# Crit and road race gearing



## Mattinvt (Sep 15, 2006)

I'm looking at focusing on Cat 3 crits and flat/rolling road races with a sprint finish this season and am considering my gearing options. I live and train in Vermont where it's pretty darn hilly everywhere you turn but thankfully do most of my racing where it's a little more forgiving. At 5'11" I have a 34" inseam and can crank over at 95-100 rpm on 172.5 cranks with a 36/50 up front and either a 12-25 or an 11-23. Would it be better for me to go to a 175 and/or a standard 39/53 setup and compensate with a 12-26 or 12-27 for hillier races? Or maybe a 36/50 on the 175 and be able to swap rings up to 38/50? Thoughts?


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Stick with...*



Mattinvt said:


> I'm looking at focusing on Cat 3 crits and flat/rolling road races with a sprint finish this season and am considering my gearing options. I live and train in Vermont where it's pretty darn hilly everywhere you turn but thankfully do most of my racing where it's a little more forgiving. At 5'11" I have a 34" inseam and can crank over at 95-100 rpm on 172.5 cranks with a 36/50 up front and either a 12-25 or an 11-23. Would it be better for me to go to a 175 and/or a standard 39/53 setup and compensate with a 12-26 or 12-27 for hillier races? Or maybe a 36/50 on the 175 and be able to swap rings up to 38/50? Thoughts?


Stick with the 172.5s,

Get a 39-53

Run a 12-25 cassette in the rear, and you'll be right as rain for all of your races.


----------



## zhmontana (Aug 16, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> Stick with the 172.5s,
> 
> Get a 39-53
> 
> Run a 12-25 cassette in the rear, and you'll be right as rain for all of your races.


2nd this...
stick with 172.5s, 
get 39/53 (or a 52 if you want),
and go with a 12x25 for the road,
i would add a 12x23 for the crits


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Gotta have that big ring!*

Spinning out once when trying to stay in contact with a really fast moving group on a slight descent, I decided never to race again with a 50 tooth outer ring. I was using a 13 cog, true, and didn't have the benefit of the 12, but nonetheless, if you race, you have to be able to match the efforts of the competition. At about 35 mph, the speed of the group on this descent, the only way to keep in the draft would have been with that sorely missed 53.

There will be alot of riders now going over to compact cranks switching back. Large rings, in that they distribute the load over more teeth, are easier on the drivetrain. Leverage is slightly improved with the chain furthur out on the crank arm. That big ring helps alot winding up in a sprint, and provides a higher top end.

53-42 in front would work with 12-26 just fine. Eddy Merckx was "fond" of going up mountains in a 44. Nobody complained about 42 back in the day it was standard, even on their 22-24 pound bikes. They just got stronger. I still go anywhere, including up mountains, with 42-22 on my lightweight (22#) "race" bike, and 43-26 on my fendered, bigger tired (24#) commuter.

At 5'11", you would definitely benefit with a 175 mm crank. Fignon and LeMond, among many other champions of the past, used 175 mm cranks, and they're ubiquitous at today's road races. They've been standard on mountainbikes for about 10 years.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

Back in the day, I was one of those guys that pushed a 53/42 up front and had a 13-23 on the back. One of the guys I raced with came over from Europe for a summer. He was on the Swedish national team. He was pushing a 13/21 or a 13/19. His attitiude was basically if you couldn't get up a hill on a 23; ride more or find another hobby (his words not mine). Fortunately I could get up most anything in the 6-7% range using the 42/21.

Now I'm struggling with a 39/23 wishing I had a 25 going up a 6-7% climb. Growing old SUCKS! I just don't seem to find the time to ride as much anymore


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*All Rounder*



zhmontana said:


> 2nd this...
> stick with 172.5s,
> get 39/53 (or a 52 if you want),
> and go with a 12x25 for the road,
> i would add a 12x23 for the crits


This is what I would recommend too. Should give you every gear you need for Cat. 3 racing and training in your VT hills.



