# If You Could Build The Ultimate Hill Climbing Road Bike..



## Milk-Bone (Jul 10, 2011)

That could do moderately well on the flats.. 

What gearing would you use? 

Would you modify your present bike if it is the only one you have? 

Or would you just buy a second bike for hill climbing?


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

I modified my present bike to deal with hills more easily.

Stock configuration was 50/34 crankset with an 12-27 cassette. Swapped out the cassette to 11-32 and put in a longer chain to accommodate the 32T cog. Dropped lowest gear ratio from 34/27 (which is 1.25) to 34/32 (which is 1.06). Almost a 20% increase in mechanical advantage.

With the new config I was able to spin up hills with the 34/32 where previously I had to do the walk of shame with the 34/27.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

My 2 biggest used road bikes both have a compact crank with a 12/27 cassette. It works great for the hills around here, and I don't suffer on the flats as I have a pretty high cadence.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

It depends on what kind of shape you are in.

Many people get by with a 39X25......and then there are people who have a hard time with a 22X32.


----------



## climbinthebigring (Mar 13, 2011)

I have never used my granny gear Which is a is 39x28 on the road. The only reason i have a 28 on there is so I can stay In the big ring on all but the steepest climbs. 

So I didn't change my bike at all I just push a big gear.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

climbinthebigring said:


> I have never used my granny gear Which is a is 39x28 on the road. The only reason i have a 28 on there is so I can stay In the big ring on all but the steepest climbs.
> 
> So I didn't change my bike at all I just push a big gear.


can I ask why it's so important for you to stay in the big ring?


----------



## joshf (Aug 5, 2011)

JustTooBig said:


> can I ask why it's so important for you to stay in the big ring?


Makes one feel like Jan Ullrich!


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

JustTooBig said:


> can I ask why it's so important for you to stay in the big ring?


How else can he justify his screen name?

As for me, I'd just steal Frank Schlek's legs.


----------



## climbinthebigring (Mar 13, 2011)

joshf said:


> Makes one feel like Jan Ullrich!


This, and I like to go fast?...

I am a skinny guy so I really like climbing and I like going fast uphill. I like to stay in the big ring cause that way I don't have to take power off the pedals then shift to the little ring then shift back once you go over the top. Shifting the rear is much smoother when you are standing, and I am always standing when climbing.


----------



## Chico2000 (Jul 7, 2011)

LongIslandTom said:


> I modified my present bike to deal with hills more easily.
> 
> Stock configuration was 50/34 crankset with an 12-27 cassette. Swapped out the cassette to 11-32 and put in a longer chain to accommodate the 32T cog. Dropped lowest gear ratio from 34/27 (which is 1.25) to 34/32 (which is 1.06). Almost a 20% increase in mechanical advantage.
> 
> With the new config I was able to spin up hills with the 34/32 where previously I had to do the walk of shame with the 34/27.


You use this gearing on Long Island?


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

JustTooBig said:


> can I ask why it's so important for you to stay in the big ring?


Do not question the awesomeness of the Lord of the Rings!

And what is this cross-chaining crap??? I'm always in the Big/Little.

Gearing aside, get an Addict frame while you can, and build it up whatever. Best climbing (and descending) bike since the Scott CR1 SL.

Please note: I've not ridden the Foil, and reserve judgement on that frame. But the BMC/Cervelo hybred looking frame looks like the famous Ford/Jaguar CAD disaster to me.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

11 speed 12-28t cassette, 52x38t chainrings/crankset. I've still got the power at my age, so all I want is exact gearing (small jumps) through the range

Would've done that to my personal bike, but a Campagnolo group is way out of my budget - or at least not worth sacrificing my cockpit setup for (which I dropped some hundreds on, experimenting and such). Nonetheless, my regular climb only goes up to 11% or so, and it's hardly a major stretch in the 7-8% average of the whole road. I run an 11-25t ten-speed cassette with a 53x39t crankset. That being said, my main bike is aimed for climbing.

