# 53/39



## T-20 (Aug 7, 2014)

So how did the cycling community come up with this chainset setup as supposedly the best for road racing?

I'd be interested if someone more knowledgable than me could give me a quick rundown on how the gears evolved and why we ended up with 53/39.

--

Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages but to me it seems that a 50/34 + 11-25 could be a better option.

Anyway I'd like to know your thought on why exactly THIS big ring and why exactly THIS small ring.

Thanks!


----------



## mik_git (Jul 27, 2012)

T-20 said:


> Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages
> 
> Thanks!


They do!? I'd say they use a variety of cassesttes depending on the race and depending on the rider.

I don't know the details on raodie gear at all, but the compact chainrings didn't coem around till like the early 90's ish? (I know it was early 90's in mtb) and in ye oldie days the gears didn't go down to 12's or 11's so you would run a bigger chainring to get the top end.


----------



## Upnorth (Jul 4, 2013)

I favour 52/36 and then 53/39, tried 50/34 not for me. Flat around here and 52/36 is just fine for big hills


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

T-20 said:


> but to me it seems that a 50/34 + 11-25 could be a better option.


Why don't you explain to us _why_ you feel that would be a better option?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Pirx said:


> Why don't you explain to us _why_ you feel that would be a better option?


yeah, let's discuss something new and original here. Or not.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

T-20 said:


> Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages


Where did you come up with that one?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

He pulled it out of thin air.

As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers. Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
27's, 28's, and above, were made for tourists.
Back in the day, a 44x22 was used for most mountain stages.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.


Yes, I remember when I built up my first real road bike in the mid-to-late eighties, 52x42 was pretty much standard. I sat down and plotted the various gear ratios that the available cassettes would give me, and ended up deciding that a 53x39 would be optimal for me. After that, everyone followed my lead, and the rest is history, as they say. So this answers the OP's original question: You can thank Yours Truly for that standard crankset. You're welcome, it was my pleasure. 

Seriously, however, when I built that bike I hade a 7-speed cassette, so that does make a bit of a difference. Depending on where and how you add the four additional cogs for a modern 11-speed cassette, and where and how you ride, different cranksets may work better for you. Personally, I could imagine considering a 52x36 once I get old and weak , or if I move to an area that's more hilly. Right now the standard crank still works best for me.


----------



## T-20 (Aug 7, 2014)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.


I didn't. Just watched the playlist from GCN - bikes of the pro peloton.

That's where I made my observation.

Thanks for info


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

T-20 said:


> I didn't. Just watched the playlist from GCN - bikes of the pro peloton.
> 
> That's where I made my observation.
> 
> Thanks for info


Link?
Did they actually say most pros are using an "11-28 cassette for most races/stages"?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.
> 
> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
> *Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers.* Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
> ...


Wrong...


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

As of last week, I thought t-20 was going to run a 55/39/25 or some other weird triple combo. 

Feel like we have been down this same road (same recent topic phrased slightly differently). . . are t-20 and mm9 the same person?

I started on a 53/39. I got made fun of for choosing the small 39 instead of the common (at the time) 41. Now, I ride a 52/36 with a 11/25 cassette. I am fine with the 52/36. I don't see much use in the 11. When it dies, I will replace it with a cassette that begins with a 12.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.
> 
> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
> Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers. Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
> ...


Can you please change your picture to this.... Please.......


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Pirx said:


> Yes, I remember when I built up my first real road bike in the mid-to-late eighties, 52x42 was pretty much standard. I sat down and plotted the various gear ratios that the available cassettes would give me, and ended up deciding that a 53x39 would be optimal for me. After that, everyone followed my lead, and the rest is history, as they say. So this answers the OP's original question: You can thank Yours Truly for that standard crankset. You're welcome, it was my pleasure.


I've got a story, too. I bought my first 10-speed in 1972, an entry-level Peugeot. A few years later when I decided to upgrade to one of those nifty modern "cotterless" cranks, I did that plotting thing to see what would work best with my 14-28 5-speed freewheel. I came up with 34-48. 110mm bcd cranks were common then, even with "standard" rings, but the term "compact" was not in use.

So you invented the standard crankset, but I invented the compact. So there.

But I'm not exactly wedded to it. I ride in pretty hilly terrain now, but not really mountainous -- i.e., the steep hills are not too long. I use 52-39 and 13-26 9-speed cassette, and I can handle everything. If I were to move somewhere where I was frequently doing 5-mile and longer climbs, I'd probably get a triple.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

tlg said:


> Link?
> Did they actually say most pros are using an "11-28 cassette for most races/stages"?


It's an interesting series of videos, each fairly short. I watched six of them in which the gearing was detailed. All were shown with 53/39 front (FSA K-Force seems to have strong following). But it seems the pro peleton is about split over 11/25 vs 11/28, with some side comments by the GCN boys.

In the 11/25 camp were Contador and Thomas. When showing Contador's bike it was stated that "a lot of riders will be using" the 11/25 cassette. Showing the Thomas bike the 11/25 was described as "quite close".

For 11/28 it was Cavendish, Degenkolb, and Gilbert. In the Cavendish video the 11/28 it was highlighted with the comment, "which we've pretty much seen become the standard".

I wonder how static those are or if they change them depending on where they are riding?


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Professionals use all sorts of gears in racing.

Tour of Flanders tech: Wider tires, bigger cogs the norm | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

^^^No sh!t this guy pulled this "most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28..." out of thin air. When I go to races here, you see all kinds of different stuff on pro bikes. The ones that shock the crap out of me still are seeing the wide range of stuff used in the one day classic races like Flanders and Paris-Roubaix. If I remember correctly, in the mid-90s one year I stood there staring at Museeuw's 53-42 11-21 for Flanders and thinking "_My God, this guy ain't human!!_............." In modern day Liege-Bastogne-Liege, you see cassettes that are a tight range, and cassettes that are a surprising wide range, but it all depends on the rider and the crankset they have up front.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

ibericb said:


> For 11/28 it was Cavendish, Degenkolb, and Gilbert. In the Cavendish video the 11/28 it was highlighted with the comment, "which we've pretty much seen become the standard".
> 
> I wonder how static those are or if they change them depending on where they are riding?


My guess is those are very flexible. No way Cavendish is running a 28 on a flat stage with a sprint finish.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

If you really actually want to go fast you need this


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> It's an interesting series of videos, each fairly short. I watched six of them in which the gearing was detailed. All were shown with 53/39 front (FSA K-Force seems to have strong following). But it seems the pro peleton is about split over 11/25 vs 11/28, with some side comments by the GCN boys.
> 
> In the 11/25 camp were Contador and Thomas. When showing Contador's bike it was stated that "a lot of riders will be using" the 11/25 cassette. Showing the Thomas bike the 11/25 was described as "quite close".
> 
> ...


So Contador, good climber who likes to pedal fast, prefers 11-25 over that wimpy 11-28? How about that? OTOH, if you suffer on climbs, like a sprinter probably would [Cav], you'd seek insurance in the 28, you know, just in case!

Grumps and me raced up hills in 42, 43, and yes, 44! Eddy was "fond" of 44 for the mountain stages! I had 13-22 in back. Went up Mt. Wilson, near LA, twice, 22 miles with 5000 ft. elevation gain. By dumb luck, I had the 44 ring on the bike. Would have preferred the 42, but climbing on the 44 was almost as easy, so close, the legs could handle that little extra bit of effort without blowing it. The second time I barely suffered, except for the steeper last 5 miles that is. But I would have suffered as much in 42-22, or for that matter, 42-28! I just wouldn't have completed the climb as fast. 

Then there was Francesco Moser breaking the hour record with 55-17, opting for pie plate gears when Eddy did it in 52-15. Moser thought the larger gears were easier to turn, even though they were the same gear inches. That's my main reservation about small chain rings and 11 tooth FW cogs. They're so small! They gotta wear out faster than the large gears. Chains probably wear out faster, too. No thanks. :frown2: In 35 years, I've only worn out one chainring, a 42. Still have the 43, 44, 50, 52, 53, all still good.

Another bad thing about modern gearing. With 53/39 even worse with 34, and 11-25 in back, there's virtually no overlap in gear inches between chain rings. So going from inner to outer chain rings is a big jump for the legs! Eddy had 53/44. I tried that in relatively flat ETX and was surprised to find out how much I shifted the front back and forth to maintain speed. The jumps were entirely workable. Forget 53/39. 52/42 is bad enough. I like less than a 10 tooth difference, thank you. Barely miss a beat! :thumbsup:


----------



## drstawl (Mar 17, 2015)

BelgianHammer said:


> in the mid-90s one year I stood there staring at Museeuw's 53-42 11-21 for Flanders and thinking "_My God, this guy ain't human!!_............


My favorite combo is the 53/42 and 7spd 13-28. This provides 7 convenient ratios from 1.50 to almost 4.08.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

As I've grown older, I've found I no longer have the power to push a 53 x 39. I moved down to a 52 x 36. This generally gives much better chain lines (therefore less wear and more efficiency) than using the 50 x 34 compact and also means you can still be pedaling when the guys on 50 x 34 compacts are freewheeling on the downhills. 

A couple of my riding buddies have switched up from 50 x 34 after seeing how much more I used the centre of the sprockets than they did.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

tlg said:


> No way Cavendish is running a 28 on a flat stage with a sprint finish.


Why not? The smaller cogs he'd use for sprinting on the 11-28 are the same as on an 11-25 or 11-23. They're all 11,12,13,14,15 before the 11-28 skips the 16t. Cav can spin his cranks well but I doubt he's using a 16t in flat sprints.

Pros are using lower gearing now because they're faster with it. 

They are using wide range cassettes on the "flat" classics because many of the "flat" classics actually have a lot of steep hills.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mambo said:


> As I've grown older, I've found I no longer have the power to push a 53 x 39. I moved down to a 52 x 36. This generally gives much better chain lines (therefore less wear and more efficiency) than using the 50 x 34 compact and also means you can still be pedaling when the guys on 50 x 34 compacts are freewheeling on the downhills.
> 
> A couple of my riding buddies have switched up from 50 x 34 after seeing how much more I used the centre of the sprockets than they did.


You may want to check your math there...at 100rpm in a 52 you'd be doing 37.1. In a 50 you'd be at 35.7. That's a whopping 1.4mph. Or, to go the same 37.1mph on the 50 you'd have to spin at insane 104rpm instead of 100.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BelgianHammer said:


> ^^^No sh!t this guy pulled this "most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28..." out of thin air. When I go to races here, you see all kinds of different stuff on pro bikes. The ones that shock the crap out of me still are seeing the wide range of stuff used in the one day classic races like Flanders and Paris-Roubaix. If I remember correctly, in the mid-90s one year I stood there staring at Museeuw's 53-42 11-21 for Flanders and thinking "_My God, this guy ain't human!!_............." In modern day Liege-Bastogne-Liege, you see cassettes that are a tight range, and cassettes that are a surprising wide range, but it all depends on the rider and the crankset they have up front.


Museeuw looked like a ectomorph, big bones, big muscles. So yeah, he could show off in the classics. But 53/42 with 13-21 was standard race gearing back in the day, on bikes that weighed 20-23 pounds. Us pretenders had to suffer up the rather steep hills out of Rock Creek Park, DC, in our 42-21s, just like the pros. We thought we were training up. We suffered and got stronger. The best could whack up in 42-19, 42-17. I noticed last year, TDF riders were climbing mountain passes in the large ring!

So Grumpy is right on. The sport has wimped out for market share. Get as many of these middle aged men as possible. They've got the disposable income. Just make it easier for them to look good on their prizes.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Because *only real cyclist *use 53/39! Duh!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

arai_speed said:


> Because *only real cyclist *use 53/39! Duh!


And they should upgrade the small ring to a 42, 43, or as Eddy did, 44! :thumbsup:


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.
> 
> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
> *Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers.* Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
> ...


Have you seen the way I dress on my road rig? I have a compact and I don't even resemble any racer that ever road on the rode. I even have a an 11-32 with an x.0 RD. Oh let's not forget my pedals. 










The only matching kit I have is the all black one. That was just dumb luck. I look good on my red Cannondale, green bar tape, and varied color mismatched kit.

I just freakin ride, ride hard and ride a lot.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

One thing I havnt seen mentioned was how conservetive the pro racing in Europe really was. If it was good enough for their fathers it's good enough for them. 
Seriously it was Suntour ( lesser extent) and shimano (greater extent) that started pushing boundaries with new things. 
Cassette hubs shimano 
Sti shifting. Shimano
Dual pivot brakes shimano
Willingness to try new things, even disasters like bio pace and the AX and sante groups. Shimano 

Oh and compact cranks where a direct result of unhappiness with the shifting quality of triples at the time. That said my current triple 28-38-48 from shimano shifts beautifully, showing how far we have come,


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Don't be raining on this thread. I'll up his 44x22 to 46x19. 

Why would any real man need anything smaller/bigger on the easy climbs like the Stelvio? I'd use a 48 front but I'm concerned about getting the boys caught in the chain


cxwrench said:


> Wrong...


----------



## timeless (Jun 2, 2007)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.
> 
> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
> *Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers. *Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
> ...


Oh so wrong.
Lets be honest here most mortals can not max out a 50x34 with 12:27 much less an 11:28.
Lets face it we are mortals we are not going to be sitting at 30 plus mph. Most of us are going to be sitting in the low to mid 20's for high speed pace lines on the flats. 20 being a good crusing pace.
Well with in the range of a compact.

I personally hit a point where screw going faster. I am happy being able to go 100 miles at near 20 mph average in a pace lane and still not maxing me out. Most people I find want the standard to be like the pros. Lets face it we are mortals and not pro.

I spend almost all of my time and everything but an all out sprint I am not maxing out my crank.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

A good recounting of the evolution of Al cranksets, and who did what when, from the folks at Bicycle Quarterly.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> You may want to check your math there...at 100rpm in a 52 you'd be doing 37.1. In a 50 you'd be at 35.7. That's a whopping 1.4mph. Or, to go the same 37.1mph on the 50 you'd have to spin at insane 104rpm instead of 100.


Doesn't this depend on the sprocket size?


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

mambo said:


> Doesn't this depend on the sprocket size?


Yep, he assumed it was the 11...


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

mambo said:


> Doesn't this depend on the sprocket size?


As noted already, yes.

If you really want to explore the differences see this calculator, where you can test the resulting differences in speed for any combination of gears and cadence you want to consider. For example, you could put in 52,50 chain rings for a given cassette setup, cover a cadence range of say 30 to 130 in increments of 10, and see the resulting difference in speed that will result. That, however, says nothing about the effort (torque) it will take to ride at that cadence. For a given speed and given load, however, the power output will need to remain the same. So less power out, however you get there, means lower speed.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

*Luca Paolini don't need no stinkin' small gears for E3-Scheldeprijs*

Luca Paolini don't need no stinkin' small gears for Scheldeprijs


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

BelgianHammer said:


> Luca Paolini don't need no stinkin' small gears for Scheldeprijs
> View attachment 305074


yes well done on a race with the biggest climb being 75ft altitude.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ibericb said:


> As noted already, yes.
> 
> If you really want to explore the differences see this calculator, where you can test the resulting differences in speed for any combination of gears and cadence you want to consider. For example, you could put in 52,50 chain rings for a given cassette setup, cover a cadence range of say 30 to 130 in increments of 10, and see the resulting difference in speed that will result. That, however, says nothing about the effort (torque) it will take to ride at that cadence. For a given speed and given load, however, the power output will need to remain the same. So less power out, however you get there, means lower speed.


For me the main benefit of the 52 - 36 set up over the 53 - 42 is that I can ride with the chain more on the centre sprockets. I found myself riding in the larger sprockets with resultant added wear and friction when using the 53 - 42.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

mambo said:


> For me the main benefit of the 52 - 36 set up over the 53 - 42 is that I can ride with the chain more on the centre sprockets. I found myself riding in the larger sprockets with resultant added wear and friction when using the 53 - 42.


As best I can judge using this calculator, the change rom 42 to 36 (the big ring is an insignificant change) is it will move you over one cog until you get to near the end, then it might move you two.

Do you really notice a difference in either friction, which is pretty small for a modern drivetrain, or wear?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

One or two cogs is a big enough difference. Whilst I may not notice the friction, there has to be reduced wear if you are keeping a generally straighter chain line.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

mambo said:


> One or two cogs is a big enough difference. Whilst I may not notice the friction, there has to be reduced wear if you are keeping a generally straighter chain line.


I tend to suspect the difference in wear over the life of the chain is not really discernible or measurable. You're talking about a difference of maybe as much as 1° in chain alignment.

What I'm struggling with is what difference it's made for your riding. Setting aside the wear argument, if it works for you then great - use it. But I'm trying to figure out why it works for you. The 36t ring would be more accommodating for a lower speed range. Has your typical speed or comfortable cadence changed such that you feel the change from a 42t chain ring to a 36t ring is more accommodating?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mambo said:


> Doesn't this depend on the sprocket size?


Obviously it does. But since you were talking about being spun going downhill out I took for granted you were in the 11.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

What I don't get? Some ppl trying to base their gearing around what top pros ride, when your typical recreational rider has barely half the power-to-weight-ratio/VO2 Max of said top professional rider, if even that.

Oh, and we don't get to use EPO either, like Lance and the majority of the peloton. Which is just as well.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ibericb said:


> As best I can judge using this calculator, the change rom 42 to 36 (the big ring is an insignificant change) is it will move you over one cog until you get to near the end, then it might move you two.
> 
> Do you really notice a difference in either friction, which is pretty small for a modern drivetrain, or wear?


There are a number of differences:

Whilst I may not be able to feel a difference in friction or measure chain and sprocket wear, I can certainly hear the difference when the chain line is right at the upper or lower limits.

When you're on the rivet small differences can make a huge difference:

For instance we have some of our Sunday bashes where the "finishes" are on short (1.5 to 2.5km) 6% grade or so hills that you would want to stay in the big ring all the way up. I found myself having to use the largest sprocket to get up these with a 53 or using the small chainring and having to get into the big ring for the sprint. Now I am at least one sprocket down and the difference in effort is perceptible and I don't have to change into the big ring for the sprint.

On days with strong following winds and slight downhills or on long fast downhills I have found that those on a 50 chainring do run out of gearing a tad sooner. 2km+ per hour as suggested by CX doesn't seem like a lot of difference, but when everybody is at the limit, it's a huge amount, especially for those who might have trouble with fast cadences anyway (and there are a few in my group). This has often split our group.

At the end of the day it's personal preference. I was using 53 - 39 and then tried 50 - 34 which wasn't for me. I am much more comfortable with 52 - 36, though again I must emphasise that for me personally, it is more about being able to use the centre sprockets more.


----------



## eriku16 (Jul 27, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> What I don't get? Some ppl trying to base their gearing around what top pros ride, when your typical recreational rider has barely half the power-to-weight-ratio/VO2 Max of said top professional rider, if even that.


Keep in mind that there are quite a few people who don't compete that are quite fit and strong to turn those big gears.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mambo said:


> There are a number of differences:
> 
> *Whilst I may not be able to feel a difference in friction* or measure chain and sprocket wear, I can certainly hear the difference when the chain line is right at the upper or lower limits.
> 
> ...


I get your point, but come on pal...it's one or the other. Either you "aren't able to feel a difference" OR "the difference in effort is perceptible". You can't have it both ways.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

I must be in the minority here because I just simply ride my bike. When the road changes I shift to a gear that *feels *appropriate.

What Cavendish uses now or what Lemond used for his gearing in the 70's is not something that comes to mind during my rides.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> I get your point, but come on pal...it's one or the other. Either you "aren't able to feel a difference" OR "the difference in effort is perceptible". You can't have it both ways.


I was referring to the difference in having extreme chain lines in the post you've quoted. I am using the 52 - 36 combination because I feel more comfortable than using the 53 - 39. So yes, for me there is a perceptible difference at the extremes of the sprockets.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

My suspicion is that with the 36 chain ring and shifting over toward the center of the cassette the reason for the benefit you're experiencing is closer gear spacing between the adjacent gears when you're on that ring, not chain alignment or friction.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

arai_speed said:


> I must be in the minority here because I just simply ride my bike. When the road changes I shift to a gear that *feels *appropriate.
> 
> What Cavendish uses now or what Lemond used for his gearing in the 70's is not something that comes to mind during my rides.


Yup. Ride. Shift when you're churning butter or freewheeling. Done. Sometimes, you go faster and get stronger, sometimes, you just need to coast. But changing based on what someone else does, why? 

Someone asked me earlier this week what cogs I had on my 11-28 and why I hadn't gone to 11 speed yet. My answer - well, I know there's an 11 and a 28 and some things in between and because I don't have the money to drop on an extra gear that I don't miss.

The OP asked why the community came to 53/39. I'd say, it hasn't yet decided. It will continue to morph as things change (as they always have).

The OP said 11-28 is the standard. In many cases it is, just because of the range. Especially with 11 speed where you can keep your spacing almost the same as a 10sp 11-25 and just tack on a 28. But in general, people ride what they want based on their own preferences. There's only a consensus because, well, it works well. When you find yourself on a 8% for 2km and then it pitches up to 12% for a few hundred feet, that 28 feels great. Even if you are cross chained. It may keep you from having to drop down to the little ring and potentially drop a chain or at least lose some momentum.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> When you find yourself on a 8% for 2km and then it pitches up to 12% for a few hundred feet, that 28 feels great. Even if you are cross chained. It may keep you from having to drop down to the little ring and potentially drop a chain or at least lose some momentum.


You make good points, Corenfa, but I laughed a little at this. My days of routinely climbing 2km of 8% in the big ring are a few years in the past. Not too many years past, and I can still do it, but it's a low-cadence out-of-the saddle grind. When it kicks up to 12%, I'm little-ringing for sure. On the other hand, I don't mind the occasional mash, and my lowest gear in 39x26, which I can muscle up short pitches of >15%.

Anyway, you're certainly right about the basics. Ride, shift up if you're spinning too fast, shift down if you lugging. Ride, shift, shift again, repeat until you die or can't ride anymore (and hope the latter doesn't precede the former by too long?).


----------



## lostPixels (Jun 12, 2012)

It's proven that the #1 reason for going with a 53-39 is to be able to brag about using a 53-39 on internet forums. Usually the same people are from places like Florida, where "hills" and "climbs" are tough, but doable with a 11-28 cassette.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

lostPixels said:


> It's proven that the #1 reason for going with a 53-39 is to be able to brag about using a 53-39 on internet forums. Usually the same people are from places like Florida, where "hills" and "climbs" are tough, but doable with a 11-28 cassette.


where does that leave people with both cranksets?