Fredrico said:


> ...At 5'11", you would definitely benefit with a 175 mm crank. Fignon and LeMond, among many other champions of the past, used 175 mm cranks, and they're ubiquitous at today's road races. They've been standard on mountainbikes for about 10 years.


So did these cycling legends race 175s in the many crits they were doing when their careers peaked? My recommendation for our poster who wants to do crits and road races is a nice all around 172.5 that will allow him to pedal through corners a bit easier and also be readily available to pick up.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

For racing, a 36/50 is good if you're in the Alps or the Rockies. Otherwise something like a 53/39 is more suitable for flat/rolling crits. Stick with the 172.5 cranks and swap out cassettes depending on the course.


----------



## backinthesaddle (Nov 22, 2006)

Get big boy cranks...
175s with a 52 or 53 big ring. Compact is for the mountains.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

I would think the bikes you ride would normally come with 175 cranks but I'm not sure if switching is a benefit if you are comfortable.

For gearing I like to ride hills with 38/53 in front and 12-27 in back. That is within 3% of a compact crank setup with 34 in front and 25 back. 12-25 is the jack of all trades cassette and I used that (39f/25r) until hilly rides made me long for lower gearing.


----------



## botto (Jul 22, 2005)

backinthesaddle said:


> Get big boy cranks...
> 175s with a 52 or 53 big ring. Compact is for the mountains.


i didn't realize that vermont didn't have mountains.


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

*Varies for everyone*

There is no right gearing choice or right crank length. Every person has difference needs and requirements. Just because the OP is 5'11" does not mean he has to be on 175 mm cranks, or use a 42T inner ring, or anything else.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that if I need anything smaller than 39x23 then I'm likely not racing any more at the P/1/2 level (ie. I'm dropped). But my races tend to have short (1-2 km) and steep climbs and I climb out of the saddle quite a bit. I use the 53-39x11-23 combo (10 speed) for almost all races. Yeah, the 11T is a big gear, but I have used it in certain situations like gradual downhills or tailwinds and I have missed it when it hasn't been on there.

For training I use a 12-25. I definitely don't need the 11T for training and while I rarely touch the 25T either, it gives me a better chainline for 53x19 and 53x21.


----------



## Fender (Feb 26, 2002)

Regardless of your crank length and gear combination ratio, I would recommend you learn how to spin more. 100 rpm isn't that much and you will soon realize that you can be more efficient in a 53x15 at 120rpm than in a 53x14 at 95rpm. The faster your leg speed, the stronger you will become.
________
Ffm Sex


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*keep it*



Mattinvt said:


> I'm looking at focusing on Cat 3 crits and flat/rolling road races with a sprint finish this season and am considering my gearing options. I live and train in Vermont where it's pretty darn hilly everywhere you turn but thankfully do most of my racing where it's a little more forgiving. At 5'11" I have a 34" inseam and can crank over at 95-100 rpm on 172.5 cranks with a 36/50 up front and either a 12-25 or an 11-23. Would it be better for me to go to a 175 and/or a standard 39/53 setup and compensate with a 12-26 or 12-27 for hillier races? Or maybe a 36/50 on the 175 and be able to swap rings up to 38/50? Thoughts?


I'd keep the 172.5, for clearance reasons. 

A 50x11 is taller than a 53x12. I'd keep the 50/36 and run an 11-23 in back. 36x23 is plenty low. 36x23 is exactly the same as a 39x25.

If you're a Cat 3, that should be plenty low gearing, and plenty tall, too. 

Try that and see what happens.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

there is conflicting evidence regarding cadence and endurance/efficiency. Certainly maintaining 120rpm uphill is much higher than most coaches would suggest (somewhere like the fitness forum on cyclingnews has articles relating to this). Given 10 speed gearing, it is generally best to cover both ends of the spectrum-an 11 at the low end is useful in racing, and a 23 is generally all a fit rider needs to climb everything but the hardest climbs. On the front a 53/39 gives the fullest range: a 53/11 for closing gaps on downhills, fast sprints etc and a 39/23 for long climbs say averaging 7-8% with sections of 10+%. In terms of crank length, at34 inch inseam you could definitely be at 175, but that's more of a subjective decision and depends on your riding style.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

here's the link to the cadence/efficiency article:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=4011


----------



## big game (Nov 4, 2005)

I'd want to know your femur/shin ratio before recommending a 175 over 172.5. Long femurs want longer cranks. 

