# Gearing snobbery?



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

I've read a lot of bike reviews and if a bike has a 32 cassette why is the reviewer always at pains to point out the the 32 is a "bail out gear" or like I read the other day "the 32 cassette will let you ride up the side of a house"?
I'd suggest the vast majority of us could well use a 32 or larger with a compact crank (unless grinding out of the saddle is your thing or you live somewhere flat).
I'm comfortably in the top half of most of the climbs in my area on Strava yet people seem almost embarrassed to admit the need a 32.
I use mine a lot and I'm looking at going to a 34 or 36.
Surely the gearing on road bikes is putting newbies off sticking with cycling if they can't get up their local climbs?


----------



## Ajax Bay (17 Apr 2016)

I think it's more to do with the capacity of current road rear derailleurs and the implied %age steps between gears if you're going from 11 to 32+. Perhaps there should be more 48-32 cranksets (let's face it 48/11 is long enough for mortals). I'm not sure this is snobbery, more retailers trying to reassure prospective buyers that the gears offered will allow them to climb the hills, bearing in mind many will have ridden an MTB or 'hybrid' with gears in the shorter range while growing up.


----------



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

Good point I just think manufacturers aren't up to the needs of new cyclist a 48/32 would be great and surely would be better for newbies.
I was focusing on the cassette because it's more economical to increase the size then swapping out cranks.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Apr 2016)

Because reviewers are tossers. Bike magazines are the cradle of snobbery, stupidity. gonzo lunatics, posers, wanna be's, idiots and pseudo scientist. Their staff can distinguish the subtle differences of down to 0,3 degrees of seat post angle, tell you with closed eyes whether they've just ridden over a sheet of paper or not, find differences in acceleration between two frames by intuition and predict the grip of a tyre just by hearing it's name.
They eat, drink and wear bike industry swarf, move from junket to junket and pepper their sentences with technology, stiffer, lighter, faster, carbon, fast-rolling, bomb-proof and dude.

Blah!


----------



## MichaelW2 (17 Apr 2016)

Magazine kit reviewers generally are a pain in the butt for ordinary users. The kit manufacturers love to get good reviews so tailor their kit to the specific needs of the reviewers, who tend to be at the more athletic and extreme end of the spectrum.
If you look at hiking gear, reviewers are mainly people who do mountain marathons and prefer kit compliant with the rules of MM organisations and with the ethos of MM. Lightweight rainproofs must be ultralight and sacrifice durability for weight. All hoods must be attached (it is in the rules). This makes it almost impossible to find a general purpose, multisport rainproof suitable for everyday cycling and weekend hiking, to last a few years.

The bicycle gearing situation today is much better than a decade or so ago. Shimano resisted compact chainsets for some reason but the independent smaller manufacturers started to make inroads and they relented. Now unfortunately, compact chainsets have all but replaced road triples. You can have you cake or eat it.


----------



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

Love it
Must admit I feel the same


----------



## Hugh Manatee (17 Apr 2016)

I stopped buying magazines when they all went sportive crazy. They just seem to assume that is all anyone wants to do. I feel no desire to do one so why bother?

Gears really depend on where you live and ride. Here I would get your 32 and swap the numbers and use that as my bail out gear. Especially since I went all compact with a 38 small ring. I have travelled and struggled to turn the pedals up some proper hills though!


----------



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> Magazine kit reviewers generally are a pain in the butt for ordinary users. The kit manufacturers love to get good reviews so tailor their kit to the specific needs of the reviewers, who tend to be at the more athletic and extreme end of the spectrum.
> If you look at hiking gear, reviewers are mainly people who do mountain marathons and prefer kit compliant with the rules of MM organisations and with the ethos of MM. Lightweight rainproofs must be ultralight and sacrifice durability for weight. All hoods must be attached (it is in the rules). This makes it almost impossible to find a general purpose, multisport rainproof suitable for everyday cycling and weekend hiking, to last a few years.
> 
> The bicycle gearing situation today is much better than a decade or so ago. Shimano resisted compact chainsets for some reason but the independent smaller manufacturers started to make inroads and they relented. Now unfortunately, compact chainsets have all but replaced road triples. You can have you cake or eat it.



