# Is it possible to get up hills on a compact set up



## ashtons99 (26 Apr 2009)

Im back to road biking after a long long break. Currently using an FCR2 which as a triple is a half decent climber. Im already though looking round at some expensive carbon drop bar stuff. 

What concerns me is having spent 2k of my hard earned is whether i would actually be able to actually get to the top of hills on a compact chainset. Apart from Trek most of the 'boutique' bikes are all compact.

I thought i recall a thread about this but cant find it so my question is
....Can I get a gianribbldolanorbeafeltetc with a compact set up and still have half a chance of not pushing up hill.


----------



## Dayvo (26 Apr 2009)

If you can make head nor tail of it, this should be able to explain things for you.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3521

It's the range of gears you have available that matters.


----------



## bonj2 (26 Apr 2009)

it depends what the hill is like
you can get up hills on a normal double chainset
but long hills/very steep hills/long steep hills/a lot of hills for a long time, any combination of one (or more) of those and a triple or compact is easier.
as dayvo says it's the range that matters.
on my double, i can use from 1 to about 5 or 6 on the small ring, and from about 2-3 (1 at a push) on the big - 5 or 6 on the small sort of roughly meets 2 on the big - whereas on a compact, you probably need to go right to the top of the block on the small ring to meet the bottom of the block on the big ring, so you're more likely to have the chain rubbing the front mech.
You may also need a long cage rear mech.

what about this- if you're getting a new bike just get a normal double then if it's hilly you can take your current bike with its triple.

you can stand up on hills and honk, or just grind - learn to 'heel' it and you can find extra torque from the hamstrings. riding fixed helps a lot with this


----------



## Dave5N (27 Apr 2009)

Yes. You can and you will.


----------



## Will1985 (27 Apr 2009)

A compact should be easier than a double. Get one and be done with it. You can always change cassettes around, or even add 53/39 chainrings to make it a normal double.


----------



## Randochap (27 Apr 2009)

Depends.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

There are a lot of 'Gear calculators' on the web and in magazines, but none say what gear should get you up what gradient.

I said something a while back and got a real scathing response. It was a 'general rule' for a 'first season' cyclist.

Let me ask all of you a question. "Why are the pedals NOT included in the weight of the bike?"

Its all about 'Dead weight', not the combined weight of the bike AND you.

A cycling coach can reasonably expect a novice cyclist to be fit enough to climb several flights of stairs without getting completely breathless. When you are cycling up a hill, you are effectively climbing several flights of stairs while carrying your bike.
So, to those ends, the gearing is calculated by using the weight of the 'dead' mass. It is also dependent upon a 'reasonable' power expectation.

Forward motion is reduced when upward motion is increased, until upward motion requires ALL the power available.
If you have a good idea of the power ( continuous ) you can produce, you can apportion that between forward and upward speed and then choose the gearing upon the cadence you use to ride those speeds.

Everyone is different. Different bike, different strength, different natural cadence.

Bike manufacturers in the sixties and seventies geared their 'Roadrace' bikes quite high, engineering lowest gear to be the 1/lbx1000 rule.
They expected the customers to be pretty fit already when the bike was bought.

Coming back to 'reasonable' power expectation, this is the reason 'Compacts' have become popular.


----------



## Randochap (27 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> There are a lot of 'Gear calculators' on the web and in magazines, but none say what gear should get you up what gradient.
> 
> I said something a while back and got a real scathing response. It was a 'general rule' for a 'first season' cyclist.
> 
> ...



Readers' Digest version: Depends.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

I was in a fortunate situation when I was young because Birmingham had a cycle track. It was 400m round and if a rider could ride 75 laps in an hour, he was producing about 0.25 hp continuous power. 175 Watts is a reasonable power to exert on a 'fast' section of flat road (18mph) or a hill up to 10%.

So knowing which gear you ride along at 18 mph, calculate the cadence.
Now using this cadence, calc the speeds in each gear.
The power vs speed curve is not linear and you will find a 10% gradient at 175 Watts will be 10.2 mph at 72 rpm on a 49" gear. This was the lowest gear fitted to a 20 lb dog-bolox race bike which was aimed at the club event rider.

OK, so a novice only covers 60 laps. His continuous Wattage is about 100. Now his climbing ability up a 10% is 6.8 mph at 61 rpm on a 39" gear. The magic 40" for a 25lb bike.