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

den bakker said:


> where does that leave people with both cranksets?


There are no words suitable for public consumption for those guys.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Corenfa said:


> When you find yourself on a 8% for 2km and then it pitches up to 12% for a few hundred feet, that 28 feels great.


Uhmm, if you "find yourself" on an 8% climb for 2km or more, and it has never occurred to you to go to the small ring by the time it "suddenly" pitches up to 12%, you deserve to fall over and die. You know, that small ring is there for a purpose, and the human brain, usually, has this unbelievable capacity to plan ahead. People would do well to take advantage of such capabilities, in my opinion. Cassettes should not be chosen so as to offset stupidity or laziness, or both. But perhaps that's just me.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

lostPixels said:


> It's proven that the #1 reason for going with a 53-39 is to be able to brag about using a 53-39 on internet forums. Usually the same people are from places like Florida, where "hills" and "climbs" are tough, but doable with a 11-28 cassette.


Bragging rights? Sure.  

Up until compact cranks came out, 53-39 was considered practical, doable by pretty much everyone if he trained hard enough to keep up with the racers. When builders started putting 39s on, we oldsters kind of laughed. We'd found out we could handle the climbs on our 42-21s just fine. Recreational riders had a 28 in back for climbing on heavier bikes, but that was the exception, not the rule. Even old men and wimps had to learn how to climb in 42-21. It was a badge of courage. No pain, no gain. We got stronger. 

Most of us back then as well as now, still climb in larger gears, anyway. I hardly ever saw club riders using that 27 or 28. The rides were too fast. Even the women could handle 39-20, 39-17. Grumps is right: the lower gearing on lighter weight bikes is market driven, to get wimps out on the road relatively less painfully than if they had to "man up" to hardcore race gearing.

How many posters here use their 28s all the time? How fast do you climb on that gear? Frankly, having all these low gears now that 11 speeds are the latest bling, will only soften the suffering a little. Gravity and the rider's weight will have far more effect on climbing performance than a 25-28 tooth cog, but I suspect there are some overweight riders with not much miles in their legs who just can't handle 39-23 or 24. On a sub 17 pound bike! I'm not seeing competitive riders spinning up the hills like squirrels. They all use larger gears to keep up! In a year or two, they can handle the larger gears. I swear I saw Contador climbing the mountains last year in his big ring. It would have been at least 50-19. :shocked:

What gears do you climb in? Most riders lose position in the group unless they match gears with the others. I've tried it. Takes more aerobic energy to "spin" in a lower gear than simply push a bit harder in the higher gears everybody else is using. Took 3 years to be able to burn the same watts at 100 rpm as I could mashing higher gears. Newbies don't have the patience or take the time to train the legs at high power output at higher cadences, so they use the same gears as their riding buddies, at the same cadences, because that's all they've got! Trying to spin in a smaller gear would just leave them off the back.

Just sayin' Eddy won mountain stages on 21 pound bikes with 44-23. I tested that theory in my mid 40s on a 22 pound bike, climbing Mt. Wilson, CA, 5400 ft. in 22 miles, steep the last 5 miles to the top, twice, and surprise! It worked great!

Now pushing 72, I'm thinking about putting a 26 on the "race" bike, the one with 25C tires and no fenders. I wouldn't "need it" but it would be nice on these old legs. On these uber lightweight bikes, climbing is easier, so riders use the lowest gears even less frequently than on those heavy steel bikes from the 80s. :yesnod:


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> ...
> 
> Now pushing 72, I'm thinking about putting a 26 on the "race" bike, the one with 25C tires and no fenders. ...


Wuss.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Pirx said:


> Cassettes should not be chosen so as to offset stupidity or laziness, or both. But perhaps that's just me.


Yeah, it might be. If you're commuting - sure. If you're racing, nope. Usually, I find myself attacking just as the road pitches up like that as long as I've got something left in the tank. I want to have the ability to easily work back up gears when that pitch ends. Usually, a steeper pitch like that (at least around here) precedes the peak and you need to be ready to move. Pedaling squares in your little ring at the bottom of the cassette just doesn't give you room. 

Holding an 8% in the big ring with a 25 on back (with room to move to a 28) is perfectly reasonable.

I find it funny that if someone doesn't do it just the way someone else does it around here then they're stupid or wrong.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Corenfa said:


> Yeah, it might be. If you're commuting - sure. If you're racing, nope.
> I find it funny that if someone doesn't do it just the way someone else does it around here then they're stupid or wrong.


funny indeed.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

Corenfa said:


> I find it funny that if someone doesn't do it just the way someone else does it around here then they're stupid or wrong.


Funny "Ha Ha" or funny "strange"?


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Winn said:


> Funny "Ha Ha" or funny "strange"?


Well, it's the Interwebz, so strange is a given, right.

It's one thing to say "this is the way I do it." It's another to say, "If you don't do it the way I do it, you're wrong." I'm sure the quote of me above is to point out the irony that I tell somebody something different than them then call out the hypocrisy. But the fact is, I just gave two options. There are tons of others. 

Sure, not everyone wants to hold onto a hill in the big ring. But not everyone needs to drop to the little ring either. 

Related to the original topic, there's clearly no standard. Hell, even the "experts" on RBR can't agree.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

Corenfa said:


> Well, it's the Interwebz, so strange is a given, right.
> 
> It's one thing to say "this is the way I do it." It's another to say, "If you don't do it the way I do it, you're wrong." I'm sure the quote of me above is to point out the irony that I tell somebody something different than them then call out the hypocrisy. But the fact is, I just gave two options. There are tons of others.
> 
> ...


I generally just do what I do and I don't care what all the experts on RBR think. Unless I think that they have a good idea... I agree that there is clearly more than one right way to do things. This is evident by the many different styles of "top" riders we see at the pro level. No one for a second would argue that Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, etc all did it the same way... Say what you're going to say if no one agrees who cares? There may be a silent reader that takes what you wrote and benefits from it.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> ...Eddy was "fond" of 44 for the mountain stages! I had 13-22 in back. *Went up Mt. Wilson, near LA, twice, 22 miles with 5000 ft. elevation gain*. By dumb luck, I had the 44 ring on the bike. Would have preferred the 42, but climbing on the 44 was almost as easy...





Fredrico said:


> ...Eddy won mountain stages on 21 pound bikes with 44-23. I tested that theory in my mid 40s on a 22 pound bike, *climbing Mt. Wilson, CA, 5400 ft. in 22 miles*...


Everytime you tell the story the Elevation goes up.

Did you ride Mt. Wilson uphill both ways and in the snow also?


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

arai_speed said:


> Everytime you tell the story the Elevation goes up.
> 
> Did you ride Mt. Wilson uphill both ways and in the snow also?


he was being modest it's actually 6000


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

Winn said:


> he was being modest it's actually 6000


Obviously I was lying according to this Mt. Wilson: 14 Miles, 4700 Feet of Elevation Gain = Fun! on eecue.com : Dave Bullock / eecue it's only 4700


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Winn said:


> Obviously I was lying according to this Mt. Wilson: 14 Miles, 4700 Feet of Elevation Gain = Fun! on eecue.com : Dave Bullock / eecue it's only 4700


I thought Mt. Wilson was 5400' above sea level. But I later used 5000, because the base of the 22 mile climb out of La Canada is somewhere around 400' elevation, which would explain Winn's finding that the actual climb is 4700' of elevation gain from the base.

Just to be "clear." :frown2: I could ride up that mountain today in 42-23. :yesnod: It would only hurt on the steeper sections towards the end. It would also hurt in 34-28, but the lungs could handle it better. 

Just read the link. 

These hikers were starting off at a different elevation, probably, and hiking a steeper course starting 14 miles below the summit. They took hiking trails. I took the road from La Canada. That was 22 miles from the summit. 

2 hours up, about a half hour back down!  The biggest thrill of my life, streaking down through the clouds like an airplane at 50 mph. The bike and I became a ballistic missile. I felt as if I could have ridden over anything, such was the inertial mass. Nothing could stop this juggernaut. I'd never experienced how well this bike [DeRosa] handled at high speeds. I just had to keep it on the road. No problem. Ugo figured it all out a long time ago. Maybe all bikes handle this well at 50 mph!


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Just so we are "clear"


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Ha. No need to exaggerate a climb like that. Just say "It's hard as f*ck" and we get it. 5400, 5000, 4400 - nah. It's hard as f*ck. See how easy that is.

That being said - look - there's some recovery time in there. It's only ALMOST hard as f*ck.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

tlg said:


> My guess is those are very flexible. No way Cavendish is running a 28 on a flat stage with a sprint finish.


Why not? When you get going fast enough the bottom half of the cassette is the same so nothing changes.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Corenfa said:


> Usually, I find myself attacking just as the road pitches up like that as long as I've got something left in the tank.


Really? So, you're near your limits in the big ring at the 8%, the road pitches up to 12, and now you "attack" (in the big ring, of course, since this is not the time to switch rings)? So how's that working for you? 

I'm genuinely curious here, since if I did that in the kind of mildly hilly races we are talking about here, I'd get _slaughtered_ by the guys who know how to use their gears. That's because these guys are not chewing up their muscles trying to mash in their large ring, meaning they're not going to have to go through the hell I would go through if I had to recover from a mistake like that. 

These guys also understand the advantage of leaving room on the cassette in both directions just in case, in particular if we're talking about a long, mild grade of 8%. What do you do if it turns out the road pitches up to 16% after the 12? But, most fundamentally, why in all the world would you stay in the big ring when you have plenty of time to position yourself nicely on the cassette for when the attacks come? Can somebody explain to me in what world this makes any sense at all? Anybody?



Corenfa said:


> I want to have the ability to easily work back up gears when that pitch ends.


And what, pray tell, prevents you from doing that when you're in the small ring? Shall we go back and figure out how fast you can go if, for some reason, you have to go all the way to, say, 39x12?



Corenfa said:


> Pedaling squares in your little ring at the bottom of the cassette just doesn't give you room.


No idea what you are talking about. I don't know about you, but on an 8% grade, I would certainly not be "pedaling squares" when I'm in the small ring. Perhaps that's just because I'm weak, who knows. Here, let's see: At 500W, I would be doing roughly 14mph according to this calculator. Now, tell me again, what is the problem going 14mph in the small ring again?



Corenfa said:


> I find it funny that if someone doesn't do it just the way someone else does it around here then they're stupid or wrong.


That's not what I said, but feel free to wrestle with your straw man if that's what floats your boat.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

lostPixels said:


> It's proven that the #1 reason for going with a 53-39 is to be able to brag about using a 53-39 on internet forums. Usually the same people are from places like Florida, where "hills" and "climbs" are tough, but doable with a 11-28 cassette.


I believe this thread has become an excellent practical example of the _"older I get the better I was"_ syndrome, which is common among those 50 and older.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> Why not? When you get going fast enough the bottom half of the cassette is the same so nothing changes.


If there aren't any hills to contend with the primary reason to go with a narrower cassette is the tighter progression of adjacent gears further up from the smallest cog.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Pirx said:


> That's not what I said, but feel free to wrestle with your straw man if that's what floats your boat.


I didn't direct that at you specifically, but there's clearly some self-guilt. 

My point is simple - what works for you, works for you. What works for me, works for me. And how it works out for me, well, fine. Thanks for asking. I've attacked many times up a 12% in my big ring for a few hundred feet. If it were to pitch up higher, I'm hoping I would have done my homework before the race or at least be able to read the road. In which case, I'd drop if needed.

My point is, using a 53/39 with an 11/28 gives you the option to do whichever you prefer and whichever you're able to sustain. Sorry if that doesn't work for you.

BTW - When I'm spinning 90 on my bike in my 39/12, I'm at 23.1 MPH. Don't know what the charts say, but that's what my Garmin says every time.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Corenfa said:


> BTW - When I'm spinning 90 on my bike in my 39/12, I'm at 23.1 MPH. Don't know what the charts say, but that's what my Garmin says every time.


O.k., that's around 1,000Watts on an 8% grade.

You know, it occurs to me that maybe we're just talking past each other here, and perhaps I just don't understand the specific situation you are talking about. It would probably be a lot easier to "discuss" these issues by just racing your route together. If we did that, "winning the argument" would at least be unambiguous. 

Of course, I would win...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

eriku16 said:


> Keep in mind that there are quite a few people who don't compete that are quite fit and strong to turn those big gears.


They still aren't pro-level, or they'd actually be, y'know... _pros_.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

arai_speed said:


> I must be in the minority here because I just simply ride my bike. When the road changes I shift to a gear that *feels *appropriate.
> 
> What Cavendish uses now or what Lemond used for his gearing in the 70's is not something that comes to mind during my rides.


Bad post. Common sense is not allowed in a thread such as this.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Bad post. Common sense is not allowed in a thread such as this.


Yeah, let's report the guy and get him banned.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

lostPixels said:


> It's proven that the #1 reason for going with a 53-39 is to be able to brag about using a 53-39 on internet forums.
> 
> Usually the same people are from places like Florida, where "hills" and "climbs" are tough, but doable with a 11-28 cassette.


There's a variation on that where the Florida guy has a 12-27 cassette and says that if he ever needs a 28, he'd 'retire' from cycling since he wouldn't want to be a 'touring bike' rider.

Same argument is used for why he can't possibly ever ride 25mm tires.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Pirx said:


> O.k., that's around 1,000Watts on an 8% grade.
> 
> You know, it occurs to me that maybe we're just talking past each other here, and perhaps I just don't understand the specific situation you are talking about. It would probably be a lot easier to "discuss" these issues by just racing your route together. If we did that, "winning the argument" would at least be unambiguous.
> 
> Of course, I would win...


Yeah, I think we are talking past each other. When you referred to how fast at 39/12, I wasn't taking the hill into consideration. 

In any case, I have no axe to grind with you. If you wish to fight it out on the slopes, it's very possible you could or would beat me. You win some, you lose most (at least I do).


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Corenfa said:


> In any case, I have no axe to grind with you.


Neither do I, not at all.



Corenfa said:


> If you wish to fight it out on the slopes, it's very possible you could or would beat me.


No, this was not why I said that. I really have no idea who would beat whom, and I don't think it matters. I was just trying to express the fact that some things are easier to understand by doing them. If we would be riding side-by-side I would probably have understood right away what you were trying to express in words, and vice-versa. Anyhoo, it's all good.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

ibericb said:


> If there aren't any hills to contend with the primary reason to go with a narrower cassette is the tighter progression of adjacent gears further up from the smallest cog.


If there aren't any hills to contend with you are in the bottom half of the cassette anyways. Why give the team mechanics more work when they already have enough?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Pirx said:


> Uhmm, if you "find yourself" on an 8% climb for 2km or more, and it has never occurred to you to go to the small ring by the time it "suddenly" pitches up to 12%, you deserve to fall over and die. You know, that small ring is there for a purpose, and the human brain, usually, has this unbelievable capacity to plan ahead. People would do well to take advantage of such capabilities, in my opinion. Cassettes should not be chosen so as to offset stupidity or laziness, or both. But perhaps that's just me.


Rode with a guy up the mile long climb out of Rosslyn, VA the other day. We were both suffering. I was in 43-28. He was in 53-17 or 19, just struggling to turn the crank, red faced, in serious pain, and slowing down, stalling out in the gear he was using. :lol: I dropped him rather quickly half way up. The legs were burning like hell by the top, but cadence was fast enough to stay on top of the gear, manage the burn, and keep up cadence until it was over. He said he couldn't shift into the small ring and had never used it! His derailleur was out of whack. I fixed it. He was amazed at what he'd been missing!


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> He was in 53-17 or 19, just struggling to turn the crank, red faced, in serious pain, and slowing down, stalling out in the gear he was using. :lol: I dropped him rather quickly half way up. ......
> 
> His derailleur was out of whack. I fixed it. He was amazed at what he'd been missing!


Missing, like meniscus ?


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Pirx said:


> O.k., that's around 1,000Watts on an 8% grade.


This is the Internet Pirx. This is where 72 year-olds climb 5400 feet in two hours and descend at 50 mph. I am "only" 53, have XC raced for almost 10 years on a single speed and I know that climbing 5400 feet in two hours would be a huge effort, regardless of grade and distance. But here everyone can do it.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

SystemShock said:


> Bad post. Common sense is not allowed in a thread such as this.


correct. 

this is the internet subset forum. common sense is not allowed, however mental masturbation via linked keyboard is....remember, this is the internet, carry wet-wipes.

big or small, fast or slow - 
https://youtu.be/-jh-5TYAtJI

in or out -
https://youtu.be/PVxGFOb1KTY

all the other mental and oral masturbation aside, get on the bike and ride. if you are getting left behind, ride harder and faster.....whatever that looks like to you.....oh....and Obey the Rules....

Velominati ? The Rules


----------



## hernluis (May 1, 2014)

switched to compact and never looked back. I have never run out of gears. when going down hill, I don't really like to be going 40mph+ and accelerating while mashing on pedals. pass.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

to think using tall gears is for marketing purposes, is....well....stupid.....or to think its to get old people on bikes is....well....even more stupid than my previous stupid.....that makes it fookin-stoopid.

teams are about winning. winning gets marketing coverage, is....well.....smart.....making the right choices to win is....well.....more smart than my previous smart.....that makes it fookin-smart.

follow the leader - 

Tour of Flanders tech: Wider tires, bigger cogs the norm | Cyclingnews.com

Wider is better at Flanders - BikeRadar


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

T-20 said:


> Most pros use 53/39 and an 11-28 cassette for most races/stages but to me it seems that a 50/34 + 11-25 could be a better option.
> 
> Anyway I'd like to know your thought on why exactly THIS big ring and why exactly THIS small ring.
> 
> Thanks!


For me, a 50x11 is too small in certain (frequent) racing situations. Sometimes it just feels better to push a bigger gear and a 50x11 has me spinning much faster at higher speeds. Plus it makes sprinting much tougher as well. A 34x28 is absolutely worthless for all of my racing. I run a 52x36 now and I actually prefer the 53x39 because the 36 is just too small on the rollers and punchers that I typically train and race on. A 39x23/25 is about the max I would ever realistically need in a race and even then only on very long or really, really steep inclines. With the 36 I'm never using my lowest gears and I'm running an 11-23 cassette. I don't like it and will go back to a 53x39 on the next bike/build.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

hernluis said:


> switched to compact and never looked back. I have never run out of gears. when going down hill, I don't really like to be going 40mph+ and accelerating while mashing on pedals. pass.


Yeah, that's one thing that always makes me wonder: coveting that 53 ring so you can pedal downhill? I've discovered over the years that gravity will do just fine. My speed actually increases beyond spinning out in 53-13 very quickly if I just get into a nice aerodynamic tuck. I've glided like a bird in flight passing many a rider pedaling like mad. At high speeds, aerodynamics becomes all the more critical in cutting through that wall of air. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

crossracer said:


> One thing I havnt seen mentioned was how conservetive the pro racing in Europe really was. If it was good enough for their fathers it's good enough for them.
> Seriously it was Suntour ( lesser extent) and shimano (greater extent) that started pushing boundaries with new things.
> Cassette hubs shimano
> Sti shifting. Shimano
> ...


Bike racing is "conservative" because organizers want the race to be a test of athletic ability, not equipment. :yesnod:


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Bike racing is "conservative" because organizers want the race to be a test of athletic ability, not equipment. :yesnod:


Didn't the founder of the Tdf not allow gears for years because he feared making the race too easy??? 

Bill


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Bike racing is "conservative" because organizers want the race to be a test of athletic ability, not equipment. :yesnod:


I'd say no matter what the equipment - as long as all racers are subject to the same rules - it's a test of athletic ability, not equipment. The only exception being if a team's mechanic happens to be better in some way that actually affects performance. Not germane to bicycling, but in skiing, for example, a team's wax tech can make a huge difference overcoming athletic disadvantages. OK, strategy is also a factor that's not athletic ability, but my point about equipment remains.

I really doubt that anyone in the pro peloton uses anything other than what gets them over the course as fast as their athletic ability allows. My suspicion is that the root of conservatism is decades of refining what works and settling on it.


----------



## bubba117 (Aug 20, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.
> 
> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
> Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers. Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
> ...


Im guessing you got so strong by sitting at your computer and making dumb comments on forums? 

I race Cat 4 (big deal right?) and ride 150 or miles a week if time permits and I have ran a compact 50/34 cranks since I have started and the gearing is great. Also considering that higher cadence is starting to be more of the norm, 90-100 rpm, compact makes sense. 
Another point I like to make, and most people don't understand gear ratios, is that 50x11 is about the same ratio as a 53x12. Unless your going out and running 30+ MPH for your ride with a sprint at the end, you don't need "standard" chainrings.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

den bakker said:


> where does that leave people with both cranksets?


Suffering from bipolar disorder

Do you wake up feeling a little "cranky" some mornings?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

pedalbiker said:


> For me, *a 50x11 is too small in certain (frequent) racing situations. Sometimes it just feels better to push a bigger gear and a 50x11 has me spinning much faster at higher speeds.* Plus it makes sprinting much tougher as well. A 34x28 is absolutely worthless for all of my racing. I run a 52x36 now and I actually prefer the 53x39 because the 36 is just too small on the rollers and punchers that I typically train and race on. A 39x23/25 is about the max I would ever realistically need in a race and even then only on very long or really, really steep inclines. With the 36 I'm never using my lowest gears and I'm running an 11-23 cassette. I don't like it and will go back to a 53x39 on the next bike/build.


See post #6 on page 2. I know a LOT of pro women that use compacts and I'm betting they'd drop you pretty regularly. It's a small difference(50 to 53), but at least you qualify it as 'your preference'. You could always just pedal 4-5rpm faster...


----------



## eriku16 (Jul 27, 2011)

bubba117 said:


> Im guessing you got so strong by sitting at your computer and making dumb comments on forums?
> 
> I race Cat 4 (big deal right?) and ride 150 or miles a week if time permits and I have ran a compact 50/34 cranks since I have started and the gearing is great. Also considering that higher cadence is starting to be more of the norm, 90-100 rpm, compact makes sense.
> Another point I like to make, and most people don't understand gear ratios, is that 50x11 is about the same ratio as a 53x12. Unless your going out and running 30+ MPH for your ride with a sprint at the end, you don't need "standard" chainrings.


