# Real cyclists ride 53 x 39



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.


Anyway just curious if others share this view


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

You must be very young.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

forty nine actually


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.
> 
> 
> Anyway just curious if others share this view


You better be riding 11-23 on the back to make that statement. If you're riding 12-25 you'll be slower than someone riding 50/36 w/ 11-23 like me.


----------



## RaptorTC (Jul 20, 2012)

Then why aren't you rolling around with a 55+ tooth TT ring? Your standard is the easy way out.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Where do you live, Trek? Just curious. 

Personally, I think n+1 "n" being the number of cyclists on the road is more important than n+1 "n" being the number of teeth on a chain ring.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

throw on a 56 and be a real real cyclist


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

headloss said:


> Where do you live, Trek? Just curious.
> 
> Personally, I think n+1 "n" being the number of cyclists on the road is more important than n+1 "n" being the number of teeth on a chain ring.


New York area. Plenty of hills.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Trek_5200 said:


> I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.


Well that's obvious. 

If you don't live in the mountains you don't need a compact. If you try riding with me up these mountains around here though I promise you that you don't have a shot at keeping up. There's going to be plenty of mountains you most likely won't even make it up, and if you do you'll be zigzagging the whole way.

If you're smart you pick your gearing based on your terrain and fitness.

Riding a "standard" doesn't make you anything special. And seeing how you think it makes you a "real cyclist" all that means is you're a douchebag that looks down on others who don't think like you.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

MMsRepBike said:


> Well that's obvious.
> 
> If you don't live in the mountains you don't need a compact. If you try riding with me up these mountains around here though I promise you that you don't have a shot at keeping up. There's going to be plenty of mountains you most likely won't even make it up, and if you do you'll be zigzagging the whole way.
> 
> ...


I don't live in the mountains, but routinely climb hills of between 7-20% grade and will climb 3000-8000 feet on a ride. Anyway, this post seems to have just got people in attack mode, not entirely unexpected but not the intent.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

MMsRepBike said:


> Riding a "standard" doesn't make you anything special. And seeing how you think it makes you a "real cyclist" all that means is you're a douchebag that looks down on others who don't think like you.


Maybe he just needs to compensate for the fit of his shorts.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Keoki said:


> You better be riding 11-23 on the back to make that statement. If you're riding 12-25 you'll be slower than someone riding 50/36 w/ 11-23 like me.


x 2 .



Trek_5200 said:


> New York area. Plenty of hills.


Suffolk county is not very hilly, sorry.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.
> 
> 
> Anyway just curious if others share this view



I'm a Cat 1. I train and race on a 50x34. 

I'm not sure why you think different gearing makes things easier. Sounds like you're quite clueless.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyway, this post seems to have just got people in attack mode...


That's because you failed.

You failed to realize that it's not the gears you have but how fast you go with the gears you have. Your assumption that compact gearing is the "easy way out" is wrong. Just because someone is running compact gearing doesn't mean they're spinning and if it does, doesn't necesssarily mean they're riding slower than you.

The forum may or may not forgive you for your undeveloped logic.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Trek_5200 said:


> I don't live in the mountains, but routinely climb hills of between 7-20% grade and will climb 3000-8000 feet on a ride. Anyway, this post seems to have just got people in attack mode, not entirely unexpected but not the intent.


Then what's your intent? To state why you think you're better than someone with different gearing? 

All that matters in my world is speed. 

If I drop you with a 34 versus 39, I still drop you, right? So if I'm going up a 12% grade, it's simply a matter of whether or not I want to stand up and drop you or spin and drop you. I can do it either way. The end result is the same. 

But neither way would be any "easier" than the other. I would still hold x watts for y seconds whether I'm pushing 70 rpm or 90 rpm. 

So again, what's the "intent" of your question?


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too?


Yes, of course. But that's a sign of technically illiteracy. There are quite a few of technically illiterate people out there, which means that there will be people who "feel this way too".



Trek_5200 said:


> ...I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out.


False. 

Firstly, the full gearing ratio of a drivetrain (assuming fixed wheel diameter) is defined by the crank length, chainring diameter and cog diameter. It cannot be described through the chainring diameter alone. By itself, chainring means absolutely nothing.

Secondly, even if we establish a certain difference between two gearing ratios, I will still prohibit referring to lower gearing as an "easy way out". It is simply a trade off between force and cadence. Both are "easy" and "tough" at the same time in their own way.


----------



## powbob (Jun 10, 2008)

Cool, I'm a real cyclist then. 53 x 39, 11-23 at 53 years old.  Kinda cheating since I live in Florida though.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

If this was a troll....it was a very non har-har one.

If it was serious, then well. No.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.
> 
> 
> Anyway just curious if others share this view


I know quite a few women that race on compacts that would drop your sorry ass like you were tied to a tree. You were definitely asking for it this time.


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> forty nine actually


So, not young. Just immature. Got it.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Getting a bit out of hand dont we think?


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Where is Gerry Hull and his 1x10 when you need him? I think he has a 55 with a 11-32 out back.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out.


No idea what you mean. I ride standard, always have, but why is a compact "the easy way out"?



Trek_5200 said:


> I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.


Once again, no idea what you could even possibly be talking about. There is no difference in cadence.


----------



## thalo (Jul 17, 2011)

Finally, validation for my existence.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)




----------



## mjduct (Jun 1, 2013)

My 34-50 with a 11-25 cassette has higher gearing than my 53-39 with a 12-27 cassette or my basterd cross bike that's 39-53 with a 13-29 cassette. Ratios are ratios, the numbers on the front end are worthless unless compared to the back end


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Trek_5200 said:


> forty nine actually


To me you're young and immature. Your OP was stupid. Your "Real cyclists ride........." was my clue to my 2nd adjective. Real cyclists use whatever chainrings are right for them.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Well, I'm a real cyclist with my standard crankset. I did a 33 mile ride today with almost 380 feet of total climbing, so....... BAM! I was on the big ring for almost the entire ride, even the 2% grades.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

What is your W/kg number? You say you regularly hit 7% - 20% gradient, then what is your W/kg number? If you even watch any of the big races, you'll notice that even the pros will struggle at anything north of 13%. Even a guy like Wiggins and Froome use a 36t inner ring along with a 28t cassette when they expect to ride anything over 10% for more than 20 minutes. And there are guys who can generate over 6.0 W/kg for 30-40 minutes at the end of a race. So all this macho talk about "real cyclist" is useless without posting your power metrics so we can all judge whether or not you know what you're talking about or just running up the ego. I have a hunch that once you post your 2.5 W/kg on here, you'll become a laughing stock. You better post some 4.5 - 5.0 W/kg FTP (at the minumum) or get the hellouttahere!!


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> So all this macho talk about "real cyclist" is useless without posting your power metrics so we can all judge whether or not you know what you're talking about or just running up the ego.


Would someone with an ftp north of 5.0 be any less clueless or any more of a douche for making a similar op? I say...not.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

bigbill said:


> ... I was on the big ring for almost the entire ride, even the 2% grades.


Ya but I bet you got out of the saddle on those steep climbs!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

I guess I'm just a sorry, a$$ weakling with my 50x34 front and 11/27 rear cassette. I'll just take my 6 State Championship (CAT 3 and Masters ... TTT and Hill Climbing) jersey's and go cry in my closet now :mad2: 

Trolls ... Gotta love them :thumbsup:


----------



## MelloJohnny (Dec 30, 2012)

"Real cyclist" wouldnt dignify this thread with comment its so sputid


----------



## Joel. (Jul 5, 2011)

runabike said:


> Then what's your intent? To state why you think you're better than someone with different gearing?
> 
> All that matters in my world is speed.
> 
> ...


You are forgetting though that OP could not be dropped because he/she is a better cyclist for riding standard. :wink5:


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

Wow your fast!!! a cat 3 state champion!!! sign this guy pro right now!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Trek_5200 = Troll_5200

End of story


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Warpdatframe said:


> Wow your fast!!! a cat 3 state champion!!! sign this guy pro right now!!!!!!!!!!


Somehow, I knew that was coming ... Just to ask, how many do you have at any level? Regardless, I guess you are here to feed the Troll :thumbsup:

The point is, I'm not exactly slow and have some nice wins to support that ... but still rely on a 34x27 low gear for climbing. But as I stated in my first post I'm just a slow a$$ loser, I guess I better run out and get my "Standard" crankset so I can be cool and fast like you and the OP!


----------



## Luis Leon (Aug 6, 2011)

I love my compact setup. I mainly ride the 50T ring but that 34 chainring is my secret weapon when the hills get too steep for me. I always chuckle a little while suffering up a climb. Thinking about all the guys who would ride the same hill in a 53x12 on the internet.


----------



## r.shoemaker78 (Feb 23, 2012)

Oh man, thanks for the laughs guys. I read the title and just had to look at the comments!

I just spent two weeks riding my old steel Trek with a 52/42 - 12/25 (7spd) while I was waiting for some replacement parts. I couldn't wait to get back on my 50/34 -12/27. I must not be a real cyclist rofl.