Considered an 11-23t just so I can play with the 18t gear, but eh. On some of those rare days I leave my confined riding space, the 25 has been a lifesaver. I do hill repeats but they don't take me to a major elevation, which I'm totally helpless in as I observed a few weeks ago.


----------



## onlineflyer (Aug 8, 2005)

JustTooBig said:


> can I ask why it's so important for you to stay in the big ring?


So he could cross chain??? Just sayin.


----------



## climbinthebigring (Mar 13, 2011)

Well, Me could cross chain.... 

Or I could just avoid my own little chaingate and beat everyone up the hill. crosschaining with a 2x10 doesn't really matter much.


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

I just bore witness to a bike being built along the lines of a 50/34 Dura-Ace SRM crank, Sram XX 11-36 cassette and XX rear derailleur. It was mounted to a custom Serotta Ottrott, Shimano PRO missile aero bar, Bonty XXXLite stem, and Firecrest 808s (glued to 24mm Vittoria pave tubulars). I'm pretty sure it is illegally light and can climb walls!


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

Chico2000 said:


> You use this gearing on Long Island?


Being a glacial terminal moraine, there are some pretty big hills on the north shore of Long Island. 10% grades aren't unusual in places like Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd's Neck, Roslyn, Oyster Bay, etc.

Plus real mountains are within an hour's drive away from where I am, in upstate NY.

The Escape from New York annual ride has something like 8000-9000 feet of climbs, ditto the Harlem Valley Ride.

Not surprising quite a few of the people I see at the local cycling groups (NYCC, 5-borough bike club) got 32T cassettes.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

LongIslandTom said:


> Being a glacial terminal moraine, there are some pretty big hills on the north shore of Long Island. 10% grades aren't unusual in places like Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd's Neck, Roslyn, Oyster Bay, etc.
> 
> Plus real mountains are within an hour's drive away from where I am, in upstate NY.
> 
> ...


obviously the grade matters a great deal. Folks who can get by with 39x25 as the lowest gear ratio must live in midwest (I used to live in Chicago where a lot of folks ride 39x23).
For mountain regions with extended 10% gradient grinds over several miles, and pitches of 15%+, compact (34) and going up to 27-28 tooth cogs is a very good idea - you don't lose that much with 50x11, especially if compared to 53x12 (run the ratios, 50x11 is better).

Going above 28 means you may have to sacrifice shifting performance, but it's a compromise that may work well for many, if the roads are really steep. Or just go with SRAM Wifli or even triple.


----------



## Chico2000 (Jul 7, 2011)

LongIslandTom said:


> Being a glacial terminal moraine, there are some pretty big hills on the north shore of Long Island. 10% grades aren't unusual in places like Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd's Neck, Roslyn, Oyster Bay, etc.
> 
> Plus real mountains are within an hour's drive away from where I am, in upstate NY.
> 
> ...


I hear ya. I grew up riding Jericho/Syosset,CSH,Huntington, along the 25A runs. A few steep sections but usually fairly short. Back in those days I had 42x23..and yeah some days I wish I had a 26 on back. But that was when I was a youngster.

Now living at the north end of the Catskills. No choice but hills. And being older, I've got my first bike with a compact crank and monster cassette. 
An hour north of the city is hilly but if you want to really test yourself come up to the Devil's Kitchen.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

climbinthebigring said:


> I have never used my granny gear Which is a is 39x28 on the road. The only reason i have a 28 on there is so I can stay In the big ring on all but the steepest climbs.
> 
> So I didn't change my bike at all I just push a big gear.


Like Grumps says, it's all about what shape you're in. :ihih:

Sure, it's less "work" to "spin" a really low gear up a climb, but like was said, you go faster in a larger gear. I've never desired a gear lower than 42-28. But that's because I'm used to the 42, from 30 years ago. There are some steep hills around here in Northern VA where I could sure use a 34-27 or whatever, but they're short. Most mountain grades aren't that steep most of the time, so 42-26 is more than enough. I'm running 43-28 on my commuter, no problems. And 42-22 on the race bike. At age 68, I can still drop lots of riders, including my 45 year old buddy on his carbon Fuji. He's bogged down in his 39-27, and I'm ascending at a steady 9 mph in my 42-28 (refusing to blow up until the top! :biggrin5

The main reason which nobody has mentioned, is the handling characteristic of the bike. Hand brazed lugged CRMO steel on a set of nice stiff wheels, climbs like a bandit. That's the key, no matter what gear you're in. The bike transfers your effort efficiently to the road and you go up the climb as hard as you want to work. The bike doesn't hold you back.