An absolute beginner only covers 50 laps ( 12.5 mph ). His continuous power is about 70 Watts. This means to get up a 10%, he'll need a 35" gear, ( which was the lowest on my Dawes Giro 500 – entry level 'sports' bike ); spin it at 57 rpm for a speed of 5.8 mph.


Yes, it "Depends", all right.
Is it a little clearer now?


----------



## Chris James (27 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Its all about 'Dead weight', *not the combined weight of the bike AND you.*
> 
> If you have a good idea of the power ( continuous ) you can produce etc.



Jimboalee, if this is true, then one might expect that the same rider, with the same power output, would go up a steep hill 50% faster on a 8kg bike rather than a 12kg bike, using the same gearing.

Do you believe this to be true? I don't.

Re the OP, you can compare the gearing on a compact and your triple and cycle up hills that you find hard on the triple in the same gear as the bottom one on your compact. 

eg

compact 50/34, 12-27 10 speed cassette, bottom gear is 33 inches

triple 52/42/30, 12-25 10 speed cassette, second to bottom gear is 34 inches.

So in this case, if you could climb your local hills in 2nd gear on yuor triple then you could get up them with bottom gear on the compact.

But, as many threads on here argue, the difference between triples and compacts is not just the range of gears but how they are distributed.


----------



## peanut (27 Apr 2009)

Will1985 said:


> A compact should be easier than a double. Get one and be done with it. You can always change cassettes around, or even add 53/39 chainrings to make it a normal double.



yes +1 I just switched to compact doubles 50x34t on both my bikes after 20 years of 53x38t doubles 
I have put on 2 stone and needed a lot of help on any slope.

The beauty of compact doubles is you only change the chainset. No other part of the transmission system needs changing which saves a lot of unecessary cost.

Changing from a 39t small ring to 34t on the compact is not huge but combined with a 27t or even 28 t sprocket on the cassette has given me an extra 10" reduction in gearing effectively an additional 4 or 5 gear changes


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

Let's take my Spesh SWorks. 7.6 kg. 39 x 25 (42") and whizzes up a 10% at 9.3 mph at 77 rpm.
Now my Dawes Giro 500, 11.5 kg and on 30 x 19 (43") gear, I go up a 10% at 53rpm at a miserable 6.5 mph.

To be quite honest, the Spesh goes up a 10% on 39 x 19 ( 55"), at 59 rpm.


----------



## Chris James (27 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Let's take my Spesh SWorks. 7.6 kg. 39 x 25 (42") and whizzes up a 10% at 9.3 mph at 77 rpm.
> Now my Dawes Giro 500, 11.5 kg and on 30 x 19 (43") gear, I go up a 10% at 53rpm at a miserable 6.5 mph.
> 
> To be quite honest, the Spesh goes up a 10% on 39 x 19 ( 55"), at 59 rpm.




Your examples don't sound like real world examples, but rather calculations. 77 rpm (not 80?), 9.3 mph (not 9.0) etc.

I shall have to dig out my copy of Bicycling Science as I seem to recall it contradicts your assertion. Off the top of my head they talk about a handful of seconds at the top of large climbs per kilo of bike.

Also, given that bikes are built down to the UCI limit of 6.8 kgs nowadays, but in the 50s a good bike would be , what, 10kg?

In 1952 Fausto Coppi climbed Alpe d'Huez in 45 mins 22s. In 2006, fifty years later and with the benefit of highly modern training and nutritional methods, Frank Schleck clkimbed the Alpe in 40mins, 46s. On a bike that was probably 30% lighter.

By your theory he should have climbed it in about 30 minutes. The best ever time up the Alpe is 37 mins 35s by Pantani. The sub 40 minute times co-incide with the EPO boom years, not lighter bikes.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

Of course they're calculations. Calculations based on results from recorded data off my Garmin on a regular basis.
There has been much chatter lately about gearing for hills, so in this recent nice weather, I've had my two bikes out quite often, over the same route, clockwise and anticlockwise, but not both at the same time.

My Garmin is recording distance and elevation. From the hundreds of data points in the 50 km route, I can plot my climbing speed vs gradient after rejecting any 'outliers' - obvious duff datapoints. MS Excel plots a 'best fit' polynomial.

The coefficients for the 4th order poly are entered on my spreadsheet to give a 'theoretical' curve and I compare this with the recorded 'spot' datalogs during the climbs. It's a 'fair' fit. +/- 1%

This has been done for the two bikes. The difference IS noticeable. The 17lb Spesh with a half full bottle DEFINITELY is easier to ride up a hill. That's not a surprise. The surprise is the slow speed I ride The Dawes.