----------



## burobaaje (Aug 1, 2010)

I am definitely not a "Real Cyclist" because I ride a 50/34 with a 12-32, and I love the 34-32 combo when on anything over 8%. I am over 70 so I guess I can call myself a "Real Old Cyclist". I hope the OP will let me use that title.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Trek_5200 said:


> also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.


Uh, do you really have that poor an understanding of gearing? You pedal at a faster cadence if you're in a lower gear, not because you are using compact chain rings. Just for a simple example, 53/12 is actually a lower gear than 50/11. And if you tell us you "need" a 53/11 then we all just learned something.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Luis Leon said:


> I love my compact setup. I mainly ride the 50T ring but that 34 chainring is my secret weapon when the hills get too steep for me.


I actually love the 50T front ring ... In combination with the 27 tooth rear, means a lot less need to drop to my small ring. I can punch it up short steep climbs and not have to shift the front ring and risk dropping a chain, which can make a difference when racing.

The 34x27 is nice on steeper climbs or on recovery days ... This weekend we had a climb with 20% switchbacks and I could keep my RPM's up and in my power range, while others were pushing too big of a gear, which dropped them out of their power range and they struggled in the steeper sections.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.
> 
> 
> Anyway just curious if others share this view


Not at all. 50-34. Thought about switching to mid-compact and tried a few big hills without using my lowest gear. No thanks. 

And FWIW we did the same hilly ride a week ago. 

Try a compact. No offense, but spinning up hills can really help.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> New York area. Plenty of hills.


Ha, no.

I was also expecting from you real cyclist ride mechanical. Since you've been chirping about potential di2 issues for so long.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> What is your W/kg number? You say you regularly hit 7% - *]20%* gradient, then what is your W/kg number?


Some people driveways are crazy gradient. Glad he was able to ride up his.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

r1lee said:


> Ha, no.
> 
> I was also expecting from you real cyclist ride mechanical. Since you've been chirping about potential di2 issues for so long.


Pompous. From Ontario? NY metro has some decent climbs if you are familiar.


----------



## Carverbiker (Mar 6, 2013)

Go enjoy being a real cyclist, have fun. I will enjoy being a counterfeit one riding gears which suit my terrain, fitness, and riding style. 

I think you might be more suitable for being the founding member of a new sport, Worlds Strongest Gear Masher. This competition would follow the strongman competitions during the 70/80's, Who could do 10 reps up a 10% grade 1/4 mile hill with standard chainrings. If more than one made it, chainring sizes would be increased until someone fell off. More events could be added to definitively evaluate the contestants and determine the Worlds Strongest Gear Masher.

It might be interesting and you might win but it would not be cycling.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

53 x 39 is fine, I prefer it because I'm used to it and it has a slightly smaller jump from 39 to 53 than 50 to 34. The rear cassette makes more of a difference anyway. I wouldn't switch from one to the other if a bike came with either one unless it was time for new. Modern 10 and 11 speed cassettes allow riders to have more choices to tune either one to a rider's style so it's kind of a stupid argument. Ride whatever you want, one isn't more manly than the other.

The arguments some of you are making for compacts are just as foolish as the original claim, don't let yourselves get dragged into it, just smile and ignore the trolling.


----------



## scottma (May 18, 2012)

Someone should let Contador know he isn't a real cyclist.


----------



## RichardT (Dec 12, 2010)

nOOky said:


> Ride whatever you want, one isn't more manly than the other.


Neither is truly manly. Now this, on the other hand...


----------



## Burnette (Mar 25, 2013)

*Trollertainment*

I'm working on my climbing while standing, like checking out videos on youtube and I see this video today, made me think of this "I'm going to use gears to make a broad statement to deride other people because I'm feeling really bodaciously superior for some reason and that must be it" or "I'm bored, thus one must troll" thread.
Check it at 41 seconds in and see the pie plate on the rear of this guy's bike. That was a joke there, the guy, doped as me may be, is bodaciously superior to my talents:


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

RichardT said:


> View attachment 295948


This is what happens when you leave your carbon handlebars in the hot sun.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Whatever.

One thing I've noticed is a trend with 'real cyclist' I've encountered who take pride in making it up the worst grades in New England with a standard is they often will have a pie plate in the rear and actually have much lower gearing than some of the people they look down on for 'needing' a compact. I find these people hilarious.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the *compact gearing are taking the easy way out*. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.
> 
> 
> Anyway just curious if others share this view


I missed that.
What cyclist in their right mind would try to make things harder? Selecting proper gear might be the "easy way" but I don't get the "out" part. Out of what? 
Expending more energy and or burning more matches because you can't can't keep a decent cadence with your gearing doesn't make you a real cyclists it makes you a stupid one.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I missed that.
> What cyclist in their right mind would try to make things harder? Selecting proper gear might be the "easy way" but I don't get the "out" part. Out of what?
> Expending more energy and or burning more matches because you can't can't keep a decent cadence with your gearing doesn't make you a real cyclists it makes you a stupid one.


But Jay, if you train hard, build up leg strength, economy of movement, and cardiovascular capacity, you will join the truly elite down through the generations, and be able to climb up hills in 39-23, staying on top of the gear! 11-12 mph! While others are struggling in their 34-28s! Or God forbid, a 32 in back!

Wimps! Eddy Merckx liked climbing his 21 pound bikes in 44 inner rings! 26 in back! That's why he won so many races! He was over-geared all the time, so had to build up his awesome strength to handle it! :yesnod: Or maybe the reverse.

Yesterday I took out the 21 pound racing bike with 53-42 in front and 13-23 in back. Well, I did suffer and lose leg speed climbing in that 42-23 that I teethed on 30 years ago, but boys, I made it each time!  They can make my "standard crank" obsolete, but they'll take that 53/42+13-23 from my cold dead hands. :frown2:

May put on a 13-28 next year when I turn 73. :ihih: The commuter has 43 inner ring with 28 in back. It weighs 24 pounds. I maintain 90-100 rpm at all times, including climbing these wimpy little hills around NVA. If I raced in the mountains, I'd have what Contador has, cause that's how I like to climb! Fast and furious. I pass anyone I want to, sprinting at 110 rpms in 43-28. Great gear. Tops out at 15-17 mph over the crest. A small shift and I'm at 23-25 instantly, pulling away from the wimps stalling out in their 34-28s! :shocked: 

But unlike Wookie, who cross chains from his 28 to his 50--no wonder he doesn't want to shift into the small ring! That's always when you're stalling out in 53-28, so the shift is always difficult, and drops off the cog into the BB shell. I've seen it and done it a few times.  If you're climbing in the big ring, well maybe a larger inner gear would be the answer. The chain line could be kept straighter with less likely mis shifts and dropped chains, and the shifts from outer to inner wouldn't be so extreme. I remember using 44-53 one Spring, in the rolling hills of ETX. On that terrain, I could shift instantly from the 53 to 44 not missing a beat, it was so smooth. TT bikes used to use 44 inner rings. I went up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5500ft. 22 miles, in 44-23. The second time a week later, felt great all the way, no problems.

Bernard Hinault said in his book many years ago, racers have to learn how to spin first, build up efficiency and slow twitch aerobic muscles and cardio capacity. But then to win races, one must also build up the strength to power, back then, 53-13 in the final sprints, at the same cadences learned spinning! :shocked: 

I'd keep the 50t., that's a good cruising gear at rapid cadences. But forget the 34. It's too radical a change in cadence from the 50, so it would be a challenge to maintain speed, and I'd get stuck playing with the rear gears and cross chain a lot.  A ten tooth difference is about all my legs can handle smoothly. :ihih: 8 or 9 tooth difference, 50-42 or 53-44, was heaven.


----------



## The B (Feb 2, 2014)

I don't know if I'm a "real" cyclist or not, but I use a 53/39 and can't wait till I find a good enough deal on a 50/34 to justify switching over.

I've got a comfort range of 85-95rpm... if I had more to work with, gear wise, I'd be a lot faster than I am on the 130BCD.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I guess your post did not turn out very well. However I admit I am not a real cyclist whatever that is. I just ride bikes for fun and fitness. About 43 years now and still going. I try to ride 60 to 100 miles a week but last week I only made 42 because I went to Missoula Montana for a few days.


----------



## Heuston (May 23, 2013)

Just an observation (from a compact and standard owner): 50/11 is a bigger gear than a 53/12. Just saying.

And does anyone honestly think they use a 53/11 more than a 53/16? Cvdsh excepted. 

Spin people spin!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> But Jay, if you train hard, build up leg strength, economy of movement, and cardiovascular capacity, you will join the truly elite down through the generations, and be able to climb up hills in 39-23, staying on top of the gear! 11-12 mph! While others are struggling in their 34-28s! Or God forbid, a 32 in back!
> 
> Wimps! Eddy Merckx liked climbing his 21 pound bikes in 44 inner rings! 26 in back! That's why he won so many races! He was over-geared all the time, so had to build up his awesome strength to handle it! :yesnod: Or maybe the reverse.
> 
> ...


