# Granny gears



## Chris S (30 Apr 2011)

I was walking home last night, up a long steep hill. There was a cyclist in front of me and I suddenly realized that I was gaining on him. I'd nearly caught up with him when he reached the brow and shot off in to the distance.

He'd obviously being using a very low ratio. What's the point? It would have been quicker to get off and push.


----------



## cloggsy (30 Apr 2011)

Everyone has to start somewhere don't they?

At least he was determined to get to the top without stopping


----------



## Cyclopathic (30 Apr 2011)

Chris S said:


> I was walking home last night, up a long steep hill. There was a cyclist in front of me and I suddenly realized that I was gaining on him. I'd nearly caught up with him when he reached the brow and shot off in to the distance.
> 
> He'd obviously being using a very low ratio. What's the point? It would have been quicker to get off and push.




I've just started to get back into cycling after being away from it for a while. Only really for transport and recreation, I'm no sportsman. One reason for getting back on my bike is for my health. Long story short I'm a bit of a fatty and have to fight back. There were times when I first started back and even still sometimes when some hills are a bit much and here I take full advantage of the "granny gears" for two main reasons. One is that even if I am at a crawl it alows me to keep close to my prefered cadence so that I'm good to go when I crest the brow. Also even though I'm using these soft gears I can at least still say to myself that I made it up the hill.

As time goes on and I get a little mor eused to things I find that I can get up some hills without dropping down as far so it also becomes a measure of how well I'm doing at getting fitter.

As an extra bonus when I am lumbering up a hill all sweaty and lardy I provide an easy target for others who have gotten a little bit fitter to burn off, thus providing much needed encouragement to other riders who can go home boasting about burning some bloke going up hill.

So in some cases (although in reality not many actually) it may be a bit quicker to push the bike there are also many many other considerations that the rider may have and really people need to be able to get about their cycling in the way that is best for them.

I hope this has answered some of your questions.


----------



## coffeejo (30 Apr 2011)

I use them on 'orrible 'ills so that if I do have to get off and push, at least I know I gave it my best shot and that the hill got the better of my legs, not my mind, IFYSWIM


----------



## numbnuts (30 Apr 2011)

Being an old fart with emphysema my granny gear saves me from walking, when I have to push my bike that's the same day they go on ebay


----------



## slugonabike (30 Apr 2011)

I'm overweight and underfit, I tend to run out of gears before I run out of hill! I'm not going to get off and push before that happens though, I'll never improve if I keep doing that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Apr 2011)

It's about pride and determination not just about speed. I would far rather use my granny ring than push (although on some off road hills I have to).


Chris S said:


> I was walking home last night, up a long steep hill. There was a cyclist in front of me and I suddenly realized that I was gaining on him. I'd nearly caught up with him when he reached the brow and shot off in to the distance.
> 
> He'd obviously being using a very low ratio. What's the point? It would have been quicker to get off and push.


----------



## Midnight (30 Apr 2011)

Chris S said:


> What's the point? It would have been quicker to get off and push.



All kudos to him for *not* getting off to push. At least he was 'aving a go...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Apr 2011)

+1


Midnight said:


> All kudos to him for *not* getting off to push. At least he was 'aving a go...


----------



## Moodyman (30 Apr 2011)

On commutes when I simply want to take it easy, I've had joggers overtake me uphill. 

These are joggers that I'd passed on the flat earlier.


----------



## Paladin - York (30 Apr 2011)

When I first started doing longer distance bike rides, I had the notion that a bike was for riding at "all" times, unless you physically couldn't manage the gradient. Oh boy! The idiocy of doing just that was embarrassingly brought home to me when I was pulling out of Penrith once, on the C2C, I was overtaken by a much older person, walking, carrying bags of shopping and walking a dog. Yep! What's the point? However, it does depend on my state of mind at the time eg I sometimes challenge myself to do a gradient - seated or otherwise.

I'm aware that my walking speed is approx 3mph so when I'm hovering about that speed on the bike I usually dismount. I often feel quite refreshed after a spell using different muscles.