Compact cranks are all about the low end, nobody questions the top end and it's always used as a defense. They allow beginners and those of marginal fitness to get up grades without too much suffering. For me, a 34 or 36 is useless. I'm in SoCal and the are lots of HC climbs that I'm fine with a 53x39. I use to race and I'm still fit.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

eriku16 said:


> Compact cranks are all about the low end, nobody questions the top end and it's always used as a defense. They allow beginners and those of marginal fitness to get up grades without too much suffering. For me, a 34 or 36 is useless. I'm in SoCal and the are lots of HC climbs that I'm fine with a 53x39. I use to race and I'm still fit.


What? All sorts of _'I don't do the math'_ types say on a regular basis that they 'can't go fast enough' or 'spin out' w/ the 50.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

crossracer said:


> Didn't the founder of the Tdf not allow gears for years because he feared making the race too easy???


LOL yup, well, sort of. Henri Desgrange, founder of the TDF, used to say that derailleurs were for "old people and female" riders. He was history's most notorious 'fixie chauvinist', I guess. 

Touring cyclists actually drove the adoption of the derailleur, since there was no authority there to tell them they couldn't. Racers in the TDF didn't wind up using it until the late 1930s, when Desgrange stopped actively overseeing the TDF late in his life, when his health was in severe decline.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> 50x11 has me spinning *much faster* at higher speeds.


I guess "much faster" is a subjective term. But the difference is small in numerical terms. At 35 mph, it's 97 rpm vs. 92, a difference of about 5%. That might be enough to matter to you, but I wouldn't call it "much."


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JCavilia said:


> I guess "much faster" is a subjective term. But the difference is small in numerical terms. At 35 mph, it's 97 rpm vs. 92, a difference of about 5%. That might be enough to matter to you, but I wouldn't call it "much."


in fact ~half a cog.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Rode with a guy up the mile long climb out of Rosslyn, VA the other day. We were both suffering. I was in 43-28. He was in 53-17 or 19, just struggling to turn the crank, red faced, in serious pain, and slowing down, stalling out in the gear he was using. :lol: I dropped him rather quickly half way up. The legs were burning like hell by the top, but cadence was fast enough to stay on top of the gear, manage the burn, and keep up cadence until it was over. He said he couldn't shift into the small ring and had never used it! His derailleur was out of whack. I fixed it. He was amazed at what he'd been missing!



Don't mean to bust your balls here, but there's no big climb out of Rosslyn. There are some minor climbs out of Rosslyn (.5 miles at 4%-5% average at most). I would hope that even a mildly seasoned rider could have muscled through those pretty easily using either gearing. I ca't say it would be a walk in the park, but it certainly wouldn't require serious pain or stalling out. 

I used to race in Rosslyn as well as work there off of Wilson Blvd, then in the Pentagon. The worst hill in the area is the one leading up to the AF memorial and even that's not that bad.

Just yesterday, I rode a road race here in Western WA. 3 laps at 13 miles each. The last 2 miles of each lap was a climb averaging 5% over the 2 miles. There were some steep pitches (one hitting around 20% for about 30 feet and several between 12-15%). For much of that hill, at least on the first lap, I was in 53 and back and forth between 24 and 28. When I saw those little bastards of steep climbs popping up, it was definitely down to the little ring. 39/28 was even painful, especially on laps 2 and 3. 

Of course, I flatted inside the 1km and decided to ride it back in on the flat (out of the saddle to keep my weight off the rear wheel where the flat was). Argh.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

bubba117 said:


> *Also considering that higher cadence is starting to be more of the norm, 90-100 rpm,* compact makes sense.
> Another point I like to make, and most people don't understand gear ratios, is that 50x11 is about the same ratio as a 53x12. Unless your going out and running 30+ MPH for your ride with a sprint at the end, you don't need "standard" chainrings.


Wait, what? Starting to be the norm? That's pretty much always been "the norm", at least for the 12+ years I've been riding. 

If at some point you're ever trying to pedal harder at 30+, you might, in fact, need one. Whether or not that's a frequent occasion is pretty much beside the point.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> See post #6 on page 2.* I know a LOT of pro women that use compacts and I'm betting they'd drop you pretty regularly.* It's a small difference(50 to 53), but at least you qualify it as 'your preference'. You could always just pedal 4-5rpm faster...


I'm a cat 1, so... no. Genevieve Jeanson dropped me once by a couple of minutes on a 3 mile climb when I was a junior. She got popped for EPO, though, so I don't count that one. 

Small differences add up to much, much bigger differences over the course of hard races. I ride the gears I like. I've had a bit of success with it so far. It's not that you can't just pedal 4-5 rpm faster at some random point in time, it's that there are times when you're slobbering all over yourself and you just _can't_ spin any more. And then, what if you need to stand up to accelerate?

Small differences can have bigger consequences.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

pro comments on gears -

https://youtu.be/vGOSxuhyeAw?t=9m2s


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

pedalbiker said:


> Wait, what? Starting to be the norm? That's pretty much always been "the norm", at least for the 12+ years I've been riding.


Yep, and it's been the norm for the close to 30 years I've been riding, too.



pedalbiker said:


> If at some point you're ever trying to pedal harder at 30+, you might, in fact, need one. Whether or not that's a frequent occasion is pretty much beside the point.


I'm with you on this.

Good thing is, the newest cranksets from Shimano and Campagnolo (and probably some others, too) allow you to switch between compact, mid-compact and standard simply by changing the rings (well, and adjusting the front derailleur; and possibly the chain, too), making it a bit easier (and less expensive) to change.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

pedalbiker said:


> I'm a cat 1, so... no.


It's the internet, 90% of the people are cat 1. The other 10% are pro


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

deviousalex said:


> It's the internet, 90% of the people are cat 1. The other 10% are pro


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

pedalbiker said:


> I'm a cat 1, so... no. Genevieve Jeanson dropped me once by a couple of minutes on a 3 mile climb when I was a junior. She got popped for EPO, though, so I don't count that one.
> 
> Small differences add up to much, much bigger differences over the course of hard races. I ride the gears I like. I've had a bit of success with it so far. It's not that you can't just pedal 4-5 rpm faster at some random point in time, it's that there are times when you're slobbering all over yourself and you just _can't_ spin any more. And then, what if you need to stand up to accelerate?
> 
> Small differences can have bigger consequences.


This is exactly what I was trying to say. I remember in a race some years ago spending 20km trying to close a 50 metre gap to a group of six riders. I managed to get within 10m at one point, but never managed to close the gap. This wasn't due to gearing on that occasion, but when you are at the limit, tiny differences (4 or 5 rpm, the right availability of gearing) can mean the difference between managing to stay with a group or getting dropped.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

deviousalex said:


> It's the internet, 90% of the people are cat 1. The other 10% are pro


I'm neither. But my rolling average is 28-31 mph.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

SPlKE said:


> I'm neither. But my rolling average is 28-31 mph.


Is that downhill or with a following wind?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

mambo said:


> Is that downhill or with a following wind?


That's wearing jeans and flipflops on my beater, on long rides that have a lot of hills. I just didn't want to rub it in.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

SPlKE said:


> That's wearing jeans and flipflops on my beater, on long rides that have a lot of hills. I just didn't want to rub it in.


Is your beater a moped?


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

SPlKE said:


> I'm neither. But my rolling average is 28-31 mph.


Your Digital EPO is sneaking up on you.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

_


SPIKE said:



I'm neither. But my rolling average is 28-31 mph.

Click to expand...

_


mambo said:


> Is that downhill or with a following wind?


LOL. :lol:

There's an RBRer who used to post about the '60-70kph' pacelines he routinely rides in every week (that's 37-43mph).

I would ask him, "So, what TDF team will you be riding with this year?".

He never seemed to have a good response to that one, for some reason. Perhaps he was intimidated by my 600 lb bench press.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Winn said:


> Is your beater a moped?


It's an old Walmart gas pipe bike, with 2 gears that work.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> It's the internet, 90% of the people are cat 1. The other 10% are pro


Fortunately for me, I'm a Cat 1 off the internet, too.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

pedalbiker said:


> Fortunately for me, I'm a Cat 1 off the internet, too.


Congrats!


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

.....


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Is it the end for the 34t chainring? - Cycling Weekly

Perhaps what I've been trying to say on this thread did have a germ of truth!


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

mambo said:


> Is it the end for the 34t chainring? - Cycling Weekly
> 
> Perhaps what I've been trying to say on this thread did have a germ of truth!


Because two teeth make SO much difference.... 

Picture some industry FAT Cats think tanking on what NEXT must have thing the masses will buy into and buy onto...


I am going for a 27/44 or 30/44 double on the next adventure steed having tube cobbled as we speak..

Keeps you honest and spinning. 


I still love my 39/53 for flatlanding, but the 53 is a joke really. Just keeps me wearing the bigger cogs on my cassette. ;O


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

mambo said:


> Is it the end for the 34t chainring? - Cycling Weekly
> 
> Perhaps what I've been trying to say on this thread did have a germ of truth!





> Racing this weekend? Whack on an 11-23t. Holidaying in the Alps? 11-32t is your friend. Either way, do everything you can to maintain a straight chain line.


But what if I'm racing IN THE ALPS?!?!

In all seriousness, an 11-23 cassette is completely pointless these days.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

mambo said:


> Is it the end for the 34t chainring? - Cycling Weekly
> 
> Perhaps what I've been trying to say on this thread did have a germ of truth!


There are sound reasons for semi-compact/mid-compact/whatever they're calling it this year, aka 52-36, to take over. But they aren't really mentioned in the article.

Basically, it's really convenient to have 1-tooth jumps in your flatland cruising gear range. For recreational cyclists not riding in a paceline (which is probably most riding), you've either got to be in the small ring ('cuz 50x17,19,21 isn't 1-tooth jumps), or you have to run a very tight cassette that won't be good for climbing (or a tight junior cassette that won't be good for descending/big tailwinds/fast pacelines). 

So, you ride in the small ring to get 1-tooth jumps in your cruising/just-riding-along range. Back in the 53/39 days, that was easy... you'd ride around in the 39x13,14,15, and all was great. But then compact came along, and, despite its other considerable benefits, it kinda messed that up. Because the 34t ring was too small.

Since you're avoiding the small-small gear combo, you'll be riding around in the 34x13,14,15... which is a more than a bit light for even a moderately-conditioned rec rider. You can get a usable 34x12, but only if you take the (possibly useless) 11t with it, to fill the small-small position, and its still not quite big enough for aggressive riding. 

So, going to a 36t inner ring solves a lot of problems, though you probably still do have to run an 11-X cassette. A cruising range of 36x12,13,14,15 is pretty awesome for most ppl. You get to have considerably lower climbing gears than a 53/39 setup. And your top gear for descents is within 2% of said 53/39. Win-win-win. 

So yeah, it makes sense. But a lot of things that make sense don't necessarily take over the market. We'll see.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

deviousalex said:


> But what if I'm racing IN THE ALPS?!?!
> 
> In all seriousness, an 11-23 cassette is completely pointless these days.


11-23 only makes sense on courses with little or no elevation.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Well Shimano is giving options these days. With the 105 5800 you get the choice of 34/50, 36/52, or 39/53. Or you can mix and match the chainrings as they are all 110BCD. The Tiagra 10 speed has 36/52 or 34/50 with the same mix and match options. For myself I have the 105 5700 group and it will be years before I wear it out so the 50/34 is where I will stay.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

deviousalex said:


> But what if I'm racing IN THE ALPS?!?!
> 
> In all seriousness, an 11-23 cassette is completely pointless these days.


I used an 11-23 (11 speed) with a compact (50/36) in my relatively flat area. I just swapped chainrings to 52/36 and the cassette to 12-25 and like that better...although they are close.

What gears work on one person or area may not work for another. 

When I am riding some of the hills in California I love a 34 up front and a 32 in back.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

robt57 said:


> Because two teeth make SO much difference....


They do. A 36 small ring gives you almost a full gear harder than a 34 which can significantly delay shifting to the big ring. 



> I still love my 39/53 for flatlanding, but the 53 is a joke really. Just keeps me wearing the bigger cogs on my cassette. ;O


You can pair a 39 ring with a smaller big ring like a 50.



> I am going for a 27/44 or 30/44 double on the next adventure steed having tube cobbled as we speak..


With 11 cogs in back and no 13 first position offerings 46-36 x 12-25 or 11-23 might be interesting.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Why are we even having this conversation? According to SRAM's marketing we will all be running 1x next year because everything else is obsolete.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

deviousalex said:


> Why are we even having this conversation? According to SRAM's marketing we will all be running 1x next year because everything else is obsolete.


39 x 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 13 cogs might be OK, although it could be a few decades before we get two more cogs.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> 39 x 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 13 cogs might be OK, although it could be a few decades before we get two more cogs.


My comment was sarcasm btw


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Been on 53-39 for a while , until two years ago 12-25 cassette, but with the 11-28 combination has plenty of flexibility. No issues, perfect solution for me.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> 39 x 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 13 cogs might be OK, although it could be a few decades before we get two more cogs.


 I would not make it up the first hill on my usual 20 mile loop with a 39/25. I would have to just stay home. There is not a single rider in the county riding a 25 around here. However some of the young riders could certainly get over a simple 6 to 15% (cat4) climb in a 25. However at 67y/o I cannot. Well maybe if I zig zagged traffic willing. In this area most people gear for Cat 2 climbs. For me that is 34/30.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

deviousalex said:


> Why are we even having this conversation? According to SRAM's marketing we will all be running 1x next year because everything else is obsolete.


Nice sarcasm. You win at internet. 

Yeah... SRAM will make a few converts, and there's definitely some places where 1x11 makes a lot of sense, but most ppl probably won't switch over. 

Two chainrings just = a lot more range. Also the flexibility to run a tighter cassette, while having a high enough high and a low enough low gear. 

1x11 would be really awesome in... Florida, say.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Two chainrings just = a lot more range. Also the flexibility to run a tighter cassette, while having a high enough high and a low enough low gear.


Three rings (which SRAM won't sell you) have the same advantage, especially with smaller granny rings (through 24T is possible) than the stock 30T.

I chose a triple when I couldn't have one tooth jumps through the 19 cog, a low enough gear, and acceptable front shift frequency with double cranks. 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 entering the eight cog era - low like 42x28 for mountain rides west of Boulder, CO; 7-speed straight block for plains rides east; no need to change cogs depending on the direction. 40 pounds of middle aged spread, low power output, 50-39-30 x 13-26 10 cogs.



> 1x11 would be really awesome in... Florida, say.


It's all driven by the bean counters.

Replacing triple cranks with compact doubles cuts the number of bikes, cranksets, derailleurs, and sometimes shifters that must be made, stocked, and remaindered.

Replacing standard 5-arm 130 and 135mm cranks with 4-arm 110mm parts means the same crank arms can be used for all customers ((the 4-arms which are "stiffer" help separate the cranks from 5-arm compacts which have a flexibility perception problem).

Getting rid of the front derailleur and left shift mechanism will increase profits.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> 1x11 would be really awesome in... Florida, say.


I would have agreed, until I rode with some of my flatlander buddies from south NJ all around their dumbly ruler-flat south NJ roads. 

They have these false flats over there. The bastids. You think you're just hitting a wall from lack or carbs or something on flat road, but it's an optical illusion. You're going uphill ever so slightly... forever. And the "downhills" are so slight as to be no joy whatsoever.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SPlKE said:


> I would have agreed, until I rode with some of my flatlander buddies from south NJ all around their dumbly ruler-flat south NJ roads.
> 
> They have these false flats over there. The bastids. You think you're just hitting a wall from lack or carbs or something on flat road, but it's an optical illusion. You're going uphill ever so slightly... forever. And the "downhills" are so slight as to be no joy whatsoever.


So... you can't shift down enough with a 1x11 drivetrain to deal with false flats? :skep:


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> So... you can't shift down enough with a 1x11 drivetrain to deal with false flats? :skep:


What? You don't think I'm riding a compact. Do you? FFS!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Three rings (which SRAM won't sell you) have the same advantage, especially with smaller granny rings (through 24T is possible) than the stock 30T.
> 
> I chose a triple when I couldn't have one tooth jumps through the 19 cog, a low enough gear, and acceptable front shift frequency with double cranks. 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 entering the eight cog era - low like 42x28 for mountain rides west of Boulder, CO; 7-speed straight block for plains rides east; no need to change cogs depending on the direction. 40 pounds of middle aged spread, low power output, 50-39-30 x 13-26 10 cogs.


All true... triples are pretty great. I personally can't run one though, due to my need for a very low Q-factor. I find I just pedal way better that way. But not everyone is sensitive to Q-factor, or in fact may actually prefer/do better with a wider Q. 

Triples have minor disadvantages in terms of weight, aero, and complexity, but that's more than made up for in terms of the plethora of gears you get to choose from, while getting a very wide range and small jumps. 

Nor have compact doubles and 11-spd drivetrains fully matched those advantages/made triples 'obsolete' (you get similar range to a triple only by having bigger jumps/running a really big cassette). It's a marketing overstatement made by those who just don't want to make or carry triples for road anymore. 

If we're to be honest, the real enemy of triples is the 'judgement factor', i.e. ppl letting others/poseurs choose their components for them. Which you should never do. And is yet more marketing, really.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SPlKE said:


> What? You don't think I'm riding a compact. Do you? FFS!


Yeah... one of us is completely misunderstanding the other. 

I have no idea what you're saying anymore.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> Yeah... one of us is completely misunderstanding the other.
> 
> I have no idea what you're saying anymore.


Same here.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SPlKE said:


> Same here.


Then we're all good, 'cuz I'm movin' on.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> 1x11 would be really awesome in... Florida, say.


Even in Florida I don't really see the point. I've never had a chain pop off my rings randomly, only when shifting. And I've ridden on some pretty crappy pavement and even singletrack on 23mm tires. I guess you have a slightly better chainline, but that's a moot point. Unless there is significant cost savings (which I doubt there will be) and you never ever plan on leaving Florida with your bike sure.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

I have a 50/34 with 11 speed: 11-32. 

All I know is between the flats, semi-flats, and the climbs I NEED to use both chainrings and all the cogs except the 11. But, that's just me.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

This thread has gone on long enough. Therefore, I will settle it with a heavy dose of reality.

I run a 55/55t chainring up front (two 55s in case one shatters under power) and an 11-11t cassette in the rear. Having 11 speeds that are all the same just gives me something to fiddle with as I deal out massive amounts of power and crush the hopes and dreams of my opponents upon my sleek and chiseled thighs.

Anyone who runs something less than this is clearly a Twatwaffle, undeserving of throwing their puny, atrophied leg over the top tube of a bicycle. They should stick to pursuits more to their skillset, perhaps in the field of baking or tampon string weaving.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Guod said:


> This thread has gone on long enough. Therefore, I will settle it with a heavy dose of reality.
> 
> I run a 55/55t chainring up front (two 55s in case one shatters under power) and an 11-11t cassette in the rear. Having 11 speeds that are all the same just gives me something to fiddle with as I deal out massive amounts of power and crush the hopes and dreams of my opponents upon my sleek and chiseled thighs.
> 
> Anyone who runs something less than this is clearly a Twatwaffle, undeserving of throwing their puny, atrophied leg over the top tube of a bicycle. They should stick to pursuits more to their skillset, perhaps in the field of baking or tampon string weaving.


Jeez man. Even Jens Voight uses an 11-12t. The 12t being for his recovery rides.

https://twitter.com/JensVoigtFacts/status/486139603573678080


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Guod said:


> This thread has gone on long enough. Therefore, I will settle it with a heavy dose of reality.
> 
> I run a 55/55t chainring up front (two 55s in case one shatters under power) and an 11-11t cassette in the rear. Having 11 speeds that are all the same just gives me something to fiddle with as I deal out massive amounts of power and crush the hopes and dreams of my opponents upon my sleek and chiseled thighs.
> 
> Anyone who runs something less than this is clearly a Twatwaffle, undeserving of throwing their puny, atrophied leg over the top tube of a bicycle. They should stick to pursuits more to their skillset, perhaps in the field of baking or tampon string weaving.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Guod said:


> This thread has gone on long enough. Therefore, I will settle it with a heavy dose of reality.
> 
> I run a 55/55t chainring up front (two 55s in case one shatters under power) and an 11-11t cassette in the rear. Having 11 speeds that are all the same just gives me something to fiddle with as I deal out massive amounts of power and crush the hopes and dreams of my opponents upon my sleek and chiseled thighs.
> 
> Anyone who runs something less than this is clearly a Twatwaffle, undeserving of throwing their puny, atrophied leg over the top tube of a bicycle. They should stick to pursuits more to their skillset, perhaps in the field of baking or tampon string weaving.


What, no fixie? Wuss.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> What, no fixie? Wuss.


"Fixie" is a term associated with hipster douches. But, if you're referring to a fixed gear bicycle such as a track bike, I do enjoy such a machine at times.

I'll occasionally go for a run on the velodrome to break the world hour record on my half hour lunch break.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Even in Florida I don't really see the point. I've never had a chain pop off my rings randomly, only when shifting. And I've ridden on some pretty crappy pavement and even singletrack on 23mm tires. *I guess you have a slightly better chainline*, but that's a moot point. Unless there is significant cost savings (which I doubt there will be) and you never ever plan on leaving Florida with your bike sure.


Having to shift across the entire range of cogs in back, the chain line couldn't possibly line up on all the cogs. With the uber narrow spacing on 11 speed gears, there isn't any room for misalignments or the chain will jump. One gear in front for all gears in back couldn't possibly work very well. You need that inner ring to keep the chain line straight in the climbing gears!


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> He pulled it out of thin air.
> 
> As for the original question about the 53x39, Shimano came out with a 39 small ring in the early 80's. Before that, the smallest ring on a "racing" crank was a 42, and before that, it was a 44.
> Compact cranks were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers. Most Professionals will use a 25 on most mountain stages unless the grades become crazy.
> ...


Of course, when Shimano came out with the 39t ring, Mr. Grumpies of the day said they "were invented because slow, out of shape people wanted to look like racers." 

Also fair to observe that high cadences have become increasingly popular among racers and tourons (especially, though not solely, as a result of the EPO era) so lower gear ratios.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Guod said:


> "Fixie" is a term associated with hipster douches. But, if you're referring to a fixed gear bicycle such as a track bike, I do enjoy such a machine at times.
> 
> I'll occasionally go for a run on the velodrome to break the world hour record on my half hour lunch break.