That Warren guy from cycleplus certainly isn't the most athletic type but even he's got the same spiel.
Don't mind him tho


----------



## fossyant (17 Apr 2016)

My 2 road bike mech's won't take over a 24T, but they are old school, when even a 21T was considered big. 

These days, with 10-11 speed you have a huge choice without the big gaps between the ratios, so why not add a few bigger sprockets. 

Over my 8 speeds that have a 24T max, you could nicely add 27, 30, 34 to that ! It's not difficult to have a few cassettes that you can swap to suit particular rides either. If you are going to be in the saddle for many miles, with lots of hills, having the bigger cassette is a bonus towards the end of the rides.


----------



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

Hugh Manatee said:


> I stopped buying magazines when they all went sportive crazy. They just seem to assume that is all anyone wants to do. I feel no desire to do one so why bother?
> 
> It would be good if manufacturers gave you a choice of gearing it's surely not beyond their means.
> 
> Gears really depend on where you live and ride. Here I would get your 32 and swap the numbers and use that as my bail out gear. Especially since I went all compact with a 38 small ring. I have travelled and struggled to turn the pedals up some proper hills though!


----------



## winjim (17 Apr 2016)

fossyant said:


> My 2 road bike mech's won't take over a 24T, but they are old school, when even a 21T was considered big.
> 
> These days, with 10-11 speed you have a huge choice without the big gaps between the ratios, so why not add a few bigger sprockets.
> 
> Over my 8 speeds that have a 24T max, you could nicely add 27, 30, 34 to that ! It's not difficult to have a few cassettes that you can swap to suit particular rides either. If you are going to be in the saddle for many miles, with lots of hills, having the bigger cassette is a bonus towards the end of the rides.


 What have you done with the real fossy?


----------



## kiriyama (17 Apr 2016)

I've currently got an 11-28 on the back and a compact at the front. I live in a very hill place and there is nothing I can't ride up. But then I'm quite light and pretty fit at the moment. My dad's cassette goes up to 32 on the back. I find the ratios between his gears more noticeable and less smooth BUT it makes road cycling more accessible to him (hes heavier and less fit!) where as he previously struggled on an 11-25. Ride what's comfortable/ENJOYABLE to your ability and sod the gear snobs. 

A lot of the snobs tend to be less fit anyway, too worried about getting there £200 bibs mucky in the rain, tend to be the guys who shout "I'm on a recovery ride!" as you go past them on a climb.


----------



## winjim (17 Apr 2016)

True gear snobbery would involve pointing out that Campagnolo cassettes only go up to 29...


----------



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> True gear snobbery would involve pointing out that Campagnolo cassettes only go up to 29...


Good reason not to buy Campag


----------



## mustang1 (17 Apr 2016)

bondirob said:


> I've always at pains to point out the the *32 is a "bail out gear"* or like I read the other day " (stuff deleted)
> 
> Surely the gearing on road bikes is putting *newbies* off sticking with cycling if they can't get up their local climbs?



That.


----------



## RichK (17 Apr 2016)

I usually use 50/34 + 12-30. Next week is the LMTT which involves a swap to 11-32. That's for the 32 bit, not the 11. I get some ribbing about the dinner plate on the back but I'm not in the slightest bit bothered I just think of Ankerdine... after 33 miles and smile


----------



## tyred (17 Apr 2016)

The bike industry is driven by fashion, not by practicality. It is style over function.


----------



## winjim (17 Apr 2016)

bondirob said:


> Good reason not to buy Campag


We wouldn't want you in our gang anyway.


----------



## steve292 (17 Apr 2016)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Because reviewers are tossers. Bike magazines are the cradle of snobbery, stupidity. gonzo lunatics, posers, wanna be's, idiots and pseudo scientist. Their staff can distinguish the subtle differences of down to 0,3 degrees of seat post angle, tell you with closed eyes whether they've just ridden over a sheet of paper or not, find differences in acceleration between two frames by intuition and predict the grip of a tyre just by hearing it's name.
> They east, drink and wear bike industry swarf, move from junket to junket and pepper their sentences with technology, stiffer, lighter, faster, carbon, fast-rolling, bomb-proof and dude.
> 
> Blah!



I would stop beating around the bush, & just say what you think.........................


