# 32 tooth cog on road bike rear cassette



## Banjo (4 Feb 2011)

My lbs are doing a custom build on a nice looking Cervelo road bike for a customer.

Its fitted with a Sram rear cassette with a 32 tooth cog and a compact chainset 50/34 I think. seems like seriously low gears for a road bike with no luggage carrying capability. 

Nice for spinning up big hills with tired legs but seemed a bit OTT to me.


----------



## GrasB (4 Feb 2011)

the SRAM 12-32 & 12-28 setup looks really nice, you get a tightish 9spd cassette plus a bailout gear if it all goes horribly wrong.


----------



## HLaB (4 Feb 2011)

I went on a cycling Holiday a few years back and one old fella there had a 30 on the back with a 30 on the front, it seems incredibly low but give his due (albeit not fast) he got up the mountain in Southern Spain and could hold an OK ish pace on the flat; he was a terrific descender (compared to me anyway). I hope I'm that fit when I'm his age and if a stupidly low gear helps, I don't mind ;-)


----------



## User6179 (4 Feb 2011)

Banjo said:


> My lbs are doing a custom build on a nice looking Cervelo road bike for a customer.
> 
> Its fitted with a Sram rear cassette with a 32 tooth cog and a compact chainset 50/34 I think. seems like seriously low gears for a road bike with no luggage carrying capability.
> 
> Nice for spinning up big hills with tired legs but seemed a bit OTT to me.




I had a triple chainset with a 32 tooth cog on the back and i think i could quite possibly have cycled up ben nevis with that set up but i found my gears were to far apart when i was spinning on the flat,i would be in to hard a gear and click down to find the gear below to low.

Imo this set up only works if you have very steep hills and not much flat to ride,perhaps the customer is going to be doing a very hilly ride and needs this set up.

Im now on a standardish double with a 28-12 cog and i found my fitness has improved as i dont have the luxury of sitting down and spinning uphills,I now have no option but to stand up and go for it.


----------



## GrasB (4 Feb 2011)

Eddy, I'd have a look at the SRAM 12-32 it's rather different than the classical 11-32 setup:
12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-32 - SRAM
11-12-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32 - shimano


----------



## Jerry Atrik (4 Feb 2011)

My new Spesh Tricross has a rear 32 which is neat as there's nothing but hills round here .


----------



## rb58 (5 Feb 2011)

My Thorn Audax has a 11 to 32 cassette, with a 26-36-48 triple on the front as standard. I don't think I've ever needed to use the 26 x 32, but it's wonderfully conforting knowing it's there especially when I'm going up a steep one at the end of a very long ride. IIRC they even offer a 22 granny ring.


----------



## jig-sore (5 Feb 2011)

im sure they covered this in the cycle mags recently. something about this new set up being aimed at replacing a triple set up. the general idea was to avoid people being put off a road bike with a triple but still give them a sensible set of gear ratios. 

it seems the testers like it !!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Feb 2011)

spot on jig-sore, the spread of a triple without the look, bulk, or q factor. anything that makes good bikes accessible to more people has to be a good thing.


----------



## Garz (5 Feb 2011)

I'm fine with it. Rather have that set-up than the triple.

When unfit I have found cross chaining creeping in without realising it happens. When on my older bike with a 23 cassette there are certain terrain areas where I want to stay in the 50 ring. My newer bike has a 27 on the cassette and makes a difference. It all changes when I'm in good shape as I know I can climb having the 23-34 so it's just tinkering with what gears work best for you.

On a side note the buddy I cycle with for events and meetups is way more of a grinder than me and we still cruise at the same speeds. He could have a standard double on one of his bikes so our gearing is off but we climb the same stuff and don't have to wait for one another. I would say how a person climbs (comfort) and their fitness makes more of a difference than gear selection at times.


----------



## Davidc (5 Feb 2011)

.