I'll have what he's smoking, sir.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I was just looking at Contador's bike on cycling news. The article says he uses a 39 or a 36 and a 11/30 or 11/32. He uses Dura Ace mechanical. One thing for sure is he is a very tough cyclist. Dislocating his shoulder and back out on the course today. Last year he raced 6 weeks after breaking his leg.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

BikeLayne said:


> I was just looking at Contador's bike on cycling news. The article says he uses a 39 or a 36 and a 11/30 or 11/32. He uses Dura Ace mechanical.


Yup. 









So, Contador uses gears as low as 36x32 on mountain stages. How dumb does that then make the poseur squad look when they say things like, "If you need more than a 39x27 in back, you're riding a TOURING bike!!!".

:skep:  :lol:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its true.  We aren't racing over mountains day in and day out. Contador must have an awesome spin!  We mortals can handle anything in 39-27. Ask riders how often they use any gear lower than 39-27. I never see riders with the chain all the way over on the wheel. They're climbing in more like 39-20 or 17! I make a point to look and that's what I see. Hardly ever someone spinning even their 27 cog. That tells me either riders are under-geared, or they need to learn how to spin up mountains. Climbing is so hard, most riders don't think about spinning. All the legs can handle are slower cadences, 60-70 rpm, so 39-27 is rather generous on these sub 18 pound bikes.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> Its true.  We aren't racing over mountains day in and day out. Contador must have an awesome spin!  We mortals can handle anything in 39-27. Ask riders how often they use any gear lower than 39-27. I never see riders with the chain all the way over on the wheel. They're climbing in more like 39-20 or 17! I make a point to look and that's what I see. Hardly ever someone spinning even their 27 cog. That tells me either riders are under-geared, or they need to learn how to spin up mountains. Climbing is so hard, most riders don't think about spinning. All the legs can handle are slower cadences, 60-70 rpm, so 39-27 is rather generous on these sub 18 pound bikes.


Apart from situations like Monte Zoncolan, based on power to weight ratios I suspect it's more about avoiding shifts to the small ring.

The Science of Sport Tour de France 2009: Power estimates reports pros 
averaging 5.5W/kg on major climbs prior to EPO; after it was 6.3+ with Lance managing nearly 7W/kg up l'Alpe d'Huez in 2004. 

Assuming things are back to the way they were, a 140 pound GC contender with a 63.5 kg metric mass climbs using at least 350W. 

Adding a 15 pound bike makes the total 70.3kg.

Assume .4 m^2 Sd and .760 Cd from Gibertini and Grassi's paper on aerodynamics, with the .004 Crr measured using good tires.

Using the 8.1% average grade from l'Alpe d'Huez and dumping the numbers into 
Analytic cycling's speed given power page produces 5.46 meters/second

With 23 mm tires on a 622 mm rim measuring 2.098 meters in circumference the rear wheel is turning 2.6 times per second or 156 RPM.

That's 92 RPM at the crank using 39x23.

Lance chose 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-22-23 cogs for that time trial.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Apart from situations like Monte Zoncolan, based on power to weight ratios I suspect it's more about avoiding shifts to the small ring.


Or medium mountain stages. A few categorized climbs then a 20+ miles of flat to the finish. It's not going to make GC difference generally speaking and the top GC guys aren't climbing at threshold anyways so they just want to spin and take it as easy as they can that day.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Apart from situations like Monte Zoncolan, based on power to weight ratios I suspect it's more about avoiding shifts to the small ring.
> 
> The Science of Sport Tour de France 2009: Power estimates reports pros
> averaging 5.5W/kg on major climbs prior to EPO; after it was 6.3+ with Lance managing nearly 7W/kg up l'Alpe d'Huez in 2004.
> ...


Thanks. Hard to argue the math. :yesnod: 

Even wimps like me can go up short climbs cranking 92 rpm using 39-23. I have 42-23 on the DeRosa. I admit a 27 or 28 would be nicer as at age 72, I don't put in the miles I used to. But I can still churn up hills in 42-23, no problem. The legs do slow down to 60-70 rpm, though, and cross anaerobic threshold sooner. I can climb faster in 42-28 on the commuter. The higher the rpm, the easier it is to maintain momentum, stolen by gravity between each pedal stroke.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Climbing is so hard, most riders don't think about spinning. All the legs can handle are slower cadences, 60-70 rpm, so 39-27 is rather generous on these sub 18 pound bikes.


I would disagree. At 60 rpm on a climb, I would feel bogged down, unless we're talking a short effort out of the saddle on the very steeps. My best climbing cadence is more like 75-80rpm, seated.

LeMond in his book says that anything under 75rpm isn't efficient. 

Significantly, pros in recent years seem to be climbing at higher cadences. Lance, whatever his other failings, kind of ignited the trend with his high-rpm climbing style.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Apart from situations like Monte Zoncolan, based on power to weight ratios I suspect it's more about avoiding shifts to the small ring.
> 
> The Science of Sport Tour de France 2009: Power estimates reports pros
> averaging 5.5W/kg on major climbs prior to EPO; after it was 6.3+ with Lance managing nearly 7W/kg up l'Alpe d'Huez in 2004.
> ...



Good analysis. Now imagine a typical recreational rider, with about half the sustained power-to-weight ratio of a top TdF or Giro GC contender. 

What's a good gear for them on the Alpe d'Huez? The Zoncolan?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> I would disagree. At 60 rpm on a climb, I would feel bogged down, unless we're talking a short effort out of the saddle on the very steeps. My best climbing cadence is more like 75-80rpm, seated.
> 
> LeMond in his book says that anything under 75rpm isn't efficient.
> 
> Significantly, pros in recent years seem to be climbing at higher cadences. Lance, whatever his other failings, kind of ignited the trend with his high-rpm climbing style.


Well, yes, 60 rpm is a little slow to stay on top of the gear. I meant what you are saying, 75-80 rpm. 

Must admit Alberto and y'all are making me re-asses my opinions on gearing. The problem is climbing is hard, so I like to choose the highest gear that will get me to the top in the least amount of time.  This would be true in long sustained climbs as well as short ones. Rider can wimp out in 34-32, but he'll slow to a crawl, and still suffer. 

Drew points out the pros climb in 39-23 at 92 rpm. We mortals might do it in 39-27 at 92 rpm, but we wouldn't be going nearly as fast. I guess we could say there's a bell curve in efficiency that tops out at 90 rpm, and becomes less efficient and loses power very far either direction, bogging down at 65 or 70 rpm and spinning out at 120 rpm. So each rider chooses the gears he can climb on at 90 rpm! That will vary according to the rider's fitness.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Well, yes, 60 rpm is a little slow to stay on top of the gear. I meant what you are saying, 75-80 rpm.
> 
> Must admit Alberto and y'all are making me re-asses my opinions on gearing. The problem is climbing is hard, so I like to choose the highest gear that will get me to the top in the least amount of time.  This would be true in long sustained climbs as well as short ones. Rider can wimp out in 34-32, but he'll slow to a crawl, and still suffer.
> 
> *Drew points out the pros climb in 39-23 at 92 rpm. We mortals might do it in 39-27 at 92 rpm,* but we wouldn't be going nearly as fast. I guess we could say there's a bell curve in efficiency that tops out at 90 rpm, and becomes less efficient and loses power very far either direction, bogging down at 65 or 70 rpm and spinning out at 120 rpm. So each rider chooses the gears he can climb on at 90 rpm! That will vary according to the rider's fitness.


If an EPO'd up, world-class, top pro GC contender is doing a climb in a 39x23 @ 92rpm, then you and I sure aren't doing it in a 39x27 @ 92rpm. 

Why? Because you and I do not have 85% of the power-to-weight ratio of an EPO'd up, world-class, top pro GC contender. For better or worse.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> If an EPO'd up, world-class, top pro GC contender is doing a climb in a 39x23 @ 92rpm, then you and I sure aren't doing it in a 39x27 @ 92rpm.
> 
> Why? Because you and I do not have 85% of the power-to-weight ratio of an EPO'd up, world-class, top pro GC contender. For better or worse.


I believe you underestimate the dedicated rider, who loves to suffer, knowing he will achieve fitness beyond his sweetest expectations. :yesnod:

I don't know about you, but its not that hard to maintain an 80 rpm rhythm up a mountain in 39x27, for most recreational cyclists with some miles and sweat in their legs. The easier gear compensates for the inferior power. They wouldn't be going as fast as the pros doing the same tempos in their 39x23s of course.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Good analysis. Now imagine a typical recreational rider, with about half the sustained power-to-weight ratio of a top TdF or Giro GC contender.
> 
> What's a good gear for them on the Alpe d'Huez? The Zoncolan?


Winner winner chicken dinner. Add to that the average recreational rider's weight. Say 2.7 w/kg and 90kg. BTW, gear you need is not based on the average grade, but the max grade you might see for a couple hundred meters.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I believe you underestimate the dedicated rider, who loves to suffer, knowing he will achieve fitness beyond his sweetest expectations. :yesnod:
> 
> I don't know about you, but its not that hard to maintain an 80 rpm rhythm up a mountain in 39x27, for most recreational cyclists with some miles and sweat in their legs. The easier gear compensates for the inferior power. They wouldn't be going as fast as the pros doing the same tempos in their 39x23s of course.


Well, first off, you seem to be moving the goalposts a bit. Before you were saying "39x27 @92rpm", and now you're saying "39x27 @80rpm". Hmm. 

But, okay, let's follow Drew's excellent lead and do the numbers, for both, and see.

39x27 @92rpm is 10.43 mph.
39x27 @80rpm is 9.07 mph. 

Now, let's make our recreational rider a medium-sized guy who's in pretty good shape... let's say, 5'10", 165 lbs. Not a big buff or obese guy, not an anorexic climber guy either. Just average, and in shape. 

Let's say his bike weighs 17 lbs, and he's carrying about 5 lbs of clothing, tools and water. Grand total, 187 lbs to carry up the mountain.

The grade will be Alpe D' Huez, which as was already mentioned, averages 8.1%. That's steep, but not terribly steep. The Alpe D' Huez is tough more because of its length and numerous steep switchbacks rather than its average steepness.

So... how much power for our Ricky the Recreational Cyclist to do that grade at those speeds?

Using online power calculators:

For 39x27 @92rpm, 10.43 mph: 380 watts are needed.

For 39x27 @80rpm, 9.07 mph: 325 watts are needed. 

I'm sure I can't put out 380 watts steady-state for a long climb, and I'm pretty sure you can't either, Fred. No matter how much you might want to think so. 

325 watts is more doable, but still a pretty tall challenge. The guy in our example would be putting out 4.35 watts/kg of body weight, steady-state. That's definitely quite a bit superior to your 'average' recreational rider. Put another way, on the flats, putting out 325 watts steady-state in the drops, he would be cruising along at 25.5 mph.

I don't see a lot of 'recreational cyclists' doing that without a draft. Do you? :skep:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> Winner winner chicken dinner. Add to that the average recreational rider's weight. Say 2.7 w/kg and 90kg.


Yup.



> BTW, gear you need is not based on the average grade, but the max grade you might see for a couple hundred meters.


Not sure 'bout that. You can muscle through a couple hundred meters of absurd steepness by getting out of the saddle and maxing out. If it's much longer than that, then sure, you'll then need to compensate on the gearing.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I just gear accordingly for the rolling hills to mountain terrain that I live in. I do a fair amount of zone II riding and it requires a gear low enough to keep the HR down. I do not want to fall so I keep my downhill speeds reasonable.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Looks like I scared off Fredrico with the power calcs.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Well, first off, you seem to be moving the goalposts a bit. Before you were saying "39x27 @92rpm", and now you're saying "39x27 @80rpm". Hmm.
> 
> But, okay, let's follow Drew's excellent lead and do the numbers, for both, and see.
> 
> ...


Appreciate the treatise and I guess you're right, us mortals don't have the watts to climb up D'Alp in a steady cadence of 80 rpm. There would surely be struggles around those switchbacks! But heck, the long runs aren't that steep, as you say, and one could recover from the switchbacks. 

I have lived on the banks of the Potomac River for years, and have never been unable to make it up any climb, some pretty brutal up the sides of Rock Creek Park, that couldn't be handled in 42-28, forget 39-27 or 34-30! 

How good are you at balancing on a bike whacking up a mountain at 5 mph? I think I'd fall off the bike. Maybe pedaling rapidly, a thankless task against gravity, could wring out 9 mph and stabilize the ride, but I always find it easier to push a bigger gear at such slow speeds. It's more stabile, for me anyway. :yesnod: 

I typically climb at 8-10 mph. On one of those switchbacks, I'll mash it out at slow enough cadences to call in the fast twitch quads, or just stand up for a few strokes, no problem in 39-27. If I tried to punch through the switchback in 34-32, I'd be going nowhere. Forget it. :nono:

I think your wattages are inflated.  It doesn't take 300 watts steady effort to do L'Alp. I bet riders do it at less wattages, more like in the 200 range. I'm basing that figure on your's claiming it takes 300+watts to cruise around 25 mph on a flat. I think a fit rider could handle L'Alp climb at around 250 watts in 39-27. It's only 6 miles, ain't it?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Appreciate the treatise and I guess you're right, us mortals don't have the watts to climb up D'Alp in a steady cadence of 80 rpm. There would surely be struggles around those switchbacks! But heck, the long runs aren't that steep, as you say, and one could recover from the switchbacks.
> 
> I have lived on the banks of the Potomac River for years, and have never been unable to make it up any climb, some pretty brutal up the sides of Rock Creek Park, that couldn't be handled in 42-28, forget 39-27 or 34-30!
> 
> ...


Well, go check for yourself, 'rico:

*Bike Calculator
*
Oh and btw, I double-checked the calculator using the actual math-math for that grade (i.e., 1 horsepower = raising 550 lbs vertically 1 foot in 1 second = 746 watts ) and, given the weight I cited... yep, the power calculator does seem to be correct, or extremely close anyhow.

Also note that the 25.5 mph figure I cited for riding on the flats with a 325 watt output was for riding in the _drops_, not on a TT bike while using tri-bars. I already stated that, but, just wanted to make sure you got it. 

Finally, Fred, it's _*not*_ that you can't do an 8.1% grade @ 80rpm... in fact, you're probably more efficient at that cadence on a long hill. Guys like LeMond say so anyway, and even masher Hinault got higher cadence on the climbs later on in his career. 

It's that you can't do that grade at that cadence in that gear (39x27) while being a 165 lb guy dragging 22 lbs of bike/clothes/water/tools UNLESS you can put out a good deal of power. 

That's just physics. 

It also kinda highlights how very lightweight guys (like 135 lbs) are in a different world on climbs. They don't have to put out redonkulous amounts of power to go uphill pretty fast.

It's kind of annoying, actually. I now feel like force-feeding them. :devil:


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

_"How good are you at balancing on a bike whacking up a mountain at 5 mph? I think I'd fall off the bike."


We have a Strava segment in this area with a grade of 6% to 24%. Varies as you go and I can go so slow during some of it that my Garmin turns off. I have auto pause set at 3mph. So I am pretty sure my speed gets below that. However I do not fall over . The segment is called "Quien Sabe" and is a category 2 climb. Just the locals mostly climb it however as there are only 92 names on the list. _


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> How good are you at balancing on a bike whacking up a mountain at 5 mph?


Good. It's easier than balancing at 0 MPH stopped for a traffic light which I give up on after 30 seconds.



> I think your wattages are inflated.  It doesn't take 300 watts steady effort to do L'Alp.


It depends on cadence. 



> I bet riders do it at less wattages, more like in the 200 range. I'm basing that figure on your's claiming it takes 300+watts to cruise around 25 mph on a flat. I think a fit rider could handle L'Alp climb at around 250 watts in 39-27. It's only 6 miles, ain't it?


I've used bigger gears on steeper climbs, although the resulting low cadences aren't ideal for fatigue and power output.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Oh and btw, I double-checked the calculator using the actual math-math for that grade (i.e., 1 horsepower = raising 550 lbs vertically 1 foot in 1 second = 746 watts ) and, given the weight I cited... yep, the power calculator does seem to be correct, or extremely close anyhow.


Metric makes the math easier.

Force of gravity in Newtons = mass in kg * 9.8 meters/second ^ 2
1 Joule = 1 newton force * 1 meter distance, or 1 kg meter ^ 2 / second ^ 2
1 Watt = 1 joule / second or 1 kg meter ^ 2 / second ^ 3

or 

Watts = mass in kg * 9.8 / vertical speed in meters per second

where vertical speed = grade * forward speed

At climbing speeds about 10% goes into aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance so you can multiply by 1.1 for a back-of-the-envelope power estimate.



> It's kind of annoying, actually. I now feel like force-feeding them. :devil:


Genetics give and take - flat land is about power to drag.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Good. It's easier than balancing at 0 MPH stopped for a traffic light which I give up on after 30 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I guess I should try out a 50-34 scheme and report back.  The legs get conditioned to put out when called upon. Around here in the short, steep climbs out of the river, anything can be handled in 42-28, and 42-23 is painful but doable. Rider always recovers at the top.

You guys are bragging about sprinting up hills in the big ring, even if you have to cross chain all the way over to the 28 . :nono: I've been watching the pros in Tour de Californie. They were all going up Mt. Baldy in the small ring and middle cogs in back. They were cranking 80 rpm, just fast enough to stay on top of the gear. None were wimping out in their 28 or heaven forbid, 30. :shocked:

You guys are also proving your points with math. The math is only as good as the data entered. I go by personal experience and that of other riders over 35 years, and am just trying to tell it like it is. :yesnod: 

Anyway, this whole argument gets a bit of a so what, because the gear inches of an 11-27/50-34 are across the same range as 53-39/13-28.  I like to run on larger cogs. They hold up better. :yesnod:


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Well, I guess I should try out a 50-34 scheme and report back.  The legs get conditioned to put out when called upon. Around here in the short, steep climbs out of the river, anything can be handled in 42-28, and 42-23 is painful but doable. Rider always recovers at the top.
> 
> You guys are bragging about sprinting up hills in the big ring, even if you have to cross chain all the way over to the 28 . :nono: I've been watching the pros in Tour de Californie. They were all going up Mt. Baldy in the small ring and middle cogs in back. They were cranking 80 rpm, just fast enough to stay on top of the gear. None were wimping out in their 28 or heaven forbid, 30. :shocked:
> 
> ...


Well, congrats on being a hard old man then! Me as a young gun I'm going to be happy with my 36/28 and use it all the time when going uphill.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Looks like I scared off Fredrico with the power calcs.


Fat chance.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BikeLayne said:


> _"How good are you at balancing on a bike whacking up a mountain at 5 mph? I think I'd fall off the bike."
> 
> 
> We have a Strava segment in this area with a grade of 6% to 24%. Varies as you go and I can go so slow during some of it that my Garmin turns off. I have auto pause set at 3mph. So I am pretty sure my speed gets below that. However I do not fall over . The segment is called "Quien Sabe" and is a category 2 climb. Just the locals mostly climb it however as there are only 92 names on the list. _


Well gosh, I guess I've never encountered such a challenging climb.  Generally, the old roads around here were graded to handle horses and carriages. If a horse can make it up one of these hills, a bicyclist can. :yesnod: I've been doing it in 42-28 or bigger since starting out in 1979. I always thought that was sensible gearing. Always has been for me.  

So I suspect easier gearing in market driven, as a few here have pointed out. It's great to talk about spinning high cadences, but we're talking 90-100 rpm. I can do that up roads graded for horses in 42-28. Never felt the need for a smaller gear.

I never fall below 6 mph on 99% of the climbs around NVA. There was one out in TX I had to zig zag up, and I guess your climb is like that. I don't think I could make it up that one in 34-30. :shocked: Gravity on those grades is a true beotch and I weigh 160#.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Well, congrats on being a hard old man then! Me as a young gun I'm going to be happy with my 36/28 and use it all the time when going uphill.


How fast are you going in that 36-28? Ever look down at the computer and notice?  What cadence can you maintain, 80, 90 rpm? Do you always climb in the 28, or do you use it only on the worst grades? 

Contador was cranking that cadence last year. He wasn't in his lowest gear, though. Viewers could see what gear he was in, probably something close to 42-25 in gear inches, the third or fourth cog out on the fw. When do you guys shift into the 34-30, on the really steep sections? But you upshift when the grade levels off, right? What gears do you end up using on the moderate grades, like in the Rockies?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> How fast are you going in that 36-28? Ever look down at the computer and notice?  What cadence can you maintain, 80, 90 rpm? Do you always climb in the 28, or do you use it only on the worst grades?


Well that would depend on the climb, how I'm feeling, whether I'm going hard, whether I'm sitting or standing, and the length of the climb.

Within 100 ft of my apartment there are 3 12-15% hills that I sometimes have to go over and simultaneously try to warm up on. Hell, there's a nice city block that's 41% if you really want to have a crack at it. Having a 28 for the easy days is nice. Nearly everyone around here who doesn't race rides a compact with a 28 on the back.

The fastest guy on my team keeps a 32 in the back on his training wheels.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> Well, congrats on being a hard old man then! Me as a young gun I'm going to be happy with my 36/28 and use it all the time when going uphill.


much easier being a hard man talking sh!t on the internet


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Well, I guess I should try out a 50-34 scheme and report back.  The legs get conditioned to put out when called upon. Around here in the short, steep climbs out of the river, anything can be handled in 42-28, and 42-23 is painful but doable. Rider always recovers at the top.


Fred, I think we once had a debate about how tough your usual local climbs were, and from what I remember checking them out on some biking site that had the elevations, they were reasonably steep but quite short. 

As we both know, riders can put out more power than they usually can if its just for a very short time. Fred, your local climbs may seem challenging to you, but are nothing like the Alpe D'Huez, which by comparison goes on forever. 

Oh, and that Mt. Wilson climb you always like to bring up in response to that? It's very long, but nowhere near as steep as the ADH on average (5% vs 8.1%).

Overall, you've faced long, and you've faced steep, but you haven't faced long AND steep in combination, from anything you've told me. You should go out and experience long AND steep, and then tell us what you think then. IME, it's an eye-opener.




> You guys are bragging about sprinting up hills in the big ring, even if you have to cross chain all the way over to the 28 . :nono: I've been watching the pros in Tour de Californie. They were all going up Mt. Baldy in the small ring and middle cogs in back. They were cranking 80 rpm, just fast enough to stay on top of the gear. None were wimping out in their 28 or heaven forbid, 30. :shocked:


Do you honestly think the typical recreational rider has the same power-to-weight ratio as a pro riding the Tour de California?