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Apr 2016)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Because reviewers are tossers. Bike magazines are the cradle of snobbery, stupidity. gonzo lunatics, posers, wanna be's, idiots and pseudo scientist. Their staff can distinguish the subtle differences of down to 0,3 degrees of seat post angle, tell you with closed eyes whether they've just ridden over a sheet of paper or not, find differences in acceleration between two frames by intuition and predict the grip of a tyre just by hearing it's name.
> They east, drink and wear bike industry swarf, move from junket to junket and pepper their sentences with technology, stiffer, lighter, faster, carbon, fast-rolling, bomb-proof and dude.
> 
> Blah!


Wot this guy said.

I fall about laughing when I read about how a reviewers bike suddenly turned from a pneumatic drill into an armchair when he replaced the aluminium seatpost with a carbon one. And how many times have you read that crossed spokes give you a softer ride than radial? Even the slightest idea of how a wheel works is enough to dispel that rubbish.


----------



## 2IT (17 Apr 2016)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Because reviewers are tossers. Bike magazines are the cradle of snobbery, stupidity. gonzo lunatics, posers, wanna be's, idiots and pseudo scientist. Their staff can distinguish the subtle differences of down to 0,3 degrees of seat post angle, tell you with closed eyes whether they've just ridden over a sheet of paper or not, find differences in acceleration between two frames by intuition and predict the grip of a tyre just by hearing it's name.
> They east, drink and wear bike industry swarf, move from junket to junket and pepper their sentences with technology, stiffer, lighter, faster, carbon, fast-rolling, bomb-proof and dude.
> 
> Blah!



Some of them may put that much work into a review. Was under the impression that some just copy and paste something from the manufacturer.


----------



## 2IT (17 Apr 2016)

bondirob said:


> I've read a lot of bike reviews and if a bike has a 32 cassette why is the reviewer always at pains to point out the the 32 is a "bail out gear" or like I read the other day "the 32 cassette will let you ride up the side of a house"?
> I'd suggest the vast majority of us could well use a 32 or larger with a compact crank (unless grinding out of the saddle is your thing or you live somewhere flat).
> I'm comfortably in the top half of most of the climbs in my area on Strava yet people seem almost embarrassed to admit the need a 32.
> I use mine a lot and I'm looking at going to a 34 or 36.
> Surely the gearing on road bikes is putting newbies off sticking with cycling if they can't get up their local climbs?



Good point. One counter point is are you going to run that all the time?

Most of the time I'm on a 50-39 with a 12-25 which works for the foothills of the Appalachians. I like it because it is could be a racing setup too.

If I were going to do real hills or mountains, specifically long climbs, I would loke a 32 or higher. Yet, would I need a longer chain and the longer rear derailleur hanger? Having to make those changes or the thought of doing so (I could be wrong) keeps me to a 28. Not snobbery. Maybe some laziness or practicality on my part.


----------



## TheCharityEventer (17 Apr 2016)

Hi i'm new to this 32t-28t malarky. but i've just counted mine and i think i've got it right, I have a ridgeback flight 01 and on the rear 11t - 32t and the front 28t - 48t, would this be correct?? i'm so used to saying it's a 24 gear bike lol


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Apr 2016)

2IT said:


> Some of them may put that much work into a review. Was under the impression that some just copy and paste something from the manufacturer.


No, there are things that even manufacturers won't do. They leave that to the rats.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (17 Apr 2016)

i've recently seen pros with at least 30-tooth cassettes on mountain stages of the grand tours. miguel indurain was not above using a triple as an insurance policy, so if it's good enough for the pros to ride with appropriate gearing, it's good enough for the rest of us. 

in my club, you won't get strange looks or comments for riding a hilly club run with a large cassette or triple; more likely comments if you're obviously struggling with a setup more suited to a flat time trial than a ride in the peak district…


----------



## e-rider (17 Apr 2016)

most 'normal' cyclists don't need a 32T for road cycling, however, there are many that would happily have it. However, if said bike is being marketed at the road race scene why would it come with a 32T sprocket - hence the criticism. Perhaps a £500 entry level bike would be less criticised for have a 32T fitted as it would be more appropriate for the type of person that might buy it and what they use it for.


