# Gearing for climbing?



## masornia925 (Jan 14, 2011)

Wondering if there were special gearing that would make climbing hills easier. The reason i ask is because i cant seem to climb steep grades with my setup without getting off my bike due to the inability to spin my cranks fast enough. I know it may be because im still new to the sport, but was wondering if there was a setup that could help me out.

My dura ace 7700 setup (9 speed):
52-39t chain rings
12-23t cassettes

Any feedback, insight, or recommendations would be greatly appreciated, thanx in advance


----------



## reptilezs (Aug 21, 2007)

compact crank, cassette swap


----------



## masornia925 (Jan 14, 2011)

reptilezs said:


> compact crank, cassette swap


so maybe a 50/34 paired with a 12-27?


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

You're riding gears that professional riders use. There's no way most of us weekend riders could ever push those gears up a hill. Go with a 12-27 cassette and switch to a compact crankset, if you need lower gears. 

Bike shop owner in my area that is later in his years outclimbs a LOT of people with his compact crankset. If you want even lower, you can with a triple. I believe the 7700 can handle a triple chainring, if I recall correctly, but verify with the LBS or shimano first.

chl


----------



## EMB145 Driver (Aug 17, 2006)

Just try the 12-27 cassette first, as that's the cheapest, quickest, and easiest option to do to your bike. If you spend all that money on the other stuff, don't be surprised if you don't go up the hill any better. Being new to the sport, you're along way from climbing being easy. I don't think it's ever really easy, but you will get faster up the hill.


----------



## masornia925 (Jan 14, 2011)

CHL said:


> You're riding gears that professional riders use. There's no way most of us weekend riders could ever push those gears up a hill. Go with a 12-27 cassette and switch to a compact crankset, if you need lower gears.
> 
> Bike shop owner in my area that is later in his years outclimbs a LOT of people with his compact crankset. If you want even lower, you can with a triple. I believe the 7700 can handle a triple chainring, if I recall correctly, but verify with the LBS or shimano first.
> 
> chl


thanx CHL, i'm glad i asked before trying to order cannondale's hollowgram crankset for my new framset. I'll give that gear combo a try


----------



## masornia925 (Jan 14, 2011)

EMB145 Driver said:


> Just try the 12-27 cassette first, as that's the cheapest, quickest, and easiest option to do to your bike. If you spend all that money on the other stuff, don't be surprised if you don't go up the hill any better. Being new to the sport, you're along way from climbing being easy. I don't think it's ever really easy, but you will get faster up the hill.


yea i noticed that i go farther up the hill everytime i go out, but my cadence is very low. i know im new, but i suspected my gears were wrong for the climb after seeing everyone make it up with higher cadences, thanx for the input!


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

What area of the country do you live in? 

What type of terrain?

If you have occaisional hills, a 12-27 may work with your existing crankset. If you live in Mountains you may want to add the compact set up.


----------



## masornia925 (Jan 14, 2011)

pdh777 said:


> What area of the country do you live in?
> 
> What type of terrain?
> 
> If you have occaisional hills, a 12-27 may work with your existing crankset. If you live in Mountains you may want to add the compact set up.


I live in the bay area, where you can ride any terrain from flats to hills. I prefer riding in moderate hill loops here because they are more of a challenge and a lot funner, thanx


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

Hi masornia925:

It looks like we're neighbors as I live in the Bay Area as well. You're over geared for our type of terrain. I am certain that you will fare better with the 12-27. I ride with a 12-27 at the back and can get over most hills without too much trouble.

Also the Hollowgram SL comes with compact gearing as well. I have the spider for it but don't have the chainrings. Just take it easy on your first climbs and find your rythm. It takes a few climbs to figure out but you'll settle into it. Have fun on your new Cannondale.

chl


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

masornia925 said:


> Wondering if there were special gearing that would make climbing hills easier. The reason i ask is because i cant seem to climb steep grades with my setup without getting off my bike due to the inability to spin my cranks fast enough. I know it may be because im still new to the sport, but was wondering if there was a setup that could help me out.
> 
> My dura ace 7700 setup (9 speed):
> 52-39t chain rings
> ...


You could keep the cassette for good flat-land gearing and run a triple, with 30x23 like 39x30, a 28 granny ring like having a 32 cog in back, and smaller inner rings producing even lower gears.