BTW, the Cd of the Spesh is 0.80. and the Cd of the Dawes is 0.95. Shall we discuss that?


----------



## peanut (27 Apr 2009)

ashtons99 said:


> ....Can I get a gianribbldolanorbeafeltetc with a compact set up and still have half a chance of not pushing up hill.



to answer this we really need to know what your current setup is on your bike.
Let us know what teeth your cassette has and your chainrings and we can then show you some examples of advantages and disadvantages of compact v standard double v triple 

otherwise Jim and Chris are going to rabbit so far off topic we'll all end up catatronic 


by the way a hearty welcome to the forums ........ tsk ........where are your manners guys ?


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

The OP's question was "*Is it possible to get up hills on a compact set up".*
That's the same as asking "Will a Reliant Robin tow a caravan up Porlock hill?"

My answer is "If the Reliant Robin has a Keith Black 500 cu inch Nitrous oxide injected Hemi."

My answer to the OP's question must be "If you have a pair of legs that can produce a quarter of a kilowatt for an hour".


----------



## peanut (27 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The OP's question was "*Is it possible to get up hills on a compact set up".*
> That's the same as asking "Will a Reliant Robin tow a caravan up Porlock hill?"
> 
> My answer is "If the Reliant Robin has a Keith Black 500 cu inch Nitrous oxide injected Hemi."
> ...




come on Jim cut the guy a little slack . He's a new member and isn't used to your perverted sense of humour like wot we is  anyway any fule no that a piece of string is twice as long as it is from the centre to one end


----------



## ColinJ (27 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> This has been done for the two bikes. The difference IS noticeable. The 17lb Spesh with a half full bottle DEFINITELY is easier to ride up a hill. That's not a surprise. The surprise is the slow speed I ride The Dawes.


A group of C+ forum members got together for a very hilly 100 km ride in West Yorkshire in 2006. One rider was tall and slim (6' 2", 12.5 stone), but he was riding a heavy old steel touring bike. He reckoned it weighed 32 pounds. By the time we were at the halfway point, he was getting tired. The hills in the second half almost killed him!

Now, the same rider turned up at a similar ride I organised in 2007. He was the same weight and he'd done his usual amount of riding i.e. he wasn't suddenly super-fit from doing extra training. What _was_ different was his bike. He'd invested in a Specialized Roubaix carbon fibre bike which probably weighed around 17 pounds, so that was 15 pounds less than his tourer. We came to the first hill and he just shot away from me! 

I rode the Kirklees Sportive with him last year, and the replacement event, the Brian Robinson Challenge yesterday and once again he was climbing with ease. He swears blind that it is all down to the lighter bike.

I was on a light bike yesterday, but I weigh about 20 pounds more than I did for that first ride. I grovel up steep climbs now. It's amazing how much difference 15-20 pounds makes when you are riding uphill. For me, it is much more than the theoretical numbers would suggest. 20 pounds is only about 10% of my body weight and much less than 10% of the weight of me, bike, water, clothes, tools and spares, yet it slows me down by at least 25% on steep hills, if not more.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

I'll put it another way.

The 'Off the peg' bike manufacturers spend a lot of cash, not only sourcing the best prices for the components, but to fit the appropriate components for the bike.
When it comes to gearing, a 52/42 chainset would be the most cost effective and a 12 x 23 cassette. But who's going to buy a bike with gearing for a 'flat' stage when it will no doubt be asked to get up hills.
So the manufacturers go for 53/39 or a 'Compact' and marry it to a 11 x 25 cassette. They might even fit a 52/42/30 for those riders who are starting the sport from scratch.

If you can read between my lines, I am suggesting the likes of Trek, Spesh, Giant, Cannondale, Felt et al have equipped their bikes with what they consider suitable.

Older makers, such as Peugeot and Dawes geared their bikes to how they perceived a 'typical' customer. Peugeot put a 42 ring to 28 sprocket lowest on a 26lb 'Sports' bike which was intended for the beginner. There was opportunity to fit a 38 ring if there were going to be hills steeper than 10%.
Peugeot fitted a 53 x 39 and 13 – 23 block on a 21.5lb full Roadrace bike. They cost a stack of money and Pug reckoned the customer had already been competing for at least one season. 

Historically speaking, bikes these days are UNDER geared. They are built up to appeal to a wider audience who might use ( or need ) the lower gears that were once retro-fit.