----------



## the_mikey (30 Apr 2011)

I'm thinking about a new bike, specifically for sportives and long rides over lots of hills (the cotswolds on my doorstep) and some of the hills have got easier over time but not all of them, do I need: A triple chain ring? OR that 12-27 cassette just for that slightly lower gear...


----------



## numbnuts (30 Apr 2011)

the_mikey said:


> I'm thinking about a new bike, specifically for sportives and long rides over lots of hills (the cotswolds on my doorstep) and some of the hills have got easier over time but not all of them, do I need: A triple chain ring? OR that 12-27 cassette just for that slightly lower gear...


On my touring bike I have 48 36 26 with a 11-32 which suits me even with heavy loads.


----------



## david k (30 Apr 2011)

good on him for not getting off
let the gears do the work, why have em if you aint gona use em?


----------



## HLaB (30 Apr 2011)

Midnight said:


> All kudos to him for *not* getting off to push. At least he was 'aving a go...



+1 more


----------



## potsy (30 Apr 2011)

Midnight said:


> All kudos to him for *not* getting off to push. At least he was 'aving a go...



Another +1 from me. 
I do get off and walk from time to time, especially on some of the hillier forum rides, but I can now get up some of them after lowering my gearing a bit, never realised you could cycle so slowly and not fall off


----------



## asterix (30 Apr 2011)

Granny gears require different kinds of muscle to be most effective, muscle that can pedal fast without fatigue.

When I started touring in hilly areas, long, looooong ago, I found this out.

If you want to you can build this muscle, otherwise you can just pedal quite slowly in very low gear.

Personally I always find it harder to push a bike up bad-ass hills than to spin up 'em in low gear. Except Rosedale Chimney Bank after 60 miles.


----------



## Banjo (30 Apr 2011)

I think the OP answered his own question, by spinning lightly up the hill on low gears when he got to the top he still had the energy left to accelerate away straight away.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (30 Apr 2011)

potsy said:


> never realised you could cycle so slowly and not fall off



neither did I until I saw it  only kidding


----------



## Davidc (30 Apr 2011)

coffeejo said:


> I use them on 'orrible 'ills so that if I do have to get off and push, at least I know I gave it my best shot and that the hill got the better of my legs, not my mind, IFYSWIM



There are plenty of those round here!

Once you get beyond your physical prime Granny Gears are an essential part of cycling. Like the OP I prefer not to get off if I can help it. I'll stay on down to 3 mph, occasionally 2.5 mph, but will get off and push below that.

My lowest gear is 22 front with 32 rear, with which I can get up most of the hills here. It lets me get up Burrington Combe in the Mendips and Blagdon Hill in the Blackdowns, which are two of the nastier beasts round here, and up some of the roads onto the Quantocks.

Just as importantly that ratio lets me go up long moderate climbs comfortably at speeds up to 5 or 6 mph, despite the effects of medical conditions and the drugs that control them.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Apr 2011)

I'm impressed that people can stay upright when using these gears. Susie has trouble staying steady on a 34 inch gear, but some people are clearly getting along on something like a 20 inch gear. Chapeau!


----------



## summerdays (30 Apr 2011)

numbnuts said:


> On my touring bike I have 48 36 26 with a 11-32 which suits me even with heavy loads.



I have the same on the front with 11-*34* on the back... and yes I do use that lowest of low gears.... sometimes I think it encourages me to be lazy and not push harder ... but I like my knees and have the odd joint problems (slight hyper-mobility and slight scoliosis) so I don't want to push too hard.


----------



## StuAff (30 Apr 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm impressed that people can stay upright when using these gears. Susie has trouble staying steady on a 34 inch gear, but some people are clearly getting along on something like a 20 inch gear. Chapeau!



Once or twice I've lifted a wheel in bottom gear on the Jetstream (22" or so), but it got me up Ditchling.


----------



## ChristinaJL (30 Apr 2011)

I'm another one who has granny gears and uses them. Same as above, I have bad knees and pushing a big gear uphill just trashes them even further. A smaller gear/faster cadence enables me to climb faster than my husband who insists on pushing a larger gear slowly, but then I guess he prefers it. 

another +1 for the guy for keeping going too.