Did hinault mention in his book walking his bike up the bastille in Grenoble?


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Those who would profit from artificial contrivances such as compact gearing and derailleurs have plagued cycling since its early days:

"_I still feel that variable gears are for those over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a deraileur? We are getting soft? as for me, give me a fixed gear_".

--Henri DesGranges


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

NJBiker72 said:


> Pompous. From Ontario? NY metro has some decent climbs if you are familiar.


True. Kain road and Breakneck spring immediately to mind.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

I run a 53x39 in front. It came with the bike.

But I run a 12x30 in the back. 

It's what cheap bastards like me do.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> *May put on a 13-28 next year when I turn 73*........ *If I raced in the mountains, I'd have what Contador has, cause that's how I like to climb! Fast and furious. I pass anyone I want to, sprinting at 110 rpms in 43-28*.


I remember when I was about 4 years old I imagined myself playing hockey like Bobby Orr. At around age 6 I became realistic. If you're 73 it's probably well past time to get in touch with reality.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Well, since I've never claimed to be a 'real cyclist', I can go buy that 46T big ring for my new compact with no shame. Since I'm already slow, now I can blame it on having a 46/34 crankset instead of failing to HTFU.


----------



## go do it (Sep 12, 2007)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.
> 
> 
> Anyway just curious if others share this view


Why even reply to these type of Threads? They are posted just to flame. Just ignore them and they will die.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

junior1210 said:


> Well, since I've never claimed to be a 'real cyclist', I can go buy that 46T big ring for my new compact with no shame. Since I'm already slow, now I can blame it on having a 46/34 crankset instead of failing to HTFU.


What a ferkin' wuss!! I have a 46/*36* on my road bike (awesome Wickwerx rings!). "Slow" is very relative isn't it? My average speeds hover around 18mph (30 kph) - down 3-4mph from 3-4 decades ago. I wonder what the OP's definition of a "real cyclist" is? I've been at this game 52 years and will be out there doing 30 second ints (x20) this afternoon. Pity the OP can't be with me to show me how it's done.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> Did hinault mention in his book walking his bike up the bastille in Grenoble?


Are you kidding? 

What happened? Did he bonk in that awesome 42-21? Did the mech forget to put on the 26 in back? That woulda done it if Bernard had bothered to eat beforehand. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

go do it said:


> Why even reply to these type of Threads? They are posted just to flame. Just ignore them and they will die.


Hah!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> True. Kain road and Breakneck spring immediately to mind.


Whereas Ontario, Canada, is flat as a pancake. :yesnod:


----------



## 41ants (Jul 24, 2007)

53-39 and 11-23 down here in FL


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I remember when I was about 4 years old I imagined myself playing hockey like Bobby Orr. At around age 6 I became realistic. If you're 73 it's probably well past time to get in touch with reality.


Always wanted to ride like Eddy or Bernard, but starting late at age 40, it didn't happen!  But that don't mean I can't get my licks in! Like I said, if I can go up a 5500 ft. mountain with 44-23, I could sure do it in 34-32! :shocked: Keeping up with Contador is a separate issue. :yesnod:

Reality is managing the burn so when you get to the top, you can recover!

I've also noticed over the years that great climbers are lightweights. Lose 5 pounds and climb in the next higher gear!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

41ants said:


> 53-39 and 11-23 down here in FL


Gosh. You mean you can fight the head winds and climb those interstate overpasses in 39-23? Awesome.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

My mom loves her compact, she just cranked out 25 miles yesterday, I'll let her know she isn't a real cyclist. 
FYI she is turning 85 in a month. 

Bill


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

crossracer said:


> My mom loves her compact, she just cranked out 25 miles yesterday, I'll let her know she isn't a real cyclist.
> FYI she is turning 85 in a month.
> 
> Bill


Kudos to her. I hope I'm still cycling when I'm her age.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

MB1 said:


> Ya but I bet you got out of the saddle on those steep climbs!


Sure, just to stretch and loosen up the legs. :yesnod:

40 miles south of where bigbill is, that's where I experimented with the 53-44 combo. The 44 was really nice on those 2% grades! Considerably easier than the 53, but not so wimpy as a 39.

Several times lately I've seen road bikes with almost completely flattened big ring teeth, but the small rings didn't look used at all. If you never use it, change it over to something you will use.  

Real men aren't afraid to insult fashion and go their own way. :ihih:


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Gosh. You mean you can fight the head winds and climb those interstate overpasses in 39-23? Awesome.


Did you say you were 73? .... ride whatever you like.. Props for pops ! :thumbsup:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

crossracer said:


> My mom loves her compact, she just cranked out 25 miles yesterday, I'll let her know she isn't a real cyclist.
> FYI she is turning 85 in a month.
> 
> Bill


What's her phone number? Does she live near DC?  Nah, too old for me. :frown2:


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> What's her phone number? Does she live near DC?  Nah, too old for me. :frown2:


Do I have to remind you I'm a martial arts instructor and a very protective son??????

Lol lol lol


Bill


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> Did you say you were 73? .... ride whatever you like.. Props for pops ! :thumbsup:


We're all using the same gears anyway, as several have pointed out.  

I exaggerated age above. I'll turn 71 the last week of the Tour De France!


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

FYI, for your original post. I still ride a 53/39. I've had some fun with it and added a Mtn rear der and a nine speed 13-36 in the back. 
I tend to ride shorter hills and lengths under 60 miles so I like being able to stay in the big ring longer. Plus I had the parts laying around and it looked like a good idea. Lol lol lol

Brother, riding is riding. The gear is less important then the fact that someone is out on their bike and loving life or just discovering the joys a bike brings to your life. 
Try not to get too caught up in the labels of life, they are much too limiting and you will find that you will miss talking to, riding with, and hanging out with some amazing people.

Bill


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

How many Category HC, and 1's or 2's is the op riding. I have more then a few that I try to get to with regularity. Compact cranks are ideal for it.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

On another note I bet we have seen the last of the OP. At least for a while, til he recovers from the burns.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> On another note I bet we have seen the last of the OP. At least for a while, til he recovers from the burns.


He's in the bathroom with a Penthouse magazine and a Stanley tape measure.


----------



## 007david (Dec 24, 2007)

As others have said, it's all about the terrain and the gear ratio rather than teeth number. When I lived in Dallas, I had standard with 11-23 or 11-25 was more than sufficient to spin up anything. Now in SoCal? Compact with 11-25 and 11-28, and for climbs like Mount Baldy (either route) it's very appreciated.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I just took it like real men drink Mountain Dew or something.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> What happened? Did he bonk in that awesome 42-21? Did the mech forget to put on the 26 in back? That woulda done it if Bernard had bothered to eat beforehand. :thumbsup:


I guess he forgot that part. 
but you go on ride it in a 53/42+13-23. 
I'll help you up when you fall.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Mike T. said:


> He's in the bathroom with a Penthouse magazine and a Stanley tape measure.


Rulers work better. Even more impressive when you hold them backwards. :thumbsup:


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

tihsepa said:


> Rulers work better. Even more impressive when you hold them backwards. :thumbsup:


Depends on the ruler; and on ...; wait, oh, never mind...


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Pirx said:


> Depends on the ruler; and on ...; wait, oh, never mind...


Yep, your 1.5 looks like 10.5.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> Whereas Ontario, Canada, is flat as a pancake. :yesnod:


Yes but all still flat compared to west coast.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Fredrico said:


> Whereas Ontario, Canada, is flat as a pancake. :yesnod:


Depending on what you are comparing it to and where you are.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

In a nutshell


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Pirx said:


> Depends on the ruler; and on ...; wait, oh, never mind...


The OP's ruler is logarithmically scaled.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

Mike T. said:


> He's in the bathroom with a Penthouse magazine and a Stanley tape measure.


A six inch ruler would be way more than adequate.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

LVbob said:


> A six inch ruler would be way more than adequate.


Smart guys measure like you measure a cat's tail - from the ***hole to the tip.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

crossracer said:


> Do I have to remind you I'm a martial arts instructor and a very protective son??????
> 
> Lol lol lol
> 
> ...


OOPS! Sorry…..


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Always wanted to ride like Eddy or Bernard


Remember Cyrille Guimard?
He tried to ride like Eddy in one Tour and blew his knees out using big gears. He did coach van Impe and Hinault to wins, though he never won himself.
Big gears, look like a real cyclist and ruin your career. Hmm.


----------



## blue1scout (May 25, 2014)

Well my yard is bigger then all yours, and I'm a real cyclist cause my mom said so.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Remember Cyrille Guimard?
> He tried to ride like Eddy in one Tour and blew his knees out using big gears. He did coach van Impe and Hinault to wins, though he never won himself.
> Big gears, look like a real cyclist and ruin your career. Hmm.


You are very right.

I just did a short "spin" along the Potomac, going by the cemetery and stopping to give my respects at the Iwo Jima memorial. There's a long climb into Arlington that beats everyone up. It's probably a mile long, with a couple of nice moderate sections to partially recover for the next lowest gear sufferfest.

