# Struggling with hills



## Rider Rich (7 Jul 2009)

Hi All 

I am new the the road riding scene, and have recently bought a 2009 Trek 1.9 double compact. 

As I knew nothing about road bikes when I purchased the above bike I asked the advice of my LBS as to which model to get, the compact or triple version. The guy in the shop advised me that the compact would be better. 

I have only done about 170 miles so far (about 14 or so rides), my longest ride being 21 miles, but I am really struggling with hills. Even in the smallest gear I find it a struggle, and on bigger hills I have had to get off and push! This has done nothing for my confidence.






I am quite heavy at 16 stones, and this probably does not help, but I did'nt struggle so badly on my old hybrid. I really thought it would be easier than it is on my Trek 1.9. 

Have I made a big mistake by getting the compact over the triple? Will it get easier as I keep on riding? 

As I live in Warlingham in Surrey I can't really get away from hills. 

Any advice or comments appreciated 

Cheers, Richard


----------



## Bigtwin (7 Jul 2009)

Persevere. It will get easier. Bikes's fine I'm sure, 11-25 on a compact is fine for Surrey.

Keep going - couple of weeeks and you will wonder what all the fuss was about.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Jul 2009)

Hey Richard, welcome aboard. 

I was in the same boat a few years ago. Just get out there and put the miles in. Pick a hill, then ride up it in a low gear. Ride a week or so, then go up the same hill in 1 gear higher, before you know it you will be dancing on the pedals on the big ring without a care in the world. 

That is the time to find a BIGGER hill....


----------



## stoatsngroats (7 Jul 2009)

Hi Warlingham!

I'm sure you'll grow into them, tho' it does take some effort to begin with.

I had three attempts at a hill which I can ride up without any problem now - it's not even something I think when I decide to rideout that way.
Persevere, and work up to it, it'll be fun trying to get farther up than last time - take it as a challenge!

Go DOWN Tithepitshaw, (not up!), Godstone Road, Downs Ct road, (Not St James's  ), Mitchley Avenue....

Try something like this, and watch your improvement over the weeks....soon you'll be going UP Tithepitshaw Lane...


----------



## nosherduke996 (7 Jul 2009)

Hi, just stick with it as it will get easeyer.I have only been going for twelve weeks and am really noticing the difference.Longest so far is 75miles


----------



## Bigtwin (7 Jul 2009)

Keep pushing - you're ideally placed to be pumping up Pratt's Bottom - not to be sniffed at!


----------



## Sittingduck (7 Jul 2009)

Good evening Richard 

As the others have said, keep on practicing. It does get easier but the weight will always be an issue for the likes of us  I would advise you to ride around spinning in low gears up hills. Obviously there may be some that are a real struggle, even in 1st gear! If you have to stop to get your breath back then so be it. I did a solo 40+ miler down through Godstone and back up via Chipstead and Banstead a few weeks ago on a warm Saturday morning. Hard going I can tell you but your legs will get stronger in time. I also ride a CT double and am heavier than you... yet to master the art of hill climbing but it's a good goal to set yourself. Haven't tried Boxhill yet but it's on my "to tackle" list!

Right - I have waffled enough and I have no doubt that Jimboalee will be along with some witchcraft soon about what wattage you need to output to climb a 10% at 8mph  Come on Jimbo... lets be having you!

Cheers,
SD


----------



## HJ (7 Jul 2009)

A triple would have been easier, but it is a wee bit late. Main thing is to keep at it and you will improve, getting in distance helps...


----------



## accountantpete (7 Jul 2009)

16 stone on an inner 39(presumably) is extremely difficult on the really steep parts.You have picked the right bike -perhaps get a smaller inner chainring as a temporary solution until the weight/fitness situation improves.


----------



## Sittingduck (7 Jul 2009)

^ compact = 34 inner or maybe a 36 tops...


----------



## 2Loose (7 Jul 2009)

I give you month before you wonder what you were talking about!
In the first week of riding again I was either pushing or on the smallest gear on my commute home, 6 weeks on I am on the big ring in 3rd. It does get a lot easier as your fitness improves surprisingly quickly. I think the best tip I had was to put it in lowest gear and do not look at the hill, look at the front wheel as it makes you more relaxed for some reason - whoever on here said that - gold star!


----------



## accountantpete (7 Jul 2009)

Sittingduck said:


> ^ compact = 34 inner or maybe a 36 tops...




Mucho apologies for my ignorance ducky!


----------



## Sittingduck (7 Jul 2009)

accountantpete said:


> Mucho apologies for my ignorance ducky!



s'ok


----------



## jimboalee (7 Jul 2009)

Had a look on the map. Succombs hill  Mapsource says it rises 10m in 31m  The proverbial 'staircase'.. 1:7 = 14% average for 0.2 mile 

When you can get up this one....( cus yer bike doesn't have the gearing )?? , then your ready for a local Audax.


----------



## MacB (7 Jul 2009)

yep if your bottom gear is a 34 ring and 25 tooth combo then that's about a 36 inch gear. The triple version would only have given you two easier gears, about a 33 inch and a 29 inch. If it would fit, changing cassettes to a 13-29 would give you almost the same range at the bottom.

Having grown up in Whyteleafe I'd suggest that using Succumbs Hill for training will soon give you legs for any hill you care to imagine.


----------



## stoatsngroats (7 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Having grown up in Whyteleafe


Within 6 miles of me!


----------



## MacB (7 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Had a look on the map. Succombs hill  Mapsource says it rises 10m in 31m  The proverbial 'staircase'.. 1:7 = 14% average for 0.2 mile
> 
> When you can get up this one....( cus yer bike doesn't have the gearing )?? , then your ready for a local Audax.



Ah Jim, that hill was my route to school in the mornings


----------



## Rider Rich (7 Jul 2009)

Thank you for all the advice, its very much appreciated. 

I will just keep at it for now, and try and get out as much as I can.

By the way I have 50/34 at the front and 11-25 at the rear.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Jul 2009)

Hi, agree with all said about practicing hills, the more you do, the easier they get. Technique plays a big part... many try to wrestle their bikes up the hill to poor effect, whereas a nice relaxed approach will pay dividends. My big tip here is prior to the climb, get comfy, sit back on the saddle, AND RELAX - especially the upper body, arms, hands, neck, every part of your body you don't need to propel you forward... then find the right gear and then gently wind yourself up, find a nice rhythmn... oh, and RELAX... did I mention that?
It's also good to learn to climb 'out of the saddle' or 'Honking' as it allows other muscles to share some work and gives extra short-term power, again, relax... 
I also as mentioned tend to look at the road just in front of me and try to think of something that's not cycling and before you know it, you'll be at the top (or in a ditch). Much about climbing is all in the mind!
Box Hill is a good hill to practice, nice long even gradients with bends to mark progress. I used to haul up it on a 42 x 15 fixed so your 34 x 25 should be a peach after some practice


----------



## simon_brooke (7 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> Hi All
> 
> I am new the the road riding scene, and have recently bought a 2009 Trek 1.9 double compact.
> 
> ...





HJ said:


> A triple would have been easier, but it is a wee bit late. Main thing is to keep at it and you will improve, getting in distance helps...



Triples are ugly.

Hills are always hard for heavier folk, I'm afraid. But this has an upside - as you get fitter you get lighter, so hills become easier in two ways at once!

A larger cassette will help a bit - I think you can get a 12-27 tooth Shimano road cassette, and if the worst comes to the worst with Shimano you could fit a mountain bike mech and cassette. But really what will help is fitness, which means get out on the bike and ride.

There must be someone of roughly similar ability locally you can ride with. Find the local CTC group, or whether your local road club has 'social' rides. Also, learn the less taxing local routes.

With some friends I do an annual autumn ride up from Dumfries to the Mennock Water, and from there up to Wanlockhead up the Mennock Pass, and back down the Dalveen Pass. It's 85 miles, and the Mennock Pass is a cat one climb. The first couple of years we did it I got off and pushed a lot of the way up the Mennock. But those days are long past. I won't say I fly up there, but I no longer struggle.

Fitness will come.


----------



## chris667 (8 Jul 2009)

Sittingduck said:


> ^ compact = 34 inner or maybe a 36 tops...


Yes, I was thinking that.
Spa Cycles will sell you a lovely Stronglight chainring for £8, which will be a massive improvement.
And when you wear out your current gears, consider a lower geared cassette. 28 is probably the most your derralieur can take, but it will make life much easier.


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

I'm always amazed when people ask for a help on gearing because they are new to cycling and struggling with hills ... only to have people advise, basically, HTFU.

Going on specs for an off-the-peg Trek 1.9 double compact, your lowest gear is in the realm of 35 inches. You are new to cycling and, by your own admission, overweight.

This is a very unhappy combination -- you and this bike I mean -- and it's not going to be much fun ... until you reach this idealized condition that is being held out for you. It may well be that you might give up before that time comes, as I've seen many others do. It's why my most common rant is against shops selling "racing bikes" to regular mortals, telling them "this'll be fine" with no concern for the fitness level of the customer or intended use of the bike.

I am a fit, 135lb, 57 y/o ex-racer and regular randonneur and tourer. At moderate fitness, I am capable of riding over 400km a day.

The highest low gearing I have on any of my bikes is 27" -- not because I'm a wimp (and who cares if anyone thinks I am), but because I like to climb the hilly topography I live around comfortably, without undue agony.


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

simon_brooke said:


> Triples are ugly.



Utter rot.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation. Now that's going to start a healthy discussion. 

When you honk, think of your bodymass in Newtons. Think of the crank length and then think it is Nm torque on the BB shaft.

Fat bloaters like me can apply more torque to the BB and skinny types can't.
Peculiarly, the whole thing cancels out because each has to lift their mass upwards.

The only thing that determines climbing ability is the 'dead weight' of the metal ( and carbon ).