A 20lb mid-range roadbike might have a 'Compact' 34 with a 25 sprocket. After a few rides up their local mountains, the owner will probably be climbing up a 10% on the 34 ring and 19 sprocket, as per mythology.
Then they will be wondering if they will ever use the 25 sprocket again.


----------



## Chris James (27 Apr 2009)

ColinJ said:


> It's amazing how much difference 15-20 pounds makes when you are riding uphill. For me, it is much more than the theoretical numbers would suggest. 20 pounds is only about 10% of my body weight and much less than 10% of the weight of me, bike, water, clothes, tools and spares, yet it slows me down by at least 25% on steep hills, if not more.



I think it all depends on how steep. When the hills are very steep and climbing them involves effort at or near your maximum then additional weight, headwinds etc have a disproportionate effect on you.

Once you have gone into the red a few times you tire rapidly. If the lighter bike (or lower gears!) helps prevent you going into the red at all then you can keep going for longer still putting out decent power.

On a similar theme I went home for lunch and the new Cycling Plus mag had come through the post. There is an article comparing the same rider riding a 1980s Pearson in 531c with a carbon Pearson. The new one was 6 minutes faster over 16 miles at moderate pace (1hr 7mins vs 1 hour 1min), with the same average heart rate.

But the old bike had toe clips, 12 speed (lowest gear 42/18), non aero wheels, down tube shifters etc so there were actually quite a lot of differences rather than just the fact that the new one was substantially lighter. Also he rode the steel bike second after a bit of a rest.

How did you enjoy the Brian Robinson Challenge Colin? Each year I quite fancy doing it, but lack of cycling time with two kids under three mean that I never feel fit enough to tackle it. Also, I get to cycle most of those roads for free whenever I feel like it!

I went for a ride on Sunday morning, a pretty lumpy 37 miles with 1100m height gain. I was feeling quite tired at the end of it but overtook one of the Challenge riders coming into Emley and gave him a cheery ‘good morning’. He must have been going pretty slowly as I rode away from him, probably a bit dispiriting as I was on my steel audax bike with mudguards, Brooks saddle etc and he was on a light road bike.

But I guess he was totally knackered due to all the previous hills by that point. He would have already ‘gone into the red’ several times that day. I felt a bit sorry for him actually as he still had a long way to go.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

Chris James said:


> The new one was 6 minutes faster over 16 miles at moderate pace (1hr 7mins vs 1 hour 1min), with the same average heart rate.



That's because the new Carbon bike had a lower Coefficient of Drag ( Cd ). NOT because it was lighter.


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

The only way to evaluate how a rolling vehicle will perform is in a Wind Tunnel. Not some amateurish hotch-potch road test where the meteorological and human conditions are different.


----------



## peanut (27 Apr 2009)

that would be pretty pointless Jim as Chris points out you have so many different factors involved that it would be impossible to compare scientifically .
If you wanted to compare two factors everything else would have to be identical otherwise you weouldn't know to what extent any of the incidental factors were influencing the results .


----------



## Chris James (27 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> That's because the new Carbon bike had a lower Coefficient of Drag ( Cd ). NOT because it was lighter.



Yes, I am sure that is true, although the fact the rider struggled to turn his pedals over in the 42/18 gear also contributed. He lost a load of time (2 mins?) and averaged a mile an hour slower on the first climb. I think he was only going 5mph so for that climb at least aero effects would be minimal.


----------



## Chris James (27 Apr 2009)

peanut said:


> that would be pretty pointless Jim as Chris points out you have so many different factors involved that it would be impossible to compare scientifically .
> If you wanted to compare two factors everything else would have to be identical otherwise you weouldn't know to what extent any of the incidental factors were influencing the results .



In any case, it was just a daft article in C+, not a peer reviewed piece of research. When he rode the 1980s bike he was wearing an old Pearson cycling jersey and cloth cap etc!

It was just meant as entertainment. In the end the author said he liked both bikes. No-one in their right mind would actually try to race on the 1980s bike now.

Sorry, I seem to have pushed this thread right off topic now!


----------



## jimboalee (27 Apr 2009)

In between my Dawes and my Spesh, I have a 531 Pug PX10 from the seventies.
Compared to the Dawes, it glides along effortlessly, but compared with the Spesh, its a slug.

Spesh Cd is 0.80
Pug Cd is 0.88
Dawes Cd is 0.95

As I would expect knowing it's weight is midway between the other two, it climbs at a speed half way between the other two.


