Gearing Question

donslow

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster here so please be gentle.....

I've started getting into road cycling / commuting by bike in the last year and am absolutely loving it so far, currently doing about 200 miles a week

Being a guy on a budget I tend to buy used bikes and adapt as necessary, hence I don't get much in the way of choice of components, my latest steed is a Planet X pro carbon,

I'm loving this bike currently but have one niggling question.....

The gearing setup on it is as follows shimano tiagra
Front Chainrings - 50, 34
Rear Cassette - 25, 23, 21, 19, 17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11

Although the ride is ok, I still find myself struggling on occasions and being overtaken by cyclists who appear to be putting in a lot less effort than myself, I'm not THAT unfit but couldn't call myself an athlete as such

I'm wondering, could this be a gearing thing or a fitness thing

My rides mainly consist of an even 50/50 of rural riding & climbing and flat commuting through London

The rear cassette and chain need replacing so I'm wondering if there is an "upgrade" or better gearing ratio that would help me somewhat?!

Or do I just need to get fitter and up my training?!

ANY help and advice will be GREATLY appreciated

Thanks in advance all

StillGoing

You don't specify whether your doing a high cadence in the 50/11, whether its on the flat or uphill that you're being passed. You've got a 10 speed cassette with nice tight ratios so if the issue is uphill, it may be you need something bigger than the 25 sprocket. On the flat, your 50/11 is capable of 46mph at 130rpm cadence so I would suggest then, its your fitness. Even at 90rpm cadence, you'd be doing 30mph.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

milemuncher1

philthy3 wrote:

You don't specify whether your doing a high cadence in the 50/11, whether its on the flat or uphill that you're being passed. You've got a 10 speed cassette with nice tight ratios so if the issue is uphill, it may be you need something bigger than the 25 sprocket. On the flat, your 50/11 is capable of 46mph at 130rpm cadence so I would suggest then, its your fitness. Even at 90rpm cadence, you'd be doing 30mph.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

In a vacuum, possibly.

milemuncher1

What you have is what’s known as a compact chainset, and an 11-25 cassette. From what you say, the compact chainset ( the 50-34 rings up front ) are probably about right for you. If I were you I’d look at getting something like a 12-28 ( or there abouts ) cassette, as this will help you get up hills, and the fact that the smallest sprocket has 12 teeth, as opposed to 11 teeth, will almost certainly mean that the ratio progression up and down the cassette will be smoother, and you’re most likely not at the level where you can fully exploit the 11 tooth sprocket, on the 50 tooth ring yet. Personally I use a standard ( 53-39 ) chain set with an 11-28 ten speed cassette on one of my bikes, which I use for the very few ‘sportives’ that I do, a semi compact 52-36 chainset, and 11-30 11 speed cassette on the bike I tend to use for hilly routes, a compact ( 50-34 ) chainset and 11-28 10 speed cassette on the bike I use for flatter shorter rides, a triple chainset with 11-30 9 speed cassette on my Commuter / station road bike, and a compact with an 11-36 ten speed cassette on my Hybrid. With all those options, I have all my bases covered.

donslow

Thank you for the replies and advice thus far

Some really useful information there,

A little part of me is wondering if I am just using the gears I have incorrectly so that is somewhat hindering my efforts and certainly something that I should maybe look into

The 12-28 cassette seems like it could be certainly worth looking in to so thank you for that suggestion

In regards to cadence, I'm really not sure what I do as I can't really afford cadence sensors and the like so go with comfortable stride if that's the correct term! maybe wrong or a bit primitive but I tend to go as quick as I (or my legs) can go, I tend to change gear when my hips start wobbling due to pedalling too fast

Another can of worms, my stem feels JUST a tad too long and I intend on changing it as soon as budget allows, Would having a stem that is too long affect my pedalling performance?! It's not that it's uncomfortable to ride but feel like I might be a bit more comfortable with it being shorter

Apologies for all the daft questions and thanks again for any help / advice

yiannism

donslow wrote:

Thank you for the replies and advice thus far

Some really useful information there,

A little part of me is wondering if I am just using the gears I have incorrectly so that is somewhat hindering my efforts and certainly something that I should maybe look into

The 12-28 cassette seems like it could be certainly worth looking in to so thank you for that suggestion

In regards to cadence, I'm really not sure what I do as I can't really afford cadence sensors and the like so go with comfortable stride if that's the correct term! maybe wrong or a bit primitive but I tend to go as quick as I (or my legs) can go, I tend to change gear when my hips start wobbling due to pedalling too fast

Another can of worms, my stem feels JUST a tad too long and I intend on changing it as soon as budget allows, Would having a stem that is too long affect my pedalling performance?! It's not that it's uncomfortable to ride but feel like I might be a bit more comfortable with it being shorter

Apologies for all the daft questions and thanks again for any help / advice

Even 11-28 will work just fine. Thats what i use, no problems at all.

No, the longer stem puts you on more aggressive therefor more aerodynamic position, it shouldnt affect your pedaling power, its just about comfort.

Mad_Malx

Milemuncher1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You don't specify whether your doing a high cadence in the 50/11, whether its on the flat or uphill that you're being passed. You've got a 10 speed cassette with nice tight ratios so if the issue is uphill, it may be you need something bigger than the 25 sprocket. On the flat, your 50/11 is capable of 46mph at 130rpm cadence so I would suggest then, its your fitness. Even at 90rpm cadence, you'd be doing 30mph.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

In a vacuum, possibly.

The effort required to get to and maintain 90rpm is markedly affected by air resistance, but not the speed achieved at that cadence.

svetty

Your lowest gear is 34-25. This isn't especially high for a low gear unless you live in hilly terrain so I'm inclined to think that your issue may be more related to your power output than your gearing. You don't give much information about your age, fitness history, average speed etc but I'd not primarily be looking at your gearing if you want to go faster - increase your power and the speed will sort itself.

Mad_Malx

Svetty wrote:

Your lowest gear is 34-25. This isn't especially high for a low gear unless you live in hilly terrain so I'm inclined to think that your issue may be more related to your power output than your gearing. You don't give much information about your age, fitness history, average speed etc but I'd not primarily be looking at your gearing if you want to go faster - increase your power and the speed will sort itself.

34-25 isn’t very low either. I don’t use my bottom gear of 34-27 often, but I wouldn’t like to lose it.

roger_merriman

Mad_Malx wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Your lowest gear is 34-25. This isn't especially high for a low gear unless you live in hilly terrain so I'm inclined to think that your issue may be more related to your power output than your gearing. You don't give much information about your age, fitness history, average speed etc but I'd not primarily be looking at your gearing if you want to go faster - increase your power and the speed will sort itself.

34-25 isn’t very low either. I don’t use my bottom gear of 34-27 often, but I wouldn’t like to lose it.

Indeed my gravel bike, even on the road i'll use the 32-32 at times.

donslow

Some very useful advice here gents, really appreciate it so far,

Part of my daily riding is fairly hilly terrain with a few big hills and long inclines included, but as I say, the other part is generally flat through London

As it needs changing anyway would you say that changing to a 12-28 cassette, if for no other reason than to try it out, would be of a benefit or hinderance or would it be best advised to change like for like?!

Is there a gearing, so front and back, for road bikes that could be classed as a "do it all or near as dammit" setup?

In terms of me, I'm about 60kg, give or take, 36 years young, short at 5'6" not really sure what to put for fitness history, average speed I guess is around 17mph, I'm averaging 11 miles through London's relative flatness in about 32 minutes or thereabouts

I would like to improve my average speed but just not 100% sure how, when you say increase your power, how do I do that? What should I be doing that I probably am not currently?

Would an option be to choose a lower (harder) gear than my normal "comfortable" or "easy" and just live with the aches and pains that I find are coming with that be what you are talking about?

Thank you again for all the really helpful advice, keep it coming, it's really appreciated

StillGoing

As mentioned an 11-28 cassette is fine and is used by plenty with 50/34, 52/36 and even 53/39 chain ring options. It gives a good option for the flats and decent hills other than the likes of Porlock etc.