Incidentally, transfering your water bottles to your rear pockets HELPS climb a hill. They become part of the aminate mass ie. part of your body.

I carry nothing on my bike. Its all in my pockets. Why should cycle jerseys have evolved and developed over the years with rear pockets? Its so you can carry your stuff without it adding to the 'dead weight' burden.

BTW.. Question...When you sit your bum on the seat, how much of your bodyweight becomes 'dead weight' with the bike?

The other perenial question was the one about the two guys on bikes. One was a hefty chap on a light bike and the other a slim, light chap on a heavier bike. The 'total vehicle' weight was the same. Who got to the top of the hill quickest?


----------



## JtB (8 Jul 2009)

I know its stating the obvious, but if your saddle is set too low, hills will be excessively hard. I set my saddle so its comfortable for peddling, but that means I can't touch the road with my feet without getting off my saddle. Here's some useful information on setting the height of the saddle: http://sheldonbrown.com/saddles.html#height


----------



## Renard (8 Jul 2009)

To paraphrase someone else, 'Its not about the bike'. Keep at it and it will become easier! 
Also once you get fitter you'd find that the inner ring on a triple would become superfluous then you would be using a 42 tooth middle ring most of the time instead of the 34 or 36 you have now.


----------



## cisamcgu (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Fat bloaters like me can apply more torque to the BB and skinny types can't.
> Peculiarly, the whole thing cancels out because each has to lift their mass upwards.



Utter rot !  

On the assumption that a human produces the same power regardless of their weight (and this is a fair assumption) then the heavier the person the more energy is required to lift that person up a hill at the same rate as a lighter person.

So therefore the heavier person must go slower if they are producing the same power - your talk about torque on the cranks is just complete drivel !


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

cisamcgu said:


> Utter rot !
> 
> On the assumption that a human produces the same power regardless of their weight (and this is a fair assumption) then the heavier the person the more energy is required to lift that person up a hill at the same rate as a lighter person.
> 
> So therefore the heavier person must go slower if they are producing the same power - your talk about torque on the cranks is just complete drivel !



Ah, so buying a chainset with a longer crank length is a total waste of money if you think they will help you climb a hill?


----------



## asterix (8 Jul 2009)

A useful technique to acquire is the ability to produce force on the up stroke of the pedal as well as the down stroke. It's extraordinary how much extra power can be achieved like this. Only really works with clipless pedals as toeclips don't grip enough and you'd best be fit.

Although compacts can do the job perfectly well with the right rings, I like my triple because it's very hilly round here and at the end of a long ride those low gears are rather welcome (home is at the top of a hill ).


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

Two of my bikes are quite different, but quite similar.

I have a Dawes Giro 500 and a Moulton Mini.

They both weigh 23.5lb.

I put the Dawes in 42 x 23 (48") and ride up the 7% near where I live quite easily.

The Moulton Mini has a 52 x 15 with a 14" wheel = 49".

IT HAS 5.5 inch cranks and I STRUGGLE to climb the 7% because there's LESS torque.


----------



## asterix (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Two of my bikes are quite different, but quite similar.
> 
> I have a Dawes Giro 500 and a Moulton Mini.
> 
> ...



5.5 inches, 140mm! That's hardly any crank at all!!


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

I like the Rando take on this, I'm far more likely to run out of low gears than high ones. If you fancy compact doubles then I'd personally suggest that a combination of 42/30 rings and 11-32 cassette would give a much more user friendly range - 24.6 inches up to 100 inches.

Maybe it's because I'm still fairly new to cycling but I haven't come across anyone, that I'm aware of, that uses gears above 100 inches very much.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

asterix said:


> 5.5 inches, 140mm! That's hardly any crank at all!!



14" wheels! That's hardly any wheel at all!!

Luckily, I have acquired a pair of cottered 6.75" cranks with a 48 ring.
The Sachs Torpedo coaster takes the same sprocket pattern as Sturmey Archer so I will couple it with a 14T sprocket to get 48".

At 85ish cadence, it goes 12mph. 
If I can find an Audax 100 with 10 - 20 kmh limits, I'll give it a whirl


----------



## Dan B (8 Jul 2009)

Randochap said:


> I'm always amazed when people ask for a help on gearing because they are new to cycling and struggling with hills ... only to have people advise, basically, HTFU.


I sort of agree, sort of don't. If their intention is to get fitter and they're prepared to work at it then they will once fitter be better off with the "normal" gearing than the triple+megarange or whatever would suit them in the initial stage. Personally, I'd be peed off at the prospect of having to buy (and probably to pay for fitting of) two chainwheels and probably two front mechs as well: I'd rather just sweat more. Or go up less steep hills.

Obviously if you _have_ to get over some hill or other because it's on your way to work then that changes the equation a bit. But if you've bought a nice bike then a nice replacement chainring for it could easily be £100 extra which you might well otherwise want to save



jimboalee said:


> Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation.


Er, right. I trust you are familiar with the concept of "conservation of energy", also that power is energy per unit time. The heavier rider+bike will expend more energy to lift themselves to a given height than the lighter rider+bike, and that must remain true irrespective of how much torque they can apply at the pedal. Therefore the heavier rider needs more power for the same hill, and that power has to come from muscles. It can't come from gravity unless the hill is less than half a crank revolution long
[/quote]


----------



## SimonRoberts0204 (8 Jul 2009)

unfortunately, the energy you need to put down is mass*height of hill* 9.81.

The only way to put this on the road is through the muscles in your legs.


----------



## cisamcgu (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Two of my bikes are quite different, but quite similar.
> 
> I have a Dawes Giro 500 and a Moulton Mini.
> 
> ...




Longer cranks are like having a lower gear, that is all !


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> I sort of agree, sort of don't. If their intention is to get fitter and they're prepared to work at it then they will once fitter be better off with the "normal" gearing than the triple+megarange or whatever would suit them in the initial stage. Personally, I'd be peed off at the prospect of having to buy (and probably to pay for fitting of) two chainwheels and probably two front mechs as well: I'd rather just sweat more. Or go up less steep hills.
> 
> Obviously if you _have_ to get over some hill or other because it's on your way to work then that changes the equation a bit. But if you've bought a nice bike then a nice replacement chainring for it could easily be £100 extra which you might well otherwise want to save
> 
> ...


[/quote]

Yes, this is the contention. If the same weight rider+bike have to get up the same hill on the same gear in the same time, what crank length would you prefer?


----------



## Dan B (8 Jul 2009)

> If the same weight rider+bike have to get up the same hill on the same gear in the same time, what crank length would you prefer?


Same time as what?


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> Same time as what?



This is an old chestnut that has been argued about since bicycles were invented.

As I have already mentioned, a heavy rider on a light bike can be the same 'whole vehicle' weight as a light bloke on a heavy bike.

The heavy rider has the advantage.

Anyway.
The bottom line here is :- Minimise body tissue that doesn't contribute (fat), Maximise lower body muscle mass.


----------



## Rider Rich (8 Jul 2009)

I will just keep at it for now, and try and improve my fitness.

I dont really want to have to spend extra cash on making changes to the bike at the moment, Im the one that needs changing, and with time I hope to get there!

Cheers 

Richard


----------



## Dan B (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> As I have already mentioned, a heavy rider on a light bike can be the same 'whole vehicle' weight as a light bloke on a heavy bike.


That's pretty much the exact opposite of your original claim that "Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation"


jimboalee said:


> Minimise body tissue that doesn't contribute (fat), Maximise lower body muscle mass.


So, by putting water bottles in your jersey pockets you increase lower body muscle mass? Fantastic, I must try it


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

I said I'd start an argument.


----------



## Dan B (8 Jul 2009)

Yes, I'll concede that point certainly, but it was about the only accurate bit you did say.


----------



## Ant (8 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> I will just keep at it for now, and try and improve my fitness.
> 
> I dont really want to have to spend extra cash on making changes to the bike at the moment, Im the one that needs changing, and with time I hope to get there!
> 
> ...



Good idea. Try not to get too disheartened if it's tough at first, you'll get there.

I remember when I decided to get back into cycling a couple of years ago after a 20 years off a bike. I didn't do any research at all, just picked up an entry level road bike with standard 53/39 road gears....because that's pretty much what I'd ridden all those years ago. 

I tried to ride up a short, but fairly steep, hill near to where I live......I thought I was going to have a heart attack, litterally. Pounding chest, sickness, blurred vision, feeling feint, the whole works. I could barely even push the bike up the rest of the hill.

Well, I was danmed if I was going to let it beat me. I could breeze up hills in my younger days and I was going to damn well do it again as far as I was concerned. It took a while, some pain and lots of tiredness, but I can get up that hill fairly effortlessly now and I actually quite like hills these days.

One word of advice though. Try and get a checkup with your doctor if possible and explain that you've started cycling. I knew that I had good strong heart and lungs and I wasn't overweight, and so could push myself fairly hard without much risk of doing myself any damage. I wouldn't recommend killing yourself up hills without being sure you won't do more harm than good.


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> Yes, I'll concede that point certainly, but it was about the only accurate bit you did say.



Post of the day...


----------



## asterix (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> This is an old chestnut that has been argued about since bicycles were invented.
> 
> As I have already mentioned, a heavy rider on a light bike can be the same 'whole vehicle' weight as a light bloke on a heavy bike.
> 
> ...




My bike is 11kg, I am 85kg with no scope for weight loss. I climb hills quite happily but at no great speed.

Given the same levels of fitness, are you saying that if I get an 8kg bike I will be able to beat a 70kg rider on an 11kg bike?


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2009)

I'm logged in to this forum, but I've also got the 'live update' on the tour running as well.

http://www.letour.fr/indexus.html

I'm keeping one eye on the tour and the other eye on my manager across the walkway.


As for your question. I have an 11 kg bike ( Dawes Giro 500 ) and a 7.6 kg bike ( SWorks ).
All I know is if I'm on the Spesh and I wear a backpack and load up my pockets so the vehicle weight is the same, I can climb better on the Spesh.