Well, the legs weren't up to it today. 43-28 hurt a lot. Maybe you wimps are right. I sure coulda used a 39. A 34 woulda been great! :thumbsup:

Of course! Jamming 53-12 all the time is nuts. But my knees are in great shape! I only lose spin on the long, hard climbs. And then the legs remember how to crank in circles, and voila! The knees survive.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

*You left out. . .*



MB1 said:


> You must be very young.


Stupid. Very stupid.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Real men don't ride Trek 5200s.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> True. Kain road and Breakneck spring immediately to mind.


Just meant there issno reason to go off on stupid insults.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

NJBiker72 said:


> Just meant there issno reason to go off on stupid insults.


As Banky Edwards said:
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously."


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I think the name calling and insults is inappropriate. Makes me wonder if joining the group is a mistake.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> I think the name calling and insults is inappropriate. Makes me wonder if joining the group is a mistake.


Geez, it's a forum so I expect to see some insults and name-calling. No one has been really offensive yet.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

BikeLayne said:


> I think the name calling and insults is inappropriate. Makes me wonder if joining the group is a mistake.


Don't worry, the Mods take care of any offensive name-calling. Otherwise just develop a bit of a thick skin. Go into your setup and block the poster if they really annoy you, then you don't see their crapola.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

BikeLayne said:


> I think the name calling and insults is inappropriate. Makes me wonder if joining the group is a mistake.



please do not ever go into the PO for your own safety.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> On another note I bet we have seen the last of the OP. At least for a while, til he recovers from the burns.


OP's been active on the site but absent from this thread. Go figure.

Besides, he's not a real cyclist. If he were, he'd be running a single speed. He's taking the easy way out with all those gears.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

spdntrxi said:


> please do not ever go into the PO for your own safety.


It's not my safety I was talking about.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Mike T. said:


> What a ferkin' wuss!! I have a 46/*36* on my road bike (awesome Wickwerx rings!). "Slow" is very relative isn't it? My average speeds hover around 18mph (30 kph) - down 3-4mph from 3-4 decades ago. I wonder what the OP's definition of a "real cyclist" is? I've been at this game 52 years and will be out there doing 30 second ints (x20) this afternoon. Pity the OP can't be with me to show me how it's done.


I tend to average 16 ~ 18mph depending on the time of year (I'm slower in the summer 'cause of the heat). I thought about getting a 36T small ring, but the 34T will serve well with the 12-28 and the overlap for gears is pretty good to keep from X-chaining.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> I sure coulda used a 39


A lot of pros who use Shimano are actually using 53/38s.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> A lot of pros who use Shimano are actually using 53/38s.


How do they shift, or rather when? An 11-25 t. cluster has almost no overlap in gear inches between the small and large chain rings, so that shifting either way would require major cadence adjustments. Usually when that happens, you lose speed just enough to get dropped. Just stay in the big ring all the time and go into the 39 or 38 only when climbing? In a flat out effort, it's so nice slip that chain deftly from the 53 to a 44. Its really smooth and there's really minimal loss of power.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> I guess he forgot that part.
> but you go on ride it in a 53/42+13-23.
> I'll help you up when you fall.


Yeah, that's what I got on the DeRosa. I have to admit now that I'm 30 years older and not putting in the miles, climbing these little hills is becoming more of a challenge. But I've never stalled out, not once, no sir. That would have hurt mah pride, son!  And that bike has the uncanny ability to keep going even though I swear I'm giving up. :thumbsup:

I'll concede that probably from now on, I should forever abandon these race gears and put on a 28 at least. Unfortunately, the smallest gear that fits this old Campy bolt circle is 41t. So 39 or 34 is out.

Gotta get a new bike! :cryin:


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> How do they shift, or rather when? An 11-25 t. cluster has almost no overlap in gear inches between the small and large chain rings, so that shifting either way would require major cadence adjustments. Usually when that happens, you lose speed just enough to get dropped. Just stay in the big ring all the time and go into the 39 or 38 only when climbing? In a flat out effort, it's so nice slip that chain deftly from the 53 to a 44. Its really smooth and there's really minimal loss of power.


By shifting both the front and rear at the same time. 
When dropping to the little chainring, at the very same time drop down two or three cogs in the back. With a little practice it can be done without skipping a beat.

Also when going up to the big chain ring go up the cassette a couple gears at the same time. Have to work both shifters at the same time for it to not destroy the rhythm. 

Same deal for a compact. Whenever you have that big of a jump you have to compensate and overall just have to shift more.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> please do not ever go into the PO for your own safety.


Why not?  No better place to rant if that's what's ya gotta do.


----------



## bubba117 (Aug 20, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out. Perhaps it's the college hazing thing, you go through the process and get good at the standard. I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact. Anyway just curious if others share this view


LOL, math is hard. Gear ratios are a factor here. I ride compact because i cant out spin 50/11 unless going down hill. and once i hit a climb i prefer to spin rather than stand up and waste my legs.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

MMsRepBike said:


> By shifting both the front and rear at the same time. When dropping to the little chainring, at the very same time drop down two or three cogs in the back.


I understand you're in the biz, but I was always told that shifting both derailleurs at the same time is a bad idea.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

mtrac said:


> I understand you're in the biz, but I was always told that shifting both derailleurs at the same time is a bad idea.


Yep, seems like throwing that chain over the cogs in back while simultaneously shifting in front would risk derailing the chain. :shocked:

If the gear inches overlapped more between the chainrings, shifting the front wouldn't be so radical. If you closed up the difference, like say, 53-44, or as a few here have done, like 46-38, you could use the front derailleur more with no fuss, not requiring a two cog shift to pick up the cadence.  The jump between 53 and 39 is bad enough. 50 to 34 is a huge jump!. I wouldn't want that. I've seen lots of mis-shifts and dropping chains from such wide differences. :yesnod:


----------



## cgrr (Mar 15, 2011)

I've been shifting the front and rear simultaneously on my 4000 mile old, compact cranked bike with no issues. I figured out that the huge gap existed early on and started double shifting to remedy it. The first couple of times I was waiting for something bad to happen but so far so good.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

I've been double shifting for decades. Back in the 80s I was the master of the right handed double shift with friction shifters. If you do it smoothly there is little chance of dropping the chain. Yes, that did happen on occasion with a friction shift on a triple - but it used to happen back then even when not double shifting. I have never had it happen with STI shifters.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

53 x 39 are for wusses. Should be 53 x 42 with no bigger than a 21 on back (and only for hilly road races--otherwise a straight block). That's how I did all my racing in the 80s.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bradkay said:


> I've been double shifting for decades. Back in the 80s I was the master of the right handed double shift with friction shifters. If you do it smoothly there is little chance of dropping the chain. Yes, that did happen on occasion with a friction shift on a triple - but it used to happen back then even when not double shifting. I have never had it happen with STI shifters.


When do you do this double shift, at what speeds? Seems like it would happen at 16-22 mph, the range most worked on the average ride. Why place a big double shift right in the middle of that range? I'd prefer closer spacing of the chain rings, like 8 or 9 tooth difference, 52-44 with 13-28 in back, or 46-38 with 12-25 in back. IOW overlap 2/3rds of the gears in both chain rings, rather than none, as with 53-39 or an even larger shift between 50-34. :frown2:

Come to think of it, one could space the gears with "half step" overlap, and double shift with every shift! :lol:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Notvintage said:


> Real men don't ride Trek 5200s.


True. 

I want to see the OP's time trial bike. It had better have a 56t chainring up front.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> True.
> I want to see the OP's time trial bike. It had better have a 56t chainring up front.


Maybe the OP is really Graeme Obree?


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Yup, in the business. I'm actually a certified Shimano technician and the simultaneous shifting in the front and rear is engineered into Shimano drivetrains. I have absolutely zero issues whatsoever doing it. I even shift the rear three gears at once (full 6800 lever pull) at the same time as going up to the big ring up front and don't even miss a stroke.

If you're a very smooth shifter, you've mastered the technique of releasing pressure on the pedals for a split second while shifting. With a little practice you can get a full lever push on both hands in this split second just as you can with just one hand. And seeing how the drivetrain I use is designed specifically to do so it's really butter smooth with zero issues.