----------



## freighttraininguphill (Jun 7, 2011)

My road bike's stock gearing was a triple with a 52-42-30 and a 13-26 cassette. I like to climb the steepest roads I can find around here, so I changed the 30t small chainring to a 24t and the cassette to a Shimano MegaRange 11-34. This gives me mtb gearing for climbing and a taller gear for descending. 

So far I have been able to climb every hill in the saddle. The steepest climb so far with this gearing has been the short 25% section near the top of Linden Avenue in Auburn, CA.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

Pretty much, if you are on a climb and your cadence drops down below 80, then you might consider different gears. Other than that it's all good. My local climbs require at least a 28 on the cassette.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Milk-Bone said:


> That could do moderately well on the flats..
> 
> What gearing would you use?
> 
> ...


"Kansas" Bob Sutton had some good articles on spec'ing a bike for climbing on Road Bike Action magazine.

I think these days he likes the SRAM Apex with the 32T cassette setup.

for me... right now I have a 2010 Shimano 105 Compact setup.... next year, I do want to go 32T with a SRAM cassette, Neuvation M28X wheels, rear derailleur (?-- not sure which one)....

hopefully I can keep my legs going deprived of oxygen while in an asthma attack climbing hills with a 32T cassettte


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

tednugent said:


> for me... right now I have a 2010 Shimano 105 Compact setup.... next year, I do want to go 32T with a SRAM cassette, Neuvation M28X wheels, rear derailleur (?-- not sure which one)....


You might be able to use a 32T with your 105 derailleur if your RD hanger is long enough (which may allow the RD pulley to clear the 32T cog).

I've run a 32T with a 105 5700GS RD and it worked. On my present bike I'm on an Ultegra 6700GS with a 32T.


----------



## BlueWheels (Oct 17, 2008)

I know it's not kosher to call yourself a cyclist and ride a triple, but why would you not switch to a triple up front instead of going to strangely large gearing in the back? I must confess that I don't actually have any experience on triples and can't give a personal review, but I have several friends riding them and they don't have issues with it. I think if I were wondering what to do about hills, I wouldn't be opposed to switching to a triple (and probably would if we had hills longer than 1/2 mile around here).


----------



## minutemaidman (Jun 14, 2010)

If your climbing your hills in anything other than a 56 tooth Campagnolo chainring (from a track bike) and an 11 tooth rear cog, you are a wimp. Just kidding. Around here we actually have mountains instead of hills, and miles of them, and at an enhanced elevation. If you watched the Tour of Utah, you saw some of them. I would love to see the Lord of the Rings standing and climbing some of these in his big ring. I dont know about you, but Ive never been able to stand and climb for 9 to 17 miles. I use a compact 50/34 with the SRAM 11-32 cassette and a med cage 5700 RD. I guess if I had hills I could get by with a standard 53/39
and an 11-28, but that doesnt work for me for climbing mountains. I think if Alberto Contador uses an 11-32 for mountains, that can work for you too.


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

> I know it's not kosher to call yourself a cyclist and ride a triple, but why would you not switch to a triple up front instead of going to strangely large gearing in the back?


Triples are a viable option of course.. Personally I like doubles because it's just less thinking involved (for me at least).. Just either-or, big or small, rarely any trimming involved, easier to adjust the derailleurs, etc..  I like simple.