----------



## Cubist (1 May 2011)

The first time I rode a MTB challenge I ran out of gears, puff and willpower halfway up a steep off-road climb about 30 miles into the ride. I ground to a halt, got off and started to push and the cramp hit my calves like I've never known it. I was so relieved to get back on where I could pedal and work the cramp out of my calves. Since then I simply don't care how slowly I'm going- if my legs are tired it's far better to sit and spin or even twiddle in a 22-32 combo!


----------



## asterix (1 May 2011)

How true!


----------



## david k (1 May 2011)

Davidc said:


> There are plenty of those round here!
> 
> Once you get beyond your physical prime Granny Gears are an essential part of cycling. Like the OP I prefer not to get off if I can help it. I'll stay on down to 3 mph, occasionally 2.5 mph, but will get off and push below that.
> 
> ...



could ave wrote this post mself, well said, meds n all


----------



## Cyclopathic (1 May 2011)

On those occasions when I'm really tired and the hill is steep I still find that I can keep pedaling up them in these very low gears. When I get down to a fast or even slow walking pace I resign myself to going slowly but surely and still find pedaling at this speed less strenuous that walking.

It occurred to me to reverse the question and ask why don't people put their carbon fibre super road bikes into the very top gear and pedal as fast as possible on descents? But then I thought better of it because it was a bit facetious of me and isn't really the same, but you get the idea.


----------



## david k (1 May 2011)

if your only goal is to cover distance in the least time possible and you think walking is quicker fine
i enjoy cycling and want to conquer it, so i stay on


----------



## aberal (1 May 2011)

the_mikey said:


> I'm thinking about a new bike, specifically for sportives and long rides over lots of hills (the cotswolds on my doorstep) and some of the hills have got easier over time but not all of them, do I need: A triple chain ring? OR that 12-27 cassette just for that slightly lower gear...



There are other threads on this very subject if you do a search. It's horses for courses and really depends on your fitness level, but if you are even only moderately fit then the answer is no - you don't need a triple, but you might need a compact 34/50 at the front and look for maybe a 25 or 28 large cog at the rear. For the moderately fit a triple is only really ever needed for heavily laden touring or MTB's. Bearing in mind that a triple is typically 30 at the front the extra gears isn't really particularly useful except on mega steep bits and there are all sorts of disadvantages with the alignment of a front mech on a triple and adjusting the shifters as well as a bit of extra weight. 

Having said all that - I don't agree with the sentiment of the OP. There are plenty of people who need to use or just prefer to have a triple at the front and no shame in that.


----------



## asterix (1 May 2011)

> For the moderately fit a triple is only really ever needed for heavily laden touring or MTB's.



A slight exaggeration? 

If moderately fit cyclists on carbon bling with doubles insist on falling over on hills in front of me, I'd suggest they needed a triple, even if it does hurt their vanity.


----------



## Chutzpah (1 May 2011)

I have a granny gear on both my MTB and hybrid and I'm proud to use them.

I don't get any sort of "attitude" towards those that do.......

It's blooming hilly around here.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 May 2011)

Or even a 22-34  (I decided to upgrade my rear cog when the original gave up the ghost)


Cubist said:


> The first time I rode a MTB challenge I ran out of gears, puff and willpower halfway up a steep off-road climb about 30 miles into the ride. I ground to a halt, got off and started to push and the cramp hit my calves like I've never known it. I was so relieved to get back on where I could pedal and work the cramp out of my calves. Since then I simply don't care how slowly I'm going- if my legs are tired it's far better to sit and spin or even twiddle in a 22-32 combo!


----------



## JamesMorgan (1 May 2011)

aberal said:


> For the moderately fit a triple is only really ever needed for heavily laden touring or MTB's.