This experiment was done years ago when I got the Spesh.

I stand up and dump all my weight on the pedal  with every pedalstroke.

When I drop the added weight, the Spesh climbs MUCH better.


----------



## gbb (8 Jul 2009)

There's one important bit no-ones thought of mentioning...breathing.

Its central to your ability to be able to exert yourself for longer. On the approach to the incline / hill, prepare yourself and start taking deep regular breaths. If you wait until you've started climbing...it's too late.
Concentrate on your breathing...try to keep it deep and regular...keep feeding those lungs.
Without a plentiful supply of oxygen...your legs are going nowhere very fast.


----------



## HJ (8 Jul 2009)

simon_brooke said:


> Triples are ugly.



No more than doubles, I didn't notice you offering to swap places with Touché outside Freuchie


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

There's 2 different discussions going on here (well, 3 if you count Jim's, but I lost the manual); one is about improving fitness and the other is appropriate gearing.

My contention is simply this: most off-the-peg "racing" bikes don't have gearing with wide enough range for recreational cyclists. It's always been this way.

I remember, back in '78, when I was working in a bike shop that would actually cater to real cyclists and we'd modify stock cranks for customers (we did this for the first Canadians to enter PBP, in '79).

Then, one day, an old chap from Herefordshire (I think it was) stopped by. He was on a tour up into northern British Columbia and his bike sported a T.A. Cyclotouriste chainset, with a tiny inner ring -- 26 I think it was.

This was a novelty to me, who, by style-conscious default, insisted on keeping my 42-52 Campagnolo Neovo Record cranks, in spite of the fact that this necessitated a ridiculous, badly shifting 13-32 cluster, whenever I went touring.

I remember this wise old touriste saying something along the lines of "I'm no hero; I just like to get over the hills without undue pain, or walking."

It took me another few years to get over my hero complex and learn how to apply the correct technology to the conditions and my abilities.

The other thing that springs to mind reading this thread is the fact that -- besides age, average fitness level and tolerance for suffering -- most normal cyclists' fitness waxes and wanes with the season.

I don't know about you, but -- though I have several to choose from -- I like to be able to ride all my bikes knowing that I have gearing options for most eventualities.

Even so, in the winter, when I need to plow through fresh snow, the only option is my Blizzard, with a low of 22".


----------



## Bigtwin (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Why should cycle jerseys have evolved and developed over the years with rear pockets? Its so you can carry your stuff without it adding to the 'dead weight' burden.




Yet more utter rot.

As anyone knows, it's so fat fookers can shove a load of tubes and crap in there to hide their muffin tops.


----------



## postman (8 Jul 2009)

Just today coming back from Bolton Abbey to Leeds via Ilkley and Otley.
My older mate riding a Dawes Giro 300.Complained about the same problem.He has a double 52-39.And is struggling uphill,and he has been cycling for years.I on the other hand realized 5 yeras ago that around here a Dawes Galaxy was *best for me* with 48-36-26.

Our past three rides i have left him standing and have to wait for him.
He is a better cyclist than me.We have decided that he needs more.So the bike is going in for alteration.
Maybe the 1.9 is not the ideal bike for the conditions.


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

postman said:


> Maybe the 1.9 is not the ideal bike for the conditions.



Bingo! In one sentence too.

Here's the bike I have that fits the widest rage of conditions.


----------



## Bigtwin (8 Jul 2009)

Leave the poor man alone. This is Surrey, not the Alps. His bike is fine.


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Leave the poor man alone. This is Surrey, not the Alps. His bike is fine.



I resent the implication that we're worrying the OP. He came asking for advice and I personally have spent considerable time attempting in the best way I know to point to what i believe is the source of his problem -- insuficiently low gearing for his level and conditions.

Of course it's not the Alps, but he is, as he said, struggling on the hills he has in his area. No doubt the Alps would be right out of the question ... unless perhaps he replaced his whole drivetrain for MTB-style mech.


----------



## Bigtwin (8 Jul 2009)

Randochap said:


> I resent the implication that we're worrying the OP. He came asking for advice and I personally have spent considerable time attempting in the best way I know to point to what i believe is the source of his problem -- insuficiently low gearing for his level and conditions.
> 
> Of course it's not the Alps, but he is, as he said, struggling on the hills he has in his area. No doubt the Alps would be right out of the question ... unless perhaps he replaced his whole drivetrain for MTB-style mech.



You're telling the poor man that his £1,500 quid bike is the wrong one for the job. I rather think that's not going to cheer him up much.

I've live in the middle of the Surrey Hills and have ridden here for 15 years. There are very few hills around here that he's going to struggle on with that bike once he's got a bit of training and improvement in.

You may or may not be right, but junking the bike/spending a load of cash re-drive training it at this stage is way premature.


----------



## Rider Rich (8 Jul 2009)

postman said:


> Maybe the 1.9 is not the ideal bike for the conditions.




Thanks for the continuing replies.

I think its more like "maybe the 1.9 with a double compact, with an overweight, unfit, newbie on top of it is not the ideal bike for the conditions".  

But if I keep at it like everyone has been saying, then maybe I can make it ideal for the conditions. 

Its nice to be able to get good advice from people with experience.


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

we should set up a poll to see how many cyclists have been sold, or still ride, gear setups that mean they have to get off and push at times. We could have a second poll to see how many cyclists ever run out of gears at the other end of the scale, how often and with how much impact to their ride enjoyment.

Unless you get a bike specifically for racing I just don't get why you wouldn't want low enough gearing to cope with most/all eventualities. Of course we can all work at improving but I don't see where pushing a bike up a hill helps in this respect? I may not need some of my low gears now but I still like having them, and can envisage times when I'll be glad of them again.


----------



## Bigtwin (8 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Unless you get a bike specifically for racing I just don't get why you wouldn't want low enough gearing to cope with most/all eventualities.



Because you have to sacrifice smooth steps in the gearing, especially if you are riding 7/8 speeds. For some, the 95% of the time that a lower gear is not needed means that closer gearing gives better cadence control, which is more important to them.


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> You may or may not be right, but junking the bike/spending a load of cash re-drive training it at this stage is way premature.



Again, I resent your misinterpretation of my posts.


----------



## postman (8 Jul 2009)

Now a confession.If i ever have any spare money.

Chevin Cycles has in their shop the bike for me.

A 64cm----- TREK 1.9 Triple £50 extra.

This is a good bike.So keep training,and tell us how you are doing.


----------



## Rider Rich (8 Jul 2009)

I am more than happy with the bike, it fantastic, just what I wanted. Its fast, smooth, well specced etc

I will keep you informed about how the hills are going.

I just wanted to add that am not offended by anything anyone has said, and I dont really want people falling out over it, so lets all smile & get along


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Because you have to sacrifice smooth steps in the gearing, especially if you are riding 7/8 speeds. For some, the 95% of the time that a lower gear is not needed means that closer gearing gives better cadence control, which is more important to them.



Nope, can't buy that one, you could have a 2 ring set up with the outer ring giving you approx 6 inch spacing and the inner ring an overdrive of 3 lower gears. Choose the exact rings/cogs to match your preferred gearing and it's sorted. I would suggest that more refined cadence control than this is only required if racing, or if you have pretentions to race. I specifically excluded racing from my point as that is a world I'm unfamiliar with and unlikely to ever have an interest in. For commuting, social and general fitness riding 6 inch gaps are easily smooth enough.

But, hey, each to their own


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> I am more than happy with the bike, it fantastic, just what I wanted. Its fast, smooth, well specced etc
> 
> I will keep you informed about how the hills are going.
> 
> I just wanted to add that am not offended by anything anyone has said, and I dont really want people falling out over it, so lets all smile & get along



RR, this isn't falling out, we actually enjoy this kind of bickering


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Because you have to sacrifice smooth steps in the gearing, especially if you are riding 7/8 speeds.



Not so. The gearing setup on my rando bikes is very closely spaced, even though relatively wide at around 28-103. In fact, that's my argument for triples on wide-range gearing -- no big jumps.

There is no very wide jump, even on my 8-sp bikes (which, incidentally are a good choice for touring bikes, since sub-9 sp are more durable) that range from 21" to 108"!

_Again_, we're not talking racing gearing here. Corncobs are for time-trialers.


----------



## postman (8 Jul 2009)

Dear Santa, 
I have been a good boy.And i only want one pressie.


A 64cm Trek 1.9.

Are you reading this?


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> RR, this isn't falling out, we actually enjoy this kind of bickering



Yep, RR. Read the opening paragraph (and, hopefully all the rest) of VeloWeb's gearing page:



> "If you already think cyclists are an argumentative lot, just bring up the subject of suitable sprockets ... but advisedly not at the same time as lighting, or steel frames versus carbon fibre!"


----------



## Rider Rich (8 Jul 2009)

postman said:


> Dear Santa,
> I have been a good boy.And i only want one pressie.
> 
> 
> ...



Who? Santa or me?


----------



## Bigtwin (8 Jul 2009)

Randochap said:


> _Again_, we're not talking racing gearing here. Corncobs are for time-trialers.



Your opinion. That of lots of others who don't race differ.

I have 15 bikes. Fixed, SS, 7, 8, 9, 10 rears, single, double and triple fronts, corncob to wide spread rears. And two bents, but we'll ignore those.

Using the triple on road around here is completely un-necessary. Unless you want to spend all day riding the biggest hills until you bonk.

Corn cobs are NOT just for TT use, that's just absurd. If you don't need anything other than one, they are great to ride. My ride today was done on a 8 speed corncob double through rolling hills with a few out of the saddle climbs, it was perfect for the job.


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> I have 15 bikes. .



well, you should have said that first, all the OP needs is another 14 bikes then


----------



## peanut (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation. Now that's going to start a healthy discussion.



jimbo you can apply all the formulae and scientific theory you like but the bottom line is , in the real world of cycling, weight matters more than you could possibly imagine.