I think running a bigger cassette with a double is becoming quite mainstream. SRAM's Rival and Apex road groups are designed to fully support 32T cassettes (and indeed this "WiFli" setup is one of their main marketing points), and even Shimano has officially increased the size supported for their road RDs up to 28T.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

I'd probably throw a compact on and a 12-28 if I planned to do a lot of sustained 10% climbs. But I probably would not build some weird hybrid bike.

To be honest, so far, a 39x27 has got me over some pretty tough climbs. Not sure I'd need much more. Do I really want to go much slower than 5 mph on a climb?


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Milk-Bone said:


> That could do moderately well on the flats..
> 
> What gearing would you use?


50-39-26 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26

Note the 1-tooth jumps up to the 19 cog and low gear equaling 34x34.



> Would you modify your present bike if it is the only one you have?


Sure.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

Start with the frame. 

Colnago Extreme C. 

Nothing else comes close. 

Nothing else matters.



Seriously though, if I were building a pure climbing bike, I'd start with a killer light and stiff frame. Maybe something in the Scott or Giant line or the Cannondale EVO. Wouldn't care about comfort. Just pure stiffness and weight. My Ext C was a light frame back when it was developed but can't compare to some of newest climbing specialty frames.


----------



## Straz85 (May 12, 2011)

BlueWheels said:


> I know it's not kosher to call yourself a cyclist and ride a triple, but why would you not switch to a triple up front instead of going to strangely large gearing in the back? I must confess that I don't actually have any experience on triples and can't give a personal review, but I have several friends riding them and they don't have issues with it. I think if I were wondering what to do about hills, I wouldn't be opposed to switching to a triple (and probably would if we had hills longer than 1/2 mile around here).


A couple reasons. First, shifting the FD is not as quick as shifting the rear. Second, shifting the front doesn't do nearly as well under load as shifting the rear. Much higher risk of breaking a chain. Finally, there are a lot more combinations available for cassettes, using the chainrings to change your gearing would be a more expensive endeavor usually.

Only using 1 chainring is becoming more and more popular on mountain bikes for the above reasons. It started just on DH and FR bikes, and is now showing up on trail/XC bikes.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Campy 53/39 to 12-25. I had been on a compact 50/34 12-27, but I found I liked the torquier standard crank. I also ended up getting better because of it.


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

Dajianshan said:


> Campy 53/39 to 12-25. I had been on a compact 50/34 12-27, but I found I liked the torquier standard crank. I also ended up getting better because of it.


+1

(only Shimano)

Most climbs under 10% are fine with that gearing. Over 10% I can take in small doses. I have a ride with a bunch of small hills (0.5 - 1.25 miles) that all have sections of 10% or greater. It beats me up but makes me stronger.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Ride-Fly said:


> Start with the frame.
> 
> Colnago Extreme C.
> 
> ...


It still climbs superbly though  I will have a set of hyperons arriving next week for mine.

I would go with the similar advice, a light and stiff frame, a solid groupset ( Campy Record 11 or Dura Ace, standard off course ) low profile carbon wheels.

But keep in mind that a bike to climb mountains should also be comfortable enough so you can arrive riding to the base of said mountain and back, and has to had good handling enough to descend said mountain. ( ... mmm the Extreme C comes to mind again  )

low handlebars to descend well and a long stem to climb off the saddle would be good too.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Other than the Colnago Extreme C, are there other frames that stand out for their climbing characteristics? My current bike is a Merckx Bound, which is fairly light, stiff, etc but I sometimes wonder if I bought a new frame for climbing, which should it be?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Milk-Bone said:


> That could do moderately well on the flats..
> 
> What gearing would you use?
> 
> ...


I had the LBS swap out the mid-compact on my Tarmac to a compact. Some might think of me as a Fred for that but the bike is ridiculously fast and I do a lot of hills where I live.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> But keep in mind that a bike to climb mountains should also be comfortable enough so you can arrive riding to the base of said mountain and back, and has to had good handling enough *to descend said mountain. ( ... mmm the Extreme C comes to mind again  )
> *
> low handlebars to descend well and a long stem to climb off the saddle would be good too.


YES SAH!!! Halelujah!!!! 