----------



## Cubist (5 Feb 2011)

What a lot of CCers tend to forget is that their idea of hilly depends on where they live. My Boardman has a 11-32 and 50-36 compact. I live at 1400 feet or so above sea level, and am absolutely surrounded by geet big hills. I find the 36f 32r to be tough enough on some climbs, but tried a 34 chainring, only to discover huge gaps in the gearing necessitating triple shifts on the long 6 or 7% drag on the way home. Even now I am sometinmes tempted to push up the last 15-20%er! Without putting too fine a point on it my next bike will be a triple!


----------



## GrasB (5 Feb 2011)

Cubist said:


> ..discover huge gaps in the gearing necessitating triple shifts...


Pardon my stupidity but with a chainring & cassette setup how can you triple shift? You only have 2 gear selectors!


----------



## andrew_s (5 Feb 2011)

triple shift = up one at the front, down two at the back


----------



## numbnuts (5 Feb 2011)

> What a lot of CCers tend to forget is that their idea of hilly depends on where they live


...and old farts like me I'm running 11-32 with 26-36-48 triple and I'm only just coping with the hills in my area I'm thinking of going to 11-34 with 22-36-48 the same as my MTB


----------



## Davidc (6 Feb 2011)

numbnuts said:


> ...and old farts like me ... I'm thinking of going to 11-34 with 22-36-48 the same as my MTB



Be you and me both then.

My only concern is whether the 22 with 34 is too low for getting started, and whether balancing at the lowest achievable speed is going to be difficult. As I said above, the big benefit I can see is having the rest of the gears tighter spaced.


----------



## numbnuts (6 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> Be you and me both then.
> 
> My only concern is whether the 22 with 34 is too low for getting started, and whether balancing at the lowest achievable speed is going to be difficult. As I said above, the big benefit I can see is having the rest of the gears tighter spaced.



As I'm very slow getting up hills due to old age and now with emphysema I can peddle very slowly without falling off, on one hill I go up the top speed is 3.3 mph, I refuse to get off and push the day I do that my bikes goes on e-bay


----------



## Davidc (6 Feb 2011)

numbnuts said:


> As I'm very slow getting up hills due to old age and now with emphysema I can peddle very slowly without falling off, on one hill I go up the top speed is 3.3 mph, I refuse to get off and push the day I do that my bikes goes on e-bay



Sounds about right to me. I go up a hill called Blagdon Hill, onto the Blackdowns, and always get down to 3 mph on two stretches. I couldn't do it without walking until I put the 22 ring on.

There's one road I use to go up onto the Quantocks on which I accept defeat and walk every time and I don't think a couple of teeth on the cassette will change that. It is a 30% gradient where I get off though. I can go up by a different route, mainly at 3 to 4 mph but it's 2 miles further and takes longer.


----------



## e-rider (6 Feb 2011)

having a 32 spocket with a compact chainset (34t) on a normal road bike (ie. not a tourer) is completely stupid IMO - unless you frequently ride up 1:4 hills!


----------



## GrasB (6 Feb 2011)

With 700x23 tyres 34:32 is 8.3mph/100 rpm. If one produces around 205w they'll be climbing a 15% slope at 4mph making their cadence 48.2rpm... Some people have road bikes because they're the best type of bike for the type of riding they do not because they're super strong cyclists.

Actually thinking about it there one guy that people would label as "all the gear, no idea" a few years ago. He actually had a fairly good idea, it's just he wasn't very fit. I after several failed 10 mile rides I ended up having to fit an MTB rear mech & cassette to his bike because he couldn't climb the steep stuff around here (that's what 8-10% maximum gradient). For him that a 32t road cassette would have been perfect at that time.


----------



## User6179 (6 Feb 2011)

GrasB said:


> Eddy, I'd have a look at the SRAM 12-32 it's rather different than the classical 11-32 setup:
> 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-32 - SRAM
> 11-12-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32 - shimano




That sram set-up looks far better than my shimano set-up which was 11/13/15/17/20/23/26/32 but still to low for me.