One thing to note because of this Hyperglide technology: Hyperglide chains will often show 25% or more wear on them right out of the package if you use a park tool or other branded chain tool. Therefore only Shimano chain tools should be used to determine the wear on a Hyperglide chain.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

This thread looks like a testosterone fest. :wink5:


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Can we make this a sticky so the OP never lives it down?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Lombard said:


> This thread looks like a testosterone fest. :wink5:


Especially after the OP talked to his doctor about Low T.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

After using standard double and compact cranks, I can tell you that I prefer the gear spacing on the double but my current bike came with a compact (50/34) and so far I'm ok with it. I like the extra cadence that I'm getting on hills with it - though I might switch to something like a 52/36 in the future.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> When do you do this double shift, at what speeds? Seems like it would happen at 16-22 mph, the range most worked on the average ride. Why place a big double shift right in the middle of that range? I'd prefer closer spacing of the chain rings, like 8 or 9 tooth difference, 52-44 with 13-28 in back, or 46-38 with 12-25 in back. IOW overlap 2/3rds of the gears in both chain rings, rather than none, as with 53-39 or an even larger shift between 50-34. :frown2:
> 
> Come to think of it, one could space the gears with "half step" overlap, and double shift with every shift! :lol:


Half step?? Don't make me puke... Back in the 80s the industry seemed to think that half-step gearing was the way to go for touring bikes, so most stock touring bikes were equipped with a 28-44-48 or a 28-45-50 setup. This had few overlapping gears and required a lot of double shifting. The idiocy of the setup was that it forced loaded tourists to either climb in a bigger chainring than racers were using or always drop down to their granny gears for any substantial grade. Total crap! I used a 28-38-48 setup and spent 80% or more of my time in the middle ring. So double shifts were rare - but smooth.


----------



## cyclingsivells (Aug 1, 2012)

Just go fixed. Gears are for sissies.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

cyclingsivells said:


> Just go fixed. Gears are for sissies.


For sure. If the OP was a real cyclist he'd just ride around on this and put an end to any discussion - 112mph at 97rpm -


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Yep, seems like throwing that chain over the cogs in back while simultaneously shifting in front would risk derailing the chain. :shocked:
> 
> If the gear inches overlapped more between the chainrings, shifting the front wouldn't be so radical. If you closed up the difference, like say, 53-44, or as a few here have done, like 46-38, you could use the front derailleur more with no fuss, not requiring a two cog shift to pick up the cadence.  The jump between 53 and 39 is bad enough. 50 to 34 is a huge jump!. I wouldn't want that. I've seen lots of mis-shifts and dropping chains from such wide differences. :yesnod:


I do it all the time on road and MTB.

Learn to shift.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

Mike T. said:


> For sure. If the OP was a real cyclist he'd just ride around on this and put an end to any discussion - 112mph at 97rpm -


That's just frightening. I saw the video of that attempt and there is absolutely no way I would ever willingly do that. I've gone downhill at 50-60mph and that is plenty fast on a bike.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

RkFast said:


> I do it all the time on road and MTB.
> 
> Learn to shift.


Why should I have to make a complicated multi gear double shift when all I want to do is make a small shift to pick up cadence when hitting a slight rise? I can now make that shift with one flip of the front derailleur, and everything hits right on cue. You guys obviously have that down, or you wouldn't be bragging. But don't try to tell me it's no big deal, 'cause it is, compared to a simple front chain ring shift!

I'd still be interested in knowing at what point you choose to shift the front. When do you do it, typically? I'd guess around 16-18 mph. That's the range in which both rings can be useful. The small chain ring gears spin out above 18 mph and the large chain ring gears stall out below 16 mph. Unless you cross chain, which on a wide 10 speed cassette will wear out the chain pretty fast.

I've been observing cycling innovations since the 70s, and see that compact gearing is market driven. It isn't any better than standard gearing, and the trade off, separating the gears ranges like that, is dumb compared to overlapping them the way we used to. 

So lets not try to justify our choices just because "I know how to double shift!" Contador doesn't ride with 34-32 in anything but challenging, long climbs. We don't have any mountains around here in NVA, so why should I go out and buy a bike with 34-32 on the small ring? My knees are in great shape from riding up hills in 42 or 43 with a 28 in back! I've got a gear between 40" and 110" every 5 gear inches, plenty to work with, and I can modulate cadence and speed with the front chainrings, only double shifting when the terrain changes radically.

The other issue is: how fast are you climbing on that 34-32? And wouldn't it be as easy to use a bigger gear and squeeze a little more speed out of the effort? If I climbed in 34-32, my speed would drop precipitously, because overcoming gravity requires some serious pushing, no matter what the gear. I would quickly spin out at my normal climbing speed of 10 mph and slow to 5 or 6 mph instantly. It would then take longer to complete the climb, with yet more suffering.  

I see guys on their race bikes whomping up these climbs in their large rings! These aren't the Dolomites. The slogs last a minute or two, not several hours.

Gears aren't for machismo, they're for the terrain that has to be negotiated. :yesnod: That's what I'm arguing.  I call wimps who feel they just have to have Contador's 34-32 because, ohh, climbing is so hard! How do you want to suffer, carefully churning 39-27 at 75 rpm, or trying to maintain a 95 rpm spin in 34-32? Gravity is like a magnet. It doesn't care what gear you're in. In the lower gear, the lactic acid still builds up and you suffer, only at a lower speed, drawing out the pain! No thanks. :frown2:


----------



## quikrick1 (Sep 28, 2011)

Two of my main rides have 53 x 39 and one has 50 x 34, So... I'm 2/3 a real cyclist! All this math makes me dizzy.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

What Are the Advantages of Compact Gearing? | ACTIVE

_What are the advantages of running compact gearing versus a standard 53 by 39 crankset? My first "real" road bike is a Schwinn Peloton, with SRAM Rival standard cranks and an 11 by 25 cogset. Most people I ride with use compact cranks. Am I at an advantage or a disadvantage?__-Max R. — Atlanta, Georgia_ 
If you climb a lot and have less-than-spectacular fitness, you might be better served with compact gearing....


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

SauronHimself said:


> Can we make this a sticky so the OP never lives it down?


Excellent idea.


----------



## quikrick1 (Sep 28, 2011)

> =Trek_5200;4632600]have less-than-spectacular fitness, you might be better served with compact gearing....


_Throw another log on the fire_


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

quikrick1 said:


> _Throw another log on the fire_


He's right.

_If you climb a lot and have less-than-spectacular fitness, you might be better served with compact gearing…._  Case made. 

Wimps. :frown2:


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Guod said:


> That's just frightening. I saw the video of that attempt and there is absolutely no way I would ever willingly do that. I've gone downhill at 50-60mph and that is plenty fast on a bike.


Craig McLean just set a roller record of 142 mph on that same bike last week -

Video: Craig MacLean sets new roller speed record of 142mph - Cycling Weekly


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

I damaged my knees as a long distance runner in high school, so I switched to smaller chainrings and higher RPM spinning back in 1978 and have never looked back. Many of you will sneer at someone who doesn't care to ride over 20mph, but I have nearly four decades and who knows how many thousands of enjoyable miles in the saddle. My latest bike uses a compact crank and I spend the vast majority of the time in the 34t ring, just as I used to spend the vast majority of my riding on my middle ring on my other bikes. Now I am in my late fifties and am still riding 4000+ miles a year enjoyably, with regular rides in the mountains, so I believe that my strategy of switching to lower gears was the right move. For this I really like the compact crank.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bradkay said:


> I damaged my knees as a long distance runner in high school, so I switched to smaller chainrings and higher RPM spinning back in 1978 and have never looked back. Many of you will sneer at someone who doesn't care to ride over 20mph, but I have nearly four decades and who knows how many thousands of enjoyable miles in the saddle. My latest bike uses a compact crank and I spend the vast majority of the time in the 34t ring, just as I used to spend the vast majority of my riding on my middle ring on my other bikes. Now I am in my late fifties and am still riding 4000+ miles a year enjoyably, with regular rides in the mountains, so I believe that my strategy of switching to lower gears was the right move. For this I really like the compact crank.


Same story here. Except I was pushing 40 when I started running. Doing squats with barbells also crushed those poor knees. So I turned to cycling. It didn't help, either, until I read up on spinning. It took 5+ years or 20,000 miles to get that spin down. 

I also ride slower than 20 mph, averaging more like 15 on a typical day. But when a climb comes up, that spin turns deftly into a smooth action turning the crank over at 60-70 rpm depending on grade. No mashing, no pumping, just a purposeful cranking action. The knees survive just fine. I can even jump up bleachers, not that I'll ever want to do that, nor take up squats with heavy weights again. 

At 71 years of age, just being on your feet for 6 hours hustling bikes is all I need to keep osteoporosis at bay. Weight bearing exercise is helpful with the knees, too, but walking, not banging them up running. Cycling sweats out calcium. Osteoporosis is a problem with triathletes. Pro roadies usually slack off before they start losing bone density. That's what I've read, anyway.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

MMsRepBike said:


> I'm actually a certified Shimano technician and the simultaneous shifting in the front and rear is engineered into Shimano drivetrains.


I tried this today with my 5700 and it worked very well, but you already knew that. Almost a revelation, actually, since it does away with the "hitting a wall" feeling I always disliked about the compact. Thanks!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

mtrac said:


> I tried this today with my 5700 and it worked very well, but you already knew that. Almost a revelation, actually, since it does away with the "hitting a wall" feeling I always disliked about the compact. Thanks!


Well how about that Shimano genius? 

Does it matter how fast you're going. I mean do you stay in the small ring until a certain speed and then double shift into the big ring once, and follow through until you have to downshift into an easier gear? IOW when do you have to do this doubleshift? How often?


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Well how about that Shimano genius?
> 
> Does it matter how fast you're going. I mean do you stay in the small ring until a certain speed and then double shift into the big ring once, and follow through until you have to downshift into an easier gear? IOW when do you have to do this doubleshift? How often?