Very important point! Nothing descends like a Colnago! NOTHING!!!!


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

Bill2 said:


> Other than the Colnago Extreme C, are there other frames that stand out for their climbing characteristics? My current bike is a Merckx Bound, which is fairly light, stiff, etc but I sometimes wonder if I bought a new frame for climbing, which should it be?


I haven't ridden Scotts or Giants, but those two come to mind as bikes made for climbing.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Any climbing frames wide enough for some wider tires? Many of my climbs end in strada sterrata, and I'm not always able to continue with 23mm tires.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Ride-Fly: *Nothing descends like a Colnago! .... Scotts or Giants come to mind as bikes made for climbing. *

Generalize much?


----------



## tantra (Jan 8, 2008)

*what about weight?*

With all this talk about gearing, nobody mentions bicycle weight. Does anyone think that reducing bike/wheel weight helps with climbing?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

tantra said:


> With all this talk about gearing, nobody mentions bicycle weight. Does anyone think that reducing bike/wheel weight helps with climbing?


It's a given? Lighter is better for climbing all else being equal.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

minutemaidman said:


> If your climbing your hills in anything other than a 56 tooth Campagnolo chainring (from a track bike) and an 11 tooth rear cog, you are a wimp. Just kidding. Around here we actually have mountains instead of hills, and miles of them, and at an enhanced elevation. If you watched the Tour of Utah, you saw some of them. I would love to see the Lord of the Rings standing and climbing some of these in his big ring. I dont know about you, but Ive never been able to stand and climb for 9 to 17 miles. I use a compact 50/34 with the SRAM 11-32 cassette and a med cage 5700 RD. I guess if I had hills I could get by with a standard 53/39
> and an 11-28, but that doesnt work for me for climbing mountains. I think if Alberto Contador uses an 11-32 for mountains, that can work for you too.


Well, yeah. I agree. I've cranked out some fairly impressive VAM's on a mile of 11% on a 39/27 seated in eastern PA. But for the bike I ride out west at 7-10K ft. and miles of ascent (northern NM, similar to Tour of Utah) I've currently got cyclocross gearing, 46/36 front rings, 12/28 rear. I spin out a lot on descents, but I'm not racing anyone.

I've done 20%+ hills in the east in a 39/25 standing, but it's only a few hundred yards - and close to sea level.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

serious said:


> Ride-Fly: *Nothing descends like a Colnago! .... Scotts or Giants come to mind as bikes made for climbing. *
> 
> Generalize much?


You serious??


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Ok,*



NJBiker72 said:


> It's a given? Lighter is better for climbing all else being equal.


But first ya gotta have a stiff bike. Stiff so the wheels track each other, stiff in the BB, stiff at the rear end, stiff in the wheels. THEN if you can still lighten it up and *not lose that stiffness*, you've got it made.

Sometimes a heavier bike will out-climb a lighter bike.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> But first ya gotta have a stiff bike. Stiff so the wheels track each other, stiff in the BB, stiff at the rear end, stiff in the wheels. THEN if you can still lighten it up and *not lose that stiffness*, you've got it made.
> 
> Sometimes a heavier bike will out-climb a lighter bike.


That's why I said all else being equal.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

NJBiker72 said:


> That's why I said all else being equal.


Lighter wheel assemblies (including stuff like the cassette) would make a bigger difference than a slightly lighter frame.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JustTooBig said:


> can I ask why it's so important for you to stay in the big ring?


Is it really even "big ringing it" if you're using a 53x28? Seems you could ditch the pie plate if you'd go to the small ring and go with a ~21t.


----------



## Schmack (Mar 25, 2009)

I kind of think the whole discussion of cog size is a bit nuts. I ride a 12-28 with a standard crank. I consider myself to be pretty much of a spinner and not really a power rider. 

We have plenty of steep climbs where I am. 10% barely counts as steep. We don't really consider a climb steep, unless it has sustained sections over 15%. Not trying to be tough, just for context. I have also used this set-up on long climbs, 8-10% for 20 miles, medium climbs, 6-7 miles at 13-15%, and short steeps, less than a mile over 25%. 