I personally think going shorter strictly for cornering in crits is a very cowardly thing to do. 

But then again, with my 175's (and my outrageously long femurs) I did experience my first instance of pedal chop last June. That earned me two weeks of having my mother (bless her heart) change the xeroform (best for big patches of road rash) on my ass. Both cheeks.

So in review:

(1) 172.5 are for shorter femurs (or cowards);
(2) I scored massive man points for 175 and my long femurs;
(3) But I should get myself a wife. It is just really strange to be 35 and have your mom that intimate with your butt.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> So did these cycling legends race 175s in the many crits they were doing when their careers peaked?


Well, I suspect some of them would have used 172s or 170s, just as they would have gone to 165s for indoor track racing in the winter. Nonetheless, 175s are longer levers, and at race paces that slight advantage could pay off, especially when coupled to a long legged rider.


----------



## Mattinvt (Sep 15, 2006)

*long femurs*

Actually I'm mostly femur length- a full 3 inches longer than a friend of mine who's even slightly taller. It was his idea to measure it after checking the massive offset on my bike that still kept me over the pedals. I had been on 175's because of my MTB and cross background but switched to 172.5's and started really training my spin a couple years ago. Since being able to spin more vs mash I haven't tried 175's on the road to see if I can turn them over quickly. The issue before was that I was slower to get up to speed through corners. The longer cranks were better on the hills, but I'm no climber and won't be a factor there anyway so I'm going to focus on what I can do and set the bike up accordingly. It's not that big a difference and most of it can be accomodated by swapping a cassette.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

exracer said:


> Back in the day, I was one of those guys that pushed a 53/42 up front and had a 13-23 on the back. One of the guys I raced with came over from Europe for a summer. He was on the Swedish national team. He was pushing a 13/21 or a 13/19. His attitiude was basically if you couldn't get up a hill on a 23; ride more or find another hobby (his words not mine). Fortunately I could get up most anything in the 6-7% range using the 42/21.
> 
> Now I'm struggling with a 39/23 wishing I had a 25 going up a 6-7% climb. Growing old SUCKS! I just don't seem to find the time to ride as much anymore


Yep. Back in the 80s I used a 53 x 42 with a 13-21 for road races and a 13-19 for crits. I had a 13-23 for training, which I might have used once or twice for really hilly road races.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*1/10th of an inch?*



Mattinvt said:


> Actually I'm mostly femur length- a full 3 inches longer than a friend of mine who's even slightly taller. It was his idea to measure it after checking the massive offset on my bike that still kept me over the pedals. I had been on 175's because of my MTB and cross background but switched to 172.5's and started really training my spin a couple years ago. Since being able to spin more vs mash I haven't tried 175's on the road to see if I can turn them over quickly. The issue before was that I was slower to get up to speed through corners. The longer cranks were better on the hills, but I'm no climber and won't be a factor there anyway so I'm going to focus on what I can do and set the bike up accordingly. It's not that big a difference and most of it can be accomodated by swapping a cassette.


Could any of us even detect 2.5 mm difference? That's 1/10th of an inch. I could see maybe getting the longer ones if you are buying new anyway, but I can't see spending the money to change for only that little difference. 

Mountain bikes tend to have a lot higher bottom bracket, don't they?


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Barely*



Fixed said:


> Could any of us even detect 2.5 mm difference? That's 1/10th of an inch. I could see maybe getting the longer ones if you are buying new anyway, but I can't see spending the money to change for only that little difference...


On my tandem I have 175 and on my singles I run 172.5. You are right, that the difference is barely detectible. I am conscious of it when I set up my seat height but otherwise, went with the stock cranks and have been happy.


----------