----------



## Apollonius (17 Apr 2016)

The race leader's bike in the 2014 Giro d'Italia (pink bar-tape). If it is good enough for him....


----------



## screenman (17 Apr 2016)

I have never come across snobbery during all my years of cycling, I must be so lucky.


----------



## huwsparky (17 Apr 2016)

Don't normally take a 32t but will be taking one for a ride i'm doing next month with some tough climbs coming in on a 100 miles.

Certainly no shame in using a 32t IMO.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Apr 2016)

screenman said:


> I have never come across snobbery during all my years of cycling, I must be so lucky.


You are!

I have experienced it several times. One rather amusing example was when I was out doing the old Pendle Pedal sportive. I was riding down to the crossroads at Quernmore. I would be turning left at the crossroads and tackling a stiff climb up to the Jubilee Tower monument.






Just before my turn, I was overtaken by a fast-moving group of younger male riders. One of them spotted the gearing on my bike and started laughing. He called out _"Ha ha - got yer triple ready have yer, granddad!" _

They climbed away from me up round a RH bend where the road really starts to kick up. I engaged my 28/28 bottom gear and was twiddling my way up at a comfortable pace when I turned the bend and saw a slow-moving group of younger male _WALKERS_ ahead of me, dripping sweat, and pushing their bikes.

I couldn't resist it ... I took my right hand off the bars, leaned down to extract a drinks bottle from its cage, and accelerated as I overtook them, riding one-handed. I took a long, casual drink and said them _"Ha ha - looks like you need triples too, eh lads!" _


----------



## oldfatfool (17 Apr 2016)

Funny, loads of snobbery and abuse about around riding a triple as well, especially on a road bike, even with a triple 30/39/52 I have 11 - 28 on the rear. Even funnier when half way up a decent incline when you catch and ride past the same people sniffing their noses earlier 

Should have read your post first Col lol


----------



## Crandoggler (17 Apr 2016)

I absolutely love my 32. Often use it too.


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Apr 2016)

Crandoggler said:


> I absolutely love my 32. Often use it too.


People who sneer at other riders gear ratios do so because they have little understanding of the purpose of gears or how to use them.


----------



## Crandoggler (17 Apr 2016)

I like to enjoy cycling, not enjoy the fact that other people think I'm a better cyclist because I grind up hills with a smaller cassette.


----------



## adamangler (17 Apr 2016)

Well if you're very fit and putting out high watts on climbs a 32 is going to be rarely used in this country. Whereas if your new and overweight it's going to be needed often. I know so.eone who rides a 53/39 with am 11-25 and he spins up climbs I mash with a 34-28 . He's fitter than me obviously and would indeed say he could ride up a house with a 32.


----------



## Kajjal (17 Apr 2016)

Use the gearing that works for you and you will get the best out of your riding. 

Anyone who wants to prove themselves by struggling in too hard a gear can go for it.


----------



## fossyant (17 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> What have you done with the real fossy?



Broken !!!!


----------



## Prometheus (17 Apr 2016)

Good post Gearing snobbery, YES.

Leaving out the road bike, and living in the Pennines.
A hero of mine in the 70s put 30 gears on his touring bike.
Using a five speed of the time, combined with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed.

I have just equal this feat, in spite of Shimano.
The bike and load weight in at 25 to 30 Kg, to ride this weight up a 10% hill.
F 52-39-30 (Shimano hollowtech 11) That's the best 3 ratios around, it gives you half gear's for long gradients, 
for if your cadence drops below 70 trouble. Lets face it the weight of an extra ring and bit of chain is negligible.
R 12-36 (SRAM and dérailleur) 10 speed cassette and lots of Chocolate.

It's practical: (no hub-gear drag) works just fine best thing I have done.
Full speck available for interested parties.


----------



## MichaelW2 (17 Apr 2016)

adamangler said:


> Well if you're very fit and putting out high watts on climbs a 32 is going to be rarely used in this country.


It is not the wattage but the pedalling force that is reduced by low gears. As "grandad" a few posts back noted, he kept climbing whilst all those younger, fitter, higher wattage riders ran out of low gear and could not generate the turning force so they stalled. It is like starting your car on a hill in 3rd gear.