I'm not convinced that that is completely true. From my experience discussion of different gear ratios often comes down to a discussion on optimum cadence. For me, my optimum cadence is 90. I run a triple (52:40:30) with a 11-32. At a cadence of 90, my optimum speed in my lowest gear is 6.8 mph. To get up a 10% gradient at 6.8 mph requires me to exert 350W. This is about my limit for an effort of 5 min (a hill of about 0.5 miles). Someone with the same fitness level but who prefers to cycle at a cadence of around 70 could get up the same hill with the same effort but using a compact double (50:34) with a 11-27 cassette. The beauty of flexible gearing is that you can choose the ideal ratios to suit your own preferred cycling style.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2011)

The granny ring on my fast tourer/audax bike has two purposes....

On sub 200km rides it is there so I can glare at it and mentally scream "no effing way am I grovelling up any hill in that today. No. Effing. Way."

On 200km plus rides it is there so I can snick down into it and mentally scream "thank God I've got a granny gear to get me over this last range of hills"

Cogs for courses innit?

As to the moderately fit rider with their double and close ratio cassette... seems to me many mamils make very strange, i.e. unduly low, gear selection choices when climbing.


----------



## snailracer (1 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> ...
> As to the moderately fit rider with their double and close ratio cassette... seems to me many mamils make very strange, i.e. unduly low, gear selection choices when climbing.


I think the term "interval training" was invented purely to provide cover for incorrect gear choices


----------



## aberal (1 May 2011)

asterix said:


> A slight exaggeration?
> 
> If moderately fit cyclists on carbon bling with doubles insist on falling over on hills in front of me, I'd suggest they needed a triple, even if it does hurt their vanity.



No. You've obviously got an incident in mind.




I wasn't there, but seems to me at a guess that they can't have been moderately fit and were probably turning a 42 at the front and a 21 at the rear. Or similar.

I've just done a quick bit of checking. A small triple chainring with 30 teeth with a 25 at the rear gives a lowest gear of 31.7. And 23 teeth at the rear gives a gear of 34.4 and 21 at the rear gives a gear of 37.7. A compact chainset with a small chainring of 34 teeth with 25 at the rear gives a lowest gear of 35.9, somewhere between the second and third gear of the triple chainring. A 34T with a 28 cog at the rear will give a low gear of 32. 

So the triple in reality gives just two additional lower gears. Useful maybe (say) 1% of the time, on the steepest bit of the steepest hill, and even then you might be looking for an even lower gear. So to the question - do you "need" a triple to do a Sportive or long leisure rides, the answer is no. 

There is only one real advantage in my view to a triple (other than the occasionally useful two lower gears



) and that is with a 52/42/30 chainring, the ratios will be much closer together than a 50/34 compact.


----------



## ian turner (1 May 2011)

The joke about calling it a granny ring is there are probably grannies who could beat the lot of you up a hill  (though Beryl Burton regrettably didn't make it into her sixties but had she then...)


----------



## aberal (1 May 2011)

JamesMorgan said:


> I'm not convinced that that is completely true. From my experience discussion of different gear ratios often comes down to a discussion on optimum cadence. For me, my optimum cadence is 90. I run a triple (52:40:30) with a 11-32. At a cadence of 90, my optimum speed in my lowest gear is 6.8 mph. To get up a 10% gradient at 6.8 mph requires me to exert 350W. This is about my limit for an effort of 5 min (a hill of about 0.5 miles). Someone with the same fitness level but who prefers to cycle at a cadence of around 70 could get up the same hill with the same effort but using a compact double (50:34) with a 11-27 cassette. The beauty of flexible gearing is that you can choose the ideal ratios to suit your own preferred cycling style.



That's just it - on the steepest bit of the steepest hill you may have to lower your cadence. But so what? That happens even with triples sometimes. Once, on my tourer with a 26 small chainring and 36 at the rear, half way up a hill in Tasmania in a sweltering heat, I had to drop to walking pace and probably half my normal cadence to prevent my eyeballs from popping out. At that point I had thought that I was going to have to get off and walk - as it was I made it to the top, simply by turning the gears slowly. You don't _need _to keep your cadence up, unless you're in a hurry.