The issue comes from spinning out the gear! Yes, very steep sections are tough to push in the 28 but much less you spin out. On longer climbs, I need to be down in the 25 or 24 to keep from spinning out. At some point you need to balance your power with the cadence and find a gearing that works for you. Experiment with different cog sizes prior to jumping to something extream like a 32! Also, you should give it while to get used to a new cog prior to jumping.

Last point to the OP. In a perfect world where I could have a bike for all occasions, I would have a climbing frame. It would be very light and stiff. Aero would not really matter so much on the way up hill. It may also be a bit undersized, since I would be upright on it more often.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

nightfend said:


> ?....
> 
> To be honest, so far, a 39x27 has got me over some pretty tough climbs. Not sure I'd need much more. Do I really want to go much slower than 5 mph on a climb?


At 5 mph, your cadence is around 44rpm. Sound about right?


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

Just about any semi-lightweight modern roadbike from a reputable manufacturer with light wheels and a fair range of gearing will make a superb "climbing" bike. The differences in frames are real but the actual advantages of some frames over others are exaggerated. This includes things like frame material and chainstay symmetry and integrated seatposts. I'm not saying those things are irrelevant; what I am saying is that those differences are subtle and have more to do with individual rider preference than actual gains that would be experienced by everyone (this is less true with time trial bikes, where slight aerodynamic differences could make notable differences in rider speeds). There is a pretty wide range of bike frame styles spread through the pro peloton and generally speaking, the frame choice has little to do with the rider's success or lack thereof. 

People have different ideas about gearing but I found my sweetspot with a compact double and a 11-28 cassette. I used to ride with a 53-39 dura ace crank with a 11-25 in the back. I live in the mountains and ride lots of hilly terrain and immediately got faster. It didn't feel like it at first but I was quite surprised the first time I did a loop that always took me almost exactly 2 hours and I got back almost 15 minutes faster. It doesn't work for everybody but I recommend giving the compact double with a slightly larger cassette a try to build a better all-around bike that climbs well. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was my 1000th post.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

If you really want to blow your mind, throw a power meter into the equation so you can see where you're most effective. I use one on my TT bike and there was a ~10% climb on a 14 mile TT where you're basically into the wind or climbing the entire time, with the exception of first turn for 0.75 miles or so. 

The bike and I are very light and using my 39x23, my usual cadence produced massive power numbers that were hard to maintain and the climb was followed by about 1.5 miles of crosswind to the finish. I have a 12-25 that I might try sometime since I don't use the 11t a whole lot on that course. If I had a 11-25, I'd be golden, but I'm not sure how much I want to spend the dough for one course.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

MerlinAma said:


> At 5 mph, your cadence is around 44rpm. Sound about right?


Probably right. It was a 20% grade.


----------



## ebarker9 (Dec 3, 2006)

Schmack said:


> Not trying to be tough, just for context. I have also used this set-up on long climbs, 8-10% for 20 miles, medium climbs, 6-7 miles at 13-15%, and short steeps, less than a mile over 25%.
> 
> The issue comes from spinning out the gear! Yes, very steep sections are tough to push in the 28 but much less you spin out. On longer climbs, I need to be down in the 25 or 24 to keep from spinning out. At some point you need to balance your power with the cadence and find a gearing that works for you. Experiment with different cog sizes prior to jumping to something extream like a 32! Also, you should give it while to get used to a new cog prior to jumping.


For a 6-7 mile climb at 13-15%, you're looking at north of 500 watts to maintain 10mph (based on a 150lb rider). At that speed you're turning ~90rpm in your lowest gear. I suspect your grade estimates are off or you're a REALLY strong rider.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ebarker9 said:


> For a 6-7 mile climb at 13-15%, you're looking at north of 500 watts to maintain 10mph (based on a 150lb rider). At that speed you're turning ~90rpm in your lowest gear. I suspect your grade estimates are off or you're a REALLY strong rider.


Well, this is the internet. 