----------



## Ajax Bay (17 Apr 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> he kept climbing whilst all those younger, fitter, higher wattage riders ran out of low gear and could not generate the turning force so they stalled


Isn't rather that, though they had the 'power' they were unable to keep their bikes balanced/upright while they put the required force at that the cadence determined by their 34/26 or whatever through the pedals? Or am I dancing on the head of a pin? IMO 50% of getting up a hill is believing you can and you're going to get up.


----------



## gbb (17 Apr 2016)

TheCharityEventer said:


> Hi i'm new to this 32t-28t malarky. but i've just counted mine and i think i've got it right, I have a ridgeback flight 01 and on the rear 11t - 32t and the front 28t - 48t, would this be correct?? i'm so used to saying it's a 24 gear bike lol


In simple terms, you have a triple. I note you say 28/48 but I see the specs quote 26/38/48...unless I picked up the wrong model.
A road triple is generally different to a hybrid triple, they generally run something like a 30/39/52....
On the rear, a hybrid will generally range 11 or 12 up to about 30 or 32, while a road bike will generally be 11 to 28.
Its just different gearing catering for different style bikes/conditions/customers.
Oh yes, and in simple terms, hybrids do tend to me termed 24 speed orwhatever the combination is, while a road bikes are termed by just the cogs on the rear, 8,9,10 or 11 speed.


----------



## HLaB (17 Apr 2016)

IIRC Nibali spun away from Wiggins and Froome on the 2009 Vuelta on a 32 (he might have been on something else too though ).


----------



## StuAff (17 Apr 2016)

HLaB said:


> IIRC Nibali spun away from Wiggins and Froome on the 2009 Vuelta on a 32 (he might have been on something else too though ).


2009? Wrong year there I think....


----------



## Donger (17 Apr 2016)

I am 6ft 6" and weigh 21 stone. Not exactly KOM material. Without a triple on the front and a 32T cassette on the back, I would be stuck in the Stroud Valleys like a spider in the bathtub. With both of the above fitted to my bike, I can get up nearly every hill our club rides have ever attempted. I'm a regular visitor to the Alps and the mountains of Scotland and I'm free to go wherever I want on my bike. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether anyone looks down their noses at me.


----------



## screenman (17 Apr 2016)

I can get up any of the hills with 8 miles of my house in a 52x13 does that make me a snob?


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Apr 2016)

A triple was a key requirement for the purchase of my new Lithium 4 hybrid.

Granny is 22, and there's 32 at the back.

I used the combination once today, and like @Donger, I can't summon any interest in what other cyclists think of my gear choice.


----------



## winjim (17 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> True gear snobbery would involve pointing out that Campagnolo cassettes only go up to 29...


I stand corrected 

http://road.cc/content/tech-news/182759-campagnolo-unveils-new-potenza-groupset-first-ride


----------



## coco69 (17 Apr 2016)

Dont really give a toss what other people think about size...some of the hills ive tried to get up i wished id had a 36.....oh and im not a newbie


----------



## Ajax Bay (17 Apr 2016)

screenman said:


> I can get up any of the hills with 8 miles of my house in a 52x13 does that make me a snob?


No, it probably means you're massive and/or live in the flatlands, and possibly setting yourself up for knee joint replacement in early course.


----------



## HLaB (17 Apr 2016)

StuAff said:


> 2009? Wrong year there I think....


You're right, just looked I was at the Vuelta 09 and none of them were there. Was it 2010?


----------



## midlife (17 Apr 2016)

This is my idea of a spread of rear cogs.....







Shaun


----------



## bondirob (17 Apr 2016)

Your not a very adventurous rider unless you have at least a 32 on the back. Either that or you love the grind


----------



## screenman (17 Apr 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> No, it probably means you're massive and/or live in the flatlands, and possibly setting yourself up for knee joint replacement in early course.



I will give you a clue, Lincolnshire.


----------



## StuAff (17 Apr 2016)

HLaB said:


> You're right, just looked I was at the Vuelta 09 and none of them were there. Was it 2010?


2010 was the year Nibbles won. Sky withdrew after the death of soigneur Txema Gonzalez. 2011, Wiggo and Froome were there, but lost out to the possibly-doping Cobo. Nibali finished 7th, 4' 31" down- he had been third but cracked on the final climb of stage 14 & never got the time back. Either not Nibali or not the Vuelta, I think.