----------



## ColinJ (27 Apr 2009)

Chris James said:


> How did you enjoy the Brian Robinson Challenge Colin? Each year I quite fancy doing it, but lack of cycling time with two kids under three mean that I never feel fit enough to tackle it. Also, I get to cycle most of those roads for free whenever I feel like it!
> 
> I went for a ride on Sunday morning, a pretty lumpy 37 miles with 1100m height gain. I was feeling quite tired at the end of it but overtook one of the Challenge riders coming into Emley and gave him a cheery ‘good morning’. He must have been going pretty slowly as I rode away from him, probably a bit dispiriting as I was on my steel audax bike with mudguards, Brooks saddle etc and he was on a light road bike.
> 
> But I guess he was totally knackered due to all the previous hills by that point. He would have already ‘gone into the red’ several times that day. I felt a bit sorry for him actually as he still had a long way to go.


I enjoyed it a lot more than the Kirklees Sportive last year even though the routes are almost identical.

I (obviously) liked riding round in sunshine rather than getting soaked from the start as I did in 2008. I also preferred getting the hardest two climbs out of the way first - Wessenden Head and Holme Moss.

What I didn't like was finding that there were no refreshments available at the end by the time I and fellow slow riders got back!  We probably needed refueling more than the whippets who breezed round in 5-6 hours.

For some reason the long gentle drag up from Mirfield got to my back again and I had to keep stopping to stretch it. Amazingly enough, I seemed to get a 'second wind' after the second feed station near Ainley Top. The drag up to Buckstones didn't really bother me, and I coped with the climb over to Marsden from Delph, and the steep little climb out from Marsden to Meltham.

I'd really like to be fitter for it next year though - it was too much like hard work!



Chris James said:


> I think it all depends on how steep. When the hills are very steep and climbing them involves effort at or near your maximum then additional weight, headwinds etc have a disproportionate effect on you.
> 
> Once you have gone into the red a few times you tire rapidly. If the lighter bike (or lower gears!) helps prevent you going into the red at all then you can keep going for longer still putting out decent power.


I think you could be right about that. In my case yesterday though, it was more a case of tiredness in my aching back muscles than tiredness in my legs.

The first major climb on the BRC was Wessenden Head which is about 3 km at close to 10%. I was climbing ahead of one guy who sounded like he was busting a gut, he was breathing that heavily. My breathing was deep, but measured. What was getting to me was that I felt overgeared on my Cannondale's 39/29 bottom gear. I'd normally be using my Basso's 30/28 and spinning. The extra strain that was putting on me contributed to the backache that I felt later. The same thing on Holme Moss. My heart/lungs were okay, I just couldn't get my cadence high enough.

Later on, I was struggling on easy climbs because my back was hurting.


----------



## ashtons99 (28 Apr 2009)

Well guys what can I say, its like going back to my grammar school physics!!!

I appreciate all your comments but get the feeling that ultimately its down to my own power output and how many pies Ive eaten! Albeit I get the impression that a compact set up is a good compromise between a double (which would certainly leave me pushing)and the triple with all its mechanical foibles.

Im currently riding a Giant FCR2 flat bar and can get about everywhere in the middle ring but do need to drop down to the granny on the steep stuff. Im just concerned that the 34 ring on a compact might just leave me high and dry. As some of you have said I really need to look what ive got at the moment and see how the ratios could be mirrored on a compact.

I really want to move to a compact as I think it would put more challenge into my riding but dont want to be disheartened.

Having said that the gear choice is only one element of my bewilderment in what bike to put my cash into.


----------



## MacB (28 Apr 2009)

Ashtons, go to Sheldons site and use the gear calculator and put in your current set up. Cut and paste the results to a spreadsheet, I like using gear inches for this. This will give you a clear idea of your existing gears. Then play with the gear calculator, put in combinations of cassettes and rings to see what you can get.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Apr 2009)

ashtons99 said:


> Well guys what can I say, its like going back to my grammar school physics!!!
> 
> I appreciate all your comments but get the feeling that ultimately its down to my own power output and how many pies Ive eaten! Albeit I get the impression that a compact set up is a good compromise between a double (which would certainly leave me pushing)and the triple with all its mechanical foibles.
> 
> ...



I can remember doing the experiment with the 'free-falling' steel ball, and then sussing out the gravity-velocity equations; but not Aerodynamics.

The things they teach at Grammar school these days.