I'd do that before living with the big gaps that go with pie-plate sized cogs in back. I rode 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 for years in the Colorado Rockies with no problems.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> You could keep the cassette for good flat-land gearing and run a triple, with 30x23 like 39x30, a 28 granny ring like having a 32 cog in back, and smaller inner rings producing even lower gears.
> 
> I'd do that before living with the big gaps that go with pie-plate sized cogs in back. I rode 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 for years in the Colorado Rockies with no problems.


Triples are great for hilly terrain, but if you have to replace the shifters AND the derailleurs AND the crankset to get one, that gets a tad pricey. Converting from a double crank drivetrain to a triple drivetrain is often painful in that way. 

Also, riding position-wise, some ppl don't dig the wider stance (higher 'Q-factor') that triples put them into.
.


----------



## masornia925 (Jan 14, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Triples are great for hilly terrain, but if you have to replace the shifters AND the derailleurs AND the crankset to get one, that gets a tad pricey. Converting from a double crank drivetrain to a triple drivetrain is often painful in that way.
> 
> Also, riding position-wise, some ppl don't dig the wider stance (higher 'Q-factor') that triples put them into.
> .


no thanx, i'll pass on the triple.

Anyone know what size crank length i should get if my inseam is 34.5"-34.75" without and with shoes on? I'm 6' ft tall if that would help...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

masornia925 said:


> no thanx, i'll pass on the triple.
> 
> Anyone know what size crank length i should get if my inseam is 34.5"-34.75" without and with shoes on? I'm 6' ft tall if that would help...


I'd think probably 175mm, given your stated measurements.
.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Since you are running a 9 speed, you could try a "Century Special" cassette from Harris Cyclery. They have either 12-30 or 13-30 IRC. I found that it worked fine with a standard, short cage derailleur.


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

The 12-27 Dura Ace 7700 cassette will work just fine, with 53/39 up front. With a compact, 34/50 crankset....everything slows way down, including maximum descent speeds.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

There is no reason not go go with a compact. Compacts are awesome. 

Before I decided to go to a compact I put a mountain bike cassette and mountain bike rear derailleur on my bike. I was able to get some low gears out of that and it worked fine. You have to be a bit careful with that setup though. Crosschaining would be worse. 

Go to a compact and a 12-28 though. That would be perfect and you don't have to switch derailleurs.


----------



## vincemacmillan (Dec 1, 2009)

Zachariah said:


> The 12-27 Dura Ace 7700 cassette will work just fine, with 53/39 up front. With a compact, 34/50 crankset....everything slows way down, including maximum descent speeds.


 A little math shows this to be incorrect for the most commonly suggested crank/cassette combo: e.g. a 50/34 with a 11-25 cassette actually has a higher high end as well as a lower low end than a 53/39 with 12-27 cassette (50/11 = 4.55 versus 4.42 and 34/25= 1.36 versus 39/27 at 1.44). About the only time a Compact doesn't make more sense for amateurs is for racing Criteria and Time Trials or Triathlon, when you might want occasional access to that missing 53/11 combo. Go with the 53/39 and 12-27 cassette until you can afford to replace it with a Compact setup.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

This link might help. Compare what you have now and know to other options.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

I don't know what's best for you but it's almost certainly not your current set up. That's a set up for cat 1ish guys that don't have to do any really serious climbing and guys that think big gears makes them sound hard on the internet.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

masornia925 said:


> Anyone know what size crank length i should get if my inseam is 34.5"-34.75" without and with shoes on? I'm 6' ft tall if that would help...


I'd say 172.5, but a 175 will not be too long either. 

Here's what I'd do:
Get a 12-27 and see if that's enough. If not get that compact. If you do get the compact you can always put on that small cassette if you after a while feel too strong for the 12-27.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Here's a slick graphical gearing calculator that lets you compare setups etc.. Check it:

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=...&KB2=42&RZ2=16&GT2=RLSH&TF=85&UF=2099&SL=2.15


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

looigi said:


> Here's a slick graphical gearing calculator that lets you compare setups etc.. Check it:
> 
> http://www.gear-calculator.com/#KB=...&KB2=42&RZ2=16&GT2=RLSH&TF=85&UF=2099&SL=2.15


Mike Sherman's calculator is more useful since it takes a cadence range as an input and displays speed range bars. Where they don't overlap you might find yourself wishing for another cog (like 16 between 15 and 17).

http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.sherman/shift.html


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

I rode with a 7700 crank for a long time. When I switched to a compact, I got faster.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

I live in San Francisco and am a 68 year old geezer, so I don't have the strength in my legs that I once had.