> You guys are also proving your points with math. The math is only as good as the data entered. I go by personal experience and that of other riders over 35 years, and am just trying to tell it like it is. :yesnod:


Math works, Fred. And especially in the case of climbs, there's really not much in the way of 'squishy' inputs that can fark things up. If you know the weight, know the average/typical grade, and know the speed – all of which are pretty easy to measure accurately – you then know how much power on average the climbing part of the equation takes, because it's defined/isn't subjective. 1 horsepower = 746 watts = the power it takes to raise 550.0 lbs one foot in one second. 

That's a _definition_, it isn't opinion. You can then do your inputs and work the problem from there. 

The part of it that's at all 'squishy' is in this case how much power it takes to overcome the air resistance and friction at the speeds listed. But that's less than 50 watts of the 300+ watts you'd need on the climb at the speeds/weight/grade we're talking about, so you could be slightly off there and not really mess up anything significantly. 




> Anyway, this whole argument gets a bit of a so what, because the gear inches of an 11-27/50-34 are across the same range as 53-39/13-28.  I like to run on larger cogs. They hold up better. :yesnod:


34/27 is roughly equivalent to a 39/31, not a 39/28. 

The overall point is, ppl who do not have pro-like power-to-weight ratios (which is to say, most ppl) who are riding up grades that are both steep AND long, and who want to do so at an efficient climbing cadence will probably need some fairly low gears in order to do so. 

And they shouldn't feel bad about getting 'em... 'right tool for the right job', n' all that. Whatever makes you climb fastest/bestest.







.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I did the following route the same day as Levi. I am sure Levi would not have had the KOM's had the climbing beasts on this board shown up.  I would have worn my cleats out had I done it with a 39/25 combo.

https://www.strava.com/activities/288077726


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> I am sure Levi would not have had the KOM's had the climbing beasts on this board shown up.


Levi would not have those KOMs if he didn't have 10 years worth of stuff-that-belongs-in-the-other-forum in his legs.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Well gosh, I guess I've never encountered such a challenging climb.  Generally, the old roads around here were graded to handle horses and carriages. If a horse can make it up one of these hills, a bicyclist can. :yesnod: I've been doing it in 42-28 or bigger since starting out in 1979. I always thought that was sensible gearing. Always has been for me.
> 
> So I suspect easier gearing in market driven, as a few here have pointed out. It's great to talk about spinning high cadences, but we're talking 90-100 rpm. I can do that up roads graded for horses in 42-28. Never felt the need for a smaller gear.
> 
> I never fall below 6 mph on 99% of the climbs around NVA. There was one out in TX I had to zig zag up, and I guess your climb is like that. I don't think I could make it up that one in 34-30. :shocked: Gravity on those grades is a true beotch and I weigh 160#.


This particular road was probably used for horses and such I imagine before it was paved. There is nothing at all out there but a single large cattle ranch. It goes on for miles in every direction. I can barely climb it in a 34/30 but I am 67y/o. When I cannot make it up any longer then I will just not ride there. Everything has an end to it sooner or later. However for now I would like to improve my Strava time on the ride. 

The road is used for ranch business, a few cyclists and just people out for a drive. Coming down some of the switchbacks have poor viability so you have to watch out so you do not pile into somebody that stopped in the middle of the road to take pictures.

However it's just a category 2 climb. Roads tougher then this are all over the place. This one just happens to be a few miles from the house so it's an option for a ride that starts at my driveway.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> Levi would not have those KOMs if he didn't have 10 years worth of stuff-that-belongs-in-the-other-forum in his legs.


 Around here the KOM's mostly belong to the guy (Ben Jacques Mayne) on Velo News that is selling his bike stuff to buy teeth that he lost in the Amgen Tour. I guess it appears when you get hurt riding on a Pro team your on your own. To me it sounds like being a Pro cyclist sucks. 

I hope he has a nice smile again very soon.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

BikeLayne said:


> Around here the KOM's mostly belong to the guy (Ben Jacques Mayne)


Since this is the internet I have no idea where 'here' is but I'm guessing NorCal somewhere. If you look at the Sonoma area most of the stuff (road and non-road) is owned by Levi. A lot of the time you see him beating out Peter Stetina on the same ride. Ten years of "everyone else was doing it too!" does wonders for your fitness, even when you're off the stuff.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> Since this is the internet I have no idea where 'here' is but I'm guessing NorCal somewhere. If you look at the Sonoma area most of the stuff (road and non-road) is owned by Levi. A lot of the time you see him beating out Peter Stetina on the same ride. Ten years of "everyone else was doing it too!" does wonders for your fitness, even when you're off the stuff.


San Benito County is where I am at (inland from Monterey Calif). However every area has it's super rider that snags most of the KOM's. Our super cyclist is in Velo News right now is why I mentioned it. I do remember Levi however and he has won a bunch of races in his career. A great racer for sure. I did not know that he still cycles however as I have not seen his name around for a while.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

den bakker said:


> much easier being a hard man talking sh!t on the internet


It's a proven fact everyone on the interwebs rides a 39/24 up 20% grades seated at 12mph with a 115bbm HR.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> much easier being a hard man talking sh!t on the internet


Now now…:nono: It's all the honest truth, shared by all who rode in the 80s. Ask Grumps.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Fred, I think we once had a debate about how tough your usual local climbs were, and from what I remember checking them out on some biking site that had the elevations, they were reasonably steep but quite short.
> 
> As we both know, riders can put out more power than they usually can if its just for a very short time. Fred, your local climbs may seem challenging to you, but are nothing like the Alpe D'Huez, which by comparison goes on forever.
> 
> ...


Well ok, you guys can declare victory. Call it progress. It may make riding easier but I'm not going to concede necessarily better for strength and overall fitness. :frown2:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Now now…:nono: It's all the honest truth, shared by all who rode in the 80s. Ask Grumps.


oh yeah I forgot. you've ridden mt wilson. twice.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

deviousalex said:


> Levi would not have those KOMs if he didn't have 10 years worth of stuff-that-belongs-in-the-other-forum in his legs.


The KOMs he set occurred on the ride. The 19mph average would be pedestrian for current pros. Sure he may have doped to compete with other dopers, but doping is hardly needed for a spirited recreational ride. He had genetics to get himself to the pro peloton, but may have needed a bit extra to win. It's safe to say, on pure genetics, he would drop anyone on this forum like a bad habit.

The point of posting the ride was to show some of the average watts that it takes a smaller, elite rider to get over some climbs.

Some here claim one needs to be neither elite, nor doping to push big gears over big hills...but then again the interwebs does add 3x the power to people's threshold.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> The KOMs he set occurred on the ride. The 19mph average would be pedestrian for current pros. Sure he may have doped to compete with other dopers, but doping is hardly needed for a spirited recreational ride. He had genetics to get himself to the pro peloton, but may have needed a bit extra to win. It's safe to say, on pure genetics, he would drop anyone on this forum like a bad habit.
> 
> The point of posting the ride was to show some of the average watts that it takes a smaller, elite rider to get over some climbs.
> 
> Some here claim one needs to be neither elite, nor doping to *push big gears over big hills*...but then again the interwebs does add 3x the power to people's threshold.


42-28 is not a "big gear."


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Well ok, you guys can declare victory. Call it progress. It may make riding easier but I'm not going to concede necessarily better for strength and overall fitness. :frown2:


I do wish you'd ride some actual long AND steep climbs for once, and then come back here and tell us what you think then. 

You're apparently good at short steep climbs, and that's impressive especially for an older rider, but it's just not the same thing as tackling a 13.8-kilometer, 8% avg grade climb (ADH). 

When its an _hour-long_ steep climb, you're probably not going to out-muscle it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> I do wish you'd ride some actual long AND steep climbs for once, and then come back here and tell us what you think then.
> 
> You're apparently good at short steep climbs, and that's impressive especially for an older rider, but it's just not the same thing as tackling a 13.8-kilometer, 8% avg grade climb (ADH).
> 
> When its an _hour-long_ steep climb, you're probably not going to out-muscle it.


Well, probably not now.  But back in the day I out muscled those steep climbs in the Hollywood Hills, and Mt. Wilson, last five miles pretty steep, all on a 22 pound bike with 53-44/13-23. I averaged 11 mph on the climb, 22 miles. Not bad, apparently from talking with y'all's 34-30. Can you get 11 mph average out of that? I doubt it. But I don't know. The one time I went to 39 on an aluminum bike, I felt under geared. The legs adapt to whatever loads are heaped upon them. Why wimp out? Train up to glory! 

The only reason I may be efficient at short climbs is because that's what's around here. I look at them as strength intervals. Climbing a mountain is something else, steady state, some anaerobic efforts, recovery while still working hard. It requires more prudent use of resources, drinking and eating, than the little hill sprints around DC.

How many feet in elevation is Alp D'huez? There's a 6 mile climb in Hollywood up to the observatory. That must be a couple of thousand feet. No problem on the same bike. I could still do it in 42-28.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Well, probably not now.  But back in the day I out muscled those steep climbs in the Hollywood Hills, and Mt. Wilson, last five miles pretty steep, all on a 22 pound bike with 53-44/13-23. I averaged 11 mph on the climb, 22 miles. Not bad, apparently from talking with y'all's 34-30. Can you get 11 mph average out of that? I doubt it. But I don't know. The one time I went to 39 on an aluminum bike, I felt under geared. The legs adapt to whatever loads are heaped upon them. Why wimp out? Train up to glory!


Sigh. We've had this discussion. Looking it up, the avg grade on Mt. Wilson is... 4.1%, not 5% like I remembered. So, HALF as steep as ADH. 

And you rode it... twice? :skep:

You're near DC(?), so not all that far from the Appalachians, Fred. There's gotta be something long 'n tough there you can try out. But, you probably won't.

I'm outta here.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

It's 10% average grade for 13.7 km.

http://www.strava.com/segments/mt-wilson-"grind"-806068


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> It's 10% average grade for 13.7 km.
> 
> Strava Segment | Mt. Wilson "Grind"


Aha! That's the short route from Altadena. Much steeper grades!

I rode over from where I was staying in N. Hollywood to La Canada and took the long way up Route 2. There's a turn off at Red Box Gap onto Red Box Gap Road, winds its way past San Gabriel Peak, on up to the antenna farm! I did it again the next weekend, with a training effect. Those were the good old days in my 40s. Too late to be a contender, but I had fun pretending.  Riding a bike up above the clouds is awesome!


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> I rode over from where I was staying in N. Hollywood to La Canada and took the long way up Route 2. There's a turn off at Red Box Gap onto Red Box Gap Road, winds its way past San Gabriel Peak, on up to the antenna farm!


This is the route you are talking about:

Salisbury Ct, La Cañada Flintridge, CA 91011 to Mt Wilson, CA

18.6 miles = 98208 ft

4541 ft uphill

223 ft downhill

(4541 - 223) / 98208 = 4.4% average grade


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

BikeLayne said:


> I do remember Levi however and he has won a bunch of races in his career. A great racer for sure. I did not know that he still cycles however as I have not seen his name around for a while.


I don't mean to derail this thread as this conversation really belongs in teh other forum. Levi still races MTB in NorCal. He got torn apart on Strava by a 19 year old racer saying how he was setting a bad example because he cheated throughout most of his career now he is racing locally and beating amateurs who have worked really hard at this for $25 and a t-shirt.



Blue CheeseHead said:


> The KOMs he set occurred on the ride. The 19mph average would be pedestrian for current pros. Sure he may have doped to compete with other dopers, but doping is hardly needed for a spirited recreational ride. He had genetics to get himself to the pro peloton, but may have needed a bit extra to win. It's safe to say, on pure genetics, he would drop anyone on this forum like a bad habit.


https://www.strava.com/segments/3735574

He's being current pros when retired. Long term affects of that special orange juice in action.

Anyways thread derailment over.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Well, probably not now.  But back in the day I out muscled those steep climbs in the Hollywood Hills, and Mt. Wilson, last five miles pretty steep, all on a 22 pound bike with 53-44/13-23. I averaged 11 mph on the climb, 22 miles. Not bad, apparently from talking with y'all's 34-30. Can you get 11 mph average out of that? I doubt it. But I don't know.


an amazing fact is that just because the easiest gear is x/y does not mean one has to be in it at all times on all climbs. 
Griffith Observatory is 1135ft above sea level. the climb does not start at sea level.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Fred,

Mount Wilson is 18.3 miles not 22 miles.

https://www.strava.com/segments/1012036/

Climbing that at 11mph (as you stated) would take 1:39:00 minutes. If it took you 2 hours you were climbing at 9.1mph

The other route posted is a mountain bike/hiking trail route.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

arai_speed said:


> Fred,
> 
> Mount Wilson is 18.3 miles not 22 miles.
> 
> ...


I'm sure that correction will have a great impact. 
https://www.google.com/search?q=fredrico+site:roadbikereview.com+mt+wilson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

arai_speed said:


> Climbing that at 11mph (as you stated) would take 1:39:00 minutes. If it took you 2 hours you were climbing at 9.1mph


You just don't get it. Hard men like Fred here climb in their 42t small ring at 11 mph regardless of gradient, weight, etc. He's exploited a loop in the space, time, and gear ratio continuum that can not be explained by science. The math doesn't add up because you're looking at it using math from this dimension, not the dimensions that Fred travels through when he is climbing.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

I use a 130 BDC Shimano crank. 
Front is 50/39
Rear is 12/25
I'm 45 and rode those gear even when racing 35-40 Masters and was never really spun-out although I don't live in a very mountainous region. 39x25 allows me to climb everything, but I admit nowadays I could also spin a smaller development and go faster, more efficiently.

50x12... You can still lead-out but probably not sprint everything.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

den bakker said:


> I'm sure that correction will have a great impact.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=fredrico+site:roadbikereview.com+mt+wilson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


I have no doubt. It's impact will be greater than climbing Mnt Wilson, which is 22 miles long, all while using a 44-22 like Greg LeMond used back in his days.




deviousalex;4854422... said:


> The math doesn't add up because you're looking at it using math from this dimension, not the dimensions that Fred travels through when he is climbing.


Excellent point!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

arai_speed said:


> I have no doubt. It's impact will be greater than climbing Mnt Wilson, which is 22 miles long, all while using a 44-22 like Greg LeMond used back in his days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You guys are just jealous.  if you've never tried a 44-22, don't knock it. Of course I've never tried a 34-30, so I guess I shouldn't knock it, either!


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Maybe I'll go ride it one day with my 34-25 and see how long I'll be able to keep peddling before I run out of breath and have to stop.

I'll track my ride with this:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> You guys are just jealous.  if you've never tried a 44-22, don't knock it. Of course I've never tried a 34-30, so I guess I shouldn't knock it, either!


the real question is why you keep deliberately lying when told you are wrong on distances and grades. 
and before you go on another of your childish chest beatings. yes I've ridden mt wilson (like it's a standard of anything) in a harder gear than 44/22. That does not mean i would recommend it or choose it myself for other steeper climbs.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

arai_speed said:


> Fred,
> 
> Mount Wilson is 18.3 miles not 22 miles.
> 
> ...


Well ok, the math always wins!  It's been such a long time ago, I can't find my log. I rounded off the two hours, to make the point about "big gear" climbing, really wishing to add to Grumpy's comment about 44 inner rings being considered at one time about right when bikes weighed in the low 20s. This not to downgrade everyone, but to provide some perspective.

9.1 mph ain't bad, either for an 18 mile climb up above the smog. I can assure y'all that so can lots of other "recreational" riders. :thumbsup: That's the point. If I could do it after riding 5 years, at age 42, anybody could do it, just by pressing on the pedals. :yesnod:

Everybody feel better now?


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> If I could do it after riding 5 years, at age 42, anybody could do it, just by pressing on the pedals. :yesnod:
> 
> Everybody feel better now?


First, per Strava 335 out of 1123 people made it up Mt. Wilson faster than 2 hours, so less than 1/3 of the people that actually make it the full way do it in that time. 11 mph gets you in the top 10% of all riders that have uploaded to Strava. 

You are clearly too modest. It is not a climb that "anybody" can just do.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> First, per Strava 335 out of 1123 people made it up Mt. Wilson faster than 2 hours


http://www.digitalepo.com/


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> It is not a climb that "anybody" can just do.


No but it's a ride anyone on the interwebs can do at whatever speed and gear they wish to do it in.

I just did it this morning in a 53/23. Granted my speed was only 8mph. But I did the entire thing standing.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tlg said:


> No but it's a ride anyone on the interwebs can do at whatever speed and gear they wish to do it in.
> 
> I just did it this morning in a 53/23. Granted my speed was only 8mph. But I did the entire thing standing.


He's full of sh!t, folks!  I know he's lying, because there's no way rider's going to go very far standing up on 53-23. For one thing the grades are way too shallow to stand on that gear. For another, he'd be cross chained the whole time! :nono:

Wimps. :frown2:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> the real question is why you keep deliberately lying when told you are wrong on distances and grades.
> and before you go on another of your childish chest beatings. yes I've ridden mt wilson (like it's a standard of anything) in a harder gear than 44/22. That does not mean i would recommend it or choose it myself for other steeper climbs.


Ok, so you rode up this mountain in a harder gear? Yeah, right. What gear was that? Let's not be coy! 

I too would not recommend some fat, out of shape, middle aged guy try it these gears, only suggest that eventually, if he loses weight and gets reasonably fit, he could do it in 39-27. it is an awesome ride in any gears. :yesnod: 

This was my only mountain climbing experience, a real piece of cake compared to the legendary climbs on the Alps or Rockies, according to some of you guys. I will never have those to talk about. Too old now. Anyone here actually done Alp D'Huez? One of the higher Rockies? What gears did you use? I bet it wasn't 34-30 the whole way!


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> This was my only mountain climbing experience


Because it's impossible for you to get on a plane with your bike and go climb other hills?



> Anyone here actually done Alp D'Huez? One of the higher Rockies? What gears did you use? I bet it wasn't 34-30 the whole way!


I haven't done any of the climbs in France but I did some of the famous Giro ones, the Mortirolo, Stelvio (both sides), and the Gavvia. I had a 39/28 on and the Mortirolo was complete pain. 11% average with stints up to 20%. While that is "only" 3% steeper than Alpe d'Huez it makes a huge difference when climbing.
Strava Segment | Mortirolo

The Stelvio and Gavvia were both fine in that gearing. It's not just the length of the climb. it's riding style (for climbs of that length I prefer spinning). In NorCal there are climbs just as steep or steeper than that, they just aren't as long. But climbs of the same steepness of 4 miles up to 15 miles or beyond you don't use different gearing. You're already doing a threshold level effort at that point.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Ok, so you rode up this mountain in a harder gear? Yeah, right. What gear was that? Let's not be coy!
> 
> I too would not recommend some fat, out of shape, middle aged guy try it these gears, only suggest that eventually, if he loses weight and gets reasonably fit, he could do it in 39-27. it is an awesome ride in any gears. :yesnod:
> 
> This was my only mountain climbing experience, a real piece of cake compared to the legendary climbs on the Alps or Rockies, according to some of you guys. I will never have those to talk about. Too old now. Anyone here actually done Alp D'Huez? One of the higher Rockies? What gears did you use? I bet it wasn't 34-30 the whole way!


I've ridden mt wilson with a 42/21 combination. with a 39/27 and 34/27 as lowest gears. It does not matter since it's not that
yes I've ridden alpe d'huez. standard and compact. the first few km is about the limit where standard makes sense for me. 
of course I did not use the same gear all the way. why would I be so silly? (mt wilson has a downhill part ffs).


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

I just looked in my logs. It was total 65.5 miles from N. Hollywood home. Left at noon, one hour ride to the base of park, reached top a 3 PM. 2 hours of "constant climbing," 18 miles, average speed of 9 mph.

Ah, memories become sweeter over time!  

My log mentions wishing I had a 42 along Red Gap Road, and that the whole 2 hours slogging up the mountain was at a low cadence, like 70 rpm, with average speed dropping from 11 mph on the shallower grades to 6 mph at the top. :shocked: I noted being over geared, wishing I'd had a 42-26 by that point! :yesnod:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I noted being over geared, wishing I'd had a 42-26 by that point! :yesnod:


funny story. 34/22 is within 5% the same gear as 42/26. congratulations, you just advocated a compact would have been fine with the old cassette.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Because it's impossible for you to get on a plane with your bike and go climb other hills?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


39-28 would have been great on Mt. Wilson, especially at the top, but I doubt I would have spun any faster than 6 mph than the gear I was in, 44-22.

Kudos on your climbing achievements in Italy! :thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> Because it's impossible for you to get on a plane with your bike and go climb other hills?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


3% extra means it's almost 40% steeper and hence slower. so yes huge difference. and alpe d'huez has nothing even close to 20% which also makes a huge difference (in my opinion, alpe d'huez is about as boring a climb as one can imagine....)


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> funny story. 34/22 is within 5% the same gear as 42/26. congratulations, you just advocated a compact would have been fine with the old cassette.


Well yeah, but that climb was a twice in a lifetime adventure. The rest of the time, the regular gearing is fine. 

5% is a lot on a major climb! 

But you guys are right. I concede! :cryin: We're dealing with the same gear inches. Compact cranks just use smaller cogs and chain rings, which pleases the weight gods. :yesnod:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> 5% is a lot on a major climb!


no 
as has been pointed out to you over a decade now.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> no
> as has been pointed out to you over a decade now.


Huh?  About 5% making a difference on a climb? We're talking gear inches? Then we have to ask 5% of what?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Huh?  About 5% making a difference on a climb? We're talking gear inches? Then we have to ask 5% of what?


sorry thought it was the grade of wilson.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwYCdNm7f0k

GCN settles it on the Mortirolo.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwYCdNm7f0k
> 
> GCN settles it on the Mortirolo.


So he climbed faster in a compact crank, eh? On a 10% grade? I guess so! :thumbsup: Rider was jamming in his 39-25. :yesnod: Clearly over geared when you have a loss of form like that.

But the mountain grades are 90% 2,3,4% grades. He could do those in 39-25, no problem.

Point made, however. Spinning is much more efficient than jamming too big gears and losing form. He made it, though. And his breathing was about the same both ways.  I didn't get the difference in times. How much faster in the compact?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> But the mountain grades are 90% 2,3,4% grades. He could do those in 39-25, no problem.


does not help you much when you ride mountains that have hardly any grades of those values does it?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> But the mountain grades are 90% 2,3,4% grades. He could do those in 39-25, no problem.


