# Training in the "big" ring



## mmcycle10 (Oct 7, 2010)

I am a 30 year old, 5'9 and 156lbs male training for the upcoming racing season. I am riding a standard double crankset (12-25 cassette) for the first time (coming from a triple) and wonder if it's really hard on the drivetrain (someone once told me especially the chain) to go up hills in the 53t ring. I am trying to build strength this way, but unsure if this is smart to do. My cadence is obvioulsy lower at this point, but I at lest feel as though I am making up more ground by staying in the big ring. I can offset things when it gets a bit too hard by simply standing while I push.

I have seen some posts from people on here referencing "most normal people" spending most of their time in the small ring when it comes to standard cranks...is this true? My cadence would be too high for this unless I was down towards the bottom of my cassette, so I have been trying to make myself just stay in the 53t ring at all costs (short of steep climbs where it just obvioulsy calls for dropping to my small ring). Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

You can make the same power whether your cadence is 100 or 50, IMO it makes sense to go to the small ring climbing when necessary to keep your cadence up and save your knees.

As far as cruising, what ring you ride in depends on how much power you make


----------



## jkuo (Mar 30, 2008)

I think you'll find that you're just as fast in the small ring even though you feel slower. I came from over a dozen years of MTB riding and was used to the stand and mash style of riding. That's how I climbed every hill on the road bike (big ring and stand up). Then I started sitting and spinning and found I was just as fast; it just feels slower for some reason. Plus as the previous person said, it's easier on your knees. 

I had a compact before and I'd climb seated while in the 50 as the 34 was just too small. But now I have a 39/53 and I spend more time climbing in the 39 (11-23 cassette).


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

mmcycle10 said:


> I am a 30 year old, 5'9 and 156lbs male training for the upcoming racing season. I am riding a standard double crankset (12-25 cassette) for the first time (coming from a triple) and wonder if it's really hard on the drivetrain (someone once told me especially the chain) to go up hills in the 53t ring. I am trying to build strength this way, but unsure if this is smart to do. My cadence is obvioulsy lower at this point, but I at lest feel as though I am making up more ground by staying in the big ring. I can offset things when it gets a bit too hard by simply standing while I push.
> 
> I have seen some posts from people on here referencing "most normal people" spending most of their time in the small ring when it comes to standard cranks...is this true? My cadence would be too high for this unless I was down towards the bottom of my cassette, *so I have been trying to make myself just stay in the 53t ring at all costs *(short of steep climbs where it just obvioulsy calls for dropping to my small ring). Thanks for the feedback!


I think in other words you're forcing yourself to cross chain and that's what people mean by chain wear from always being in the 53.

Power is work/time. You're really not doing yourself any favors by grunting it out with slow leg movements in a too tough a gear if you're looking to develop the type of sustainable power useful for biking.


----------



## mmcycle10 (Oct 7, 2010)

> I think in other words you're forcing yourself to cross chain and that's what people mean by chain wear from always being in the 53.


What is "cross chain"? Would 39x12 or 53x25 put more stress on the chain?



> I think you'll find that you're just as fast in the small ring even though you feel slower. I came from over a dozen years of MTB riding and was used to the stand and mash style of riding. That's how I climbed every hill on the road bike (big ring and stand up). Then I started sitting and spinning and found I was just as fast; it just feels slower for some reason. Plus as the previous person said, it's easier on your knees.


I should be more specific...I try to limit standing climbs if at all possible. On rare occasions I will stand out the last 10-20% of a climb, but even that is rare. 

Here is what I don't understand. I have ridden in groups where we come to a gradual hill...the guys that drop into their 39 or 34t rings then have to spin twice as fast to keep up with those that stay in the 50 or 53t rings. I have found that by staying seated in the big ring (even if it's 53x25) I can move significantly faster up the hill by just pushing harder (and I'm not talking about 12% grades here). But on more gradual grades, or really short climbs wouldn't this sound logical? I have been concerned about straining my chain, but it sounds like the real concern would be the knees?


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

mmcycle10 said:


> What is "cross chain"? Would 39x12 or 53x25 put more stress on the chain?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, that's cross chaining.

Chains need to be replaced eventually anyway so it's nothing to lose sleep over and yes, the real concern is the knees. But aside from that even, sure you can get up one hill faster by grunting it out than you could be going high RPMs......but that's short term thinking planning (which isn't always bad). It's not always about going the fastest at a particular time it's also about still being able to go fast 30 miles later.