I weigh 68lbs or 28kg more than you and I am very unfit.
Try lifting a bag of cement or an Alsation dog and placing it onto your top tube and see how far up any hill you can cycle .

Your formula never take into account cardio vascular fitness and strength


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Your opinion.



Of course it's my opinion. I wrote it.


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

There is a subtext to this thread (shared by more than a few others) I believe is this:

How many times does a young (or self-possessed) salesperson in a shop, rather than listening to and ascertaining the needs of a customer, project their own interests and conceits onto the process and sell the buyer an inappropriate bike or wrongly _geared _bike?

If I were to ignore that this is the beginners forum, I might come here and say "Hey, I just rode 600 kilometres in 35hrs, with a lowest gear of 27", HTFU." Or, "I use a corncob and just stand up for the hills."

That's no help.

I will concede there might be an occasion when an unfit newbie gets a racing bike, suffers through and becomes a successful racer. Wouldn't that be a story, if that was the case with the OP.

But is that what he wants? Only he can answer that?

Most often here we see people who get into cycling because they want to lose a few pounds and recapture the sense of exploration and freedom they felt as a child.

There is no rule that says one must endure the kind of suffering we obsessive types enjoy to have a bit of fun on two wheels. That's why low gears were invented.

Too often, green cyclists are treated the same here as they were by the posturing salesperson who ignored the obvious and created the original issue.


----------



## peanut (8 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> I will just keep at it for now, and try and improve my fitness.
> 
> I dont really want to have to spend extra cash on making changes to the bike at the moment, Im the one that needs changing, and with time I hope to get there!
> 
> ...



Hi Richard welcome to the forum.
Please don't let this bickering put you off. It kicks off everytime someone knew to cycling asks for advice about gears or hill climbing.Its an argument without end but unfortunately it is all to easy to lose sight of the original question and help the person who started the thread.

Like you I am a heavy at 17stone and having just come back to cycling I am struggling on anything resembling an incline. 
Knowing how hard it is to excess lose fat and put on some muscle and improve cardio vascular fitness I devised a simple program . Something similar might help you.

I decided to improve my hill climbing and lose weight quickly to do short intensive rides of approx 30-40 minutes 2-3 times per week over hilly routes and keep a record on a spreadsheet. 

I used googlemaps to make 5-6 local loops around my home of about 6-10 miles each but as hilly as possible. 

The result of this was that however busy my workload I could always find half an hour for a quick ride several times a week and the intensity of a 30 minute hilly ride was more demanding than 1.5 hours 20 mile at easy riding pace.

I have similar gearing to you however initially I added a 27 tooth sprocket to my cassette and removed the 14t . This is only worth an extra 3" but psychologically it is a useful extra bail-out gear to keep in reserve for emergences.

Good luck, keep us informed of your progress


----------



## Randochap (8 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> well, you should have said that first, all the OP needs is another 14 bikes then




I need another 8!


----------



## dhague (8 Jul 2009)

OK, to bring all this to a very practical point:

I have a bike with a Shimano 105 groupset - compact double (50/34) up front, and a 12/27 rear sprocket. It's almost perfect for me, but I'd really like another gear or two at the bottom end - I hit a 15% incline on my first ever sportive last weekend, and it was agony grinding away at 50-60 rpm instead of 90+. Didn't get off the bike though - I'm proud of that. And I really enjoyed the rest of the event too - I'll be doing more. 

So, what's the best practical way for me to get another couple of gears on the bottom end? In terms of what's available from Shimano, I'm about as low as I can go with a double.

Cheers,
Darren

P.S. Yes, I know I will get better with time and not need those gears - but right now, I could do with less pain when I hit 15% inclines.


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

if you have 50/34 up front, any reason this couldn't become 46/30, same differential, lower gearing?


----------



## buggi (8 Jul 2009)

hi

i've come in on thread this pretty late so you've prob already had this advice but i can't be arsed to check , but here's my penny's worth. it was the advice given to me by a cycling coach when i did my first big ride. 

you will be ok with a compact, technically you only lose the smallest gear from a triple and it's not worth worrying about around Surrey. 

when you go up a hill, get in your granny gears, stay seated for as long as possible (your heart rate goes up as soon as you stand, and the longer you stay seated the quicker you will recover once you've gone over the top). only stand if you really have nothing left.

when you go up a hill, while seated, concentrate on relaxing the top half of your body and relaxing your grip on the handlebars, you might find it better to rest your hands on the top of the drop handlebar. This will enable you to then concentrate on pushing through the legs. get into a rythym. I call these hills 1, 2ers.. because as i go up i'm repeating in my head 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 etc (some people call them bar-stards, bar-stards, bar-stards )

now the thing to remember is... hills never ever get any better. what happens is, as you get better and fitter, you will just get up them in a harder gear and quicker, but you will always put maximum effort in. The trick is to get used to the feeling of exertion and then you become less scared of it. once you realise that it gets to a point where it doesn't get any worse you start to find that you actually begin to enjoy the fact that you can get up them... and the higher you go... the more rewarding it is. 

hope that helps


----------



## Davidc (8 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Two of my bikes are quite different, but quite similar.
> 
> I have a Dawes Giro 500 and a Moulton Mini.
> 
> ...



Simple mechanics. The torque does change but its best considered as a change to the force needed at the pedal to produce the force on the ground to shove you up the hill.

If the crank length on the Giro is 6.7" the mechanical advantage from foot to ground is 6.7/5.5 times that of the Moulton. (about 20% greater)

Gear inhes are only a conversion of wheel diameters. Good for comparison of options, provided the cranks stay the same.


----------



## dhague (8 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> if you have 50/34 up front, any reason this couldn't become 46/30, same differential, lower gearing?



MacB,

That's pretty much my question: how to do this, practically speaking. For example, where to find 46 & 30 rings in a 110 BCD? Or would I need new cranks, front & rear mech, etc?

- Darren


----------



## buddha (8 Jul 2009)

I regularly ride near Warlingham. Some of the hills around there are absolute bu99ers!

When I started out (unfit/overweight - now a little fitter/still overweight) I remember the self imposed embarrasment of having to get off and walk a few times. To avoid this I stuck to longer, shallower 'climbs' for a few months to build up some fitness and strength.

One of my regular routes, a few miles north of Warlingham was (and still is) Layhams Road > Skid Hill Lane > Fairchildes Road > Chelsham Court Road > Beech Farm Road > left on to Limpsfield Road to the top of Titsey Hill. This gives you a relatively easy incline over a few miles. When I mastered this I substituted the Chelsham Court Road > Beech Farm Road section with Heisiers Hill > Beddlestead Lane, which is a bit tougher. You'll also meet a lot of (relatively) friendly cyclists on that route

Three years later I can now manage Tithepit Shaw Lane (the wrong way) on my 39/53 and the fixie. Still knackered at the top though.

Keep at it!


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

dhague said:


> MacB,
> 
> That's pretty much my question: how to do this, practically speaking. For example, where to find 46 & 30 rings in a 110 BCD? Or would I need new cranks, front & rear mech, etc?
> 
> - Darren



Ah, now there you exhaust my limited knowledge as it's not something I've actually had to do yet. Unfortunately things I have had to do have shown a surprisingly large amount of incompatibility between what I'd like and what fits. I'd resort to Sheldons technical tables for this, it takes ages going via manufacturers websites

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2009)

buddha said:


> Three years later I can now manage Tithepit Shaw Lane (the wrong way) on my 39/53 and the fixie. Still knackered at the top though.
> 
> Keep at it!



after Tithepit Shaw Lane, move on to Succumbs Hill, that last bend at the top can really test you, assuming it's still the same layout. I went to Warlingham School so had the choice, Tithepit seemed longer but easier, Succumbs harsher but got it over quicker.


----------



## peanut (9 Jul 2009)

dhague said:


> MacB,
> 
> That's pretty much my question: how to do this, practically speaking. For example, where to find 46 & 30 rings in a 110 BCD? Or would I need new cranks, front & rear mech, etc?
> 
> - Darren



well now you've sucessfully hijacked Rich's thread I would suggest you do what the rest of us do and look through the components of the big online stores instead of asking us to do it for you.
Try SJS Cycles under the chainring section


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

I'm back, with more crap to slag off.

On another thread a while back, I described a 10" gear bike friends and I built. It was a schooldays experiment to see if was possible to ride a bike up a 45 deg slope.
During those times, a lot of 'mucking' and 'messing' around was done and a LOT was learned about gearing and hill climbing.

Two major lessons were learned. 'Equilibrium of forces' and 'Mechanical advantage'.

It was noted there are two types of weight on a push-bike. Weight that contributes, and weight that doesn't.
When a rider stands up on the pedals, he changes a lot of 'doesn't' to a lot of 'does'.


You can test this in the same manner as I did when I was fourteen. Choose a hill and gear where standing on the pedal gives no forward movement. You can put more weight in your backpack and still no forward movement. You will have to load up with a BIG weight to get some forward movement, eg. a second schoolboy.
(The mechanical advantage is dependant upon the gear ratio, wheel radius and crank radius.) When 'equilibrium' happens, a lighter rider has no discernable advantage over a heavy rider and the heavy rider has no discernable advantage over the light rider. This is the reasoning behind my statement 'weight doesn't matter'.

Note here.. Transfering 'doesn't' weight to 'does' weight by shifting from bike to body gives a small bit of inbalance in favour of forward motion.

Convert the 'does' weight to 'doesn't' weight ( by sitting down ) and you will start to roll backward. Once the roll has started, you cannot stop it except by tugging on the backstroke or crashing.

The other test is to change crank length. Put on longer cranks, repeat the experiment ( same gear, same hill, same bodyweight ) and you will roll forward, albeit very slowly. This is due to a better Mechanical advantage.
To return to 'equilibrium', steepen the gradient or increase the gear ratio.