----------



## DaveyB1981 (1 May 2011)

HLaB said:


> +1 more



And another 

Dave


----------



## MacB (1 May 2011)

the_mikey said:


> I'm thinking about a new bike, specifically for sportives and long rides over lots of hills (the cotswolds on my doorstep) and some of the hills have got easier over time but not all of them, do I need: A triple chain ring? OR that 12-27 cassette just for that slightly lower gear...



Maybe the question that needs to be asked is why so many bikes are geared so high?


----------



## Cubist (1 May 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Or even a 22-34  (I decided to upgrade my rear cog when the original gave up the ghost)


 Go ten-speed and you can get an 11-36


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 May 2011)

Not sure my rear mech could handle it. I would love it though


----------



## Cubist (1 May 2011)

aberal said:


> There are other threads on this very subject if you do a search. It's horses for courses and really depends on your fitness level, but if you are even only moderately fit then the answer is no - you don't need a triple, but you might need a compact 34/50 at the front and look for maybe a 25 or 28 large cog at the rear. For the moderately fit a triple is only really ever needed for heavily laden touring or MTB's. Bearing in mind that a triple is typically 30 at the front the extra gears isn't really particularly useful except on mega steep bits and there are all sorts of disadvantages with the alignment of a front mech on a triple and adjusting the shifters as well as a bit of extra weight.
> 
> Having said all that - I don't agree with the sentiment of the OP. There are plenty of people who need to use or just prefer to have a triple at the front and no shame in that.




That's fine for you to say, but I'm talking about an average cyclist. On my compact I have a 50-36 with an MTB 11-32 cassette on it. My ride home is 6 miles all uphill with a 200 yard flat as the only respite, climbing 1000 feet, with an average of 6 percent for the first 5 miles, with a 20 percenter in the last half mile. I'm sure you may not want to seem like you're bragging, but here in the Pennines there are days when 34 28 would still be too tall. After 5 and a half miles climbing after a long day at work I want to be able to grind a granny up the last bit! 


My next road bike will be a triple, and I will modify it to take an MTB cassette!


----------



## Chris S (1 May 2011)

Chris S said:


> I was walking home last night, up a long steep hill. There was a cyclist in front of me and I suddenly realized that I was gaining on him. I'd nearly caught up with him when he reached the brow and shot off in to the distance.
> 
> He'd obviously being using a very low ratio. What's the point? It would have been quicker to get off and push.




Looking back I might have been wrong about this - the cyclist could have been riding a fixie.

That might explain why it took him so long to get up the hill and then shot off when he did.

I still reckon he should have got off and pushed though!


----------



## asterix (1 May 2011)

MacB said:


> Maybe the question that needs to be asked is why so many bikes are geared so high?



Very true. In the 60's everyone who was cycling had to go out and buy a look-like TdF bike. These almost always had a very narrow range of high gears. Hardly surprising that any resurgence in cycling had to wait for the invention of the MTB and its lower gearing!

Let's not go that way again.


(BTW I do have a double that has a gear low enough to take me up a 1 in 3 such as may be found in Yorkshire, I still prefer the flexibilty of my triples.)


----------



## MacB (1 May 2011)

yep triples are good though I can see the compact attraction, as you know, and the manufacturers obviously recognise something as well. Shimano going to a 28t cog and SRAM bringing out a 12-32 road cassette for the Apex groupset.

But I do wonder how often some of the high gears actually see action, I've always found Paul Smiths touring and sportive tips section at Corridori very informative:-

http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9

He gives an example of his touring and general bike setup using a 10 speed triple but rings at 46/36/26 and a 13-29 cassette. Not only has he gone for more gears at the low end but he doesn't even countenance an 11/12t cog even having dropped his outer ring to a 46.

If I do change my Burls setup, when I get the Tiagra shifters, it will be to something like this. I like his idea of hard riding = outer ring with middle for steeper bits, slower/laden/longer riding = middle ring with inner if needed. Almost treating the bike like it has two double setups, makes sense to me.