For agrument sake lets say those guys who drop down and spin have identical strengh and stamina to you. Yes, you'd beat them up the first few hills no problem by staying in a big gear while they drop down and spin easier......but they will be blowing you away down the back side of the hill and probably totally ride aways after 30 miles (just to throw out a number, could be less could be more). Again, I'm talking about people of equal ability just for argument sake.
Sometimes, griding it out for max speed up a hill is the thing to do but it needs to be part of the overall strategy for the entire ride to make it smart.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I avoid cross-chaining when just out riding / training. Why beat up the equipment? And I've actually broken a chain by abusing gear like that. 

But, in a race... if tactical situation dictates it, I will chew up the 53x26 all day.


----------



## mmcycle10 (Oct 7, 2010)

Okay...thanks for bearing with me on this! I fully understand the cross chain phenomenon now. But this leads to another question!  When looking at the available spectrum of resistance for my set up (53/39, 10 speed 12-25), if I am not going up a steep hill, the 39 ring is not going to offer up enough resistance on flat ground unless I am pairing it with my 12t on the cassette (or the ring or two next to that one), thus cross chaining. *BUT*, if I switch up to the 53t ring, I am going to have to move much closer to the 25t ring on the cassette, as staying on or near the 12t is too much resistance and bogs my cadence down to a point of diminishing returns (ie. the opposite of cross chaining forces you into the least amount of resistance or the very most, does it not?). Would simply switching to a differently configured cassette alleviate some of this issue, or do I simply need to get stronger to pull myself out of this "no man's land" that I'm in!? This get's back to why I was forcing myself to stay in the big ring to begin with!!


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

mmcycle10 said:


> Okay...thanks for bearing with me on this! I fully understand the cross chain phenomenon now. But this leads to another question!  When looking at the available spectrum of resistance for my set up (53/39, 10 speed 12-25), if I am not going up a steep hill, *the 39 ring is not going to offer up enough resistance on flat ground unless I am pairing it with my 12t on the cassette (or the ring or two next to that one), thus cross chaining. BUT, if I switch up to the 53t ring, I am going to have to move much closer to the 25t ring on the cassette, as staying on or near the 12t is too much resistance and bogs my cadence down to a point of diminishing returns* (ie. the opposite of cross chaining forces you into the least amount of resistance or the very most, does it not?). Would simply switching to a differently configured cassette alleviate some of this issue, or do I simply need to get stronger to pull myself out of this "no man's land" that I'm in!? This get's back to why I was forcing myself to stay in the big ring to begin with!!


Below I have pasted the speeds on the 53 and 39 with a 12-25 at 90 RPM. I think this shows that what I bolded is in your head and not real.

53 36

12- 31.9 23.5 
13- 29.5 21.7 
14- 27.4 20.1 
15- 25.5 18.8 
16- 23.9 17.6 
17- 22.5 16.6 
19- 20.2 14.8 
21- 18.2 13.4 
23- 16.7 12.3 
25- 15.3 11.3

Edit: 53 39. I typed 36 by mistake.


----------



## mmcycle10 (Oct 7, 2010)

Thanks for that Hank...just to make sure, you said 53 and 39 in the sentence above your chart, but the chart heading shows 36 instead of 39. I'm assuming the chart is actually showing the 39t you meant to reference. So I am starting to average 19mph+ on my training rides...flats, rollers, 1 or 2 steep climbs at most. I notice that on the 53t ring, your chart shows that a 53x21 makes 18.2mph, but then jumps to 20.2mph when moving to the 19 rear cog. This would then make sense, because these are the two combos I spend most of my time in currently, thus averaging the 19mph (assuming my cadence is 90). Unless it's downhill, I don't really ever see myself being in the 12,13,14 combos with the big ring...how many racers hold 28-30mph averages unless it's time trials or something?? Even that seems like too fast a speed to maintain overall. 

Is cross chaining only considered with the ends of the cog spectrum (12 and 25 combos for this example) or does it encompass multiple cogs (2 or 3) at either end of a 10 speed cassette? 

I am happy with the 39t for climbs...makes sense on the knees and also doesn't put as much stress on the drivetrain. That seems like a no brainer. I guess I'm still hung up on what makes the most sense on flatter ground...seems like my current average speed is kind of in between gears.


----------



## StefanG (Nov 25, 2009)

mmcycle10 said:


> Unless it's downhill, I don't really ever see myself being in the 12,13,14 combos with the big ring...how many racers hold 28-30mph averages unless it's time trials or something?? Even that seems like too fast a speed to maintain overall.