----------



## garrilla (9 Jul 2009)

Does the the "second schoolboy" have to sit on the shoulders of the first one?


----------



## Bigtwin (9 Jul 2009)

This is a wonderful myth trotted out frequently, and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the physics of moving weight against gravity.

It's nicely illustrated by getting someone to put a rucksack on with 50lbs in, and inviting them to ride up the same hill as they rode without.

Weight will not peddle a bike up a hill. It requires muscle power - energy. The more weight there is to move, the more muscle power - energy - is required to move it. It is an exactly proportional relationship - twice the weight needs twice the effort to move it. It matters not a jot how the weight is distributed, and weight does not produce it's own energy. If it's on the bike at rest, you have to move it with your weight and legs. If it's on you and dynamic, you have to move it with your legs, plus you have the added disadvantage of overcoming the enertia of the moving weight everytime you move up and down downstroke. Unless you pedal entirely smoothly from the hips down and keep the riucksack steady, in which case you are suspending its weight with your muscle energy, and still need to exert the same additional energy to move the mass.


----------



## asterix (9 Jul 2009)

If you cycled in North Yorkshire you would know that it would not be possible to cycle up a 45 degree slope, use what gears you like. After 1 in 3 it becomes nearly impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground.

Unless maybe you had a schoolboy to sit on the handlebars.


----------



## Bigtwin (9 Jul 2009)

asterix said:


> If you cycled in North Yorkshire you would know that it would not be possible to cycle up a 45 degree slope, use what gears you like. After 1 in 3 it becomes nearly impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground.
> 
> Unless maybe you had a schoolboy to sit on the handlebars.




Nonsense.

You simply sit on the bars yourself and pedal backwards.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> This is a wonderful myth trotted out frequently, and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the physics of moving weight against gravity.
> 
> It's nicely illustrated by getting someone to put a rucksack on with 50lbs in, and inviting them to ride up the same hill as they rode without.
> 
> *Weight will not peddle a bike up a hill*. It requires muscle power - energy. The more weight there is to move, the more muscle power - energy - is required to move it. It is an exactly proportional relationship - twice the weight needs twice the effort to move it. It matters not a jot how the weight is distributed, and weight does not produce it's own energy. If it's on the bike at rest, you have to move it with your weight and legs. If it's on you and dynamic, you have to move it with your legs, plus you have the added disadvantage of overcoming the enertia of the moving weight everytime you move up and down downstroke. Unless you pedal entirely smoothly from the hips down and keep the riucksack steady, in which case you are suspending its weight with your muscle energy, and still need to exert the same additional energy to move the mass.



This is, of course, utter nonsense.

On a 1% incline, start from a stationary position with one foot on the pedal and one foot on the kerb.
To ride away when the lights turn green, simply transfer your bodyweight from the kerb to the foot which is clipped into the forward pedal and you will ride up the 1% hill on bodyweight alone with NO muscular effort.


----------



## Dan B (9 Jul 2009)

And what do you do when the pedal reaches the bottom of its stroke?


----------



## garrilla (9 Jul 2009)

Force is required to shift the mass to enable forward propulsion from the stationary position. While no muscle power may be used as a direct force on the pedal, there is a secondary force from the initial shift of mass from one side of the cycle to the other. There is no free energy from mass.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> And what do you do when the pedal reaches the bottom of its stroke?



Clip in and put your weight on the front pedal.

When that pedal has reached the bottom of it's stroke, you put your weight on the other.

Do this repeatedly and you're CYCLING !!!


----------



## Dan B (9 Jul 2009)

And tell me, how do you shift your weight from one pedal to the other? I cannot think of any way which does not involve using leg muscles


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> And tell me, how do you shift your weight from one pedal to the other? I cannot think of any way which does not involve using leg muscles



This becomes a strange situation because when you think "I'm fed up of standing up all the time" you sit down and then use more energy than when you were stood up transferring your weight from pedal to pedal.

Before you shout, consider how the best riders accelerate or climb up a short shallow hill without shifting down gear. They stand up on the pedals. It's called "honking". They can get more forward propulsion for the same muscular effort.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

Here. Try this.

Go to the gym. Get on the upright bike and get pedaling to generate 350W. Note your heartrate.
Now stand up off the seat. Spend a few minutes simply transfering weight from pedal to pedal keeping the 350W. Note your heartrate again.

????? Lower? I know mine does.


----------



## Dan B (9 Jul 2009)

I find that very unlikely. I am not one of "the best riders", but I am no slouch on an uphill, and I find that honking allows me to get more forward propulsion because it permits _greater_ muscular effort. That's why I usually jump up 
a couple of cogs to honk.

And heartrate is basically useless for measuring anaerobic activity, so your gym experiment is worthless. If you don't think honking is anaerobic, where does the lactate come from?


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> I find that very unlikely. I am not one of "the best riders", but I am no slouch on an uphill, and I find that honking allows me to get more forward propulsion because it permits _greater_ muscular effort. That's why I usually jump up
> a couple of cogs to honk.
> 
> And heartrate is basically useless for measuring anaerobic activity, so your gym experiment is worthless. If you don't think honking is anaerobic, where does the lactate come from?



There is NO definite dividing line between aerobic/seated and anaerobic/honking.
Each riding situation demands adaptation to acheive success.

A rider can honk aerobically. A rider can perform anaerobically while seated.

Many riders merrily honk up a slow long incline talking amongst each other as they climb. That's not anaerobic, I'm sure.

Where did you get the impression 'honking' involves ultimate effort? It is sometimes used to reduce the burden and keep the same speed.

I think the phrase applicable to your idea is "Burying yourself".


----------



## Dan B (9 Jul 2009)

You really haven't a clue, have you? Two pages of bluster about water bottles, fixed vs moving weight, honking to accelerate on shallow hills (goalposts now moved to "honking gently up a long slow incline" I note) and crank length, and you still haven't addressed the fundamental point that your "weight doesn't matter" garbage directly contravenes the well-known law of Conservation of Energy.


----------



## Bigtwin (9 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> This is, of course, utter nonsense.
> 
> On a 1% incline, start from a stationary position with one foot on the pedal and one foot on the kerb.
> To ride away when the lights turn green, simply transfer your bodyweight from the kerb to the foot which is clipped into the forward pedal and you will ride up the 1% hill on bodyweight alone with NO muscular effort.



You are talking total and utter rot.

What you are talking about is using - once - the potential energy of a suspended weight.

You lift it up, it will fall. And push the pedal down.

Then YOU lift it up again, and repeat. And repeat. And the more weight you are lifting up and down, the more energy is required. And you are also moving the weight forward against gravity up the hill. So, the weight is better on the bike than you, as then you only have to move it in one direction - up the hill, as opposed to lifting it up and down to push the pedals AND up the hill as well.

GCSE level physics.


----------



## ComedyPilot (9 Jul 2009)

Don't you all think we're getting a bit too serious here? The thread is for a noob asking advice about hills, and we're dissecting Isaac Newton's theory of gravity?

Just reassure the noob it will be hard work at first, keep up the effort, and they'll be mountain goats before they know it.

Chill.


----------



## Bigtwin (9 Jul 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Don't you all think we're getting a bit too serious here? The thread is for a noob asking advice about hills, and we're dissecting Isaac Newton's theory of gravity?
> 
> Just reassure the noob it will be hard work at first, keep up the effort, and they'll be mountain goats before they know it.
> 
> Chill.




Did that post No.2

Since when he's got to change bike/sprockets/drivechain/rings/pockets/fill them full of lead shot/fiddle with small boys and lord knows all what.


----------



## dhague (9 Jul 2009)

peanut said:


> well now you've sucessfully hijacked Rich's thread



Guilty as charged. 



peanut said:


> I would suggest you do what the rest of us do and look through the components of the big online stores instead of asking us to do it for you.
> Try SJS Cycles under the chainring section



Of course, I tried that first - but it seems that a 33 tooth chainring is the smallest you can get on a 110 BCD (not really worth it, coming from a 34). That's why (as a relative noob) I was asking what the practical implications were - it looks like I'd need new cranks as a minimum, to work with a smaller BCD. I was wondering if anyone had done this before, and what the minimum set of changed components was.

There is some relevance to the OP's question here - if the short-term answer is to gear lower, then he and I have the same question of how best to achieve this, given a Shimano compact groupset as a starting point. Going from 34 to 33 up front, and 27 to 28 on the rear, gets the equivalent of about 1 lower gear and then it seems to be time for major componentry changes.

- Darren


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

A kg mass has a vertical force in N.
Raise it 1 meter in 1 second and that is in W.
The energy spent can be in kCals.

This is how Garmin calculates an adjustment for hills in the 'Calories' count on my Edge 605.

The only thing that will make a hill easier is to drink your drink and have a p155 before you start climbing the hill.

Now it's coffee time.


----------



## Sittingduck (9 Jul 2009)

/thread ends


----------



## postman (9 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich.


The message is for Santa c/o North Pole.


Me wanting a new bike is a long story.And the Trek 1.9. 

Would be the bike.

But 'er indoors well thats another story.


----------



## peanut (9 Jul 2009)

dhague said:


> Going from 34 to 33 up front, and 27 to 28 on the rear, gets the equivalent of about 1 lower gear and then it seems to be time for major componentry changes.
> 
> - Darren



thats about the size of it DH 

going from a 53x38 chainset to a compact 50x34 using the same 12-27t cassette gave me an extra gear change worth 4" the cost of the chainset and BB £70.00 used 

Frankly financially it wasn't worth it but when my legs are turning to jelly and my lungs are burning and I'm gasping for air one more gear change is sometimes the diference between staying on the bike and climbing off and walking.