Where the hell do you live where a 2% gradient is a "mountain"? All the climb around here average between 6-12%, and that's for the category 2 & 1 ones.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> Fredrico said:
> 
> 
> > But the mountain grades are 90% 2,3,4% grades. He could do those in 39-25, no problem./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> does not help you much when you ride mountains that have hardly any grades of those values does it?


You're right. For those 10-20% grades, put on that 34-30! :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> todays giro climbs. not sure how that becomes 90% either.
> 
> View attachment 306241


The Rockies are pretty shallow climbs, aren't they? 5%? Look, I'm no expert. I just know what I can do. I was told Mt. Wilson was single digit grades, and I came up with 2% being facetious.  I assess a grade by effort required to get up it. I guess STRAVA shows the percentages, but rider would be better off not worrying about that and just battle the mountain, doing whatever it takes. :yesnod: I mean, this ain't driving a car. This is manual.

I guess the Appalachians have some grades above 10%. I went up one in my car west of Luray, VA, recently. But it wasn't any more than a mile, so not comparable to the long climbs in the Rockies. I found it doesn't make much difference, training wise. Rider can train on these short hills around DC, and then go out to LA and make it up Mt. Wilson, 17 miles longer. It's all a matter of apportioning out energy stores, drinking and eating. :yesnod: Just like most any long, hard ride.

We do understand the difference between "powering" a big gear in a climb vs. jamming? This rider in the video could have saved a lot of energy in the larger gear by "powering" an even stroke. With his head bopping up and down, I'd say he'd lost it. His legs were in anaerobic. You can see him pushing on the pedals, upper body jerking up and down as if assisting the downstroke. Very bad form, wasted energy, which explains at least half his time deficit, which he conveniently forgets to mention, the whole point of the exercise!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Look, I'm no expert.


the cliff notes for those in a hurry.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> We do understand the difference between "powering" a big gear in a climb vs. jamming? This rider in the video could have saved a lot of energy in the larger gear by "powering" an even stroke. With his head bopping up and down, I'd say he'd lost it. His legs were in anaerobic.


You do realize he's an ex-pro and still more fit than most recreational cyclists right? If he can't keep a smooth pedal stroke in that gear, I doubt most people can. I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling at this point because you've gone up one HC rated climb in your life and suddenly you're giving ex-pros tips on how to climb hills.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> DigitalEPO.com


Hey son, I don't need that stuff, figures figures figures.  Welcome to the digital age. 

I'm hopelessly analog. When the going gets rough, I forge ahead, steely gaze, working a perfect rhythm, all forces in balance. The rewards then kick in, making it easy to modify effort.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> You do realize he's an ex-pro and still more fit than most recreational cyclists right? If he can't keep a smooth pedal stroke in that gear, I doubt most people can. I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling at this point because you've gone up one HC rated climb in your life and suddenly you're giving ex-pros tips on how to climb hills.


that's a strava hc, would be no where near that in a GC. 
but yes it become completely comedy gold when climbing advice was given to a former pro.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> When the going gets rough, I forge ahead, steely gaze,


Plus ... add Lance Armstrong's eyes narrowed to a slit, and mouth frothing foam with a taste of blood. For the win.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwYCdNm7f0k
> 
> GCN settles it on the Mortirolo.


15 kg lighter and twice the red blood cells. Just saying


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

den bakker said:


> 15 kg lighter and twice the red blood cells. Just saying


Rumor has it Pantani climbed it in a 39/22, but yeah...extra red blood and all that.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

anyone else starting to see why I bailed on this thread?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> anyone else starting to see why I bailed on this thread?












You should be more like this guy.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

SystemShock said:


> anyone else starting to see why I bailed on this thread?


I've been reading and laughing.. sorry Fredrico.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

den bakker said:


> the cliff notes for those in a hurry.


Thanks i skipped it anyway


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> I've been reading and laughing.. sorry Fredrico.


Yeah man, ya can't let this sh!t get too serious.  

Discussions about gearing and climbing mountains really gets posters competitive about numbers. Then it becomes a pissing contest, especially when someone like me has the nerve to use a personal experience as an example, and then worse if it looks good.  

Hey, don't get me wrong! I just found out I was in the top third of LA climbers up that mountain 30 years ago, just happened to have a great 22 pound bike with tubulars! Fitted with 44/53 and 13-22 in back, and surprise! It worked out quite well! :thumbsup:

Why is everybody so uptight about their accomplishments around here? Come on boys, brag a little! That's what the sport is all about. I think a 53/44 would be awesome on a 14.5 pound bike! Rider could just charge up those hills! Why is everybody so negative. "Oh no! :nono: Better put on the compact! :shocked: Big mountain! Ohhhh…!!! The greats of the past sure would be laughing! :lol:

So it comes out here that Pantani rode mountains in 44-22. So did Eddy Merckx. So did yours truly! I was a 41 year old ex chain smoker, turning the same gears as Marco and Eddy, so I know what its like. You guys don't and will probably never have the pleasure. :yesnod:

[Wimps.]


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah man, ya can't let this sh!t get too serious.
> 
> Discussions about gearing and climbing mountains really gets posters competitive about numbers. Then it becomes a pissing contest, especially when someone like me has the nerve to use a personal experience as an example, and then worse if it looks good.
> 
> ...


just curious. do you think the nonsense get any better with random emoticons thrown around?


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah man, ya can't let this sh!t get too serious.
> 
> Discussions about gearing and climbing mountains really gets posters competitive about numbers. Then it becomes a pissing contest, especially when someone like me has the nerve to use a personal experience as an example, and then worse if it looks good.
> 
> ...


if it's not on strava it didn't happen.. sorry old timer ... my days up the hills around Santa Monica and such are 20+ years ago too..no strava = didn't happen.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> if it's not on strava it didn't happen.. sorry old timer ... my days up the hills around Santa Monica and such are 20+ years ago too..no strava = didn't happen.


Screw Strava.  I ride for pleasure, not statistics. :frown2: Never was any damn good at time trialing. Hated it.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Is Fred lost or is the Politics Only section shut down?


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Just take the Amtrak over to D.C. and have a ride with Fred to find out how fast he is now. No ride, no news.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Screw Strava.  I ride for pleasure, not statistics. :frown2: Never was any damn good at time trialing. Hated it.


says the guy who keeps logs of his rides 20+ years ago... oh ok. :idea:


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> So it comes out here that Pantani rode mountains in 44-22. So did Eddy Merckx. So did yours truly! I was a 41 year old ex chain smoker, turning the same gears as Marco and Eddy, so I know what its like. You guys don't and will probably never have the pleasure. :yesnod:
> 
> [Wimps.]


If you're ever in NorCal, hit me up. We can race up some mountains. And don't pull the age card as an excuse, I know plenty of 45+ guys that can kick my a$$ 

Also, seemingly you're not very good at reading. Pantani did a 39/22 not 44. It would be worth the going back to Italy to laugh at you attempting to climb that in your hard man gearing.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Contador counters rivals' attack after his untimely puncture - VeloNews.com



> He quickly swapped out rear wheels with Ivan Basso, *who also had 34×30 gearing, and Tinkoff-Saxo took up the chase. *


*

Contador going up the Mortirolo with a compact and a 30? Frederico should be leading the Giro!*


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

deviousalex said:


> Contador going up the Mortirolo with a compact and a 30? Frederico should be leading the Giro!


LOL. :lol:

That's almost up there with the RBR guy who used to talk about the '70kph on the flats' pacelines he allegedly routinely rode in on the weekends, and the RBR guy who said, apparently straight-faced, that he could've done the final TT in the '89 Tour de France as fast or faster than LeMond did, because it was slightly downhill and therefore "easy". 

My response to the first guy was, "So... what team will you be riding with for the Tour?" Never got a good answer to that question. 

My response to the second guy was, "And then you woke up."
He got really mad at that one. 

Maybe it's just best to put all of these ppl in the same group as the 600 lb bench pressers and 'street-fighting gods who date supermodels' that you can find pretty much anywhere *on the internet*... and ignore them.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Maybe it's just best to put all of these ppl in the same group as the 600 lb bench pressers and 'street-fighting gods who date supermodels' that you can find pretty much anywhere *on the internet*... and ignore them.


What I have put down here is the unvarnished unadulterated TRUTH. My figures were a little hazy on Mt. Wilson as memories get sweeter with age. Nonetheless, Strava approves! :yesnod: Yes, me, middle aged ex chain smoker, up there in the top third! 

Some people just have problems dealing with the truth. :frown2:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> Just take the Amtrak over to D.C. and have a ride with Fred to find out how fast he is now. No ride, no news.


Ok, fine. We'll race up the sides of Rock Creek Park. I know a nice road that'll get Lance Armstrong's heart rate up. We WILL suffer. If you are in 34-30, you will get dropped by those using 39-22, well, ok, 39-28.

Oh, ok, devious, corrected on Pantani using 39-22, not a 44. Then again, he was racing day after day. I was well rested and fresh before both "attempts" at the mountain.

It would be nice to put on that 44 ring, just for old time's sake. But to be perfectly honest, it would be very painful. You'd have to give me some time to "train up."


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> says the guy who keeps logs of his rides 20+ years ago... oh ok. :idea:


well at one time I was hot sh!t. So I tracked my exploits. Look, it took me a half hour to dig out that log. I haven't looked at it since back then. At about age 60, I quit keeping logs. When I started just going out for fun, quantifying eadh ride seemed pointless. Veterans don't have to prove nothin.'


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> Screw Strava.  I ride for pleasure, not statistics. :frown2:


Gotta love a little irony from the guy dripping with statistics. 
How about you scan and post some pages from your 20yro ride journal?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Oh, ok, devious, corrected on Pantani using 39-22, not a 44. Then again, he was racing day after day. I was well rested and fresh before both "attempts" at the mountain.


psst. not the same mountain silly.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Ok, fine. We'll race up the sides of Rock Creek Park. I know a nice road that'll get Lance Armstrong's heart rate up. We WILL suffer. If you are in 34-30, you will get dropped by those using 39-22, well, ok, 39-28.


Rock Creek Park. Seriously?
You could have at least said Mt. Weather or maybe Sugarloaf. 

And your "nice road that'll get Lance Armstrong's heart rate up" is what Tuckerman or Glen Mill. 

You must have been the guy who dropped Joe Dombrowski on the Haymarket ride last Wednesday. In fairness to him, he did just get 4th in the Amgen a couple days earlier. So, he may have been too fatigued to keep up with you. 

The Dementia is strong in this one.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

crit_boy said:


> Rock Creek Park. Seriously?
> You could have at least said Mt. Weather or maybe Sugarloaf.
> 
> And your "nice road that'll get Lance Armstrong's heart rate up" is what Tuckerman or Glen Mill.
> ...


I suggest getting help if you are suffering from the onset of dementia. :yesnod: Who's Joe Dombrowski?

Sugarloaf mtn. isn't as bad as some of the roads out of Rock Creek Park. We used to do intervals up these roads. They're short but so what? Them muscles will get stronger! Then, when you go out to LA and take on Mt. Wilson, the legs are ready for a longer effort. Never been over on Mt. Weather. Is it longer than 1.6 miles? Sugarloaf is 1.6 miles.

Remember the Tuesday night hammerfests out of the Wheaton rec. center? The hard guys and gals! used to take the road up the hill to the Mormon temple. it was a bear. I used to skip it most of the time. It hurt so bad.

Tuckerman Lane? Some steep parts. Broad branch Rd. used to be a PITA, also. Used to come back from crit racing over in VA across Chain Bridge. Arizona Ave-Nebraska Ave. was pretty painful.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> Remember the Tuesday night hammerfests out of the Wheaton rec. center? The hard guys and gals! used to take the road up the hill to the Mormon temple. it was a bear. I used to skip it most of the time. It hurt so bad.


Do tell us more. What year was it? Are their kids doing it now?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> Do tell us more. What year was it? Are their kids doing it now?


Stonybrook Drive. That's the climb up to the Mormon Temple. A real beotch. You guys would be in your 34-30s for sure.

The years were '84-89. If any of the hammerfest participants are still alive, I haven't kept up with any of them. It was pretty much a public ride. Anyone would show up, usually 30-50 riders. A bigger group than that would have required motorcycle escort. We terrorized Beach Drive, but most citizens were home by then eating dinner.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Stonybrook Drive. That's the climb up to the Mormon Temple. A real beotch. You guys would be in your 34-30s for sure.
> 
> The years were '84-89. If any of the hammerfest participants are still alive, I haven't kept up with any of them. It was pretty much a public ride. Anyone would show up, usually 30-50 riders. A bigger group than that would have required motorcycle escort. We terrorized Beach Drive, but most citizens were home by then eating dinner.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

arai_speed said:


>


Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have taken the trouble to post a picture. :shocked:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I suggest getting help if you are suffering from the onset of dementia. :yesnod: Who's Joe Dombrowski?
> 
> Sugarloaf mtn. isn't as bad as some of the roads out of Rock Creek Park. We used to do intervals up these roads. They're short but so what? Them muscles will get stronger! Then, when you go out to LA and take on Mt. Wilson, the legs are ready for a longer effort. Never been over on Mt. Weather. Is it longer than 1.6 miles? Sugarloaf is 1.6 miles.
> 
> ...


<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/m2kq5"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/m2kq5.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a>


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> psst. not the same mountain silly.


Oh, of course not. Pantani would a have reached Red Gap in 53-17, then switched to the 39 for the last 5 miles.

A 44 inner ring was perfect for this climb, if badly over geared on the legendary mountain climbs in the Giro and TDF.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> if badly over geared on the legendary mountain climbs in the Giro and TDF.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Oh, of course not. Pantani would a have reached Red Gap in 53-17, then switched to the 39 for the last 5 miles.
> 
> A 44 inner ring was perfect for this climb, if badly over geared on the legendary mountain climbs in the Giro and TDF.


With your "hazy" recollection and rounding errors both in time and distance it's hard to say what, if anything, you've stated can be taken as "unvarnished unadulterated TRUTH".

At this point all we know is that you climbed Mount Wilson, twice, using the gearing that was on your bike at that time.

How you convoluted that into comparing yourself to Greg Lemond is beyond me.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

arai_speed said:


> With your "hazy" recollection and rounding errors both in time and distance it's hard to say what, if anything, you've stated can be taken as "unvarnished unadulterated TRUTH".
> 
> At this point all we know is that you climbed Mount Wilson, twice, using the gearing that was on your bike at that time.
> 
> How you convoluted that into comparing yourself to Greg Lemond is beyond me.


Never liked the guy. He was a spoiled kid. :frown2:


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

You know Greg? When & where did your paths cross?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

duriel said:


> You know Greg? When & where did your paths cross?


Never met the guy. Lots of us kind of face palmed when Greg complained about some point of order or another, I don't remember what exactly. 

One time he got onto Bernard Hinault for not helping him, when it became clear he was the better rider and Hinault should have help him, but Hinault wanted another win, attacking on a mountain I think, and trying to drop LeMond, his own team mate. :frown2: 

Actually, LeMond was reported to be a nice guy, just insecure as a "patron" of the peleton. We wanted him to shut up and ride; talk with his legs, which he famously did in 1989, beating Fignon by 8 seconds in the final stage, an individual TT into Paris. :thumbsup:


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

arai_speed said:


> With your "hazy" recollection and rounding errors both in time and distance it's hard to say what, if anything, you've stated can be taken as "unvarnished unadulterated TRUTH".
> 
> At this point all we know is that you climbed Mount Wilson, twice, using the gearing that was on your bike at that time.
> 
> How you convoluted that into comparing yourself to Greg Lemond is beyond me.


it's how we feel about him in the PO too


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

spdntrxi said:


> it's how we feel about him in the PO too


He's a life member of P.O.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> it's how we feel about him in the PO too


Speak for yourself, spdntrxi! I have allies over in PO! We don't feel the need to stroke each other. Our mutual approval is implicit in our posts.

Look, I first exaggerated for dramatic effect, mistakenly remembering 22 miles instead of 18 miles, and the two hours climbing time. At 22 miles in two hours = 11 mph average. 

However, upon being called on the miles, I went and got out my log book from 1988. I clearly wrote 18 miles to the summit in two hours, 9 mph average speed, and I will stick by that. If I accurately recorded the information, and since I was not competing there would be no reason not to, it is the unexaggerated TRUTH.

Lotta negative vibes floating around here. :frown2:


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Lotta negative vibes floating around here. :frown2:


I wonder why?


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

it's just a good ribbing.. but I now have a better understanding of you in the PO.. explains a lot.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

This thread has 10,000 views now. 

Guess ya really _can't_ look away from a trainwreck. :frown2:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> This thread has 10,000 views now.
> 
> Guess ya really _can't_ look away from a trainwreck. :frown2:


Hey, we gotta entertain the masses, SS! The more views keeps that ad money coming in! :thumbsup:

What else can we argue about? Carbon vs. STEEL? Dorky styles in new helmets? The many tradeoffs of going to 11 speed gearing? The abuses of STRAVA!  

Bicycles were perfected by 1980. We can thank a small number of dedicated artists who hand crafted bikes out of steel tubing, in an intimate feedback loop with the best riders in the world. That was the golden age of road biking. All subsequent developments have been market driven, icing on the cake. Now that I'm finally retired, it's obvious in the longer view. 

I want a racing bike that I can go out to the middle of nowhere and have high certainty that the bike I'm riding will take me eagerly through the miles and get me home. I perceive those bikes are now hard to find on account mostly of weight weenie marketing. Think I'll start another thread.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Tell us the Mt Wilson story again!

That was cool!


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Or, one could go and actually ride a bike.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> ... I have allies over in PO!


Birds of a feather...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Anyone else have the strange desire to pistol-whip Fred with a drivetrain set to a 44-22 gear? While on Mt. Wilson? 



/just kidding, Freds. I think.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

The guys at GCN must be following this thread.

roadbikereview.com/reviews/face-off-compact-cranks-vs-traditional-chainrings-video


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

tlg said:


> The guys at GCN must be following this thread.
> 
> roadbikereview.com/reviews/face-off-compact-cranks-vs-traditional-chainrings-video


they still do?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Anyone else have the strange desire to pistol-whip Fred with a drivetrain set to a 44-22 gear? While on Mt. Wilson?
> 
> 
> 
> /just kidding, Freds. I think.


You better think so! I may have to come out there and kick your butt with my 44-22 gear combo. :yesnod: Sold the tubular wheels though, so it won't be as good. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> Or, one could go and actually ride a bike.


Hey, I rode my bike over to the "Italian Store" that just opened in my neighborhood on Memorial Day, mixed it up with the local hoi polloi outside the classiest NY style deli I've been to south of Mott St., Manhattan. We have arrived! Life is good. Since it could turn at any moment, might as well make the most of it. :yesnod:

My car sits in the driveway so long, I have to put a cover on it. Last time I drove it anywhere was over a week ago. I ride or walk everywhere, thanks to those years pedaling in 42-22, 44-22! Went with 42- 28 only on two tours loaded down with camping gear; yes, there were hills. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SPlKE said:


> Tell us the Mt Wilson story again!
> 
> That was cool!


Your turn, SPIKE. Inspire us with your accomplishments on the bike! Back me up, man. That's what we're about, right? :ihih:


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> Hey, I rode my bike over to the "Italian Store"


Do they all wear shirts like this one?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Your turn, SPIKE. Inspire us with your accomplishments on the bike! Back me up, man. That's what we're about, right? :ihih:


Well, I don't think I should shame these compact crank people any more than they already are in this thread. 

That said, I used to bike up in the Berkshires (mountains doncha know) quite a bit. We didn't have no "granny gears" or compact cranks. We pushed taller gears on climbs than these pampered pantywaist kids today could even use going downhill. And we LIKED it!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> Do they all wear shirts like this one?


Yes! How did you guess?  The guy who showed me the frozen ravioli and recommended "Nino's marinara sauce" was speaking with a European accent and wearing that shirt! You shoulda seen the sultry raven haired beauty at the check out counter. Campagnolo all the way!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Right! :yesnod:


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> The guy who showed me the frozen ravioli and recommended "Nino's marinara sauce" was speaking with a European accent and wearing that shirt!


$350 list price for the shirt.

http://www.southcoastplaza.com/store-directory/canali/


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> ... I ride or walk everywhere, thanks to those years pedaling in 42-22, 44-22! Went with 42- 28 only on two tours loaded down with camping gear; yes, there were hills. :yesnod:


Gears, who needs 'em? Grow some brass ones and get a fixie. Then try this.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Gears, who needs 'em? Grow some brass ones and get a fixie. Then try this.


_“It’s as if you are strapped to a rocket,” said the 31-year-old from Berne, Switzerland, about riding a fixed gear bike. “Everything I do on the bike is transferred directly to the road."_

Dig it! :thumbsup: What is his gear, 48-14? :shocked:


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> What is his gear, 48-14? :shocked:


Two years ago it was 47 / 17. Check it out.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

i told y'all! Looks like the same gear both videos, 47-17. Piece of cake for this guy. Just think of how easy 44-22 would have been! Notice his head wasn't bobbing up and down? :thumbsup: The key, right there.

Can't believe he'd let his rear wheel slide on the descent! That's nuts. He shoulda put a freewheel on the other side of the rear hub. But wait. Then he'd have to put a brake on the bike. :nono:


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

This guy is basically doing a 5.5% grade for 20 miles in a 47/17? Did I calculate that correctly? He is a monster.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Can't believe he'd let his rear wheel slide on the descent! That's nuts. He shoulda put a freewheel on the other side of the rear hub. But wait. Then he'd have to put a brake on the bike. :nono:


Yeah - the whole point is to do this very old school (with a lightweight carbon frame track frame). The graphic in the first article I linked previously shows his plan is 4 tires for the ride. It happens this coming Wednesday. The plan is to provide regular updates via the Redbull site.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> $350 list price for the shirt.
> 
> Canali ? South Coast Plaza


This guy's shirt must have been a knock off. :shocked:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

cnardone said:


> This guy is basically doing a 5.5% grade for 20 miles in a 47/17? Did I calculate that correctly? He is a monster.


Oh, it's tougher than that... there's a 6 km slightly downhill section in the middle that's throwing your numbers off some. It's more like 12km at 7% (on average), then the slightly downhill 'rest' section, then 16 more kilometers @ 7%.

So, he is a monster. But even with that, his typical cadence for it is probably about 50.