This quote lends me to believe that you aren't participating in fast group rides, which you should be doing before you start racing. You will absolutely find yourself in the 53/12,13,14 combinations at times during a race.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

mmcycle10 said:


> ...........just to make sure, you said 53 and 39 in the sentence above your chart, but the chart heading shows 36 instead of 39. I'm assuming the chart is actually showing the 39t you meant to reference.


yes I meant to type 39.

Here's the link to where I got that by the way. It's helpful when considering gears. 
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/


----------



## mmcycle10 (Oct 7, 2010)

> This quote lends me to believe that you aren't participating in fast group rides, which you should be doing before you start racing. You will absolutely find yourself in the 53/12,13,14 combinations at times during a race.


I guess I was really thinking along the lines of no pacelines or group drafting (i.e. solo training). Also keep in mind as a new racer I will be competing in Cat 5...

Just out of curiosity, what qualifies as a "fast" group ride?

Hank: thanks for the link. I have found Sheldon's page to be a great resource for all things cycling!


----------



## hrumpole (Jun 17, 2008)

mmcycle10 said:


> Just out of curiosity, what qualifies as a "fast" group ride?


One that drops you.


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

hrumpole said:


> One that drops you.


 +1. You'll know it when you see it!


----------



## Ghost234 (Jun 1, 2010)

It should depend on the grade of the hill. If you cannot hold a cadence of 75~ (up to some interpretation, this is while seated) while in the big ring, its more effective to go to the small ring. 

You never want to "force" yourself up the hill by going into a gear that is far to heavy. By doing this you can hurt your knees, or do some damage to your bike (I have broken & bent handlebars and stems because I was pushing/pulling to hard up a hill)


----------



## Bridgey (Mar 26, 2003)

From my understanding, the only gears you should avoid are the 53/23 - 25 (first two on the back) and the 39/12 - 13 (last 2 on the bottom - more because of chain rubbing on the front derraileur vs cross chain). Anything else is great. 

As for big ringing it while going uphill,
I do it on particular hills, sections, etc on a day when I'm concentrating on building strength (different to power). It's sought of like doing reps of a heavy weight when weight lifting. But in between I am in the gear that allows me to spin at 90 to 100 reps and totally recovered before my big ring efforts so as to get the most out of them.

When I choose to big ring it, my cadence is somewhere between 50 to 60. But I don't think you do yourself justice staying there all day, You want short but hard segments of it of up to about 2mins. Then recover in between. Likewise I'll have short hard efforts of spinning a low gear. But usually I ride in whatever gear that allows me to pedal between 90 to 100 rpm's which is comfortable for me. 

In fact I've trained myself to ride mountains at about 90 to 95rpms as I am about 100kg's and trust me when I say it is easier. I use to mash big gears up hills. Sometimes I will still mash but only if the peloton is basically sprinting over a short hill so not to lose pace. 

When your new to racing, try and avoid the temptation to timetrial every ride eg. go hard from start to finish, average the quickest possible every ride. This might get you fit, but doesn't help you produce a high top end speed or prepare you for short intense efforts or the ever changing fluctations of speed in a race. You need sprint training and short sharp intervals for this. Anyway just my 2cents worth.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Understanding gears*



mmcycle10 said:


> the 39 ring is not going to offer up enough resistance on flat ground unless I am pairing it with my 12t on the cassette (or the ring or two next to that one), thus cross chaining. *BUT*, if I switch up to the 53t ring, I am going to have to move much closer to the 25t ring on the cassette


You're very confused about gear ratios. A 39/12 is the same as a 54/16, so you don't have any "no-man's land" issues. 53/25 is equivalent to 39/18. It's just simple ratio math.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Modern narrow chains are more flexible than older chains. So you can use gears that would have been verboten back in the day. With a double chainring it's ok to use the large ring and the next to large cog, and the small ring and next to smallest cog. Only the most extreme combinations are to be avoided for long term use.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Ghost234 said:


> It should depend on the grade of the hill. If you cannot hold a cadence of 75~ (up to some interpretation, this is while seated) while in the big ring, its more effective to go to the small ring.
> 
> You never want to "force" yourself up the hill by going into a gear that is far to heavy. By doing this you can hurt your knees, or do some damage to your bike (I have broken & bent handlebars and stems because I was pushing/pulling to hard up a hill)


i guess you've never done big-ring hill efforts as part of a workout? they are done down to a cadence of 45-50...as long as good form is maintained, you should be fine. they are a very small percentage (verrrryyy small) of my total mileage, but invaluable none the less.