The only worthwhile improvement I could make here would be to slap a 32t sprocket on the back which would give me 29.00" and another decrease of 3" (or one gear change. )
You'd need to change your rear mech to a medium or long cage 

My advice to you and the OP would be to put an 11-32t Deore cassette on and change the rear mech to a medium cage to get the best bang for your bucks. You'll need to either lengthen your chain with the links you took off (you did keep them didn't you ) or buy a new chain which would probably be best with a new cassette
chain £11.00 http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/productdetail.asp?productcatalogue=KMCACHAI400

Shop around the cassette costs about £13.00
http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/productdetail.asp?productcatalogue=SHIMCASM300
and the rear mech around £12.00 http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/productdetail.asp?productcatalogue=SHIMGRRR210

£25.00 for an extra 6-7 inches a bargain


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

My message for the OP is:-

If you have to get off and push, do it. There are some bad hills round where you are and on the bike you have, some are steeper than what the bike is geared for. No need to shag up your knees straight away.

There is no shame in pushing a 'roadrace' bike up a 14%. I've seen it done on a 200 Audax. ( Ipstones ).
There is no shame in stopping at the bottom, doing some stretches, drinking a swig of energy drink and having a piddle in the bushes.

Passers by will think you are SERIOUSLY in training. If they say anything, reply "this will be my sixth ride up here today". It will be a lie but 'who cares'?

Another tip is to start by setting 6% as your initial challenge. When done confidently, go to a 8%.

Your bike has gearing for a 22%, but DON'T try this grade until you have progressed steadily 2% at a time.
It's a bit like weightlifting, only an idiot tries to lift the whole stack on the benchpress at their first session.

Fitness and strength DON'T come instantly. Be patient and tackle each steeper gradient when you have truly conquered the grade you are at.

The 'breathing' tip was good. Breath out on the exertion, inhale on the little bit of relaxation. This means a slow cadence, in the same manner as an 'alternate leg press' on a seated squat machine.

Starting on lesser steep hills eg 6%, you can practice getting the cycling form smooth and correct. Hammering away at a steep hill with high crank revs will risk straining the knees and hips, and is not good form. The last thing you want is a hernia.

Have fun.


----------



## yenrod (9 Jul 2009)

>Struggling with hills 

Put it in 1st..what juh want a push !


----------



## Rider Rich (9 Jul 2009)

This is the route I did the other night, when I had to push it half way up that hill.

www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=11647 

The bit I struggled with: I went down Beddlestead Lane, which runs onto Hesiers Hill, this is where I got off half way up and had to push.

That was the only point on the ride I had to get off.

It was not a long hill, but seemed pretty steep to me.

Richard


----------



## Sittingduck (9 Jul 2009)

Maaan, all this talk has go me wanting to go and find some hills to tackle on the way home from work tonight


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

Sittingduck said:


> Maaan, all this talk has go me wanting to go and find some hills to tackle on the way home from work tonight



http://www.aukweb.net/aaa/index.htm

At the bottom of this page, there is a spreadsheet to assess the climbing on a route. aaa3


----------



## Sittingduck (9 Jul 2009)

I'll be up in your neck of the woods this weekend Jimbo. Might go for a spin up the hill at Elmdon park to relive my childhood days


----------



## MacB (9 Jul 2009)

Anyone buying a bike with derailler gears accepts that there will be some redundancy in said gearing, through duplication, being within a range unlikely to get used, or due to poor chainline. So a lot of us pedal around quite happily knowing that we're carrying some gear combinations that won't see use.

Yet, suggest that you engineer it whereby some of the 'redundancy' could be of use in a tight spot, or to a beginner, and you're being a wuss. I don't get it, why not aim to have gearing down to say 22 inches on all your bikes?


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

Sittingduck said:


> I'll be up in your neck of the woods this weekend Jimbo. Might go for a spin up the hill at Elmdon park to relive my childhood days



What? Down the hill, across the grass and into the brook?


----------



## Sittingduck (9 Jul 2009)

Lol - jump the brook! Or as recall... kids on BMX's straight down Victor road and jumped off the bikes at the last minute, realising they would not clear it  Bikes left to fly into the brook...

Anyway this thread is in danger of going OT - sorry Richard


----------



## jimboalee (9 Jul 2009)

My childhood days there was before BMX. I had a 24" Triumph youth's bike with MotoX handlebars and no front brake.

Take a ride up to Hobs Moat woods and see what the council have done to spoil the bike jumping.


----------



## Sittingduck (9 Jul 2009)

Sons o' bicthes if they have messed up Hobs Moat woods! Early MTB days there in the mid-late 80's. Great fun


----------



## DustBowlRefugee (10 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> after Tithepit Shaw Lane, move on to Succumbs Hill, that last bend at the top can really test you, assuming it's still the same layout. I went to Warlingham School so had the choice, Tithepit seemed longer but easier, Succumbs harsher but got it over quicker.




Don't listen to this maniac! Succumbs Hill is to be avoided at all costs!

I climbed the Ventoux 2 years ago but have never managed Succumbs Hill. I always bottle it when it narrows at bend at the top and I start wobbling in front of traffic....


----------



## asterix (10 Jul 2009)

Sittingduck said:


> /thread ends



Not all threads have an end


----------



## MacB (10 Jul 2009)

DustBowlRefugee said:


> Don't listen to this maniac! Succumbs Hill is to be avoided at all costs!
> 
> I climbed the Ventoux 2 years ago but have never managed Succumbs Hill. I always bottle it when it narrows at bend at the top and I start wobbling in front of traffic....



ah, but I was 14 and immortal, doubt I could make it up now


----------



## peanut (10 Jul 2009)

13 pages of argument and reminisces and scarcely 3 constructive replies in the whole thread to the original poster's question .
well done everyone  that has to be a record


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Jul 2009)

regrettably you appear to have been sold a bike which is less than optimally geared for your level of fitness at the time of purchase. You are hardly unique. Provided you persevere and persists in your cycling then in and over time your strength and fitness will improve to the point where the gearing will no longer be of concern to you. You will develop tactics to climb pretty much any hill of your choosing locally or more remotely but there may be a few where get off and push is the only option. You may find that the way you climb the hill on Monday is different to the way you climb it on Tuesday and different in turn to the climb on Wednesday. Human body and mind are funny old things. Over time your body adapts your mind copes and it gets easier. Your 'lack' of gears may have made your learing curve a bit steeper than it need to be that's all.

What matters is you are out on your bike, learning to ride it better and getting fit in the process. Keep it up. Everything else is BS of one flavour or another.

FWIW I ride a triple with an MTB cassette on the back - works for me, but what do I know? it's got mudguards and a rack too!


----------



## asterix (10 Jul 2009)

peanut said:


> 13 pages of argument and reminisces and scarcely 3 constructive replies in the whole thread to the original poster's question .
> well done everyone  that has to be a record



That's because the OP really has only 3 options:

To get out more (on the bike)
To not get out more but just get lower gears fitted
To get another new bike and find out that isn't perfect either.

Where's the fun in just telling him that?


----------



## ChrisKH (10 Jul 2009)

asterix said:


> That's because the OP really has only 3 options:
> 
> To get out more (on the bike)
> To not get out more but just get lower gears fitted
> ...



4th option. Get off and push.


----------



## Dan B (10 Jul 2009)

5. Electric assist?


----------



## peanut (10 Jul 2009)

asterix said:


> That's because the OP really has only 3 options:
> 
> To get out more (on the bike)
> To not get out more but just get lower gears fitted
> ...





do you know ,just when i'm being a grumpy old git... you bunch of muppets come along and put everything back into perspective again . Thanks a lot guys .
Just been for a spin and everything seems better afterwards doesn't it


----------



## Rider Rich (10 Jul 2009)

At the moment I have a Shimano 105 11-25 rear cassette at the rear.

If I wanted to fit a 12-27 rear cassette, would 105 or Ultegra be better?

Cheers Richard


----------



## Sittingduck (10 Jul 2009)

Ultegra is the next step up the Sh*mano range from 105 but gears is gears.


----------



## postman (10 Jul 2009)

Told you my story of my mate.Wants extra gear.Cost a staggering £300.

Answer-i go slower we take our time going up hill.

Saving £300.-sensible.


----------



## peanut (10 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> At the moment I have a Shimano 105 11-25 rear cassette at the rear.
> 
> If I wanted to fit a 12-27 rear cassette, would 105 or Ultegra be better?
> 
> Cheers Richard



as far as I am aware there is no difference . They are identical in appearance . The sprockets are the same with the last three being on an aluminium carrier. I think the ultegra is 20grams or so lighter but that is just a lighter lockring nothing more.
In a few days its going to be smothered in mud and grime and oil so is anyone going to look at your bike and say 
'Huh you've only got a 105 cassette then '

you could remove the 14 t sprocket and simply add a 27 or 28 sprocket and spacer to the rear of the carrier and you have converted your cassette to a 12-27. A cheap way of getting spare sprockets is to buy a Tiagra or XT 12-32 cassette and dismantle it. They cost about £15.00


----------



## DustBowlRefugee (10 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> At the moment I have a Shimano 105 11-25 rear cassette at the rear.
> 
> If I wanted to fit a 12-27 rear cassette, would 105 or Ultegra be better?
> 
> Cheers Richard



I'd go for 105. Unless the rest of your running gear is Ultegra the difference in the cassette alone is negligable.

Make sure your rear mech can take a 27 before you buy one though.


----------



## buddha (10 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> This is the route I did the other night, when I had to push it half way up that hill.
> 
> www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=11647
> 
> ...



Rich, I generally ride down Hesiers Hill first then the long drag up Beddlestead Lane. According to mapmyride (IIRC) parts of Hesiers Hill are over 22%. For that gradient riding up Hesiers Hill is probably a bit much at the moment.

How did you fare on the short-sharp dip/hill on Church Lane? If you managed that okay. Try doing that bit the other way round too. As it's a slightly longer climb, with a nasty bend at the end where the gradient increases! When you're okay with that, try something harder.