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

I am 5'10'' 200lbs and pretty slow. I have a section I ride regularly, that is 10% for .7 (point 7) miles. By the end I am in 34/32. After a year of riding, I am just now able to SOMETIMES keep my cadence at 50. Last fall I was in the upper 30s!!!!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Oh, it's tougher than that... there's a 6 km slightly downhill section in the middle that's throwing your numbers off some. It's more like 12km at 7% (on average), then the slightly downhill 'rest' section, then 16 more kilometers @ 7%.
> 
> So, he is a monster. But even with that, his typical cadence for it is probably about 50.


His cadence looked a little faster than 50 rpm, maybe 60? 

Did you notice how smooth his strokes are? A function of fixed gear for sure, but he's also saving lots of energy by not bouncing on the pedals. Hinault said that's the key to powering big gears as in TT or a chase or sprint, as it maximizes use of the slow twitch aerobic muscle fibers. They will get you to the top. Jamming will only burn you out.

You guys who have to downshift into 34-30 and slow down to 4 mph? When the going gets really rough, concentrate on good form, and you will prevail. The body soon finds an intensity level right below anaerobic threshold that it can handle. :yesnod:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Hay guyz. What's goin' on in dis fred?


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> This guy's shirt must have been a knock off. :shocked:


I actually want one of those shirts.

Do your patriotic duty, and ask that Italian guy where can I get a knock off Italian shirt.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

myhui said:


> I actually want one of those shirts.
> 
> Do your patriotic duty, and ask that Italian guy where can I get a knock off Italian shirt.


Ok. Won't be long before returning to the goodies. The guy's accent might not have been Italian. He could be from some other European country.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

On you tube you can watch GCN video's and they pretty much have something for many topics you may find on road bike forums. 

Here is one on the compact vs standard road crank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwYCdNm7f0k


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

BikeLayne said:


> On you tube you can watch GCN video's and they pretty much have something for many topics you may find on road bike forums.
> 
> Here is one on the compact vs standard road crank.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwYCdNm7f0k


thanks. people might have missed it the first two times posted.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> thanks. people might have missed it the first two times posted.


I even commented on it. Rider couldn't handle the large gear. He lost time by wasting energy stomping on the gear. :nono:

The other video of the Swiss guy taking a mountain in 48-17 shows how its done. :yesnod:


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> I even commented on it. Rider couldn't handle the large gear. He lost time by wasting energy stomping on the gear. :nono:
> 
> The other video of the Swiss guy taking a mountain in 48-17 shows how its done. :yesnod:


you mean Ryder, right? As in Hesjedal


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> On you tube you can watch GCN video's and they pretty much have something for many topics you may find on road bike forums.


Do they have one on the best chain lube?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I even commented on it. Rider couldn't handle the large gear. He lost time by wasting energy stomping on the gear. :nono:
> 
> The other video of the Swiss guy taking a mountain in 48-17 shows how its done. :yesnod:


yes yes, make a course to teach pros how to climb. 
since you seem to dense to understand mountains can have different grades we are done.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I even commented on it. Rider couldn't handle the large gear. He lost time by wasting energy stomping on the gear. :nono:
> 
> The other video of the Swiss guy taking a mountain in 48-17 shows how its done. :yesnod:


The comparison of the two riders is pointless. 

The point of the GCN video was a comparison of two gear setups by the same rider and which setup will get that rider up the hill the fastest. 

The second rider was just to show he could go up AND down a mountain on a fixed gear. His gear was not optimized for going up or down, but had to be selected to do both. It had NOTHING to do with the BEST way to get up a hill.

If you can push a big gear up a hill, great. Just stay to the right as someone may spin right by you.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

ibericb said:


> Do they have one on the best chain lube?


 I do not know but my favorite is Rock and Roll chain lube.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

den bakker said:


> thanks. people might have missed it the first two times posted.


 I have not been reading the comments but it's good that others have posted it as well.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

BikeLayne said:


> I have not been reading the comments


good to know in general.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

den bakker said:


> good to know in general.


 I stuck with it for about the first 15 or 20 comments and then moved on. Once a thread breaks down to bickering it is good to skip it. Actually I think I will bail on RBR as it consumes a lot of time for the rare bit of informative content. Anyway good luck all. Keep on rolling.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> His cadence looked a little faster than 50 rpm, maybe 60?


If it is, then he's putting out a bit over 5W/kg on that grade in that gear, i.e. should maybe be riding on a pro team.

And, of course, he'd be faster going up that climb in a lower gear. If fixed gears were faster on the big climbs, they wouldn't have been superseded by derailleur drivetrains in pro racing since, oh, about the 1930's.

You seem to like the fixed gear though, Fred. Maybe you should switch, and then report back to us how your local climbs are in the 47-17. That would actually be an interesting 'hard man' gear story.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> If it is, then he's putting out over 5W/kg on that grade in that gear, i.e. should probably be riding on a pro team.


only if he can do it after 150km of racing though.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

den bakker said:


> only if he can do it after 150km of racing though.


Yeah, true dat. Very hard to be at 100% after that.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> _“It’s as if you are strapped to a rocket,” said the 31-year-old from Berne, Switzerland, about riding a fixed gear bike. “Everything I do on the bike is transferred directly to the road."_


Everything you do on a road bike is transferred to the ground as well. Fixed gears are maybe what 3-4 watts more efficient? A well kept drivetrain on a geared bike will lose about 8 watts. You just get this illusion because there is no freehub, so the engagement is instant. You can get almost instant engagement on a lot of geared bike hubs. I have a DT 240s with the 36 star ratchet upgrade that gives almost this. And yes, I rode a fixie as a commuter for about 3 years.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> If it is, then he's putting out a bit over 5W/kg on that grade in that gear, i.e. should maybe be riding on a pro team.
> 
> And, of course, he'd be faster going up that climb in a lower gear. If fixed gears were faster on the big climbs, they wouldn't have been superseded by derailleur drivetrains in pro racing since, oh, about the 1930's.
> 
> You seem to like the fixed gear though, Fred. Maybe you should switch, and then report back to us how your local climbs are in the 47-17. That would actually be an interesting 'hard man' gear story.


The Swiss guy was fresh, I believe, before he attacked the mountain. 

If rider ate and hydrated properly, his legs will be capable of very close to the same performance at the end of a long race, as in having to go 100% in the last few kms and sprinting at the finish line. This Swiss guy looked pretty fit, nicely cut legs capable of powering 53-17.

I know y'all can do that. I see it all the time on club rides. Very seldom are riders climbing in their lowest gear. Their chains are on the middle cogs in back when on the small ring. I keep feeling like telling these riders, [as I pass them,] "Downshift!" They never get it.  They just keep straining along and slowly burning up. The trick: stay on top of the gear and train up. When you lose form, downshift. On the good days, you just might not have to. 

Got 52-43/13-28 on the 24 pound commuter with fenders and 28C tires. Loaded up with 10 pounds in pannier, I still have no problems getting up the short hills around here. The "race" bike, 22 pounds, 25C tires, is just fine with 53-42/13-22. No desire to put the 44 back on, though. Not as many miles in the legs as back in tonier days. One must respect one's conditioning. Now when going out on the race bike, 42-22 does feel a bit high, but muscle memory knows how to compensate: smooth, even strokes careful not to tighten up the legs too much, easing off just enough to maintain form. Apportioning energy like this is one of the most fascinating things about cycling, IMO. I guess riders who are into STRAVA are into this stuff. 

I'd still like to know how much faster the rider doing the gear comparison did in the compact gearing.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Hey everybody... let's go back to late 1970's gearing 'cuz Fred says so. :thumbsup: :skep:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> The comparison of the two riders is pointless.
> 
> The point of the GCN video was a comparison of two gear setups by the same rider and which setup will get that rider up the hill the fastest.
> 
> ...


Usually it's me passing someone in their 39-17, as I said elsewhere. I'm in 42-22 or 43-28, depending on which bike, pedaling at least 80 rpm, and I don't give up! :shocked:

My whole argument is, don't write off larger gears just because they're perceived as "hard." Train up! Then choose the gear for each terrain according to the ability of the legs and cardio system. You would agree with that, right? So we have no argument. 

I'm just trying to provide some perspective. Compact gearing may be the latest thing, but it ain't necessarily better. There are trade offs. Then again, with 22 gears, rider can install the full range from 112 down to 20 or 30 gear inches, with closely spaced gears in between, which is why we see so many climbing in their middle cogs.  They don't need no stinkin' 34-30! They carry it for insurance. :frown2: [Wimps.]


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

How is this sh*t still going on?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> How is this sh*t still going on?


'Cuz ppl are oddly fascinated at how Fred's still not getting it.


----------



## wanderinwalker (May 10, 2012)

SystemShock said:


> 'Cuz ppl are oddly fascinated at how Fred's still not getting it.


It's like driving by a house fire, it's horrible but you just can't look away.

Just did the math: 44x22 @ "at least 80 RPM" is 12.5 MPH. Doing a 2-hour climb with that gear at 9-mph average is about 60-rpm, I'm pretty sure my first call the morning after would be to the knee surgeon...

(For the record, I ride a compact with a 12-27 cassette and live in southwestern NH. We don't have much in the way of truly long climbs, but we do have plenty of steep ones.)


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

SystemShock said:


> 'Cuz ppl are oddly fascinated at how Fred's still not getting it.


in Fredricos unwords :yesnod: :yesnod:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> 'Cuz ppl are oddly fascinated at how Fred's still not getting it.


I think the simplest answer here is "who gives a f**k?"

If someone wants to ride a standard with an 11-23 and grind up a climb, then so be it. If they want a compact with a 30t in the back and they like to spin it, then so be it. If you're faster one way as opposed to the other, good deal for figuring it out. 

Use what works for you and leave it at that.

Except for a triple. If you're using a triple, you'd better have loaded panniers on that thing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> If it is, then he's putting out a bit over 5W/kg on that grade in that gear, i.e. should maybe be riding on a pro team.


I did that once on a short 2.5 mile uphill TT. Barely cracked the top 20, although there were several riders within a few seconds of my time. After the race I was absolutely toast and sucked it up the rest of the weekend.

Edit: I used a compact for this race with a 11-25 cassette. Not sure if I used the 25 or not.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

wanderinwalker said:


> It's like driving by a house fire, it's horrible but you just can't look away.
> 
> Just did the math: 44x22 @ "at least 80 RPM" is 12.5 MPH. Doing a 2-hour climb with that gear at 9-mph average is about 60-rpm, I'm pretty sure my first call the morning after would be to the knee surgeon...
> 
> (For the record, I ride a compact with a 12-27 cassette and live in southwestern NH. We don't have much in the way of truly long climbs, but we do have plenty of steep ones.)


Wanderin, I said I would pass these wimps in their 34-30s on climbs, and yes, 12 mph is easily attainable on most the short hills around here if you attack at the bottom!  Two hours up the mountain, relatively shallow grades up to Red Gap road gave me 11-12 mph average. Steeper grades on Red Gap Road slowed down average to 9 mph. Up there, yes, coulda used a 28! But I suffered and made it. The next weekend went back and did it again, with less suffering! :yesnod:

Who's not getting it? I always come back with the hard facts, and you guys think I'm just bragging. My points are all related to the debate on compact gearing. Its market driven BS, giving the same gears [40-115 or so] that the old gearing gave, only with less material. The larger the cog, the longer it will hold up and the less you will have to replace it. Marketers don't want that. They want you to by more stuff. 

Francesco Moser chose a larger gear, 55-17, when he broke the hour record. He experimented with 52-14 or 15, can't remember, which Eddy Merckx used, and perceived the larger gears were "easier" to turn. I notice that difference waxing a short climb in 52-17 vs 42-15, close to the same gear inches. Seems like the large ring gives better leverage or something like that.

But go ahead folks, hang onto the holy grail of compact gearing. Your choice. I have a 50 t. outer ring I'll never need. The 52 or 53 gives me a bit more zip than the 50 did, so that's what's on there. If I went cross country with luggage, I'd put on the 50 for sure. :yesnod:

Once had a 14-26 freewheel, Regina I think. It was wonderful. I actually used that 14, and it had the fabled 16 t. cog missing in the bigger freewheels to make room for another climbing cog you'll never use. Nobody markets those. Instead, they put an 11, 12,13 on there to set up expectations, you know, "race bike! You will go fast so we put those high speed gears on this wonderful dream bike for your convenience!" Dream on. 

Its a trick! Don't believe it! Only one out of ten of you will ever be able to handle that 11 tooth cog, but marketers put it on their just to rub it in! 

I've been riding 35 years and could never power 52-13 without a downgrade or nice tailwind. That included when I was in great shape. I always wanted to eliminate that gear, but NO, the manufacturers don't make that combo, sorry, even though 90% of recreational riders would sure prefer that, than the conceit of "race" gearing with the pitiful 11 t. cogs. How long will they hold up? A few thousand miles? I'm getting 10,000 miles out of my $25. freewheels, and so far have never blown one up.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

spade2you said:


> I did that once on a short 2.5 mile uphill TT. Barely cracked the top 20, although there were several riders within a few seconds of my time. After the race I was absolutely toast and sucked it up the rest of the weekend.
> 
> Edit: I used a compact for this race with a 11-25 cassette. Not sure if I used the 25 or not.


See Drew's earlier post:

*http://forums.roadbikereview.com/general-cycling-discussion/53-39-a-345883-7.html#post4851779 (drew eckhardt)*

Basically, to do what Fred says, the guy would be putting out around 5.2W/kg, which is within shouting distance of what typical pros were doing in the pre-EPO days. Presumably the guy _isn't_ on EPO, so *if* he could do that... pretty impressive.

To have a shot of riding in the pros, yes, he'd need the 'EPO/blood doping upgrade' (ugh), but he'd have a decent basis to work from. Not that I'd recommend anyone ever do that, besides being cheating, riders have died from EPO use/abuse. 

Far as what you did in your short uphill TT goes... I think the 'pros averaging 5.5W/kg without EPO and 6.3W/kg with on major climbs' as Drew states refers to non-TTs, i.e. climbs done in the course of a day of stage racing. Presumably they could do better if the day's racing was solely a 2.5 mile climbing TT, as you did.

//Still pretty impressive, though. So, to repeat that continuing spade2you meme: "What're you, God's gift to climbing?"


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Still pretty impressive, though. So, to repeat that continuing spade2you meme: "What're you, God's gift to climbing?"


LOL, not even close given that it only got me 17th place. I was still maybe 10 seconds slower than the slowest pro, who probably wasn't even trying. 

The short Joe Martin TT allows the wattages to be higher than FTP. Part of me wonders the w/kg of the pros who won it. Perhaps I don't because it could be even more demoralizing. I suppose it's not as demoralizing as great form and being stuck behind a desk on race day.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> I think the simplest answer here is "who gives a f**k?"
> 
> If someone wants to ride a standard with an 11-23 and grind up a climb, then so be it. If they want a compact with a 30t in the back and they like to spin it, then so be it. If you're faster one way as opposed to the other, good deal for figuring it out.
> 
> ...


That's right. No triples on unloaded road bikes! :nono: Unnecessary weight! :nono: Especially for a CLIMBING bike. 

Every serious rider should have a 13.5 pound climbing bike with 34-30. :yesnod: He can have a partner waiting at the top to give him another bike for the descent, something a little stouter for the high speeds, and a bit more laid back for stability. That's a "descending bike." 

For riding on the flats, be sure to keep the old road bike, though. Or better, yet, get a grand fondo bike! Yeah. Oh wait! You might also need a "gravel bike." Some of these grand fondo courses will not be paved.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spade2you said:


> I did that once on a short 2.5 mile uphill TT. Barely cracked the top 20, although there were several riders within a few seconds of my time. After the race I was absolutely toast and sucked it up the rest of the weekend.
> 
> Edit: I used a compact for this race with a 11-25 cassette. Not sure if I used the 25 or not.


Aha, see? :thumbsup: spade2you did it! And he can't remember if he bailed into the 25 or not; how about that?  I bet you didn't, spade, or you would have slowed down. Always happens when rider downshifts on a climb, for some strange reason.


----------



## respro100 (Jul 15, 2014)

robdamanii said:


> I think the simplest answer here is "who gives a f**k?"
> 
> If someone wants to ride a standard with an 11-23 and grind up a climb, then so be it. If they want a compact with a 30t in the back and they like to spin it, then so be it. If you're faster one way as opposed to the other, good deal for figuring it out.
> 
> ...


Me no have panniers and I still love to rock my 280 pounds up a 3% hill on the granny!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Everything you do on a road bike is transferred to the ground as well. Fixed gears are maybe what 3-4 watts more efficient? A well kept drivetrain on a geared bike will lose about 8 watts. You just get this illusion because there is no freehub, so the engagement is instant. You can get almost instant engagement on a lot of geared bike hubs. I have a DT 240s with the 36 star ratchet upgrade that gives almost this. And yes, I rode a fixie as a commuter for about 3 years.


I hear ya. A great bike will connect rider intimately to the road! Point taken on the efficiency comparison. With a freewheel, easy to cheat, however.

The back pressure from a non-freewheeling drive train keep the legs in play during the entire stroke. They can't rest on the upstroke or the bike goes all over the place. So the lesson learned very dearly is a nice even "spin." Most riders I've met who ride fixed get really strong legs as a result and can push that 46-17 up hills at slow cadences "like a pro."

Always been scared of riding fixed gears, so compensated as well as I could by always pedaling fast. Not nearly as good, probably, but it seems to work.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Aha, see? :thumbsup: spade2you did it! And he can't remember if he bailed into the 25 or not; how about that?  I bet you didn't, spade, or you would have slowed down. Always happens when rider downshifts on a climb, for some strange reason.


Spade used a compact. And he weighs about 130 lbs soaking wet, IIRC.

If he wanted to lose the uphill TT really badly, he would've taken your gearing suggestions, Fred.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Spade used a compact. And he weighs about 130 lbs soaking wet, IIRC.
> 
> If he wanted to lose the uphill TT really badly, he would've taken your gearing suggestions, Fred.


Spade's got a favorable strength to weight ratio, the envy of us heavy weights. But he still can't remember whether he actually took advantage of that compact and used the 34-27! :lol: So there ya go. 

I'm right.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Random comment: I can't effin' believe it! This sh!t still keeps going on? 

And I thought I had ended all debate back in the day when I invented the 53/39.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Pirx said:


> Random comment: I can't effin' believe it! This sh!t still keeps going on?
> 
> And I thought I had ended all debate back in the day when I invented the 53/39.


Not quite, Pirx! :lol: 

Gearing is a sensitive subject….a bit like comparing sizes of that organ that hangs between the legs. The truth lurks out there on the MUTs, though. We all pretty much know where we stand. :yesnod:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Spade's got a favorable strength to weight ratio, the envy of us heavy weights. But he still can't remember whether he actually took advantage of that compact and used the 34-27! :lol: So there ya go.
> 
> I'm right.


Right about what?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Right about what?


That 34-30 is for real wimps.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> That 34-30 is for real wimps.


I used a 30-30 @ Crater Lake Last Sept., I must be a real wimp. One with the cartilage in my knees still intact..


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> That 34-30 is for real wimps.


Depends on the grade, the rider's power-to-weight ratio, fitness level, etc.

Oh, and cadence. 

To have arbitrary lines in the sand ("such and such gearing is for wimps") is foolish and archaic. 34/30 might be the most efficient gearing for going up, say, a long 13% climb (they have those in the Sierras). In which case, said "wimp" would pass you and leave you in the dust in your inefficient, low-cadence 42/22, Fred. 

Which makes you... what? A sub-wimp? :blush2:

You need to get more experienced with climbs that are both long AND steep, Fred. Doing Mount Wilson (which again, isn't really steep) twice in your lifetime doesn't make you an expert, as I'm sure you'll agree.

But I'm sure you won't get what's being said to you again, somehow.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

This thread makes for funny reading.

Those of us who started riding in the early eighties or before had no choice. 41 x 24 was the lowest we could go. Chainsets didn't allow any smaller unless you used a touring crank such as a Stronglight 49D or a TA Cyclotouriste and rear derailleurs couldn't accommodate anything over 24 without serious compromises in shifting.

Since then technology has progressed and most of us have moved with it. It's only a small group who seem to cling on to their 40 plus inner rings and seem to regard everyone else as a wimp/Fred/wuss if they use anything different.

On my first visit to the Italian Lakes 10years ago I was on 53/42 with 12-25. It was fine on the short sharp climbs we have in England, but purgatory on the 10km Ghisallo. The following year I was on 50/34 and managed far better, so I could actually enjoy the view up the climb. If that makes me a wimp or a wuss, so be it. As another poster pointed out, better to have my knees functioning than winning a pointless dick-measuring contest into a wheelchair!


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

:idea::nono::yesnod::crazy::9:


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> That 34-30 is for real wimps.


My whole life is a wash now, I just realized I wasted 45 minutes watching a real wimp in some stupid pink jersey on the Mortirolo.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Spade used a compact. And he weighs about 130 lbs soaking wet, IIRC.
> 
> If he wanted to lose the uphill TT really badly, he would've taken your gearing suggestions, Fred.


Closer to 120lbs, but who's counting? I think I was about 123lbs at the time. 

I started the racing season at 117lbs. Went down to 116 after some sort of intestinal bug. Decided I needed to get back to 120lbs just in case.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> Aha, see? :thumbsup: spade2you did it! And he can't remember if he bailed into the 25 or not; how about that?  I bet you didn't, spade, or you would have slowed down. Always happens when rider downshifts on a climb, for some strange reason.


I think I might have used the 25 on short and steep sections. I was keeping my cadence really high hoping that I'd recover better for the road race in a few hours, which probably didn't help.

I was on a heck of an Adreneline rush after seeing the high power numbers (for my level of competition), as well as catching my 30 second man, and almost catching my minute man before running out of road. 

I have since started using a lower cadence while TTing.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> My whole life is a wash now, I just realized I wasted 45 minutes watching a real wimp in some stupid pink jersey on the Mortirolo.


well to be fair, it's not likely contador has ridden mt Wilson* ever so what does he know. 

*which I propose to rename to The grand Wilson wank. suitably inspired.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

SystemShock said:


> Depends on the grade, the rider's power-to-weight ratio, fitness level, etc.
> 
> Oh, and cadence.
> 
> ...


Fred needs to come out and do C2K out here in Cali...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> My whole life is a wash now, I just realized I wasted 45 minutes watching a real wimp in some stupid pink jersey on the Mortirolo.