Modern Chorus and Record double shift fine as well. Can't speak for Sram.


----------



## Dopamine (Jun 2, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> The 34x27 is nice on steeper climbs or on recovery days ... This weekend we had a climb with 20% switchbacks and I could keep my RPM's up and in my power range, while others were pushing too big of a gear, which dropped them out of their power range and they struggled in the steeper sections.


This for me is why I really love compact - I live in Northern CA in a very hilly area and I always ride in the hills. Having a compact crank allows me to ride the hills and ride easy if I want to which is nice! When I feel like being a "real cyclist" I just use my shifter and put the bike in a harder gear.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

This should be the last post. Pro's on compacts and big cassettes.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

mtrac said:


> I tried this today with my 5700 and it worked very well, but you already knew that. Almost a revelation, actually, since it does away with the "hitting a wall" feeling I always disliked about the compact. Thanks!


no problem.



Fredrico said:


> Well how about that Shimano genius?
> 
> Does it matter how fast you're going. I mean do you stay in the small ring until a certain speed and then double shift into the big ring once, and follow through until you have to downshift into an easier gear? IOW when do you have to do this doubleshift? How often?


No, doesn't matter how fast you're going.

To answer your question simply, yes, there's a lot more shifting on a compact crank.
I don't think anyone ever disputed this point. The point is that you don't need to lose rhythm or speed to do so if you shift both front and back at the same time. But overall you're doing a lot more shifting with a compact, just the way it is.


----------



## karenashg (Aug 20, 2013)

Trek_5200 said:


> What Are the Advantages of Compact Gearing? | ACTIVE
> 
> _What are the advantages of running compact gearing versus a standard 53 by 39 crankset? My first "real" road bike is a Schwinn Peloton, with SRAM Rival standard cranks and an 11 by 25 cogset. Most people I ride with use compact cranks. Am I at an advantage or a disadvantage?__-Max R. — Atlanta, Georgia_
> If you climb a lot and have less-than-spectacular fitness, you might be better served with compact gearing....


Ha ha, awesome! I'll be sure to tell Andy Hampsten that he has less-than-spectacular-fitness when he whizzes by me on the Gavia this summer. On his compact.

Dolomites: Italian Alps, August 30 ? Sept.8, 2014 | Cinghiale Cycling Tours with Andy Hampsten

(Fun story--on this tour a couple years ago, a guy on the tour, struggling up the Stelvio, hears Andy go by with an encouraging "looking good guys!" He looks over to see Andy pedal quickly past him, while pushing another rider whose pedal had snapped off up the mountain...)

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But I'm just too entertained to find out that Andy Hampsten apparently isn't a real cyclist...


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

All this talk about compact cranks has convinced me to run out and buy one...........when I turn 80.
Until then, I'll have to "make do" with a 39x25. The 39x25 seems a little "overkill", but it's good to have if you are completely "blown" at the end of a ride (like today)
.
.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> All this talk about compact cranks has convinced me to run out and buy one...........when I turn 80.
> Until then, I'll have to "make do" with a 39x25. The 39x25 seems a little "overkill", but it's good to have if you are completely "blown" at the end of a ride (like today)
> .
> .


Chicago area was it?


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

You all got sucked into the flaming war.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

karenashg said:


> Ha ha, awesome! I'll be sure to tell Andy Hampsten that he has less-than-spectacular-fitness when he whizzes by me on the Gavia this summer. On his compact.
> 
> Dolomites: Italian Alps, August 30 ? Sept.8, 2014 | Cinghiale Cycling Tours with Andy Hampsten
> 
> ...


I liked this:

_If you are considering riding hero gears like a 39×25, please rethink your madness. Put it this way: Andy rides a 34×27. Love yourself. Install the compact and spin your legs. Your knees just thanked you._

Seriously, no argument there. But I'll still keep my 52-42, 13-28 for here where I live. The climbs are never arduous efforts that last hours. They're alway over in a few minutes. Most customers at the shop say they hardly ever use their "granny gear." In the Appalacians 30 miles west, nobody questions how cool this third chainring is. They all use it, or would if they had one. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> Chicago area was it?


Yeah. It's all flat over there! Straight block territory!  12-21, all one cog difference! No slackers with those gears, boys. it's 100% all the time. :thumbsup:


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah. It's all flat over there! Straight block territory!  12-21, all one cog difference! No slackers with those gears, boys. it's 100% all the time. :thumbsup:


Get a mountain bike and hit up quantico.

Elevator is a steep climb


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tednugent said:


> Get a mountain bike and hit up quantico.
> 
> Elevator is a steep climb


How about Sugarloaf Mtn. up near Barnesville, MD? It's 800 ft. climb with switchbacks, 1.6 miles. 10 minutes of intense suffering. That's it. Arizona Avenue, from Chain Bridge Road to Nebraska Avenue, might also be almost a mile of pretty dreadful stuff. Rock Creek Park also has some nice climbs up through pristine forest, but I think they're all under a mile.

So how many floors up does that Elevator go?


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> How about Sugarloaf Mtn. up near Barnesville, MD? It's 800 ft. climb with switchbacks, 1.6 miles. 10 minutes of intense suffering. That's it. Arizona Avenue, from Chain Bridge Road to Nebraska Avenue, might also be almost a mile of pretty dreadful stuff. Rock Creek Park also has some nice climbs up through pristine forest, but I think they're all under a mile.
> 
> So how many floors up does that Elevator go?


During the days that Quantico opens up the trails to the general public, go rent a mountain bike and try it. It's a lot steeper, over the course of a 1/2 mile. SInce it's bumpy compared to the road, you're using more of your body to maintain control & make your way up.

It's also fun to bomb down.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jan 25, 2010)

Guess we need a forum for all us imaginary cyclists running compacts.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

canuckjgc said:


> Guess we need a forum for all us imaginary cyclists running compacts.


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...ad-only-ultra-compacts-need-apply-323972.html


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

canuckjgc said:


> Guess we need a forum for all us imaginary cyclists running compacts.


There is this thread that could do for now.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...ad-only-ultra-compacts-need-apply-323972.html

Edit: Whoops just saw Sauron's post


----------



## kansukee (Jul 17, 2012)

53-39 and 11-23 in the back so I guess I'm a real cyclist, except when I ride out of Florida and I use a 12-29 in the back...


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)




----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> How about Sugarloaf Mtn. up near Barnesville, MD? It's 800 ft. climb with switchbacks, 1.6 miles. 10 minutes of intense suffering.


guess we can see where much of this nonsense comes from.


----------



## 73Chaz (May 18, 2014)

I currently have a standard front with 13-23 (7 speed) cassette. New bike will be compact with 11-25 (10 speed). I'm curious to see how that feels in comparison. I see from the ratio calculator that I will have more at the top _and_ the bottom. 

With the std I do find myself switching at the front quite a bit and sticking in the middle ring (17T) at the back, so may have to adopt a slightly different approach there.


----------



## RIL49 (Apr 27, 2012)

arai_speed said:


>


Does this horse have a 53/39 or what?


----------



## johnny dollar (Jul 21, 2010)

Don't you know? BackCountry folded RealCyclist into CompetitiveCyclist over a year ago.

Besides, only real cyclists ride bicycles (trikes and unis can suck it).


----------



## poff (Jul 21, 2007)

I am waiting for Di2 XTR to come out to get 34X40!


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

So, guys with bad knees or in my case a degenerative ankle are not real cyclist?

What about riders that tour and carry 60 pounds of gear?

Commuters anyone?

Oh and lets not forget people riding classic bikes that were 52/42 

Lastly not everyone wants to race, or feels the need to go so fast.

There are lots of reasons you might need or want lower than a 53/39


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Is the guy with the 53x39 still a real cyclist if he never goes bigger than his 15 cog? Or what about the 16?

Or what about a 32 cog for inclines? Is he still a real cyclist, just not as well hung?


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Fredirico. I like your style. Could you be the reincarnated Goat Roper of yore?



Fredrico said:


> Yeah, that's what I got on the DeRosa. I have to admit now that I'm 30 years older and not putting in the miles, climbing these little hills is becoming more of a challenge. But I've never stalled out, not once, no sir. That would have hurt mah pride, son!  And that bike has the uncanny ability to keep going even though I swear I'm giving up. :thumbsup:
> 
> I'll concede that probably from now on, I should forever abandon these race gears and put on a 28 at least. Unfortunately, the smallest gear that fits this old Campy bolt circle is 41t. So 39 or 34 is out.
> 
> Gotta get a new bike! :cryin:


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

Been cycling for 40+ years; seems pretty real to me; currently just a weekend rider, due to work and such, and have been using 53x39 w/13-29 set up since 2001.
Back in the day when I dabbled with racing, local stuff, and was a good bit faster , I ran a 52x44 w/13-21. The 52x44 was a fairly common set up in the late 70's to mid 80's. No compacts during that time and it was very, very rare to have a cog smaller than a 13. Does this make me a "real cyclist" according to our wonderful forum members? Don't know,....don't care; thought some might be interested in alittle history though and how it used to be. 
Try to remember not to take this stuff too seriously; just have fun.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

I have a 54-39/11-28 on one bike and a 50-34/11-27 on another bike. Having a big gear is nice if you have a huge tailwind and everyone else is spun out, but that seems to happen very rarely. Compact make is easier to find the sweet gear when climbing. Other than that, there is no difference and this thread is stupid.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

None of you are real cyclists. You've all become wussies. In 1903 the first Tour de France was ridden on a single speed. Derailleurs weren't allowed until 1937. Get rid of your 53/39 and HTFU.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

What is funny is that I remember when 52-42 was the standard for cranksets and "real cyclists" scoffed at the wimps using the newfangled 39t chainrings...