----------



## Rider Rich (11 Jul 2009)

Thanks Guys  

Peanut: did you mean remove the 11 t sprocket, and add the 27 t sprocket to make it 12-27? Is that an easy job mate? I dont have much experience with bike mechanics, but I am pretty good with my hands (oo errr).

Dustbowlrefugee: I have a full Ultegra groupset, other than the 105 rear cassette. Having looked on the web I think that shimano rear derailleurs can handle upto a 27 t sprocket.

Buddah: Hesiers Hill did seem pretty steep the other night! I drove up it in the car a few days later and thought to my self, your having a laugh! I will try it out the other way round like you say, going down Hesiers Hill then up Beddlestead lane, which is less of an incline over a longer distance (2 miles).

I can manage that short-sharp dip/hill on Church Lane ok. I had thought about doing that part the the other way around. as you say, its a longer climb.


----------



## peanut (11 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> Thanks Guys
> 
> Peanut: did you mean remove the 11 t sprocket, and add the 27 t sprocket to make it 12-27? Is that an easy job mate? I dont have much experience with bike mechanics, but I am pretty good with my hands (oo errr).


sorry Rich I didn't notice you had a 11-25t cassette 
Tell me what speed ie 9 or 10 spd your cassette is and if possible which sprockets you have ie 11-12-13-etc I'll try find you the most economical way of doing it .
Your existing rear mech will cope with up to 28t sprocket .


----------



## Rider Rich (11 Jul 2009)

peanut said:


> sorry Rich I didn't notice you had a 11-25t cassette in that case just remove the 14t and add a 27 or 28 to the back with a spacer.
> Tell me what speed ie 9 or 10 spd your cassette is and I'll try find you the most economical way of doing it .
> Your existing rear mech will cope with up to 28t sprocket .



Thanks Peanut. Its 10 speed 2009 kit.


----------



## peanut (11 Jul 2009)

so its a Ultegra 11-25t 10 speed yes
do you know how the sprockets run ?
god this is such hard work looking through all these posts Rich .
Ultegra apparently only do a 11-23 or a 12-25 ?
which is yours?


----------



## Rider Rich (11 Jul 2009)

As far as I know, my bike (Trek 1.9 2009 model) is fitted with a Shimano 105 11-25 rear cassette. It is the only non Ultegra part of the groupset.

Having looked at the Shimano website I believe the sprockets are as follows:

11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25T 

They also do a replacement 105 12-27 cassette which I believe has the following sprockets:

12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27T


----------



## Rider Rich (11 Jul 2009)

Having looked on the Shimano website again I think you can get an Ultegra cassette with 12-27, but having looked at various cycle shop websites they seem to be running out of stock? 

Some shops have them, and some dont. They work out at about £5.00 more expensive than the equivelant 105 cassette (105 - £44.99 & Ultegra - £49.99)


----------



## peanut (11 Jul 2009)

Rich I would suggest you buy a new cassette .You can save your old one for a spare wheel so that you have got an instant swap which can be useful at times.

Ribble do the 105 12-27t for £40 or £33.00 if you spend another £10.00 
The Ultegra is £50 but because of the discount actually costs £42.00 
I personally would buy the 105 cos I resent paying £10 extra for the identical cassette but its your choice.

The reason you had a 11tooth is probably because you have a compact chainset ie 50x34 ? in which case using a 12 up you will notice a difference on steep descents or very fast flat at 28mph and above as you'll spin out .


----------



## bigjim (11 Jul 2009)

If you are totally into racing then maybe you need to do all these changes. If you just want to get out and enjoy riding your bike then I see no problem in getting off and walking up the steepest bits or stopping for a breather. You will get fitter anyway and walk less but there is always that hill that is bigger than you. I have been cycling on and off for years but am no hero. How much damage are you doing to your knees by pushing them to the limit? I was out last Sunday on my old Raleigh running 52x42 & 24x13 rear standard gearing & I had to get off and push once and stop once [on extremely steep country lanes] for a breather on a 70 mile ride. I've also asked about lower gear options but am now wondering whether to just push. I don't think my fitness levels will improve any more than they are now. I'm 14 stone and could not get any lower with a 6'2" frame. I do go to the gym and spend time on squats for leg strengh and core strength which helps. Years ago people thought nothing of pushing a bike up a very steep incline. Reading Josie Dews book, she still pushes up hills. Gives your legs a break and lets you enjoy the scenery.


----------



## Sittingduck (11 Jul 2009)

Don't forget that if you remove the 11t sprocket and add a 27 (making the 12 or 13t the smallest in the cassette - you should change the lockring to a 12T+ one.


----------



## jimboalee (11 Jul 2009)

Make sure you get the correct spline pattern.


----------



## Randochap (11 Jul 2009)

bigjim said:


> If you are totally into racing then maybe you need to do all these changes. If you just want to get out and enjoy riding your bike then I see no problem in getting off and walking up the steepest bits or stopping for a breather. You will get fitter anyway and walk less but there is always that hill that is bigger than you. I have been cycling on and off for years but am no hero. How much damage are you doing to your knees by pushing them to the limit? I was out last Sunday on my old Raleigh running 52x42 & 24x13 rear standard gearing & I had to get off and push once and stop once [on extremely steep country lanes] for a breather on a 70 mile ride. I've also asked about lower gear options but am now wondering whether to just push. I don't think my fitness levels will improve any more than they are now. I'm 14 stone and could not get any lower with a 6'2" frame. I do go to the gym and spend time on squats for leg strengh and core strength which helps. Years ago people thought nothing of pushing a bike up a very steep incline. Reading Josie Dews book, she still pushes up hills. Gives your legs a break and lets you enjoy the scenery.



I'm sorry mate, but you've got everything bass ackwards.

First off, he's not a racer, that's why he needs to make the changes. The gears you have are closer to what a racer would use ... which is why you are having to get off and walk. Your lowest gear is 47" for crying out loud!

No cyclist is "pushing their knees to the limit" if they have gearing appropriate to the job. That's the whole point of this discussion (have you read any of it?) We're trying to help a fellow who is struggling on the hills ... like you are.

Why would I go riding only to have to walk? I don't want to push my bike up a hill. I go cycling to cycle, not slog up a hill on foot.

With all due respect, it sounds like you need to look into getting some lower gears yourself. Unless, you prefer walking, that is.


----------



## jimboalee (11 Jul 2009)

Randochap said:


> I'm sorry mate, but you've got everything bass ackwards.
> 
> First off, he's not a racer, that's why he needs to make the changes. The gears you have are closer to what a racer would use ... which is why you are having to get off and walk. Your lowest gear is 47" for crying out loud!
> 
> ...



Well said.

Why get off and walk at 2 mph when you can appropriately gear the bike to ride at 3 mph?

If that's an old Raleigh Hi-ten, it will weigh in at about 27lb. It needs a 37" gear. That's 38T to 27T. AT LEAST.


----------



## bigjim (11 Jul 2009)

> I'm sorry mate, but you've got everything bass ackwards.
> 
> First off, he's not a racer, that's why he needs to make the changes. The gears you have are closer to what a racer would use ... which is why you are having to get off and walk. Your lowest gear is 47" for crying out loud!


What a shame you have to use such an agressive and rude tone in order to attempt to get your message across but I suppose it is a sign of the times. Yes I have read all the posts and do understand his problem. I never said he was a racer. I used the word "if". Please read the post correctly. I also noted that I used the gym to increase muscle mass which could be useful. I am fully aware of my gear ratios which were probably pretty limited when the bike was made. That is why I also considered changing. maybe if you spent more time reading the post instead of being so offensive you might be able to see that I was offering my own personal opinion [is that not one of the reasons we are on these forums] and attempting to help another member. He does not have to take your advice or mine. Why would you be so bothered about walking with your bike? Surely not afraid of somebodys opinion? Sit down and have a nice cup of tea. Relax. By the way I am not really struggling on hills. I just get off and walk a little bit. Have a nice relaxing day. Maybe a walk.


----------



## peanut (12 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Make sure you get the correct spline pattern.


shimano are a standard spline pattern throughout the range from 8 speed to 10 speed hubs and cassettes Jimbo.
The only spline that isn't backwardly compatable is the Dura Ace alloy one and the OP doesn't have one.
You are probably thinking of that other Gruppo that isn't backwardly compatable ...starts with C


----------



## a_n_t (12 Jul 2009)

bigjim said:


> I'm 14 stone and could not get any lower with a 6'2" frame.




i'm 6'2" and 3 stone lighter than you!...................I dont struggle on hills


----------



## Randochap (12 Jul 2009)

bigjim said:


> What a shame you have to use such an agressive and rude tone in order to attempt to get your message across but I suppose it is a sign of the times.



It's not a sign of anything other than the way I personally communicate my opinions. The "times" and place I was born is early 50s in the Midlands and, as someone else here correctly noted, that's where I get my straightforward manner. If you find my manner aggressive and rude ... that's more due to the fact that I called you out on the inconsistency of your thesis. Understandably your feathers got ruffled.

I still stand by my assertion that your post makes no sense and rather it is your opinion that the OP needn't change anything that is unhelpful. And the experience and gear you are basing that on is irrelevant, because it also does not appear to be right for climbing hills.

Again, if one has the correct gearing for the job, there is no need to walk a bike. I have walked a bike on one occasion. That was on a long 21% grade on loose gravel with a heavily loaded touring rig. I really should have had something lower than the 21" gear the bike came stock with.

To repeat the obvious: I don't want to walk on a bike ride. I want to ride. I go for quiet walks along the beach at the end of the street when I want to do so.

The only people I ever (rarely) see walking their bikes uphill are those who are obviously unfit and/or ... have gears unmatched to the terrain.

Finally, you are the irritable poster, because you can't admit that your "advice" was bogus and leave it at that.


----------



## peanut (12 Jul 2009)

Randochap said:


> If you find my manner aggressive and rude ....