----------



## mmcycle10 (Oct 7, 2010)

Thanks for the great feedback everyone! I think I have learned to avoid the two most extreme gear combos at all costs and that a very small dose of big ring hill training can be a good thing...just very much used in moderation.



> When your new to racing, try and avoid the temptation to timetrial every ride eg. go hard from start to finish, average the quickest possible every ride. This might get you fit, but doesn't help you produce a high top end speed or prepare you for short intense efforts or the ever changing fluctations of speed in a race. You need sprint training and short sharp intervals for this. Anyway just my 2cents worth.


Okay...this is probably for a new thread, but what you described in the first sentence is essentially how I've been training. I have a number of different routes, some stress more flats, others more hills, and some are a good mix. But I have always just approached my training with the idea that finishing faster is improving. I know it's not that simple, and your suggestion about interval training seems good, as I enjoyed big gains from this in my (pre-cycling) running days. Can you (or anyone) elaborate on sprint training?


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

mmcycle10 said:


> Okay...this is probably for a new thread, but what you described in the first sentence is essentially how I've been training. I have a number of different routes, some stress more flats, others more hills, and some are a good mix. But I have always just approached my training with the idea that finishing faster is improving. I know it's not that simple, and your suggestion about interval training seems good, as I enjoyed big gains from this in my (pre-cycling) running days. Can you (or anyone) elaborate on sprint training?


I think it really is a new thread. You should get some good books on the subject, like Friel's "The Cyclist's Training Bible". 

The way I understand it is that we all have different abilities as cyclists. Some of us might be powerful sprinters, others good endurance riders, etc. These abilities can be quantified through power meter testing (see "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" by Allen and Coggan). They are typically classified as the power (per kg of body mass) you can maintain for a certain time period (5s, 30s, 1min, 20min, 1hr). Each of these might incorporate different systems in the body, and will be applicable to different race situations. Each person's abilities will be limited so varying degrees by genetics and age, but most are trainable to some degree. 

If you go with the concept of specificity, you might only train the abilities you need for the races you want to do, For instance, a pure hill climber or a tri-guy might not *need* to work on his 5s sprint power, even though it's possible there could be associated benefits in doing so. (I am also not saying you need a power meter to do or to benefit from interval training. Interval training was around long before on-the-bike power meters.)


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

mmcycle10 said:


> Thanks for the great feedback everyone! I think I have learned to avoid the two most extreme gear combos at all costs and that a very small dose of big ring hill training can be a good thing...just very much used in moderation.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...this is probably for a new thread, but what you described in the first sentence is essentially how I've been training. I have a number of different routes, some stress more flats, others more hills, and some are a good mix. But I have always just approached my training with the idea that finishing faster is improving. I know it's not that simple, and your suggestion about interval training seems good, *as I enjoyed big gains from this in my (pre-cycling) running days.* Can you (or anyone) elaborate on sprint training?


yes, in running it's only about being the fastest to complete the course. Same with biking but the big difference in biking is you can't get there alone. So in biking you need to respond to breaks because if you lose people you can draft off you don't have a prayer. In running you don't lose any efficiency (to speak of) by saying you'll just catch that little groupd up front later on because they aren't helping each other. In cycling you really need to be at a certain place at a certain time and sometimes you really need to hammer it to get there......and by the same token you can relax and barely work if you're in the pack you want to be with. In running you're pretty much doing your own thing to get across the line first. In cycling doing your own thing independant of others just doesn't work. (unless off course you just totally out class everyone)

You mentioned you've rode in groups, which would ordinarilly make this kind of obvious, so I'm guessing your group is mostly social in nature. Try to find a group that's more competative in nature if working towards racing is what you're after.


----------



## Bridgey (Mar 26, 2003)

If you are training to run 1500m running race quicker, you will concentrate on 200 and 400 and 800m intervals. Why? because to run it faster you have to increase your overall power for that distance. To do that you have to train at more power and gradually increase the time you can hold it at that power, while reducing the recovery needed in between. Important to be fresh enough in between each interval to be able to hold the power or speed you are aiming for, otherwise you are wasting your time and just getting fit again.

Likewise with cycling, if you want to increase your speed, whether it's sprint, timetrial, hill-climbinng, etc. you need to train with more power through the use of intervals. This doesn't mean every interval is in the big ring. Power is different to strength. Fitness and endurance base miles will also play a role in this, especially in the early season.


----------