----------



## midlife (17 Apr 2016)

screenman said:


> I will give you a clue, Lincolnshire.



BITD we took the ferry over to Lincolnshire from Hull.........Perfect day out for 52/42 up front and 14-18 at the back 

Shaun


----------



## HLaB (17 Apr 2016)

StuAff said:


> 2010 was the year Nibbles won. Sky withdrew after the death of soigneur Txema Gonzalez. 2011, Wiggo and Froome were there, but lost out to the possibly-doping Cobo. Nibali finished 7th, 4' 31" down- he had been third but cracked on the final climb of stage 14 & never got the time back. Either not Nibali or not the Vuelta, I think.


You're right it was 2011 , the year that Froome was acting as chief domestic to Wiggins so it must have been Cobo in stage 15 ,

"Despite hailing from nearby Cantabria, this was the first time that Cobo had tackled the fabled Asturian climb. “I had planned to come and reconnoitre it between the Tour of Burgos and the Vuelta in order to choose which gear to use, but I didn’t have the time to do it,” he confessed, adding that in the end he chose a 34x32"

IRinC


----------



## Kajjal (17 Apr 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Isn't rather that, though they had the 'power' they were unable to keep their bikes balanced/upright while they put the required force at that the cadence determined by their 34/26 or whatever through the pedals? Or am I dancing on the head of a pin? IMO 50% of getting up a hill is believing you can and you're going to get up.


I went mountain biking with someone who thought the same. They tried to power up a long steep trail and after a few minutes exploded and a long time to recover their speed. You are right about part of climbing hills is in the mind. Once you conquer a good hill you then know it is possible.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> I stand corrected
> 
> http://road.cc/content/tech-news/182759-campagnolo-unveils-new-potenza-groupset-first-ride


I was looking at that and thinking "_That looks great, if only it were not black_" but then I noticed that there is a silver option too.


----------



## winjim (17 Apr 2016)

ColinJ said:


> I was looking at that and thinking "_That looks great, if only it were not black_" but then I noticed that there is a silver option too.


I'm tempted, as a replacement for the 9sp triple on the CdF. Probably can't afford it though .

Before any gear snobs weigh in, the CdF is my commute/winter/go anywhere bike so I need to be able to ride it up 25% hills, loaded, in the snow. Other bike had a compact with a 25 tooth largest sprocket, and latterly a standard chainset with a 29 and takes me all over the Peak District no problem, thank you very much.


----------



## MichaelW2 (18 Apr 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Isn't rather that, though they had the 'power' they were unable to keep their bikes balanced/upright while they put the required force at that the cadence determined by their 34/26 or whatever through the pedals? Or am I dancing on the head of a pin? IMO 50% of getting up a hill is believing you can and you're going to get up.


If you can't generate enough force to rotate the gears, you stall. Riders can balance without pedalling using the track-stand. I may believe that I can climb a hill in my highest gear, but I can't; I need a suitable gear or I will wreck my knees..


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Apr 2016)

I thought i was a saddo looking to see what Shimano stuff folk had on their bikes( Is it Sora, Tiagra or 105 i wonder?). But to count the teeth on a cog,now that is sad!


----------



## Louch (18 Apr 2016)

I'm 32, 16 stone and my new bike has a 28 cassette. I don't think there is a massive difference from the 32 that I am used to, and my times up hills are staying about the same on it. as said above, if you find your cadence is too low when climbing, you are stalling the bike and you need a lower gear. I likely will change to a 32 again once I have the money to change deraillieur and cassette as around where I am, 20% + slopes gove me the heave and I'd change down and spin a cadence than have a mini panic that sends the HR over 200


----------



## bondirob (18 Apr 2016)

Louch said:


> I'm 32, 16 stone and my new bike has a 28 cassette. I don't think there is a massive difference from the 32 that I am used to, and my times up hills are staying about the same on it. as said above, if you find your cadence is too low when climbing, you are stalling the bike and you need a lower gear. I likely will change to a 32 again once I have the money to change deraillieur and cassette as around where I am, 20% + slopes gove me the heave and I'd change down and spin a cadence than have a mini panic that sends the HR over 200



You can get away with a short cage derailleur on a 32 cassette even though the bike shop may tell you otherwise.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> I thought i was a saddo looking to see what Shimano stuff folk had on their bikes( Is it Sora, Tiagra or 105 i wonder?).