One of the most difficult things to mathematically model in cycling is the speed a cyclist climbs a hill.
In a nutshell, its all from self assessment and lots of upward mileage.

As I say, the bike manufacturers build bikes based on how they percieve the abilities of their customers, so a 'Compact' 34 to a 27 sprocket is deemed OK for most everything you might come across on the road - up to 25% 
That's not my view, that's the opinion of bike builders.


----------



## Chris James (28 Apr 2009)

ashtons99 said:


> I appreciate all your comments but get the feeling that ultimately its down to my own power output and how many pies Ive eaten! .



Spot on.



ashtons99 said:


> Albeit I get the impression that a compact set up is a good compromise between a double (which would certainly leave me pushing)and the triple with all its mechanical foibles.



A triple is no more mechanically complicated than a double in my opinion. I think I have adjusted my front derailleur once in 2.5 years! But if you feel more comfortable with two rings up front then go with that.

If you live somewhere hilly and / or you are not very fit then you will feel the benefit of the compact setup. A 34 front ring 27 back ring is about as low a gear as a road bike will go, so if you struggle to get up hils with that then you just need to practice more!


----------



## Mortiroloboy (28 Apr 2009)

Jeez...just get out and ride the bl**dy thing, afterall that's what it's about, isn't it?


----------



## Over The Hill (28 Apr 2009)

Are you all not making it a bit complicated? 

As I see it- what small ring on the front and what big ring on the back do you have? 

Now be it compact or not as long as you have the same size cogs you will get the same ratio and the same ease/difficulty with a hill (assuming you are in first gear for the hill). 

If you compromise your nice triple by trying to get two cogs to do the job of three then you have to either miss out another cog (not the small one) or suffer from less gear range. That is not progress to me. Your carbon bike does not look cool if you are pushing it up the hill and fat old me goes past you on my triple.


----------



## Greenbank (28 Apr 2009)

Here's my take.

If you're going to use it for loaded touring in hilly terrain I'd go for a triple every time. You need the low gears.

If you're going to be doing long (100 mile+) hilly rides then you may find that you can cope fine with a Compact until near the end of the ride when you get tired, your blood sugar is depleted and you wish you could change down to a 30T chainring and spin up the hills.

If you've got a high level of fitness then a compact may be perfect for you. You'll be on the big ring most of the time until you get to the real hills where you can drop to the small ring.

If you're not quite that fit you may find that your usual range of gears for your normal terrain spans both the small and big chainrings of a compact. That means in usual terrain you'll be swapping between the two, which can be a right pain. Compare this to a triple where, for the majority of the time, you can sit on the middle ring and use the majority of the range of rear sprockets. Changing to the big ring for long descents or tailwinds, and the small chainring for big hills.

I use a 30/40/53 triple (with 13-29 cassette) for really hilly long rides (5000m+ climbing in 300km).

I use a 34/50 compact double (with 13-26 cassette) for sub 100km blasts (including hills). I'll only change down to the small chainring on hills over 10%.

I use a 46x18 fixed for commuting and other long rides (including hills).

I rarely use my bike with a 39/53 standard double. I should probably sell it.


----------



## theclaud (28 Apr 2009)

bonj said:


> you can stand up on hills and honk, or just grind - *learn to 'heel' it and you can find extra torque from the hamstrings*. riding fixed helps a lot with this



Bonj - would you mind explaining this technique? I'm a relative newbie to road bikes, and though I'm enjoying mine enormously the 53/39 double was a choice guided by bargains and aesthetics rather than best suitability for the Welsh terrain. For someone used to winching themselves up big hills in mtb gears, it's a bit of an adjustment. Good to have a serious cyclist to ask about these things.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Apr 2009)

theclaud said:


> Bonj - would you mind explaining this technique? I'm a relative newbie to road bikes, and though I'm enjoying mine enormously the 53/39 double was a choice guided by bargains and aesthetics rather than best suitability for the Welsh terrain. For someone used to winching themselves up big hills in mtb gears, it's a bit of an adjustment. Good to have a serious cyclist to ask about these things.



you just sort of relax your ankles, pedalling such that at the bottom of the pedal stroke, your heel is lower than it would be if you keep your ankle rigid. But you have to relax it gradually and smoothly, so that the power exerted by your leg isn't going into simply rotating your foot about the pedal axle - after all it is the toe-end of the foot rather than the heel end that transfers the power to the crank.

anybody else know what i mean?
Greenbank might be able to explain it better than me? (can probably do it better aswell )


----------



## MacB (28 Apr 2009)

bonj said:


> anybody else know what i mean?



limp ankles?