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

bradkay said:


> What is funny is that I remember when 52-42 was the standard for cranksets and "real cyclists" scoffed at the wimps using the newfangled 39t chainrings...


^This^ and I had a 13-24 freewheel but could never wimp out and use the 24...at least if I was riding w/ anyone. 42-21 was basically my 'easy' gear for years.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> Anyone riding standard feel this way too? I assume cyclists on compact or mid-compact may not, but after all my training I feel those going the compact gearing are taking the easy way out.





Trek_5200 said:


> Unless I'm riding a descent I'm not likely to exceed 20 mph 21 mph tops and will probably average in the mid to high teens. At those speeds, I don't see aero playing a huge role for me. I suppose I could ride the drops and achieve far more gains that way.


I thought real cyclists who rode 53x39 averaged speeds higher than mid to high teens.


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

I didn't read all (or hardly any truthfully) of the reply's to the OP's original post but I think you folks are being way to hard on the guy. My guess is the guy came in from a great ride after finally getting enough conditioning to push those big rings. Feeling full of piss and pride he just had to brag about it and since his SO could care less he turned to us for an electronic back slap. You da man!!


----------



## Robius (Aug 13, 2013)

When i started road biking i had 53/39 with 11-23 casette. After a while i realized i can't even climb medium hills with those. So I've changed 11-23 with an 11-32. (I have sram apex groupset). Now i'm doing okay on most of the hills but i'm still struggling with HC and Cat 1 climbs. So i bought a 34/50 compact crank but didn't put it on yet. I guess this gear ratio will be enough for most of the hills.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Cooper1960 said:


> Feeling full of piss and pride he just had to brag about it


I don't think anybody on this forum would not give a person a pat on the back when that person had a breakthrough or a great ride. But to belittle others who ride compacts by stating only "real" cyclists ride ... is not called for.


----------



## dracula (Mar 9, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I don't think anybody on this forum would not give a person a pat on the back when that person had a breakthrough or a great ride. But to belittle others who ride compacts by stating only "real" cyclists ride ... is not called for.



[I am a big fan of 53/39 even in the Alps].

But what people forget to mention here is the fact it is nay impossible to buy a stock bike with 53/39 these days. Everything is compact not just at the low end of the spectrum.

Now I understand people who ride 53/39 have been building up their bike from scratch starting with a frame (as I do).


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

dracula said:


> [I am a big fan of 53/39 even in the Alps].
> 
> But what people forget to mention here is the fact it is nay impossible to buy a stock bike with 53/39 these days. Everything is compact not just at the low end of the spectrum.
> 
> Now I understand people who ride 53/39 have been building up their bike from scratch starting with a frame (as I do).


funny. went to the website I normally buy from. took first bike. choice of compact or 52/39 or a triple. 
so no, no need to build up from scratch.


----------



## dracula (Mar 9, 2010)

den bakker said:


> funny. went to the website I normally buy from. took first bike. choice of compact or 52/39 or a triple.
> so no, no need to build up from scratch.


Another thing to consider: real men as we know them ride a 175mm crank and even if the bike came with a 53/39 it was likely a stock 172.5mm for the medium or 56cm frame size. The only option still is the build up from scratch.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

dracula said:


> Another thing to consider: real men as we know them ride a 175mm crank and even if the bike came with a 53/39 it was likely a stock 172.5mm for the medium or 56cm frame size. The only option still is the build up from scratch.


careful the moving goal posts don't hit you. you want to dictate real men bike frames for the women as well while you are at it?


----------



## leathernek (Feb 25, 2007)

Why all the ball busting? Some of you guys are reading too much into this.


----------



## johnny dollar (Jul 21, 2010)

leathernek said:


> Why all the ball busting? Some of you guys are reading too much into this.


#1


love4himies said:


> But to belittle others who ride compacts by stating only "real" cyclists ride ... is not called for.


#2 ballbusting is hilarious, don't you watch the YouTubes?

#3 There's not much to read into. OP was inflating his ego while at the same time disparaging anyone else who doesn't ride the wicked strong way he does.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

I've come to realize that most everyone should be riding a compact set-up. I have a 53-42 on my bike (older crankset) and here in the flat lands I find myself always in big-big or small-small cross-chaining gears. 42x14 or 53x19 is just about perfect for spinning at 21-22 MPH (my typical cruising speed). A compact would put me more squarely in the middle of the block more frequently. I can't really see ever needing a 34 chainring, though, the "hills" (ha!) around Chicago simply aren't big enough.

Come to think of it, given ultra-wide cassette ranges and 11sp, the time might be right for a 1X road drivetrain. A single 48 or 50 ring with a 11-32 and medium-cage RD would probably serve my needs quite nicely. It would also allow me to get rid of the FD, truly the worst component on any bike. Talk about a simple drivetrain.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> ^This^ and I had a 13-24 freewheel but could never wimp out and use the 24...at least if I was riding w/ anyone. 42-21 was basically my 'easy' gear for years.


At least you had the 24. My first road bike was a "10 speed" Moto. 52/42 up front, 5 cog 13-21 in the back. Being 19 helped a lot. :lol:


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

dracula said:


> Another thing to consider: real men as we know them ride a 175mm crank and even if the bike came with a 53/39 it was likely a stock 172.5mm for the medium or 56cm frame size. The only option still is the build up from scratch.


I believe the point was that "real men" prefer speed over torque, meaning that "real men" opt for _shorter_ crank length, not longer.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

My PX-10 was geared like that. 52/42 and 13-21. I was mid 20s. That is a real manly drivetrain.


----------



## scottma (May 18, 2012)

I also had a 52/42 13-21 back in the day. The only other option was a triple 52/42/30. I gave that bike away recently. I'm happily riding a compact now.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

AndreyT said:


> I believe the point was that "real men" prefer speed over torque, meaning that "real men" opt for _shorter_ crank length, not longer.


I don't see what speed has to do with bragging at the coffee shop?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

AndreyT said:


> I believe the point was that "real men" prefer speed over torque, meaning that "real men" opt for _shorter_ crank length, not longer.


And here I thought that most bragging men were more likely to brag about their "longer crank length" not their "shorter crank length".


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

MMsRepBike said:


> Yup, in the business. I'm actually a certified Shimano technician and the simultaneous shifting in the front and rear is engineered into Shimano drivetrains.


Real cyclists use Campagnolo


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

The thread that never dies (or stops giving).


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> ^This^ and I had a 13-24 freewheel but could never wimp out and use the 24...at least if I was riding w/ anyone. 42-21 was basically my 'easy' gear for years.


Kilometer 67...

Krabbe's twenty is still clean as a whistle.

"The Rider"


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> guess we can see where much of this nonsense comes from.


Argh, like I said. I made it up Mt. Wilson, Ca, 5500 ft. 22 miles, twice the time I was in LA. I found it no worse than any other climb, moderate grades until the last 5 miles, then grades matched in Rock Creek Park.

So riding with a couple of hammerheads for a few years with short climbs taught me how to apportion energy. That's how you'll make it. Some riders blow up and have to stop and rest. Real cyclists don't allow that to happen. :nono: 

It took two hours to get up that sucker, den! :yesnod: 22 miles in 2 hours = 11 mph average CLIMBING speed, using 44-23 gearing. Yessir.

The bike, a DeRosa SL/SLX combo, performed flawlessly climbing and descending. I'm still amazed every time I ride that bike.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

MMsRepBike said:


> no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you double shift across a span of gears, roughly going the speed you want to maintain? Or do you simply double shift to overcome the "hitting the wall" feeling mtrac mentions above?

Shimano guy, I get it: flipping both levers inward at the same time makes a double shift without upsetting the steering, or little levers inward at the same time would do the same. So in an upshift for example, left lever pushes chain onto large ring, while right lever pushes chain onto larger cog in back to fill in that hitting the wall feeling?

Gosh with 2 x 10 closely spaced gears, you can play the gears like an accordion, right, like "shift more?" :yesnod: And yet, most recreational riders stay in one or two gears that they get used to, and then there's the single speed revolt.  I don't necessarily like to shift all the time, so I've stuck with compromise 12 speeds, no problems.  I reverentially emulate the single speeders, only with a few more gears at my disposal. :yesnod:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Argh, like I said. I made it up Mt. Wilson, Ca, 5500 ft. 22 miles, twice the time I was in LA. I found it no worse than any other climb, moderate grades until the last 5 miles, then grades matched in Rock Creek Park.