----------



## psmiffy (1 May 2011)

I have triples on all my bikes because a) I am even worse at walking than I am at cycling b) The shoes are far too expensive to wear out walking in them c) I have got to the age I am without any serious hip or knee problems by simply not being stupid


----------



## BigTone0777 (1 May 2011)

I like his idea of hard riding = outer ring with middle for steeper bits, slower/laden/longer riding = middle ring with inner if needed. Almost treating the bike like it has two double setups, makes sense to me.
[/quote]

Me too, sounds like a great set up to me, especially for my fitness level. I know the smallest ring won't be used all that much but it's good to have sat there for when it's needed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 May 2011)

Paul at corrdori was most complementary about my set up (for a cyclist of my age and (in)experience and goals) when I went there for a bike fit on the black 'un.

52-42-30 campag racing triple
13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29 10 speed cassette.

Sheldon says 27.2" to 107" with 28mm tyres. Yes, the odd roadie has looked at the rear mech and screamed but I can't see it from the saddle so I don't care. yes, the steps are uneven and if I was a cadence nazi I'd claim I could not cope. 

Most of my time is spent in the 19 or 17. I've yet to use the 30 up front or the 29 at the back, iirc, so far this year so it could be argued it is a setup with excess dead weight. But every dog, and dog is only one letter away from cog, has its day. As a clydesdale class rider it would be stupid for me to worry about the weight of the bike drivetrain. Then again the 13 and 14 see little use, only when I want to go stupid fast downhill and at my avoirdupois that is easily done simply by not braking. Thinks...why is is that most of the people I ride with descend like timid Timothys?

as to why so many entry level bikes are sold with such high gears..... we know a song about that children don't we?


----------



## Cubist (1 May 2011)

See what I mean, now that's a sensible setup Greg. It's the sort of thing I'd be heading for!


----------



## aberal (1 May 2011)

Cubist said:


> That's fine for you to say, but I'm talking about an average cyclist.



Well, I'm 51 years old, 2 stone overweight and although I've cycled for years its only in the last year that I've picked it up again. So all in all I reckon I might be pretty average. And it was the average cyclist that I was talking about. 



Cubist said:


> On my compact I have a 50-36 with an MTB 11-32 cassette on it. My ride home is 6 miles all uphill with a 200 yard flat as the only respite, climbing 1000 feet, with an average of 6 percent for the first 5 miles, with a 20 percenter in the last half mile. I'm sure you may not want to seem like you're bragging, but here in the Pennines there are days when 34 28 would still be too tall. After 5 and a half miles climbing after a long day at work I want to be able to grind a granny up the last bit! My next road bike will be a triple, and I will modify it to take an MTB cassette!



Like I said - horses for courses. That's what suits you and that's fine. Ideal in fact. But I could hardly be bragging about anything here when I myself ride with a triple chainset on both my bikes. My road bike came off the shelf with a 52/42/30 chainset and 13-25 at the rear. As I said elsewhere in this thread, this gives a low gear of 31.7. If I were to change that tomorrow for a double compact with 34 teeth and a 28 at the rear, I would have a lowest gear of 32. Slightly lower than my present triple set up. So if I can get such a low gear with a double, why bother with a triple? Seriously - what is the point?

So my point to the poster who asked whether he needed a triple for Sportives and long leisure rides holds true - no you don't need a triple.


----------



## Davidc (1 May 2011)

All this makes interesting reading, but it's unlikely that those with the higher gearing are living in the hillier parts of the country!

Yorkshire's mentioned above, a couple of us have mentioned Somerset, and there are a good few other bits of these islands where any decent length and interesting ride is going to involve climbing 20% and 30% hills, often miles long. 

For many of us dealing with those, and at the same time being able to enjoy some speed on the corresponding descents, involves a triple, with a very small granny gear on it.

As a general principle I agree with MacB that most bike gearing is too high, but at the same time I think it's something that needs to be chosen for the individual. It depends on likely terrain, preferred cadence, age, fitness, and a few more factors. It's not something where sweeping generalisations help anyone.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (1 May 2011)

I have a triple because I am an old git and I live in north yorkshire, we have a lot of hills here in fact on all my regular rides it is all up and down hills so sometimes I need the granny gears.