. This should not be another opportunity to attack other posters because their opinions do not coincide with our own.

As it happens I agree with you on this issue but I'm sufficiently content with my opinion that I do not need to put down someone else because they hold a view I do not agree with.

Lets try to keep this thread on topic and not alienate a new member


----------



## jimboalee (12 Jul 2009)

peanut said:


> shimano are a standard spline pattern throughout the range from 8 speed to 10 speed hubs and cassettes Jimbo.
> The only spline that isn't backwardly compatable is the Dura Ace alloy one and the OP doesn't have one.
> You are probably thinking of that other Gruppo that isn't backwardly compatable ...starts with C



That's OK Peanut.

It's idiot questions followed by concise answers that makes the whole learning experience for newbies so enjoyable.


----------



## Randochap (12 Jul 2009)

peanut said:


> Lets try to keep this thread on topic and not alienate a new member



But it's OK for a new member to walk in, so to speak, dismiss others' ideas -- with faulty logic -- and expect not to be challenged on it?

I'm all for courtesy, but acquiescence not so much.

Sure, let's get back to cycling and appropriate ratios for climbing discussion. And just to show I bear no ill will, here's help for the "stick with the big gear" advocates.


----------



## bigjim (12 Jul 2009)

> I still stand by my assertion that your post makes no sense and rather it is your opinion that the OP needn't change anything that is unhelpful.


So no opinions on here then unless they are yours, in case they make no sense [to you]. Right. Got it.
By the way, just back from a 50 miler and did not have to walk any. Something I could not have done 2 years ago. Must be fitter. By the way thats an experience not an opinion. Hope that's alright?


----------



## peanut (12 Jul 2009)

bigjim said:


> So no opinions on here then unless they are yours, in case they make no sense [to you]. Right. Got it.
> By the way, just back from a 50 miler and did not have to walk any. Something I could not have done 2 years ago. Must be fitter. By the way thats an experience not an opinion. Hope that's alright?



comon Jim you're stirring it now 
lets keep this thread on topic shall we or start one of your own


----------



## Randochap (12 Jul 2009)

bigjim said:


> So no opinions on here then unless they are yours, in case they make no sense [to you]. Right. Got it.



Congratulations.

This argument has pretty much run its course and your attempt to extend it by misrepresenting my position speaks to the weakness of your original assertion. 

Obviously, I have no say over opinions countenanced here, but I surely have equal right to debate their merits. How about staying with the original subject.


----------



## Garz (12 Jul 2009)

Rider Rich said:


> Hi All
> 
> I am new the the road riding scene, and have recently bought a 2009 Trek 1.9 double compact.
> ...
> ...



To improve hill climbing lately I designated one of my rides in the week to incorporate more work on them. The philosophy being pick a nice hill preferably long enough to cause a good sweat. You should just about be able to complete (i.e. not too easy otherwise you need a harder hill).

The one I use is about 12 miles away so when I get there im nicely warmed up. Upon completing take a route back down and go back up again. Your body will tell you when you've had enough and then its time to head back home.

You should see some improvement like one and half reps then maybe 2 reps etc until the hill is easy to do three or however many times over you want.


----------



## Eviljeem (13 Jul 2009)

I too am dreading hills, on my way to work it's pretty much downhill all the way, on the way back it's pretty much uphill all the way. 

Start cycling to work on Monday, so my funeral should be Friday. All welcome.


----------



## jimboalee (13 Jul 2009)

Eviljeem said:


> I too am dreading hills, on my way to work it's pretty much downhill all the way, on the way back it's pretty much uphill all the way.
> 
> Start cycling to work on Monday, so my funeral should be Friday. All welcome.



How steep?


----------



## bigjim (13 Jul 2009)

> comon Jim you're stirring it now
> lets keep this thread on topic shall we or start one of your own
> __________________


OK agree but the guy does ask for it. It's not on trying to intimidate other posters from having a say.
On topic. Shame to buy what you think is the bike for you and then have to spend more time and money altering it. As another poster suggested you can just take it easy and work up the sufficient fitness level to cope with the gearing. Or stick a cheapo £26 Suntour triple on it until you are comfortable moving on to something better. Or not. I know many insist that you should never have to get off the bike but if you want a rest why not? Early days it might be what changes a bike ride from enjoyable to torture. On some long rides my bum likes a rest not my legs.


----------



## Eviljeem (13 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> How steep?



Not too steep, but constant.

About 2 - 3 miles of the way home is on an uphill gradient.


----------



## bigjim (13 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Persevere. It will get easier. Bikes's fine I'm sure, 11-25 on a compact is fine for Surrey.
> 
> Keep going - couple of weeeks and you will wonder what all the fuss was about.


If the hills are a long steady climb then I would stop when knackered and get your breath back for a few minutes. Climb back on and start again. You will soon find out that you are not stopping that much if at all.


----------



## Randochap (13 Jul 2009)

bigjim said:


> OK agree ...



Then you can't help yourself:



> ... but the guy does *ask for it*. It's not on trying to intimidate other posters from having a say.



You have to get a petulant dig in and again misrepresent my intentions. Seems it's you that doesn't want your "get off and walk" position challenged. And if someone does irritate you, they get your usual childish tantrum.

Unload the burden.










I'm done..


----------



## peanut (13 Jul 2009)

the only one being childish and petulant now, is you Rando .give it a rest why don't you , 
Don't take everything so personally. 
I doubt the original poster will dare post anything in the future for fear of starting another 12 page 'teddy out the pram' episode


----------



## peanut (14 Jul 2009)

well Randochap has now resorted to sending me threats by personal mail now . 

Perhaps its time that this thread was moderated ?

Fortunately i have my settings to ignore his posts in future


----------



## Randochap (14 Jul 2009)

peanut said:


> well Randochap has now resorted to sending me threats by personal mail now .
> 
> Perhaps its time that this thread was moderated ?



What is this, pile on Rando? Using the forum to discredit? You PM me, imperiously "suggesting" I "get some sensible perspective." I said I suggest you keep out of it.

That is not a "threat," it's a suggestion, just like yours.


----------



## Sam Kennedy (14 Jul 2009)

Hmm I haven't checked this topic in a few days... I never knew I needed to study 17 pages to climb a hill 

All I know (and I may be wrong) is that trying to climb a hill in a high gear with a low cadence (which is what I preferred) can cause problems with your knee caps and joints.

I think a lower gear with higher cadence is better because you don't end up with dodgy legs, and its more aerobic than anaerobic, so it will be better for your general fitness.

Of course there is all that formula stuff and sciency research things which will prove this wrong, but I like to keep it simple


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jul 2009)

Sam Kennedy said:


> Hmm I haven't checked this topic in a few days... I never knew I needed to study 17 pages to climb a hill
> 
> All I know (and I may be wrong) is that trying to climb a hill in a high gear with a low cadence (which is what I preferred) can cause problems with your knee caps and joints.
> 
> ...



Hey! Good learnings, despite the headbanging going on around here. If you can't spin the pedals then you may need some lower gearing options.

(FWIW, I'm with Rando...)


----------



## jimboalee (14 Jul 2009)

Sam Kennedy said:


> Hmm I haven't checked this topic in a few days... I never knew I needed to study 17 pages to climb a hill
> 
> All I know (and I may be wrong) is that trying to climb a hill in a high gear with a low cadence (which is what I preferred) can cause problems with your knee caps and joints.
> 
> ...



I have quoted this before on a previous thread, but....

Sheldon Brown ( and others ) forward the suggestion that when climbing a hill, the legs should not feel any different than riding on the flat. That is IF the gear is correct.
This implies the cadence is the same and the power output is the same.

To choose your climbing gear, you need to know the cadence you cruise at AND your power output.

There is a spreadsheet on the CTC website which calcs power for ALL?? situations. It's called Powercalc.xls.

If you type in your particulars and your cruising speed on the flat, it will tell you your power. ( I built a spreadsheet many years before this one, which correlates closely ).
Then copy that row and type in a %grade. Adjust the speed to get the same power as before. Using that speed, calc the gear length that should be used if the cadence remains the same.


But many riders exert more power up a hill because it IS a hill. They want to maintain speed, not consistant cadence and power output.

Raceboys 'honk'. It assists by exerting more power and keeps the speed up.
Tourists use low gears, for sustained riding.

Audax riders do a mixture of the two.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3523

Download the spreadsheet and have a play.


----------



## jimboalee (14 Jul 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I have quoted this before on a previous thread, but....
> 
> Sheldon Brown ( and others ) forward the suggestion that when climbing a hill, the legs should not feel any different than riding on the flat. That is IF the gear is correct.
> This implies the cadence is the same and the power output is the same.
> ...




Is anyone having trouble with this spreadsheet ( Powercalc.xls )?

For example, copy down the details for "Tourist" into the first row. Copy them into a couple more rows.
Enter 24.0 kmh ( 14.9 mph ) in the speed column on the first row and the 'Power' W should be 120. This is an acceptable figure using my own calcs too.

Now type in 10 in the 'Slope %' column on the next row. Adjust the speed value until you get 120 Watts. You should have 4.15 kmh, or 2.6 mph.

Now as an example, you use a 42 x 19 ( 59") gear to ride 24 kmh at 86 Cadence.
According to well accepted theory, to ride at 86 cadence at 2.6 mph requires a 10" gear! A 12T chainring and a 33T sprocket.

Tell me if this is realistic?


----------



## bigjim (14 Jul 2009)

I do find that pulling up on the pedals, if using clipless, does help on hills and takes pressure off my knees. Seems everybody has their own opinion and method re hill climbing whether it is having a walk or a breather, getting down to the gym and building those muscles up or fitting lower gearing to your bike. You could try the first lot on this list and if that does not work go down the change gearing road. Only you can make the decision as your fitness, motivation, personal finance etc are all relevent. Good luck with whatever you choose. Do not let the bit of barracking between posters stop you being a regular on these forums.

Jim


----------