Or even Campagnolo/SRAM ...?


----------



## winjim (18 Apr 2016)

ColinJ said:


> Or even Campagnolo/SRAM ...?


Shimano's for people who just use the default settings on everything.


----------



## Nibor (18 Apr 2016)

I run a triple and an 11-34 cassette but in my defence I am 21 stone and live in hilly Lancashire


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> Shimano's for people who just use the default settings on everything.



You've hit on one of Shimano's greatest strengths - their stuff works a treat straight out of the box.


----------



## Ajax Bay (18 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> Shimano's for people who just use the default settings on everything.


So is this 'groupset' or more broadly groupset 'make' snobbery?


----------



## winjim (18 Apr 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> So is this 'groupset' or more broadly groupset 'make' snobbery?


More an observation that a lot of people talk about (Shimano) groupsets without even mentioning the brand, as if they are unaware that other makes even exist.


Pale Rider said:


> You've hit on one of Shimano's greatest strengths - their stuff works a treat straight out of the box.


My Campagnolo Chorus was a doddle to set up. I got it working on the stand and was fully expecting it to need adjustment once I got out the road, but I haven't had to touch it.


----------



## lutonloony (18 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> True gear snobbery would involve pointing out that Campagnolo cassettes only go up to 29...


Surely true snobbery would say "I thought only campag made bike equipment"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Apr 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> I can't summon any interest in what other cyclists think of my gear choice.


Well said, Sir, well said.


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Apr 2016)

ColinJ said:


> Or even Campagnolo/SRAM ...?




Yes i look for those as well.


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> I run a triple and an 11-34 cassette but in my defence I am 21 stone and live in hilly Lancashire


 

We live in proper Lancashire Nibor, not that flat bit west of Blackburn!


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> We live in proper Lancashire Nibor, not that flat bit west of Blackburn!


Indeed we do hills on all directions I have decided to do a serious bike update..........I am cutting down on the beer to lose some flab aiming to lose a couple of stone this will not be a marginal gain lol.


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Indeed we do hills on all directions I have decided to do a serious bike update..........I am cutting down on the beer to lose some flab aiming to lose a couple of stone this will not be a marginal gain lol.




Maybe we could meet up one day for a ride? Would you fancy joining our Wednesday cycling club? Nothing formal and no one gets left behind. I can vouch for that as when i first joined they were forever waiting for me to catch up!


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Apr 2016)

ColinJ said:


> You are!
> 
> I have experienced it several times. One rather amusing example was when I was out doing the old Pendle Pedal sportive. I was riding down to the crossroads at Quernmore. I would be turning left at the crossroads and tackling a stiff climb up to the Jubilee Tower monument.



Tough climb that - I well remember doing it at the end of a long ride.

My current favourite bike has a 22-32-42 and an 11-34 at the back. Only 8 speed but has pretty much all the gears I need. Been thinking of changing the 42 for a 44. I rather like its gearing - encourages me to spin/dance on the pedals.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Indeed we do hills on all directions I have decided to do a serious bike update..........I am cutting down on the beer to lose some flab aiming to lose a couple of stone this will not be a marginal gain lol.


Good luck with the weight loss. I have recently lost a couple of stone without cutting out the beer - in fact maybe been drinking more beer while I was on it. I call it the Wetherspoons Diet - details available on request.


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Maybe we could meet up one day for a ride? Would you fancy joining our Wednesday cycling club? Nothing formal and no one gets left behind. I can vouch for that as when i first joined they were forever waiting for me to catch up!


When and where do they ride I am currently pretty slow lol


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Apr 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> It is not the wattage but the pedalling force that is reduced by low gears. As "grandad" a few posts back noted, he kept climbing whilst all those younger, fitter, higher wattage riders ran out of low gear and could not generate the turning force so they stalled. It is like starting your car on a hill in 3rd gear.


yes, I was awful at O level physics but this is of course true. Otherwise your cranks would be putting out energy of their own, which would be quite an achievement.