I've had good luck with a Campy 50-34 compact double chainring and 13-29 cassette. This setup gives me a gear range of 30.9 to 101.5 gear-inches, and I easily tackled the S.F. to L.A. AIDS/LifeCycle ride without having to walk the bike on even the steepest climbs (the Quadbuster and the Evil Twins).

I also have a purpose-built climbing bike with a Campy 30-42-53 Comp Triple chainring and IRD 12-32 cassette. This setup gives me a gear range of 24.7 to 116.5 gear-inches.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Zachariah said:


> With a compact, 34/50 crankset....everything slows way down, including maximum descent speeds.


How so? With a compact, you just ride one cog higher on the flats... 50/16, for example, is the same gear as 53/17 (actually it's very tiny fraction higher, for you sticklers out there).

Far as descents go, the fastest descents are the ones where you aero tuck and pedal hardly at ALL, because ANY commonly available gear would be spun out.

But don't take my say-so on it, check out these Tour de France pros, descending at 100 kph (62 mph)...







.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Far as descents go, the fastest descents are the ones where you aero tuck and pedal hardly at ALL, because ANY commonly available gear would be spun out.


Right......and even before they are spun out.....it's faster to tuck than it is to pedal anyway (assuming you're at that speed due to gravity). I figure, roughly, if I hit 35 or so and I'm at that speed due to gravity I'm wasting my energy pedaling even if I do have the gears/legs to catch up.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

It all depends. I've done 80 km/h double paceline decents. About the only times I've had use for 53x11.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Crank length*



masornia925 said:


> Anyone know what size crank length i should get if my inseam is 34.5"-34.75" without and with shoes on? I'm 6' ft tall if that would help...


You should get whatever crank length you want. There is no reliable research that suggests it is in any way related to body proportions. Shorter cranks favor higher cadence and give you more ground clearance. Beyond that, it's personal preference.


----------



## slow.climber (Nov 25, 2010)

I've ridden a dura ace 7700 with 39/53 chain rings and a 12-27 cassette. That was fine for me here in the SF Bay Area. I recently upgraded to a new Ultegra (39/53, 11-28) that's even better 

I don't think of my self as a strong rider. I'm in my 50s and I get dropped all the time by the fast kids. OTOH, I can easily putter up Hawk Hill a few times a day (800 foot climb, nothing worse than 8 or 9 percent). Mt. Tam (3200 feet) is still a fun ride. At some point my knees won't be up to the stress and I'll probably change to a compact chain ring.

My friend rides a Dura Ace 7700 road triple (30/39/53) with a mountain bike cassette 11/34 (11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 30, 34). She's got badly torn up knees. Had to change her rear derailer to a mountain bike XT derailer (but that's a relatively low cost item).


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I have a love/hate relationship with compacts. I like the 34/25 combo on the hills, but when I crest the hill the drop in cadence to the 50 is too large and I consistently wind up cross chained in the small ring. I tried switching to a 48 but this makes the higher speeds not so nice. I have gotten used to compacts after a few years of riding with them but if you're used to 53/39 it's a tough conversion. It's a lot tougher than switching from Shimano to Campy even though you'd think the swap in levers would require more effort.


----------



## vincemacmillan (Dec 1, 2009)

DrSmile said:


> I have a love/hate relationship with compacts. I like the 34/25 combo on the hills, but when I crest the hill the drop in cadence to the 50 is too large and I consistently wind up cross chained in the small ring. I tried switching to a 48 but this makes the higher speeds not so nice. I have gotten used to compacts after a few years of riding with them but if you're used to 53/39 it's a tough conversion. It's a lot tougher than switching from Shimano to Campy even though you'd think the swap in levers would require more effort.


For me, this was the naked-lunch, revelation moment for going with Campy, i.e. the ability to downshift 3-4 gears with one flick of the lever throw = instantly more speed at the top of the hill rather than tapping down several times with Shimano. I still ride and really like Ultegra and DA as even I am able to dial in perfect derailleur adjustments with that robot-made stuff, but being in the right gear at exactly the right moment and being able to just hammer at the top of the hill makes up for Campy's fickleness.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Fickleness?*



vincemacmillan said:


> being able to just hammer at the top of the hill makes up for Campy's fickleness.


What is fickle about Campy? (I could only bring myself to use "that word" in the title of this post).


----------