2 times? wow! 
we been over this before. Wilson is an easy climb. no steep passages. of course 44/23 is fine for it. 
and of course it's completely irrelevant for people riding steep long climb.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

johnny dollar said:


> #3 There's not much to read into. OP was inflating his ego while at the same time disparaging anyone else who doesn't ride the wicked strong way he does.



Except the "wicked strong way" he rides is a farce as he'd be dropped by a good rider on any sort of gearing, compact or smaller. And he seems oblivious to that.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Argh, like I said. I made it up Mt. Wilson, Ca, 5500 ft. 22 miles, twice the time I was in LA. I found it no worse than any other climb, moderate grades until the last 5 miles, then grades matched in Rock Creek Park.
> 
> So riding with a couple of hammerheads for a few years with short climbs taught me how to apportion energy. That's how you'll make it. Some riders blow up and have to stop and rest. Real cyclists don't allow that to happen. :nono:
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you started Mt. Wilson from but from the bottom to the top is 18.3 miles:

Strava Segment | Shell to Top of Mt Wilson

I do that climb in 2hrs, which is 9.1mph.

Now I'm an unreal cyclist and did that using a compact but I have also done it with 39/25.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> 2 times? wow!
> we been over this before. Wilson is an easy climb. no steep passages. of course 44/23 is fine for it.
> and of course it's completely irrelevant for people riding steep long climb.


Ok, ok, to be honest, I'd do it with 42-27 next time around. That last 5 miles was a ball buster. But 34-32? :lol: I'm not racing.

Yesterday rode this same bike, now with 52/42 and 13-23 freewheel. That 42-23 is pretty tall compared to the winter, 43-28, legs struggled to stay on top of the gear. But guess what? I climb a good mile per hour faster simply by being in that slightly higher gear! BTW, nobody passes me on ascents. I attack all hills around here because they're short, that is, under a mile. Why ratchet down to 34-27 only to prolong the suffering? I did see a guy get off his bike and walk it up one of these climbs. He was at least 100 pound overweight. There's the marketing target: out of shape fat boys. :ihih:

BTW this is the first time anyone has agreed that 44-23 is doable going up Mt. Wilson!  Thanks. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

Trek_5200 said:


> I also don't do well at the faster cadence of compact.


So in other words, you suck, but you're trying to position that as Other People Suck. Gotcha.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Anyone wanna guess if he has a 32 in back and a dork disk?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

This thread delivers.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> BTW this is the first time anyone has agreed that 44-23 is doable going up Mt. Wilson!  Thanks. :thumbsup:


you should get out more. 
plenty people ride wilson in the big chain ring.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> What is your W/kg number? You say you regularly hit 7% - 20% gradient, then what is your W/kg number? If you even watch any of the big races, you'll notice that even the pros will struggle at anything north of 13%. Even a guy like Wiggins and Froome use a 36t inner ring along with a 28t cassette when they expect to ride anything over 10% for more than 20 minutes. And there are guys who can generate over 6.0 W/kg for 30-40 minutes at the end of a race. So all this macho talk about "real cyclist" is useless without posting your power metrics so we can all judge whether or not you know what you're talking about or just running up the ego. I have a hunch that once you post your 2.5 W/kg on here, you'll become a laughing stock. You better post some 4.5 - 5.0 W/kg FTP (at the minumum) or get the hellouttahere!!


Here's an 18% that some schlep that looks to have poor form is doing on a standard no doubt...


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

den bakker said:


> Wilson is an easy climb.


Agreed. I climb that cakeride twice a day with a 53/21 just for an ice cream at the snack shack.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fish stories remind me of the twilight zone story with Andy Divine who was the biggest Story teller on earth. He was captured by aliens but busted out when he kicked their tails with his harmonica music. Anyway you guys with your fish stories are great. Keep the whoopers coming!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

BikeLayne said:


> Fish stories remind me of the twilight zone story with Andy Divine who was the biggest Story teller on earth. He was captured by aliens but busted out when he kicked their tails with his harmonica music. Anyway you guys with your fish stories are great. Keep the whoopers coming!


Who tells Twilight Zone stories these days? What are you, 87 years old?

Go climb Wilson twice a day in a 53/21 for the ice cream and get back to us later.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

tvad said:


> Who tells Twilight Zone stories these days? What are you, 87 years old?
> 
> Go climb Wilson twice a day in a 53/21 for the ice cream and get back to us later.


. I am 66 and retired. The Twilight Zone movies are still being shown on TV so you can watch them also. However I will pass on cycling in So Cal but I might get an ice cream at Disneyland next year. But I do love a good whopper so you could tell how you sprint up Wilson in the big boy ring if you want. Everybody is ready for another chuckle from this strange thread. These days my bike rides all start and stop at my driveway but I have no tales of greatness. Just a retired guy that enjoys cycling for fun and fitness.


----------



## Dopamine (Jun 2, 2009)

BikeLayne said:


> . I am 66 and retired. The Twilight Zone movies are still being shown on TV so you can watch them also. However I will pass on cycling in So Cal but I might get an ice cream at Disneyland next year. But I do love a good whopper so you could tell how you sprint up Wilson in the big boy ring if you want. Everybody is ready for another chuckle from this strange thread. These days my bike rides all start and stop at my driveway but I have no tales of greatness. Just a retired guy that enjoys cycling for fun and fitness.


Your healthy and balanced attitude is uncalled for in this thread!!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

BikeLayne said:


> . I am 66 and retired. The Twilight Zone movies are still being shown on TV so you can watch them also.


I was having some fun, as indicated by the wink that ended my post. The tale told was firmly tongue in cheek.

I suppose to some, climbing Mt. Wilson is easy. To me, it's not easy. Never has been, and never will be. I climb it in a 39/28.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

tvad said:


> I suppose to some, climbing Mt. Wilson is easy. To me, it's not easy. Never has been, and never will be. I climb it in a 39/28.


sort of the point. each picks the gears that fits the rider/climb combination.


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

If "real cyclist" ride 53/39 what do you call a cyclist who only uses the 53 ring for an entire ride? That's what I did last night, 44 miles with lot's of hills and wind. I could have used my wimpy compact geared bike but I wanted to keep it "real" so opted for my big ringed C50. I think that makes me a "manly man cyclist", heck I may toss my 39 ring in the trash just to save some weight.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

The fixie riders are laughing at you 53/39 guys and calling you girlie men behind your backs. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

I cant believe nobody has posted this.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

tvad said:


> I was having some fun, as indicated by the wink that ended my post. The tale told was firmly tongue in cheek.
> 
> I suppose to some, climbing Mt. Wilson is easy. To me, it's not easy. Never has been, and never will be. I climb it in a 39/28.


 I am sorry, I missed the wink. Since I have a triple I usually just pop down to the granny gear once I get tired. It's my bail out. We have our hills but there are no Mt Whitney's around here. My usual 20 mile ride has 800 ft of climbing. Just out my driveway for a spin in the country and then back home. It's perfect for me. I hardly see other cyclists out there but I think they usually ride after work in the wind and I ride in the mornings being a retired guy. No riding today as I am going to go paint a sail boat with my friend. We took it out of the water on Wednesday and sanded it below to water line and today we paint it. Tomorrow we put it back in the water. Well we don't put it in the water as it takes a boat crane if that's the right name for the machine. It's remote controlled and kind of fun to watch the guy do it.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> The fixie riders are laughing at you 53/39 guys and calling you girlie men behind your backs. :smilewinkgrin:


 A couple years ago there was a guy around here that had an old track bike and the guy could flat out fly on the thing. Humble pie when he blew right on bye. I don't see him any longer so maybe he moved or took up golf.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Why not just toss it all out and get a fixie . Save a bunch of weight and all that shifting is a bother anyway. But you know you cannot shave your legs and be a manly man. Cycling in womens underwear kind of takes the bite out of the manly man thing also. I don't know where the wink key is so "wink"


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

BikeLayne said:


> I don't know where the wink key is so "wink"


Type a semi colon, then a right parenthesis.



A colon followed by a right parenthesis makes a smile.



Have fun.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

an equal, eight, dash and capital o make = hair raising shock and awe, which I am reading this thread

=8-O


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

tvad said:


> Type a semi colon, then a right parenthesis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

tvad said:


> Type a semi colon, then a right parenthesis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


colon wink colon. :wink:


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

/"UU"\

And this is a woman who doesn't shave her pits


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

mambo said:


> Real cyclists use Campagnolo


You got it! Shimano is for girls!

I think we need to start a new thread about that one....


----------



## dracula (Mar 9, 2010)

mambo said:


> You got it! Shimano is for girls!
> 
> I think we need to start a new thread about that one....


I think Campagnolo is for girls. Isn't it said woman buy emotions with a product and not technique.

Any native Italian language speakers here who would confirm "Campagnolo" means "Channel 47" in Italy.


----------