Mind you I feel sorry for those who live in all flat areas it must get very boring.


----------



## david1701 (1 May 2011)

seriously try riding the back roads of cornwall and encountering some of these hills I've just moved from an mtb to having a 30-32 lowest gear and its collossally hard work, whereas the properly fit athletes I've been riding with (and left behind by) have all got a single massive cog at the back to spin up any hill in their path.

and @Aberal, the point is to get a weee bit lower for when you face a row of climb descend climb descends of 1 in 5 hills or millook


----------



## theloafer (1 May 2011)

was hoped to have my new bike sat  shop says blame the b/hols as i am getting on a bit need all the help on the hills .....fav riding place the lakes gone for one of these..  

http://www.westbrookcycles.co.uk/bi...ynapse-carbon-sram-apex-road-bike-2011-p88441


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 May 2011)

For some of the hills I climb you always seem to need another gear and a granny gear would come in bloomin handy


----------



## ColinJ (1 May 2011)

And as for a century ride that involves riding miles 99-100 up a steep climb into a 20 mph headwind ...


----------



## MacB (1 May 2011)

Davidc said:


> For many of us dealing with those, and at the same time being able to enjoy some speed on the corresponding descents, involves a triple, with a very small granny gear on it.
> 
> As a general principle I agree with MacB that most bike gearing is too high, but at the same time I think it's something that needs to be chosen for the individual. It depends on likely terrain, preferred cadence, age, fitness, and a few more factors. It's not something where sweeping generalisations help anyone.




I totally agree David and there's not much in the way of a weight penalty to have a little ring sitting at the front, each to their own though.

But I think Col makes a good comparison around what's needed changing as a ride/day progresses and with the conditions.


----------



## Sheepy1209 (1 May 2011)

All this talk of hills - what about the wind?

I've got a 28-38-48 on the front, and around Blackpool it's flat enough that most of the time I'm in the middle. 
But when that 'sea breeze' gets going, I've found it handy to have the granny for the headwinds, and the big ring for the tailwinds.

I suppose it should be possible to map wind speeds onto equivalent hill steepness, but I don't think there's such a thing as a gusty hill!


----------



## ColinJ (1 May 2011)

Sheepy1209 said:


> All this talk of hills - what about the wind?
> 
> I've got a 28-38-48 on the front, and around Blackpool it's flat enough that most of the time I'm in the middle.
> But when that 'sea breeze' gets going, I've found it handy to have the granny for the headwinds, and the big ring for the tailwinds.
> ...


Er, I mentioned gusty hills in post #58 ... 

I climbed the ghastly thing below into a 20 mph wind once and it almost killed me!


----------



## Paladin - York (1 May 2011)

Davidc's last two sentences are of course bang on. 

A bike should really be "tailored" to suit the individual & the role the bike is expected to meet. Appologies for stating the obvious and one man's meat etc.

In the USA, Adventure Cycling, we were weaned on "gear inches" which "commonised" all the chainsets & cassettes. For example, and again I apologise if I am stating the already well known (Aberal), we were advised that for steep hills (whatever they are), we should be looking at 20 - 25 gear inches. I wanted a steep hill bike (or a Blackpool sea-breeze bike), I'm like some other CCer in that anything that assists anno dominii is welcome, so my current chainset is 42/32/22 & my cassette is 32/?. Divide the small front ie 22 by the large rear ie 32 & multiply by the wheel diameter, in my case 26". My gear inches are therefore 17.9. This is actually below the steep hill gear inch range recommended. This suits me fine as I was told this bike can climb walls - not quite, but it is useful on the steeper grads. However, I will not be breaking any flat or downhill speed records.

As a matter of interest (maybe!) for medium hills approx 40 gi, flats approx 70 gi, downhills approx 100gi. Also, a gear inch is the distance travelled in one pedalled revolution.

I noticed that Aberal's gear inches are 31.7 quoted. This would be too difficult for me.