Gimme some evidence rider was using a 34-30.  I don't believe it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spade2you said:


> I think I might have used the 25 on short and steep sections. I was keeping my cadence really high hoping that I'd recover better for the road race in a few hours, which probably didn't help.
> 
> I was on a heck of an Adreneline rush after seeing the high power numbers (for my level of competition), as well as catching my 30 second man, and almost catching my minute man before running out of road.
> 
> I have since started using a lower cadence while TTing.


IOW, admit it, you were pedaling so fast, you were under geared. Then wore the legs out anyway from pedaling too fast. So you now TT in larger gears, like climbing in the middle freewheel cogs? Point taken.

See folks? Don't try to make time in a gear that ends up being way too easy.  Pulling against gravity, rider slows down to a cadence the legs can work just below anaerobic threshold. You probably went too many times into AT, so had to recover on the lesser grades and was spent at the top--from pedaling too fast. 

OTOH, kudos for passing your :30 and 1:00 man! That pedaling paid off! But you paid for it at the top. Same might have happened in 44-22, too, but I bet you would have made it up in the same time, if not faster.

See, System Shock, I think you agree there's a most efficient cadence for every rider, a sweet spot at which he can work for hours. Climbing is a variation on that. One finds the gear the legs can stay on top of, and do the work. Cadence will be somewhere between 70-90 rpm, in the gear that will allow that cadence. If it's 30-30, so be it. Fine. Just remember dropping the love handles can make a one or two gear difference climbing, so never say never. :yesnod: Before he knows it, he too can climb like Marco, and save the granny gears for when he forgets to eat and bonks out.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Gimme some evidence rider was using a 34-30.  I don't believe it.


.....


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> See, System Shock, I think you agree there's a most efficient cadence for every rider, a sweet spot at which he can work for hours. Climbing is a variation on that. One finds the gear the legs can stay on top of, and do the work. Cadence will be somewhere between 70-90 rpm, in the gear that will allow that cadence. If it's 30-30, so be it. Fine. Just remember dropping the love handles can make a one or two gear difference climbing, so never say never. :yesnod: Before he knows it, he too can climb like Marco, and save the granny gears for when he forgets to eat and bonks out.


Holy crap, I think you're startin' to get it. Maybe. 

Of course, 'granny gears' is a relative term. Even if you're a pro racer, if you're going up the Zoncolan, Angrilu or Motirolo, 'granny gears' may be the fastest gears to use, i.e. not granny at all. Then scale that back to 'mere mortal' power-to-weight ratios, and you can see that it's applicable to far more than just the 'hardest of the hard' climbs.

Again, you gotta give up your preconceived archaic notions of macho-dom. The thing that most matters is how many watts you're putting out, and ideal cadence generally helps you put out more than 'bogged down and struggling' cadence does. 

You then choose the right gearing to get you to that ideal cadence/best power output. How many teeth are on the chainring and on the cog is unimportant and irrelvant, except to poseurs.

Btw Fred, you said you went up Mt. Wilson at an avg spd of 9mph, in a 42/22 (not sure, on account of not caring very much)? Anyhow, if so, that's an average cadence of 60rpm, i.e. too low, at least for a long, not very steep, largely in-the-saddle climb. Take from that what you will.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Well, when the TDF comes up next month, I'm gonna look eagled eyed at the gearing and note what cogs I see being used. :yesnod: Spring races were showing the guys climbing two or three cogs out, by no means wimping up those mountains in 34-28. Did you see some of the attacks before the summits? Those guys were rockin in the middle cogs. The idea being, you will get up the mountain sooner and make everybody suffer. Was Contador using a 34-30 passing everyone at 95 rpm, or was that a 39-27? :ihih: 

Come on folks. At what speed are ya gonna spin out in 30-30, 6 mph, 8 mph? You'll get dropped quickly. Better to put out a little more effort in a higher gear. :yesnod:


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Question is, with a motor what chainrings are you going to use...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Okay, so Fred didn't really get it. But deep down, I already knew that.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Come on folks. At what speed are ya gonna spin out in 30-30, 6 mph, 8 mph? You'll get dropped quickly. Better to put out a little more effort in a higher gear. :yesnod:


Strava Segment | Mortirolo

Mortirolo KOM is 8.5 mph, set by a pro at a time of 50:16. The record is 42-something set during the EPO era. Not sure what Contador's time was but I'm guessing 45 +- 1 minute. So [email protected] is 7.2 mph. Keeping in mind there are steep 20% sections in this climb and it's very pitchy. Yeah I bet he used all gears at different times.

For a "numbers" guy you're pretty f*cking bad with numbers.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

robt57 said:


> Question is, with a motor what chainrings are you going to use...


Which would prompt someone to ask, what kind of torque can your legs generate at 130 rpm?  Rigorous analysis has determined the human physiology mated to a bicycle permits the highest pedaling efficiency between 80-95 rpm. Faster than 110-115, power drops off precipitously. Power can be maintained temporarily below 60 rpm, only by squandering whatever glycogen still in the fast twitch muscles, and going into anaerobic. :shocked:

When rider goes into anaerobic on a climb, my friends, he's history. :frown2:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Strava Segment | Mortirolo
> 
> Mortirolo KOM is 8.5 mph, set by a pro at a time of 50:16. The record is 42-something set during the EPO era. Not sure what Contador's time was but I'm guessing 45 +- 1 minute. So [email protected] is 7.2 mph. Keeping in mind there are steep 20% sections in this climb and it's very pitchy. Yeah I bet he used all gears at different times.
> 
> For a "numbers" guy you're pretty f*cking bad with numbers.


Numbers isn't my thing. 

How about that? Spinning as fast as most of us can while pulling against gravity, 90 rpm, all we get is 7.2 mph? But ok, I can see that on the switchbacks, but you're not going to go all the way up the mountain spinning at 7 mph.

But ok, its great to have 34-30 on that horrible Montirolo climb. Are there any climbs that bad in the Sierras? If so, ok, y'all win. Ya gotta stay on top of the gear if you're gonna make it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Holy crap, I think you're startin' to get it. Maybe.
> 
> Of course, 'granny gears' is a relative term. Even if you're a pro racer, if you're going up the Zoncolan, Angrilu or Motirolo, 'granny gears' may be the fastest gears to use, i.e. not granny at all. Then scale that back to 'mere mortal' power-to-weight ratios, and you can see that it's applicable to far more than just the 'hardest of the hard' climbs.
> 
> ...


So I'm saying basically the same thing right here:

Rigorous analysis has determined the human physiology mated to a bicycle permits the highest pedaling efficiency between 80-95 rpm. Faster than 110-115, power drops off precipitously. Power can be maintained temporarily below 60 rpm, only by squandering whatever glycogen still in the fast twitch muscles, and going into anaerobic. 

When rider goes into anaerobic on a climb, my friends, he's history.

I posted that above. So see, we agree!  [whew, hope i get out of this one….]

And look, bicycling is a macho thing! Nothing more inspiring, empowering, confidence building, than a big mountain, just waiting to be conquered by the sheer force of rider's well trained loins! The 44 just added a little "weight" to the experience, if you know what I mean.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> But ok, its great to have 34-30 on that horrible Montirolo climb. Are there any climbs that bad in the Sierras? If so, ok, y'all win. Ya gotta stay on top of the gear if you're gonna make it.


There are climbs in NorCal like that. Not as long (2k ft gain or so), but the same sort of grades. Brb while I go "wimp" up one of them.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> There are climbs in NorCal like that. Not as long (2k ft gain or so), but the same sort of grades. Brb while I go "wimp" up one of them.


Show us how its done, devious! :thumbsup:


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

deviousalex said:


> There are climbs in NorCal like that. Not as long (2k ft gain or so), but the same sort of grades. Brb while I go "wimp" up one of them.


There is a nice video out there of Astana going up Pine Flat in Healdsburg. At the point where Contador is shown laboring an idiot on a 42/22 would be walking.

Similarly, on Mountain View Road from Manchester to Boonville (mile 38.8 on this route) that 42/22 would have you walking as well...even in the glory days of one's youth. Boonville's Mountain View Rd. in Boonville, CA, United States | MapMyRide.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

The funniest thing about this is how little a certain someone here knows about economy of energy when it comes to pedaling a bike. 

The video has been shown of Contador's bike: he likes lower gearing and his mechanic talked about 34/30 or 34/32 depending on the day. So f**king what?

Fred, I like you dude. But shut up. Please. Everybody to their separate corner, and shut up.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Riding a 44/22 combo at the low end of Freddie's rpm range (80 rpm) yields ~ 12.75 mph. It would require a 160# rider on a 16# bike 450 watts to do that up an 8% grade. That's only like 6.2 w/kg. Every reasonably fit rider on the interwebs does that all day long. LOL


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

This is now the #5 most-read thread in General Cycling, out of 200 current threads.

Wheeee.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

This thread hasn't gone into a boredom induced coma and death yet?

You're going to have to use something better than good eyes to know what gearing they are using. You may find counting teeth on chainrings spinning at 60 to 100 rpms and cogs at 110 and up difficult. The best you can hope for is to use your stop watch and count crank revolutions to see what cadence they are carrying in different situations. That will tell you what their uneducated trainers have taught them to use as the ideal cadence for someone capable of carrying 300 watts for 5 hours.

With the above information, you can extrapolate absolutely nothing that applies to us normal riders except possibly that they believe spinning is better than mashing. 


Fredrico said:


> Well, when the TDF comes up next month, I'm gonna look eagled eyed at the gearing and note what cogs I see being used. :yesnod: Spring races were showing the guys climbing two or three cogs out, by no means wimping up those mountains in 34-28. Did you see some of the attacks before the summits? Those guys were rockin in the middle cogs. The idea being, you will get up the mountain sooner and make everybody suffer. Was Contador using a 34-30 passing everyone at 95 rpm, or was that a 39-27? :ihih:
> 
> Come on folks. At what speed are ya gonna spin out in 30-30, 6 mph, 8 mph? You'll get dropped quickly. Better to put out a little more effort in a higher gear. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> This thread hasn't gone into a boredom induced coma and death yet?
> 
> You're going to have to use something better than good eyes to know what gearing they are using. You may find counting teeth on chainrings spinning at 60 to 100 rpms and cogs at 110 and up difficult. The best you can hope for is to use your stop watch and count crank revolutions to see what cadence they are carrying in different situations. That will tell you what their uneducated trainers have taught them to use as the ideal cadence for someone capable of carrying 300 watts for 5 hours.
> 
> With the above information, you can extrapolate absolutely nothing that applies to us normal riders except possibly that they believe spinning is better than mashing.


Most "normal" riders, I guess that's you and me, actually mash rather than spin. Spinning is counter intuitive and needs constant practice. That's why so many newbies are struggling to keep up on the climbs in gears that are too big. :yesnod: They don't even think of downshifting because they'd stop like a rock. Their legs couldn't pick up the cadence. I see riders stall out all the time like that. They grind to a stop and get off the bike. The chain is in one of the middle cogs, and their legs just couldn't turn the crank around anymore. :cryin:

For a few reasons, cadences don't vary that much. They go between 50 rpm to 110 rpm, and then power drops off precipitously on either end because of the limitations of the human body. 90 rpm is golden, right in the middle of the curve, although one researcher decided 80 rpm was where almost all his subjects were most efficient.

So I wouldn't be looking at cadence, other than for bobbing heads and signs that rider is losing form, but for which gear he's cranking on that particular section of the climb. So far, I'm seeing that they all have nice 27 or 28 t. cogs on the inside of their cassettes but their chains are on the second or third cog out. :idea: On Mt. Ventoux a few years ago, Chris Froome was frequently in his large ring! :shocked:


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> On Mt. Ventoux a few years ago, Chris Froome was frequently in his large ring! :shocked:


That makes sense, as a really good rider wants to avoid power loss that's proportional to cadence. A really good rider can generate competitive power at that lower cadence.

Bottom line: spin as slow as you can, as long as you're still the first rider to get to the top of the hill.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

myhui said:


> That makes sense, as a really good rider wants to avoid power loss that's proportional to cadence. A really good rider can generate competitive power at that lower cadence.
> 
> Bottom line: spin as slow as you can, as long as you're still the first rider to get to the top of the hill.


Mash away and embrace the lactic acid. Your legs will thank you the next day.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> Mash away and embrace the lactic acid. Your legs will thank you the next day.


Yes, but challenging legs well trained in the art of spin to more intense efforts increases strength and shortens recovery times. The trick is to keep up cadence. If ya can't, gotta downshift. 

Amazing the extended, heart pounding power rider can get out of his slow twitch fibers when challenged. Turning the legs from hammers to pistons is also great for the knees. It reduces pressures on the downstroke and balances the muscles all around the knee so nothing risks getting "thrown out." 

I used to hurt knees all the time until I learned how to crank with the slow twitch. Now I'm out of breath long before the legs build up enough lactic acid to want to back off. I may be worn out the next day, but the legs are always just fine. So see, ya gotta do it right. :ihih:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Fredrico said:


> Yes, but challenging legs well trained in the art of spin to more intense efforts increases strength and shortens recovery times. The trick is to keep up cadence. If ya can't, gotta downshift.
> 
> Amazing the extended, heart pounding power rider can get out of his slow twitch fibers when challenged. Turning the legs from hammers to pistons is also great for the knees. It reduces pressures on the downstroke and balances the muscles all around the knee so nothing risks getting "thrown out."
> 
> I used to hurt knees all the time until I learned how to crank with the slow twitch. Now I'm out of breath long before the legs build up enough lactic acid to want to back off. I may be worn out the next day, but the legs are always just fine. So see, ya gotta do it right. :ihih:


There's such a lack of orthopedic knowledge here it's astounding...


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> This is now the #5 most-read thread in General Cycling, out of 200 current threads.
> 
> Wheeee.


Bump for new readers!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm having a little trouble with the notion that anyone with more than 10 hours on a bike does not know to downshift when the pedaling gets difficult. 

Also, the objective while racing is often to win the event such as the TDF. Much research goes into optimizing cadence to provide the best results over the duration of the event--not necessarily the KOM on one particular hill.

Curious, I've not ever thought I could count the teeth on the cassettes on the bikes in the TDF or any other bike race. How exactly do you know the size of the cassettes of the riders in the TDF on every stage?


Fredrico said:


> Yes, but challenging legs well trained in the art of spin to more intense efforts increases strength and shortens recovery times. The trick is to keep up cadence. If ya can't, gotta downshift.
> 
> Amazing the extended, heart pounding power rider can get out of his slow twitch fibers when challenged. Turning the legs from hammers to pistons is also great for the knees. It reduces pressures on the downstroke and balances the muscles all around the knee so nothing risks getting "thrown out."
> 
> I used to hurt knees all the time until I learned how to crank with the slow twitch. Now I'm out of breath long before the legs build up enough lactic acid to want to back off. I may be worn out the next day, but the legs are always just fine. So see, ya gotta do it right. :ihih:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> There's such a lack of orthopedic knowledge here it's astounding...


hey, tell us about it, man. Simple denials don't add anything to the discussion.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm having a little trouble with the notion that anyone with more than 10 hours on a bike does not know to downshift when the pedaling gets difficult.
> 
> Also, the objective while racing is often to win the event such as the TDF. Much research goes into optimizing cadence to provide the best results over the duration of the event--not necessarily the KOM on one particular hill.
> 
> Curious, I've not ever thought I could count the teeth on the cassettes on the bikes in the TDF or any other bike race. How exactly do you know the size of the cassettes of the riders in the TDF on every stage?


First, if you look carefully at the mediums shots from behind you will see at what point in the cassette the jockey wheel pulleys and lined up with. Yes, last year we did see the riders in their largest cogs, but they weren't there all that much, mostly in the middle cogs and as we noticed, Chris Froome in the large ring.

Second, I've seen countless times over 30 years riding with others when riders are caught trying to keep up pace on a hill, they don't downshift. I keep telling riders to downshift all the time as I pass them going up the hills.  They stall out first, and then maybe think to switch it into a friendlier gear. I can't believe you haven't noticed the same. You must ride with a bunch of seasoned veterans who know what they're doing. 

Yes, the name of the game is optimizing cadence. We discussed that above. Optimum varies from season to season, can be trained up or allowed to fall back, according to what will benefit the body at that moment.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> This is now the #5 most-read thread in General Cycling, out of 200 current threads.
> 
> Wheeee.


Is now at #4. :thumbsup:  ​ :shocked:


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

I have a 53/39 on my TT bike


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Is now at #4. :thumbsup:  ​ :shocked:


Shall we shoot for the record? Gearing is a very sensitive subject. It seems to be personal with lots of posters. :ihih:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Shall we shoot for the record? ...


I wouldn't. People might hunt you down.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> I wouldn't. People might hunt you down.


I'll take 'em on in a mountain climb. Better put the 44 back on, though. I might be a little out of shape.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Seabase did it - *"Fixie rider completes epic 300km Tour de France mountain stage"*

309 km (192 miles)
15:52:32
7611m (24,970 feet) climbed
57 km/h (35.4 mph) top speed
24.2 km/h (15.04 mph) average speed
51,000 pedal revolutions​
Using the average speed and distance stated, apparently the total time (15:52:32) includes about 3 hours of rest/stop time. At the stated average speed, covering 309 km would take 12.76 hours. Using the 12.76 hrs and 51,000 pedal rev's gives and average cadence of 66.6 rpm.

Pretty awesome.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Seabase did it - *"Fixie rider completes epic 300km Tour de France mountain stage"*309 km (192 miles)
> 15:52:32
> 7611m (24,970 feet) climbed
> 57 km/h (35.4 mph) top speed
> ...


Very nice achievement. :thumbsup:

I wonder what his watts were?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Very nice achievement. :thumbsup:
> 
> I wonder what his watts were?


250-300, somewhere in there. :yesnod:

What are your watts, SS? :ihih:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Oh, it's tougher than that... there's a 6 km slightly downhill section in the middle that's throwing your numbers off some. It's more like 12km at 7% (on average), then the slightly downhill 'rest' section, then 16 more kilometers @ 7%.
> 
> So, he is a monster. But even with that, his typical cadence for it is probably about 50.


Sheldon Brown calculator says at 40 rpm in 47-17 would be 8.7 mph. 60 rpm would give it a whopping 13 mph. So you're right, 50 rpm would give around 11 mph. His speeds no doubt varied, slow on the switchbacks and faster on the longer runs on the lesser grades. :yesnod: Descending at 34 mph would require legs speed above 120 rpm. 120 rpm is 26 mph! Notice how smooth his strokes are? That's how he does 30 mph descents! :shocked:

The next question would be: what were his times compared to a pro on a geared bike?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

If you use his reported average speed (24.2 km/h) and this gear calculator (insert one chainring @ 47 and one cog @17), you get an average cadence of ~ 69 rpm.

Using his reported top speed of 57 km/h returns a cadence of - get ready for it - ~163 rpm. WTF?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> If you use his reported average speed (24.2 km/h) and this gear calculator (insert one chainring @ 47 and one cog @17), you get an average cadence of ~ 69 rpm.
> 
> Using his reported top speed of 57 km/h returns a cadence of - get ready for it - ~163 rpm. WTF?


Encroyable! Best I could ever do was 145 rpm and that was for 10 seconds.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

More with new video here.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Encroyable! Best I could ever do was 145 rpm and that was for 10 seconds.


Pretty Sure the dude was coasting not pedaling when he hit top speed. Last I checked Gravity is still in effect in Europe.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Winn said:


> Pretty Sure the dude was coasting not pedaling when he hit top speed. Last I checked Gravity is still in effect in Europe.


Last I checked, there's no "coasting" on a fixie, and his feet would still be on the pedals. True he's being driven , until he wants to slow down.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

Everyone knows after a certain rpm you take your feet off the pedals


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Winn said:


> Everyone knows after a certain rpm you take your feet off the pedals


For Seabase, I don't think so, not on this ride, not on that bike. He's clipped in.


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

ibericb said:


> For Seabase, I don't think so, not on this ride, not on that bike. He's clipped in.


As far as I'm concerned somewhere around 140ish I'm gonna start thinking about unclipping.

edit I actually would likely unclip at the top of the monster hill


----------



## jfaas (Jan 31, 2014)

At 140 rpm, the only way to unclip is to lay the bike down...


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

jfaas said:


> At 140 rpm, the only way to unclip is to lay the bike down...


See the edit


----------



## jfaas (Jan 31, 2014)

Winn said:


> See the edit


Noted...


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

jfaas said:


> At 140 rpm, the only way to unclip is to lay the bike down...


Well, at about 145 as you start to go into orbit, you can clip out as you become weightless...


----------



## jfaas (Jan 31, 2014)

robt57 said:


> Well, at about 145 as you start to go into orbit, you can clip out as you become weightless...


I only have to get to 88, then I can go to my parents' prom and try to steal my mom away from my dad.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Winn said:


> edit I actually would likely unclip at the top of the monster hill


and brake one his bike...... how?


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

den bakker said:


> and brake one his bike...... how?


With prayer lots of it. 

Actually I wouldn't freakin ride a fixie at all ever because I like brakes and gears and free wheels and stuff


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Winn said:


> As far as I'm concerned somewhere around 140ish I'm gonna start thinking about unclipping.
> 
> edit I actually would likely unclip at the top of the monster hill


I wouldn't make it that far - my legs would detach and fly away long before 140.

He's been workng on this for several years.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> If you use his reported average speed (24.2 km/h) and this gear calculator (insert one chainring @ 47 and one cog @17), you get an average cadence of ~ 69 rpm.


My prediction of 50rpm for him was for the long 7% climb of course, not for the entire 192-mile stage.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Last I checked, there's no "coasting" on a fixie, and his feet would still be on the pedals. True he's being driven , until he wants to slow down.


He was skidding on the rear tire to slow down for the switchbacks. :shocked: I got a flat doing that a few years ago! Also looks like he's backpedaling before the switchbacks to slow down. His cadence coming up on the turn wasn't all that fast.

Just think if he'd had a 44-22 with brakes and freewheel! :yesnod: Ya gotta wonder, though, how he could maintain 15 mph. Then again SS must be right. :shocked: Average speeds on this course might just be a little faster with "the right gears," and some help from team mates. 15 mph average is awesome over almost 200 miles! I wonder how that compares to current day TDF times?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> My prediction of 50rpm for him was for the long 7% climb of course, not for the entire 192-mile stage.


Yeah, of course. Video shows him cranking about 40 rpm on a switchback. Did y'all notice that? Good thing the bike probably only weighs 12-14 pounds! We used to call that "stair stepping" back when men were men and women were women. :yesnod:


----------

