gears.
Oh woe is me, another chest beater trying ( and failing ) to make a ( not very good )insult.0 -
Post whatever you want to, I'll pay it as much heed, as that pile of steaming manure, you just posted there.paul2718 wrote:
This is thermodynamically incoherent. It doesn't and cannot work like that.Milemuncher1 wrote:As far as I'm concerned. The reason for big gear / low cadence, is to keep my heart rate in zone 2, for as long as possible. If the heart rate goes into 4 or more, you will tire out, there's no coming back from a bonk on a long ride, you will never get the calories in quickly enough, to stay ahead of 'the curve'.
But pedal how you want. I think that because you are riding at a low power, a low heartrate, you can afford to pedal at a low cadence. If I'm dawdling with the children my cadence is probably similar to yours. Spinning faster would just feel like flapping my legs around. To manage a long ride at a higher power (generally, for most people with normal physiologies) a higher cadence is necessary. The flapping overhead is more than compensated by the aerobic efficiency.
I've recently jumped between a 53/39 and 52/36. I'm not sure the difference is actually very obvious unless you are trying to butt a headwind in the little ring when the 36 tends to run out of gears. Or in the Alps where the extra low gear is more than helpful.
Should I post some Strava links?
Paul0 -
97th choice wrote:Basically, as power output increases then cadence needs to rise to remain efficient. So you can only get away with a low cadence if you are pushing low power numbers. i.e. riding slowly on the flat. The fallacy is suggesting that it is an efficient way to cycle as for most cyclists, it won't be.
Aha, a serious post at last. I agree that for most riders it would not be an efficient way of doing it, however, until recently, I only ever rode either fixed gear / single speed, or hub geared bikes with not a lot of choice in gearing. Using my legs, rather than my gears ( of which I had very few ) is a hard habit to break. It isn't efficient, but it's what suits me, I just don't like putting my heart rate up when riding. I have other physical persuits, which do that. Riding for fun, other stuff for C.V. conditioning / training. My heart rate is a bit strange. My resting pulse is about 52 bpm, and it takes a very intensive physical exertion to get it to anything resembling normal. Late last year, my blood pressure dived to about 70 / 20 after a ride, for no good reason that the medics could find. That landed me in the back of an ambulance, and a trip to casualty, because I flaked out, and face planted a stone floor.0 -
Totally agree. Everyone is on here is different in age, size, health and level of fitness with different types of bikes. I'm in my late 50s and can spin up steep hills easier on my hybrid with a triple and lowest gear of 28/32, than on my light carbon road bike that had a 34/28 lower gear. I therefore put a 12-30 cassette on my carbon bike to give me a 34/30 low gear, but on the really steep hills I wouldn't mind a 32 sprocket.marcusjb wrote:It does annoy me when you read stuff (especially in a beginners forum) that you should be able to get up anything on a 34/28 and anything less is completely unnecessary. Everyone is different and if you need a 26/28 (as I occasionally do) to get up a hill, so be it. Better that than getting a bike with unsuitable gearing, getting frustrated with it all and giving up and letting the thing rust away in the shed and your body fall to pieces. Go as low as you need.
There are so many options with gearing nowadays, it makes cycling more accessible to more people of all abilities, which is great.0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:
Totally agree. Everyone is on here is different in age, size, health and level of fitness with different types of bikes. I'm in my late 50s and can spin up steep hills easier on my hybrid with a triple and lowest gear of 28/32, than on my light carbon road bike that had a 34/28 lower gear. I therefore put a 12-30 cassette on my carbon bike to give me a 34/30 low gear, but on the really steep hills I wouldn't mind a 32 sprocket.marcusjb wrote:It does annoy me when you read stuff (especially in a beginners forum) that you should be able to get up anything on a 34/28 and anything less is completely unnecessary. Everyone is different and if you need a 26/28 (as I occasionally do) to get up a hill, so be it. Better that than getting a bike with unsuitable gearing, getting frustrated with it all and giving up and letting the thing rust away in the shed and your body fall to pieces. Go as low as you need.
There are so many options with gearing nowadays, it makes cycling more accessible to more people of all abilities, which is great.
^^
This is very much spot on. Different strokes for different folks, whatever keeps it enjoyable, is what you should do.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Basically, as power output increases then cadence needs to rise to remain efficient. So you can only get away with a low cadence if you are pushing low power numbers. i.e. riding slowly on the flat. The fallacy is suggesting that it is an efficient way to cycle as for most cyclists, it won't be.
Aha, a serious post at last. I agree that for most riders it would not be an efficient way of doing it, however, until recently, I only ever rode either fixed gear / single speed, or hub geared bikes with not a lot of choice in gearing. Using my legs, rather than my gears ( of which I had very few ) is a hard habit to break. It isn't efficient, but it's what suits me, I just don't like putting my heart rate up when riding. I have other physical persuits, which do that. Riding for fun, other stuff for C.V. conditioning / training. My heart rate is a bit strange. My resting pulse is about 52 bpm, and it takes a very intensive physical exertion to get it to anything resembling normal. Late last year, my blood pressure dived to about 70 / 20 after a ride, for no good reason that the medics could find. That landed me in the back of an ambulance, and a trip to casualty, because I flaked out, and face planted a stone floor.
Sorry to hear that, hope you've recovered.
But if you'd posted something along those lines about 10 pages ago rather than making an assertion that riding at 80rpm is inefficient and laughing at people 'flapping their legs around' there wouldn't have been so many people jumping on you. If your personal circumstances dictate that it's best for you then that makes perfect sense.0 -
^ Does that mark the end of this bun fight?
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
0
-
For a while this morning this thread was threatening to become a sensible, adult discussion, but thankfully it soon got back on track.0
-
Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:
Have to say though, mean as it sounds, delusion and stupidity can be a very amusing mix at times.....
Don't be so hard on yourself, I imagine there are plenty of people that would gladly do that job for you.
You see, even his half baked attempt at a witty riposte makes no sense whatsoever, even in the context of, (and it makes so little sense that I can only guess here) an intended insult... His head's totally away in the land of the little people (fairy's).....His reply is (like many of his posts) totally inane.
His use of the name of Roman Emperor Markus Aurelius, for his Strava profile would appear to hint at a certain level of delusional self-aggrandizement , but I fear that a more appropriate Strava moniker might be something along the lines of "Markus O'Really?-us" ........ :P
On a more serious note: the idea of a delusional, self-obsessed, self-important, un-reasoned, unintelligent, intransigent blow hard like him becoming a sky ride leader is a tragedy, as his approach and "personality" is extremely likely to put many people off of cycling completely..Great shame.0 -
Well I think I made a post that was a combination of correct statement and informed opinion. And you've posted a combination of fallacy and self-aggrandizing tall tales...Milemuncher1 wrote:Post whatever you want to, I'll pay it as much heed, as that pile of steaming manure, you just posted there.
From your Strava statistics it's clear you don't ride up hills much. I've ridden less than a quarter of your distance this year, in a sixth of your time and climbed a third of the elevation. And 90% of that has been in East Anglia. It might be worth expanding your horizons.
Paul0