What do you mean by comfort cycling? Are you just leisurely cruising rather than getting a wriggle on? To improve your power and therefore speed, you need to push yourself. There are plenty of free suggested training programs on the web. British Cycling has a few, but there are others out there.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... ning-plans

donslow

philthy3 wrote:

As mentioned an 11-28 cassette is fine and is used by plenty with 50/34, 52/36 and even 53/39 chain ring options. It gives a good option for the flats and decent hills other than the likes of Porlock etc.

What do you mean by comfort cycling? Are you just leisurely cruising rather than getting a wriggle on? To improve your power and therefore speed, you need to push yourself. There are plenty of free suggested training programs on the web. British Cycling has a few, but there are others out there.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... ning-plans

Thank you for that, I will be sure to have a look into them!

I don't mean leisurely cycling as such it just seems that I try to get a wriggle on but never seem to be getting anywhere fast which is what leads me to think I'm not using the gears I do have properly but also wonder if the bike is fine and it's just me

Back to my original post it also seems that whenever I am passed, the cyclist passing is putting a lot less effort in than me but obviously speeding along a lot quicker, which, again, led me to question if I'm using my gears properly which also led me to question if there would be a better gear setup for the type of riding I generally do or whether it is just my fitness?!

I do want to get better, I do want to get faster, and I'm keen to have a setup that would allow/assist me in doing this and know that I am using it properly, I just don't really know, as a novice, where to start or what to do hence all of the varying questions,

Thank you all so much again for your help and advice, I really appreciate your time so far, please do keep it coming, I'm learning a lot just from this one post

imposter2.0

As a novice, just ride more, ride more often, ride further, sometimes ride faster, sometimes ride slower, try out different gear combos and different cadences and see what works for you. Ride with a group and observe what others do (assuming they know what they are doing). There are no shortcuts unfortunately.

Midlands Grimpeur

OP as you are new to cycling in all likelihood is a fitness issue rather than gearing. I know this is an over simplification but essentially the fitter you are the greater your capacity to pedal in a bigger gear and at a higher cadence and therefore travel faster.

We are a similar age/height/weight but I have been riding for nearly 20 years. For the first couple of years I mainly rode around in the small chainring as I did not have the fitness to ride in the big ring for extended periods (anything more than about 10mins! back then). Years of riding and then training with a structured training plan has increased my fitness by a large amount, as others have said it is an ongoing process. You will see some decent gains in terms of fitness in the early stages then it will plateau a bit and start to become more incremental, depending on how much riding you do and at what kind of intensity.

For now, just ride and enjoy and you will see some improvements, then you can decide how serious you want to get and start to think about plans to help you achieve whatever cycling goals you set yourself.

58585

Post up a photo of yourself on the bike from side on and we'll be able to point out anything obvious on your set-up which might be worth adjusting (since you have some pain).
Your gearing should be good enough at 60kg for getting up most hills... It does sounds like you are focusing too much on the gearing. How many hours a week are you cycling?
If you just want to go faster then don't under estimate how much difference if makes riding on the drops, and wearing a tight jersey. A lot of the guys and girls overtaking you may not be putting in as much effort as you think ;-)

kingstongraham

Milemuncher1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You don't specify whether your doing a high cadence in the 50/11, whether its on the flat or uphill that you're being passed. You've got a 10 speed cassette with nice tight ratios so if the issue is uphill, it may be you need something bigger than the 25 sprocket. On the flat, your 50/11 is capable of 46mph at 130rpm cadence so I would suggest then, its your fitness. Even at 90rpm cadence, you'd be doing 30mph.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

In a vacuum, possibly.

What difference would that make to speed at cadence?

milemuncher1

KingstonGraham wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You don't specify whether your doing a high cadence in the 50/11, whether its on the flat or uphill that you're being passed. You've got a 10 speed cassette with nice tight ratios so if the issue is uphill, it may be you need something bigger than the 25 sprocket. On the flat, your 50/11 is capable of 46mph at 130rpm cadence so I would suggest then, its your fitness. Even at 90rpm cadence, you'd be doing 30mph.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

In a vacuum, possibly.