Hope I don't live to regret doing this post - thanks for bearing up with me.


----------



## tyred (3 May 2011)

I've come across a few cyclists who complain their bottom gear is too high. I have yet to find one who complained about it being too low!

Having said that, there are times if I've been on a long ride where I get of and walk, even though I could climb the hill because sometimes it's nice just to stretch the legs and have a change of pace.


----------



## XmisterIS (3 May 2011)

The granny gears on a mountain bike are essential! Not so much on a road bike.


----------



## david1701 (3 May 2011)

I climbed a 1 in 5 today, 30-32 isn't that low really


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 May 2011)

I'm gonna use this phrase again:

'There is too much macho bullshit written about gearing .... '

Who really gives a toss what gears other people use to get them up hills? There's no prizes for running x'y or z gearing, just run what works for you. There are as has been discussed various pro's and con's of different set-ups but if 28x32 floats your boat then twiddle away with pride.

Here's the rub though; Go sit atop Ditchling Beacon on L2B day and watch who rides over the top and who's pushing. There are a lot of racy roadies walking while Croydon office girls on their Apollo hybrids and shopping bikes with cheap Megarange cassettes serenly pedal on by....

My own prejudices: 
Gearing-wise is either fixed or a triple, other set-ups I find too compromised.
Whatever Paul Smith at Corridori says is probably correct.
Agree with MacB, most bikes are over geared not undergeared (I've only spun-out my 52x11 top gear on Ventoux overtaking a pick-up truck at 50mph).


----------



## mcshroom (3 May 2011)

I've got a 28x32 on my main bike and a 28x34 on my hybrid. At the end of a long day then just spinning up a hill with little resistance can be very relaxing. 

I could put higher gears on the bike but crawling up a hill at walking pace and not pushing is far more fulfilling for me than walking. Oh and I'm thinking of gearing down to a 22x32 on the tourer for a camping trip in Scotland at the end of the month.


----------



## ColinJ (3 May 2011)

XmisterIS said:


> The granny gears on a mountain bike are essential! Not so much on a road bike.


Might not be much call for 'em in _'aamshur! _but they they do have their uses in _Yorkshur!_




_
_



david1701 said:


> I climbed a 1 in 5 today, 30-32 isn't that low really


... and Cornwall!


----------



## mcshroom (3 May 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Might not be much call for 'em in _'aamshur! _but they they do have their uses in _Yorkshur!_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



... and Cumbria: -


----------



## ColinJ (3 May 2011)

mcshroom said:


> ... and Cumbria: -


I'll _definitely_ be using a triple when I finally get round to doing my cycling holiday in Cumbria!


----------



## david k (4 May 2011)

tuff in cumbria, been there quite a few times, never cycling hough


----------



## PpPete (4 May 2011)

david k said:


> tuff in cumbria, been there quite a few times, never cycling hough



You should - I only cycled there for the first time last year, after 4 decades of going just for walking and rock-climbing. It is just fantastic.

I had absolutely no regrets about my exceptionally low gearing: 50/38/26 front and 12/30 cassette, but even with that I couldn't get up some of the hills.


----------



## Bodhbh (4 May 2011)

Re: walking vs cycling. Even bottoming out the gears on my tourer with 22-34 I'm probably still doing 3mph or so. If you get off and walk it's liable to be approx 2mph pushing a bike up the hill. Also it gets very tiring very quickly pushing a heavy bike up a hill, using all sorts of muscles that don't normally see any action...at least the cycling muscles are generally up to the job. But I can appriciate some might like a change!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 May 2011)

pushing a bike? A good walk spoilt.


----------



## Davidc (4 May 2011)

mcshroom said:


> I'm thinking of gearing down to a 22x32 on the tourer for a camping trip in Scotland at the end of the month.



Stop thinking and do it.

If you can't get up a hill with that (it's what I have on mine) then you've met your match so walk!

My maximum 'tour' for the past 7 years has been 2 days, hope yours in Scotland is longer and very enjoyable. It's the place I never got to for a cycling holiday and I do regret that.


----------