----------



## theclaud (28 Apr 2009)

bonj said:


> you just sort of relax your ankles, pedalling such that at the bottom of the pedal stroke, your heel is lower than it would be if you keep your ankle rigid. But you have to relax it gradually and smoothly, so that the power exerted by your leg isn't going into simply rotating your foot about the pedal axle - after all it is the toe-end of the foot rather than the heel end that transfers the power to the crank.
> 
> anybody else know what i mean? Greenbank might be able to explain it better than me? (can probably do it better aswell )



Is that the same thing as ankling, or something else entirely? I thought ankling was pretty much agreed to be either pointless or potentially harmful these days?


----------



## jimboalee (28 Apr 2009)

theclaud said:


> Is that the same thing as ankling, or something else entirely? I thought ankling was pretty much agreed to be either pointless or potentially harmful these days?



That's my understanding.


----------



## Chris James (28 Apr 2009)

Greenbank said:


> Here's my take.
> 
> If you're not quite that fit you may find that your usual range of gears for your normal terrain spans both the small and big chainrings of a compact. That means in usual terrain you'll be swapping between the two, which can be a right pain. Compare this to a triple where, for the majority of the time, you can sit on the middle ring and use the majority of the range of rear sprockets. Changing to the big ring for long descents or tailwinds, and the small chainring for big hills.



I agree, and have said something similar on many of the near identical threads we have had.

However, since I have been accused over complicating things (!), then I reckon the advice of just buy the bike and enjoy it sounds about right. 

The OP seems to want either a compact or standard double. By the sound of it, the compact would be more suitable and should give low enough gears, even if it requires loads of double shifting to make full use of them.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Apr 2009)

As I said earlier, there are a few 'Gear calculators' around, but not many, if any, websites that tell you what gears to pack for the route you intend to ride.

Here's the 'witchcraft' again. 

For a 10% hill. ( 1 / Weight of bike ( inc full bottles etc ) ) x 1000 = inches gear.

For every 2% steeper, add two teeth to rear sprocket.

EXAMPLE – 25lb fully laden bike. – 40" for a 10%. 30 x 21 will do.

12% gradient 30 x 23
14% gradient 30 x 25
16% gradient 30 x 27
20% gradient 30 x 32 ??? 
25% gradient 30 x 36 if you are really that crazy to let the walking dudes overtake you.


----------



## jimboalee (28 Apr 2009)

So if your bike weighs 22lb with a full bottle of drink, the 10% gear is 46". 39 x 23.
If there is a 12% climb on your route, pack a 25 tooth sprocket.
If there is a 14% climb on your route, pack a 27 tooth sprocket.

An 18lb bike.
10% - 39 x 19
12% - 39 x 21
14% - 39 x 23
16% - 39 x 25

A 15lb bike ( UCI limit )
10% - 53 x 22 or 39 x 16
12% - 39 x 18
14% - 39 x 20
16% - 39 x 22
18% - 39 x 24


----------



## Greenbank (28 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> 25% gradient 30 x 36 if you are really that crazy to let the walking dudes overtake you.



The bloke who got up the 25% climb at the weekend was going faster than I could walk up it. He was on a triple, nothing special: 30x29 if I remember correctly.

The year before I watched someone wrench their way up it on a 34x26 compact double.

I pushed my 67" fixed up it 

I got up most of the 3rd climb which is steep but not as bad: http://www.greenbank.org/audax/elenith_2009/phone2.jpg


----------



## jimboalee (28 Apr 2009)

Greenbank said:


> The bloke who got up the 25% climb at the weekend was going faster than I could walk up it. He was on a triple, nothing special: 30x29 if I remember correctly.
> 
> The year before I watched someone wrench their way up it on a 34x26 compact double.
> 
> ...



Strong legged lads.

I wish there were more.


----------



## Randochap (28 Apr 2009)

It still depends, then, doesn't it?

It's impossible to shoehorn into some kind of one-size-fits-all formula. That might work very nearly for a motor car, but the bicycle is a different beast.

The nineteenth century's ingenious contribution to cybernetics, happily, is driven by an independent engine of wide-ranging abilities, governed by the most erratic of all organs -- the human brain.

A few specimens of those have offered up some practical advice in this thread, while others approach with overactive processing of mechanistic minutiae, outside of the human sphere. This is the root of our human problem: in thrall to our machines, we have turned rivers into sewers and mountains into slag heaps.