----------



## Cubist (6 Feb 2011)

tundragumski said:


> having a 32 spocket with a compact chainset (34t) on a normal road bike (ie. not a tourer) is completely stupid IMO - unless you frequently ride up 1:4 hills!


In Norwich perhaps.


----------



## numbnuts (6 Feb 2011)

tundragumski said:


> having a 32 spocket with a compact chainset (34t) on a normal road bike (ie. not a tourer) is completely stupid IMO - unless you frequently ride up 1:4 hills!


not if you have emphysema


----------



## Garz (6 Feb 2011)

tundragumski said:


> having a 32 spocket with a compact chainset (34t) on a normal road bike (ie. not a tourer) is completely stupid IMO - unless you frequently ride up 1:4 hills!



A bit harsh that.






I would agree that on a compact with no burden/touring I would think a 25t would be ample or a 27t if 'hilly' course. Peoples fitness and age will of course debunk this statement.


----------



## MacB (6 Feb 2011)

tundragumski said:


> having a 32 spocket with a compact chainset (34t) on a normal road bike (ie. not a tourer) is completely stupid IMO - unless you frequently ride up 1:4 hills!



I think you've got to learn to just come out and say things T, stop holding back and pussy footing around. I mean you're so right, it's insane, if they have a 34x27 bottom that gives them a 33 inch low gear, but Shimano road now goes to 28 so that's a 32 inch low. Why on earth would they want a ludicrous 34x32 at 28 inches, they've either got to 'man up' or get off and walk. If they're smart they'll cram in more big gears and make up for walking by bombing down the other side.

Nah, it's no good, I can't believe I'm even thinking about this, unless they ride a 53/42 with an 11-21 then it's just not worth trying to teach them.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Feb 2011)

MacB said:


> ........*Nah, it's no good, I can't believe I'm even thinking about this, unless they ride a 53/42 with an 11-21 then it's just not worth trying to teach them.
> *


53/42 with a 21 on the back would be the choice of a true tough guy


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Feb 2011)

tundragumski said:


> having a 32 spocket with a compact chainset (34t) on a normal road bike (ie. not a tourer) is completely stupid IMO - unless you frequently ride up 1:4 hills!



No it's not.

I can think of several times when I could use 34x32, being 48, bit overweight and with CHD such gearing would be useful, thanks. There are probably quite a few people that would find that gearing useful. .

Last summer I sat at the top of Ditchling Beacon licking my ice-cream watching L2B participants cresting the rise. An awful lot of people now ride-up not because of great improvements in fitness but due to lower gearing.
In particular I noted a disproportionately large number of girls on sit-up and beg hybrid types successfully cycling all the way while many flash roadies were walking. It slowly dawned on me that the Shimano 'Megarange' cassettes fitted to the girls hybrids were allowing them to succeed where the roadies were failing.

There's far to much macho bullshit written about gearing.


----------



## frank9755 (7 Feb 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> There's far to much macho bullshit written about gearing.



Agreed!


The way to decide what you need is to start by working out what cadence you want to ride up the steeper hills you are going to be riding up. It's different for different people, essentially depending on how strong you are. 

If you look at the pros they spin up climbs at a high cadence - I don't know what but guessing, 70+. Presumably if they thought it was better to grind up at a cadence of 20, they would put a 200 inch gear on and do that (if there was chainring clearance), but they don't. 

I like spinning up hills too. It's easier on my knees, feels more efficient and I go up at least as fast as I do if I shift up three gears and stand on the pedals (that option is still open!). But being less strong than top riders I need significantly lower gears to do it, which means a small front chainring and something of a similar size as my largest sprocket. It might not make the bike look cool but that isn't my objective.


----------



## Cush (7 Feb 2011)

Found this a usefull post. When the bike goes in for servicing before the Haltwhistle - LE- Dover- Haltwhistle in late May early June I may change the gearing to 32 rear and 50/34 front depending on what the LBs advices.