What difference would that make to speed at cadence?

Mad_Malx

That’s because you aren’t very bright, muncher

StillGoing

KingstonGraham wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You don't specify whether your doing a high cadence in the 50/11, whether its on the flat or uphill that you're being passed. You've got a 10 speed cassette with nice tight ratios so if the issue is uphill, it may be you need something bigger than the 25 sprocket. On the flat, your 50/11 is capable of 46mph at 130rpm cadence so I would suggest then, its your fitness. Even at 90rpm cadence, you'd be doing 30mph.

http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

In a vacuum, possibly.

What difference would that make to speed at cadence?

It makes no difference. Clearly MM and his preferred grinding cadence doesn't believe people are capable of 130rpm and higher in the real world.

donslow

Midlands Grimpeur wrote:

OP as you are new to cycling in all likelihood is a fitness issue rather than gearing. I know this is an over simplification but essentially the fitter you are the greater your capacity to pedal in a bigger gear and at a higher cadence and therefore travel faster.

We are a similar age/height/weight but I have been riding for nearly 20 years. For the first couple of years I mainly rode around in the small chainring as I did not have the fitness to ride in the big ring for extended periods (anything more than about 10mins! back then). Years of riding and then training with a structured training plan has increased my fitness by a large amount, as others have said it is an ongoing process. You will see some decent gains in terms of fitness in the early stages then it will plateau a bit and start to become more incremental, depending on how much riding you do and at what kind of intensity.

For now, just ride and enjoy and you will see some improvements, then you can decide how serious you want to get and start to think about plans to help you achieve whatever cycling goals you set yourself.

A lot of that makes sense when comparing it to my experiences this far, thank you for your thoughts

If I have this right, basically, to get quicker you need to be riding, ideally, in a harder gear, building up fitness and leg strength will help me get to a point where I should be able to do this and this is why there are people passing me without seeming to be putting in as much effort as I do

My current 11-25 cassette is fine for a lot of this and although it needs changing, like for like would be ideal as the 12-28 suggested here wouldn't really give me any benefits other than when climbing?!

The aches and pains I'm getting are, I think, just where I've been trying to stay in harder gears and pushing a bit more and should subside as my leg strength / muscles build up a bit, would this sound about right

For now I just use strava to compare one ride to another, a lot of the info still seems a little bit like jargon until I really work out what's being said and what it really means, is there anything else anyone can suggest that might help me work out what to do and where to go next that would help me indentify where I need to improve from, say, my previous ride

Many thanks again all, really appreciate your time and advice, some very useful information here, please do keep it coming

donslow

What is meant also by intensity of the ride?! How would I gauge this and use that information?!

What sort of cadence should a person of my intermiediacy be aiming for? Is there a way of gauging this without the use of expensive cadence sensors?!

How do I gauge my power and what sort of numbers should I be looking for?

Again, at my level of intermediacy, should I be concentrating on these things listed above?!

Mad_Malx

. 12-28 suggested here wouldn't really give me any benefits other than when climbing?

Correct - The 12-28 will only help you keep spinning on steep hills.

Many beginners turn a big gear slowly, but generally it is more efficient to increase cadence rather than pushing harder, but (obviously?) you need to increase your fitness to turn a higher gear faster. For most people a cadence of 80-90 is the most efficient, which feels fast to a beginner.

Muncher will come along in a moment and tell you that you have to pedal a 60x11 at 25rpm. Very few people agree with him (or her).

StillGoing

Mad_Malx wrote:

. 12-28 suggested here wouldn't really give me any benefits other than when climbing?

Correct - The 12-28 will only help you keep spinning on steep hills.

Many beginners turn a big gear slowly, but generally it is more efficient to increase cadence rather than pushing harder, but (obviously?) you need to increase your fitness to turn a higher gear faster. For most people a cadence of 80-90 is the most efficient, which feels fast to a beginner.