Might a good dictum be: Cyclists know thy engine?

Then you can begin to deduce what kind of gearing you need. After that, it's a matter of personal idiosyncrasy (there's that ineffable human realm again) on which everything else _depends_, because, as of yet, the best part of the bicycle cyborg is the mortal and inconsistent viscera of its engine.


----------



## Mike Rudkin (28 Apr 2009)

The hill is there in front of you-never mind the 'inconsistent viscera of your engine' or the gears you could have had,the calculations you could have made-now's the time to grit your teeth,use what you've got and fight the thing!! If you fail there's always next time.


----------



## Randochap (28 Apr 2009)

Mike Rudkin said:


> The hill is there in front of you-never mind the 'inconsistent viscera of your engine' or the gears you could have had,the calculations you could have made-now's the time to grit your teeth,use what you've got and fight the thing!! If you fail there's always next time.



In other words, it all depends on that other, even more mysterious component of the human organism: willpower.


----------



## Mike Rudkin (28 Apr 2009)

Randochap said:


> In other words, it all depends on that other, even more mysterious component of the human organism: willpower.



Well.I spose it does-and having made the right calculations for the gears you need,and getting the 'engine' into the right shape.
The 'circle' is never ending.Omar Kyham put it well when he talked about entering the door where two and seventy sects did confute,and often came out by the same door as in he went.


----------



## Randochap (28 Apr 2009)

Mike Rudkin said:


> Well.I spose it does-and having made the right calculations for the gears you need,and getting the 'engine' into the right shape.
> The 'circle' is never ending.Omar Kyham put it well when he talked about entering the door where two and seventy sects did confute,and often came out by the same door as in he went.



Or, as the Zen koan says:



> Before realization, chop wood; after realization, chop wood.



The cycling version might be:



> Before realization, spin pedals; after realization, spin pedals.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Apr 2009)

So tell me Randochap, when an unsuspecting fool gets talked into doing a 100 mile charity ride, (or even a 14 day expedition from Land's End to John O'Groats) and doesn't even own a bike, who is going to help him select the bike and the gearing he needs to 'make a nice trip' of it?

The unsuspecting fool hasn't a clue.
His LBS man will probably be able to point him in the right direction AFTER some lengthy questioning about the guy's abilities AND the terain the route takes.
How does the LBS man formulate a gearing set-up for the unsuspecting fool's new bike?

Any thoughts here?

In 1995, two lads from work and I did the '14 day expedition from Land's End to John O'Groats' for charity. One of the lads wasn't a cyclist and trained for six months on a heavy lump of iron while I rebuilt a second-hand Cro-mo 'Racer' for him to use on the 'nice trip'.

Did we have a 'nice trip'? Of course we did.

I'm not going to tell YOU what gearing I put on that bike,,,,
Oh, go on then....

I fitted a 40/28 Stronglight chainset to a 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24 & 34 Megarange 7 block.

Most of the riding he did on the 40 x 15 at 15 - 16 mph.
He had no problems on the hills, even the 15% climbs in Devon - with 'minimal' training.

PS. I've had to dig back through some old 3.5" floppies to find the calc sheet for this bike.


----------



## MacB (29 Apr 2009)

that seems like a good range for all round riding Jim. Looks like about 22 to 96 inches with the big ring giving a 31 to 96 range. Set this up like JohnyC, where inner ring is only used for overdrive and whole of big ring is ok chainline wise. That would give you all your riding on the main 7 gears and a drop down to the inner ring for an overdrive 22 inch gear.

If you didn't have the need of that extra 22 inch gear then this setup would perform well on one chain ring only.


----------



## jimboalee (30 Apr 2009)

I was thumbing through the magazines in WH Smiths this afternoon and noticed Cycling Weekly have a 'Fitness' special on sale.
Within it, there are several pages dedicated to 'Climbing' and how to improve it.

If I was a beginner, I would be totally bewildered because the only thing they said about gearing was "your bike might have up to 30 gears, so use them all".
What??? I thought we'd all agreed there was 'overlap'.

And how exactly did the bike builder decide what gears to put on the bike in the first place was not even spoken about.
And you say *I *keep 'Trade secrets' 

Sorry folks, if you want to know about bike gearing and what gears suit what bike for climbing up hills, stay tuned to CycleChat.


----------



## MacB (30 Apr 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I was thumbing through the magazines



sorry Jim, didn't get beyond this part


----------