----------



## Banjo (7 Feb 2011)

Found a review about this very same groupset in cycling plus. Sram Apex its called and it seemed to come out with a good review comparing favourably with Shimano 105.

Personally I am happy to use a triple but if I had to have a compact I would definitely consider it.Even if you rarely ever used the 32 it would allways be there ready for the day your tired legs needed it.


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> There's far to much macho bullshit written about gearing.



Well said.


----------



## MacB (8 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> Well said.



Yep, people should be encourage to buy bikes they can ride not bikes they need to push


----------



## numbnuts (8 Feb 2011)

MacB said:


> Yep, people should be encourage to buy bikes they can ride not bikes they need to push



I wonder why it's called a push bike


----------



## MacB (8 Feb 2011)

numbnuts said:


> I wonder why it's called a push bike



 Hah, never thought of that did I, very good sir!!!


----------



## zigzag (10 Feb 2011)

to get to the top of the hill at the same time, you need to generate the same amount of watts. whether that energy is generated by spinning or by grinding, doesn't matter. by having low gears you have a choice of spinning, but with higher low gears - grinding is the only option. i like to use both ways of climbing, and it depends on a hill, mood, fatigue etc. 36x32 or 39x34 got me up all of the hills and mountains i've cycled so far, but sometimes i wished i'd had even lower gearing.
those "macho" type comments are from the guys that haven't cycled proper hills, therefore can be ignored


----------



## GrasB (10 Feb 2011)

zigzag said:


> those "macho" type comments are from the guys that haven't cycled proper hills, therefore can be ignored


Macho has it's uses though... got a 10 min climb up 8.3% gradient with an ave speed of around 9mph. You're aiming for a climbing cadence around 60rpm do you go for 38/19 or 54/28? & which one puts the fear of god into people?


----------



## Garz (10 Feb 2011)

zigzag said:


> those "macho" type comments are from the guys that haven't cycled proper hills, therefore can be ignored



Please enlighten us to as what you call a 'proper hill'?


----------



## zigzag (10 Feb 2011)

38/19 and 54/28 are nearly the same, so i would choose 38/19 for better chainline. proper hill - plenty of them in sw uk, wales, northern borders. i'd say a mile long hill over 15%, or 10 mile hill of 10% are proper hills. when they come after a long day(s) on a bike, it's very useful to have low gears to altenate grinding with spinning to get to the top.


----------



## GrasB (10 Feb 2011)

zigzag said:


> 38/19 and 54/28 are nearly the same, so i would choose 38/19 for better chainline.


I'll go for 54/28 - 
* I've yet to see benefits to keeping the chain line 'good'.
* better efficiency - turbo & crank power metering shows me I get higher % of my crank power to the rear wheel on the 54/28 combo than the 38/19
* slightly lower gear for a little more head room for the steeper sections of the climb
* If things get really steep an instant 42% drop in gear & as I've got the cadence band to deal with that boy does it work well
* if in a competitive environment is a psychological advantage.


----------



## steve52 (10 Feb 2011)

if i knew then what i know now! id have bought a triple


----------



## zigzag (10 Feb 2011)

GrasB said:


> I'll go for 54/28 -
> * I've yet to see benefits to keeping the chain line 'good'.
> * better efficiency - turbo & crank power metering shows me I get higher % of my crank power to the rear wheel on the 54/28 combo than the 38/19
> * slightly lower gear for a little more head room for the steeper sections of the climb
> ...



if you know the hill, and this technique works well - then fine! there are many ways to tackle hills, every hill is different and there are no hard and fast rules which way of climbing is best. you'll climb the the same hill differently when starting fresh and at the end of long hilly ride. what works for one rider may not work for another.


----------



## GrasB (11 Feb 2011)

Actually on unknown hills it works well too. To drop a gear or 2 from that point you're using the normal-low strength of the front mech & normal-high strength of the rear mech. Quicker transitions so faster gear change. I don't get this you ride differently thing, as even after 90 miles in the Alps I'm still climbing in the same way I did when I started the ride, I'm just pushing out less power.