Muncher will come along in a moment and tell you that you have to pedal a 60x11 at 25rpm. Very few people agree with him (or her).

The fitter you are, the higher the cadence you should aim for simply for efficiency. There are opinions that newer riders waste energy by trying to do a high cadence, using energy to turn the pedals instead of propelling themselves forward. They recommend a cadence of between 60-70rpm for a beginner. I would say more like 70-80rpm for a beginner and try to increase it as close to 100rpm as you gain fitness. If your cadence is low like MM will suggest, you're inevitably putting strain on your knees. The thinking of many is that a high cadence is less about strength and more about cardio for better endurance. A low cadence is more about strength and will tire your muscles quicker.

Mad_Malx

philthy3 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

. 12-28 suggested here wouldn't really give me any benefits other than when climbing?

Correct - The 12-28 will only help you keep spinning on steep hills.

Many beginners turn a big gear slowly, but generally it is more efficient to increase cadence rather than pushing harder, but (obviously?) you need to increase your fitness to turn a higher gear faster. For most people a cadence of 80-90 is the most efficient, which feels fast to a beginner.

Muncher will come along in a moment and tell you that you have to pedal a 60x11 at 25rpm. Very few people agree with him (or her).

The fitter you are, the higher the cadence you should aim for simply for efficiency. There are opinions that newer riders waste energy by trying to do a high cadence, using energy to turn the pedals instead of propelling themselves forward. They recommend a cadence of between 60-70rpm for a beginner. I would say more like 70-80rpm for a beginner and try to increase it as close to 100rpm as you gain fitness. If your cadence is low like MM will suggest, you're inevitably putting strain on your knees. The thinking of many is that a high cadence is less about strength and more about cardio for better endurance. A low cadence is more about strength and will tire your muscles quicker.

To clarify, the low cadence MM is milemuncher1, not me. I agree with philphy.

milemuncher1

The cadence you aim for, and the gear you’re doing it in, is very dependent on the sort of ride you’re doing. A typical, 50 mile ( ish ) ‘club run’ is a totally different proposition to a 300 Km endurance type ride. If you set up your gearing for a club run type ride, you’d ideally be aiming at getting the ratio progression relatively ‘tight’ to make sure you’re cadence is more uniform as you go up and down the cassette. I rarely do this type of riding, and the higher cadence approach is not appropriate for me, as this will lead to an elevated heart rate, and push the body into the wrong type of fuelling ( triglyceride / glycogen biased fuelling) which is not a good thing on a longer ride. The ‘90 rpms’ cadence thing, needs technique / souplesse, as well, or the effort is wasted. I see a lot of newer riders, trying to give it 90 rpms, and their position / bike set up is so bad, their legs are all ‘akimbo, and they’re bouncing around on the saddle, so they really aren’t getting maximum efficiency or power, in the gear they are in, at their 90 rpm. If you are rotating the cranks in a given gear, at 90 rpms, and you’re position / technique / souplesse is there, it does follow that the torque you’re applying means that your power output is optimised for that gear, Power being the product of Cadence and Torque. However the efficiency of the transfer of that power depends on technique being right. Think of it being akin to the differences between a Le Mans LMP1 race car, and a formula 1 race car. The LMP 1 is a diesel ( higher torque but relatively low revs, because it’s trying to go round at a more consistent speed, for a longer time). The F1 car is making it’s power by having much higher revs, but relatively lower torque, because it’s not trying to do 24hr stints.

StillGoing

Hmm, so what is a long ride then MM? If I do a 100 mile ride at an average of 90rpm with my dicky heart, is that not a long ride? Grinding gears zaps strength so how can it be efficient on long rides? A person can be strength fit but cardio weak and with a high cadence, it is the heart and lungs the rider is utilising more. For an endurance ride, you're better off using your cardio strength and save your leg strength.

milemuncher1

philthy3 wrote:

Hmm, so what is a long ride then MM? If I do a 100 mile ride at an average of 90rpm with my dicky heart, is that not a long ride? Grinding gears zaps strength so how can it be efficient on long rides? A person can be strength fit but cardio weak and with a high cadence, it is the heart and lungs the rider is utilising more. For an endurance ride, you're better off using your cardio strength and save your leg strength.