A few guys in my club would do a route that was full of super steep pitches and I quickly learned it's hard to see the % grade when the road really pitches up and you're trying to keep in contact with your friends or beat them to the top. I would assume that most who talk about gradients are using a Garmin and I'm not sure how accurate the gradient feature really is.


----------



## ebarker9 (Dec 3, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Well, this is the internet.
> 
> A few guys in my club would do a route that was full of super steep pitches and I quickly learned it's hard to see the % grade when the road really pitches up and you're trying to keep in contact with your friends or beat them to the top. I would assume that most who talk about gradients are using a Garmin and I'm not sure how accurate the gradient feature really is.


Internet indeed  Yeah, the Garmin gradient feature is really inaccurate, not that it isn't fun to use for bragging rights.

Edit: I should also add that Mt Washington is 7.6 miles at an average of about 11%, so it wouldn't even qualify for one of Schmack's medium climbs


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

ebarker9 said:


> For a 6-7 mile climb at 13-15%, you're looking at north of 500 watts to maintain 10mph (based on a 150lb rider). At that speed you're turning ~90rpm in your lowest gear. I suspect your grade estimates are off or you're a REALLY strong rider.


That is about how fast pros go up HC climbs in hotly contested races. I guess it stands to reason that a non-pro on a training/recreational ride would keep up the same speed?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ebarker9 said:


> Internet indeed  Yeah, the Garmin gradient feature is really inaccurate, not that it isn't fun to use for bragging rights.
> 
> Edit: I should also add that Mt Washington is 7.6 miles at an average of about 11%, so it wouldn't even qualify for one of Schmack's medium climbs


Any idea how far off the Garmin is? I wouldn't expect them to be as accurate as something an engineer would use, but mine seems to know the difference between a 10% climb and a 20% climb.


----------



## ebarker9 (Dec 3, 2006)

thechriswebb said:


> That is about how fast pros go up HC climbs in hotly contested races. I guess it stands to reason that a non-pro on a training/recreational ride would keep up the same speed?


Yeah, that seems like a fair assumption...


----------



## ebarker9 (Dec 3, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Any idea how far off the Garmin is? I wouldn't expect them to be as accurate as something an engineer would use, but mine seems to know the difference between a 10% climb and a 20% climb.


It depends on a lot of things. The Garmins that use barometric pressure to determine elevation are generally more accurate than the GPS based elevations, but even that can be thrown off by weather. To the best of my knowledge, all of them use a simple "elevation change divided by distance traveled" approach to calculate the grade with some averaging in there, so the instantaneous could be pretty far off depending on the accuracy of the recent samples. You could have GPS track points that indicate that you've moved a very short distance, but barometric pressure that's indicating that you've climbed a significant way, which could lead to very high grades being shown. I can easily imagine this in areas with lots of tree cover, for example. In general, the longer averages are going to be more accurate, but there really isn't a good way for the average person to determine what the grade of a given climb is.


----------



## minutemaidman (Jun 14, 2010)

If your front wheel is coming off the ground with your pedal strokes, you are on a steep climb.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Nah.*



ebarker9 said:


> Yeah, that seems like a fair assumption...


Someone says he ca climb in his 39-25 or 26 at 10 mph in gradients somewhat inaccurately determined by his Garmin GPS device.

Wimps. How much do you weigh? 

I'm not spinning out in the 42-28 on the commuter going up a "moderate" grade, all we have around here. Don't know the math, but hey, it's a hell of a lot of work, enough to make me downshift one gear in MY CAR on the same climb. Ok, I'm not sustaining 10 mph all the way up, maybe 6-9 mph, but I'm still "on top of the gear." A few of the really steep ones, they're always short, as most are, I'll slow to 6 mph, 60 rpm, and the bike will rock side to side. There's where a lower gear might be nice, but my experience has been I'd just slow down more and it would be just as much work, but last longer. :shocked: All the hills I've ridden in CA, TX, MD, and VA, have had relatively mild gradients where one can recover. The steep gradients never last long very long.


----------