----------



## zigzag (11 Feb 2011)

GrasB said:


> I don't get this you ride differently thing, as even after 90 miles in the Alps I'm still climbing in the same way I did when I started the ride, I'm just pushing out less power.



try climbing the same way after 200miles that day, and then the day after. 90miles can be challenging, but there are many riders doing double or triple that. we all see our challenges differently, therefore as said before what suits you may not suit for the others.


----------



## Manonabike (11 Feb 2011)

I have a triple 52/39/30 I think and a Shimano 11-32 at the back. I can honestly say that thanks to that I managed to do all the cycling I needed to do to lose 4 stones..... a very steep hill near my house was always my worst nightmare  but with that big cassette at the back I was OK even when I had been cycling for hours. Now, that I'm much lighter I never use the granny ring but I remain grateful 

I don't think I would have done all that cycling and lost all that weight if it wasn't for the big cassette.... cycling for me is a way of keeping fit and also mental therapy.... forget all my worries when I'm cycling  - not trying to go fast.


----------



## Garz (11 Feb 2011)

zigzag said:


> proper hill - plenty of them in sw uk, wales, northern borders. i'd say a mile long hill over 15%, or 10 mile hill of 10% are proper hills.



Ten miles of 10%..

I think your mixing up hills with mountains and european terrain. I live just on the edge of the West Pennines and occasionally dabble in the rides around the Dales or the Lakes so to me a 'proper hill' is anything that makes you sweat hard and gets you out of the saddle or forces you to struggle with whether to sit/stand or fall sideways.


----------



## zigzag (11 Feb 2011)

Garz said:


> Ten miles of 10%..
> 
> I think your mixing up hills with mountains and european terrain. I live just on the edge of the West Pennines and occasionally dabble in the rides around the Dales or the Lakes so to me a 'proper hill' is anything that makes you sweat hard and gets you out of the saddle or forces you to struggle with whether to sit/stand or fall sideways.



when does small hill becomes a big hill and a big hill becomes a mountain? yes, 10 miles of 10% is more like a mountain, but still it's an incline that can be conquered in different ways. GrasB would be climbing in 54/28, i'd probably spin most of the way up. i like having a choice between spinning/grinding, that's all..


----------



## Garz (12 Feb 2011)

I was never referring to your gearing, just highlighting that for different people it will vary whether it's hard or not. By only categorising your 'hills' the way you do is pretty severe. A moderate hill to the average paunchy male is obviously a hump in the road to you. That's all..


----------



## GrasB (12 Feb 2011)

zigzag said:


> when does small hill becomes a big hill and a big hill becomes a mountain? yes, 10 miles of 10% is more like a mountain, but still it's an incline that can be conquered in different ways. GrasB would be climbing in 54/28, i'd probably spin most of the way up. i like having a choice between spinning/grinding, that's all..


My personal climbing style is mix it up as much as possible; riding in & out of the saddle, spinning up & grinding out the gears. Last year I did 5 longish days of hard competitive climbing rides in the Alps, 85 miles/day for 3 straight days then towards the end of the 10 days another 2 days doing 85 miles/day. What I quickly found was that swapping my technique over every 4-5 min allowed me to produce more power for longer, further more it allows me to have enough in reserve to turn it on over the back 1km or so of a long climb in preparation for the descent (an example of where having a topographical trace of your route on your trip comp comes in really handy).

The example of 54/28 or 38/19 was to demonstrate how 'being macho' & riding on the big ring can actually have a benefit over riding on gears that some people feel are more appropriate, especially when riding in a competitive manner. To quote one of the riders on that particular climb when I asked why he didn't break away with us "It started to get steeper, then saw you & Sal' transition to the big ring & though 'dear god, I'm f**ked!'". That rider was a stronger climber than me & shouldn't have had any problems keeping up with us. The advantage I had wasn't a physical one I'd actually changed down a gear or so (58.5" to 49.5"), but psychological advantage of hitting the big ring had cracked the rider & he was left in the pack.