I don’t consider anything under 300 Kms to be a ‘longer ride’, it’s a matter of perspective, and to some people 100 miles is a ‘longer ride’. That sort of distance is in a grey area for which approach to use. Either low cadence high torque or higher cadence lower torque are pretty much of a muchness. I’d favour the former, because that’s how my bikes are set up, and that’s the way I tend to ride.Only experience will teach you how bad an idea a sustained high heart rate is on a longer ride. You absolutely don’t want to be working the heart and lungs that hard for that sort of distance, unless your supported, and fuelling isn’t so much of a concern. The technique you learn, in order to make the lower cadence higher torque work, takes time to get right. If you’re “grinding” your struggling, and that’s because you’ve not got the technique, and bike set up right. You don’t want to be stressing your knees either, and unless you concentrate, to begin with, that’s what you’ll tend to do, with a high torque balance, but you soon learn how to avoid it. The other thing is, that everybody’s HR / power zones are individual to them ( to a large extent ) and relative. Endurance / long distance rides are usually completed with HR / power not exceeding zone 2 for much of the time, what that equates to is individual, and one mans zone 2 HR / power, could be someone else’s zone 3 or 4. It is possible to get a zone 2 HR / power at 90 rpms, but I can count on my thumbs, the amount of people I know who could.

Brakeless

Milemuncher1 wrote:

The cadence you aim for, and the gear you’re doing it in, is very dependent on the sort of ride you’re doing. A typical, 50 mile ( ish ) ‘club run’ is a totally different proposition to a 300 Km endurance type ride. If you set up your gearing for a club run type ride, you’d ideally be aiming at getting the ratio progression relatively ‘tight’ to make sure you’re cadence is more uniform as you go up and down the cassette. I rarely do this type of riding, and the higher cadence approach is not appropriate for me, as this will lead to an elevated heart rate, and push the body into the wrong type of fuelling ( triglyceride / glycogen biased fuelling) which is not a good thing on a longer ride. The ‘90 rpms’ cadence thing, needs technique / souplesse, as well, or the effort is wasted. I see a lot of newer riders, trying to give it 90 rpms, and their position / bike set up is so bad, their legs are all ‘akimbo, and they’re bouncing around on the saddle, so they really aren’t getting maximum efficiency or power, in the gear they are in, at their 90 rpm. If you are rotating the cranks in a given gear, at 90 rpms, and you’re position / technique / souplesse is there, it does follow that the torque you’re applying means that your power output is optimised for that gear, Power being the product of Cadence and Torque. However the efficiency of the transfer of that power depends on technique being right. Think of it being akin to the differences between a Le Mans LMP1 race car, and a formula 1 race car. The LMP 1 is a diesel ( higher torque but relatively low revs, because it’s trying to go round at a more consistent speed, for a longer time). The F1 car is making it’s power by having much higher revs, but relatively lower torque, because it’s not trying to do 24hr stints.

Ignore all this crap. You can do the same cadence on long rides as short rides but you may be doing it in easier or harder gears. An 'elevated heartrate' is due to fitness levels not cadence. Liar muncher has a history of talking bollocks about most things but especially cadence. His rides are flat, slow and his milage is nothing special, he doesn't have the experience or knowledge he thinks he does at all

Mad_Malx

I don’t consider anything under 300 Kms to be a ‘longer ride’

FFS


To the OP:
why you need to be sceptical of muncher's authoritative pronouncements.

milemuncher1

Mad_Malx wrote:

I don’t consider anything under 300 Kms to be a ‘longer ride’

FFS


To the OP:
why you need to be sceptical of muncher's authoritative pronouncements.

You can be as sceptical as you like, until such times as you actually have the experience, your scepticism means exactly squat.