----------



## PhotographerW2 (12 Feb 2011)

I've been thinking about his today, and was going to post a question, but might get it answered here. I've got a Chorus groupset with 12/29, bought for cycling over the Alps last year. 

I got up all the climbs, but often my cadence was only 60, i.e. having even more sprockets would have been welcome and I might not have felt so knackered at the end of the day.

I'm hoping to cross the Alps again this year and the word 'Ventoux' has been mentioned. Spinning at a higher cadence - even if my speed is low! - would be preferable.

I've got a Shimano 105 groupset on a second bike and have been wondering if I should upgrade (or rather cross-grade) to the SRAM Apex with 12/32. The frames of both bikes are a similar weight, so my question is whether a 32 really gives you three extra gears, or whether the ratios are different, i.e. perhaps only giving the equivalent of one more gear, which wouldn't be worth the expense.

Also, I haven't found the total weight of the Chorus groupset vs the Apex. It's 'lower end' so perhaps the added weight would be counterproductive?

Presumably I'd have to replace the entire 105 groupset or would brakes be compatible with SRAM?

Thanks

R


----------



## zigzag (12 Feb 2011)

PhotographerW2 said:


> Presumably I'd have to replace the entire 105 groupset or would brakes be compatible with SRAM?




hello Photographer and welcome to the forum. as a cheapest solution i would put shimano mtb cassette and mtb rear mech (medium cage if double chaiset, long cage if triple) to go with 105 groupset you've already got.


----------



## Garz (13 Feb 2011)

..or as you put it yourself:



> perhaps only giving the equivalent of one more gear, which wouldn't be worth the expense.



You could alternatively focus on getting fitter for this type of event. I agree that some of these minor tweaks are costing you some money for not much benefit. The 29T on the rear should be adequate enough for the job so maybe practice a few training repeats until you decide to fork out and use your money on lower gearing.



> I got up all the climbs , but often my cadence was only 60, i.e. having even more sprockets would have been welcome and I might not have felt so knackered at the end of the day.



With enough preparation then you will be fine.


----------



## PhotographerW2 (13 Feb 2011)

Garz said:


> ..or as you put it yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the advice.

You're probably right, but I'm 46 and last year we climbed the equivalent of 1.5 time the height of Everest in 8 days! I'm doing a week's training camp in Lanzerote in March; I'll bring the 29T and see how the climbs go. In the meantime, I'll also investigate the MTB option...


----------



## Fab Foodie (13 Feb 2011)

PhotographerW2 said:


> Thanks for the advice.
> 
> You're probably right, but I'm 46 and last year we climbed the equivalent of 1.5 time the height of Everest in 8 days! I'm doing a week's training camp in Lanzerote in March; I'll bring the 29T and see how the climbs go. In the meantime, I'll also investigate the MTB option...



Another option would be to have a different chainring/chainset for crossing the alps and leave the rear-end of the bike alone.


----------



## GrasB (13 Feb 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> Another option would be to have a different chainring/chainset for crossing the alps and leave the rear-end of the bike alone.


A possible option.

PhotographerW2, what have you currently chainring wise? compact or classical double


----------



## JCoop (8 Jul 2011)

I converted my Litespeed Vortex into a "cafe" tourer after surviving Lymphoma and losing much of my muscle mass and fitness. I got Harris' Cyclery's Cyclotouriste cogset 13-34. My Vortex has Dura Ace components with a 53-39 Crankset. The combination seems to work well, except I have to be conscious not to shift to the 30 or 32 when I'm on the large chainring. I can maintain my normal 80-90 cadence when going up the 6-8% grade hills we have around here. When I get my muscles and fitness back, I'll switch back to my favorite 12-27 set. I'm still on my 9th week of base building.


----------