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> When and where do they ride I am currently pretty slow lol



Spring Wood picnic area (Whalley) car park Wednesdays at 9.30. We average around 13mph, though some days it might be less than 12 if it's crap windy weather. Think about it. It's an open invitation. If you feel that you'd have to improve a bit before coming along that's fine. Last year there was also a small group who met at the Prospects office in Accy town centre for a slower shorter evening ride.







I'm not 100% sure if they're doing it again this year, but if they are that might be more suitable till you reach your desired level. It's not all road. Shared cycle paths and canal banks are used and i'd say the average speed was/is around 9/10mph.

That's Geraldine on the left of the pic' I went out with her for a ride 7 weeks ago. Believe me you have nothing to fear. I've never known a slower rider, and one that moans and curses so much! She spent most of the ride throwing her bike down in temper!


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Spring Wood picnic area car park Wednesdays at 9.30. We average around 13mph, though some days it might be less than 12 if it's crap windy weather. Think about it. It's an open invitation. If you feel that you'd have to improve a bit before coming along that's fine. Last year there was also a small group who met at the Prospects office in Accy town centre for a slower shorter evening ride.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Accy please compare this picture with my avater there may be some similarities to one of the riders lol


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Accy please compare this picture with my avater there may be some similarities to one of the riders lol



Not too sure but i think that's Robin? Yes he's no lightweight but he could keep up with the rest! The woman at the front cheats. She has an electric bike!


----------



## Oldfentiger (19 Apr 2016)

Robin looks like Nibor backwards to me


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Not too sure but i think that's Robin? Yes he's no lightweight but he could keep up with the rest! The woman at the front cheats. She has an electric bike!


Do I know you Accy I am indeed Robin


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Do I know you Accy I am indeed Robin




Tell me you are feckin' jesting??!!!


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Tell me you are feckin' jesting??!!!


Nope dead serious


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Nope dead serious



Thank god i didn't say anything bad then! It's true about Geraldine though. I haven't seen her since. Well i have but i ducked down so she didn't see me!
Thank's for that thingy for the front light by the way! Will there be more Prospects rides this year do you think?


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Thank god i didn't say anything bad then! It's true about Geraldine though. I haven't seen her since. Well i have but i ducked down so she didn't see me!
> Thank's for that thingy for the front light by the way! Will there be more Prospects rides this year do you think?


Not sure they haven't got a ride leader and I dont want the responsibility might do a few rides for them in the lighter evenings but will have to tag some miles on the start/ end to make up the miles. Now know who you are dont worry your secret identity is safe with me.


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Not sure they haven't got a ride leader and I dont want the responsibility might do a few rides for them in the lighter evenings but will have to tag some miles on the start/ end to make up the miles. Now know who you are dont worry your secret identity is safe with me.



Don't tell Geraldine about what i said! It's true though. She spent more time actually fiddling with that bike and cursing it than riding it!


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Don't tell Geraldine about what i said! It's true though. She spent more time actually fiddling with that bike and cursing it than riding it!


Wouldn't dream of it mate her bikes are a complete mess to be truthful I believe her favorite one got nicked


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Wouldn't dream of it mate her bikes are a complete mess to be truthful I believe her favorite one got nicked



Yes she left it on the front of the house overnight...unlocked!! 
Anyway, i'm off to do a few hours ladder climbing..in the sunshine!
Speak to you soon!


----------



## Nibor (19 Apr 2016)

Enjoy Craig will have to go out for a ride some time mate.


----------



## iggibizzle (19 Apr 2016)

Nothing wrong with a 32. I have one. Rarely use it but it's good to know it's there incase of emergency. Especially toward the tail end of 100+ mile rides when you get to 20% ers.


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> Enjoy Craig will have to go out for a ride some time mate.



Yes ok.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Apr 2016)

winjim said:


> True gear snobbery would involve pointing out that Campagnolo cassettes only go up to 29...


true gear snobbery is not being seen within ten feet of a Campagnolo cassette


----------



## adamangler (19 Apr 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> It is not the wattage but the pedalling force that is reduced by low gears. As "grandad" a few posts back noted, he kept climbing whilst all those younger, fitter, higher wattage riders ran out of low gear and could not generate the turning force so they stalled. It is like starting your car on a hill in 3rd gear.



isnt wattage the same as turning force or torque?

for example a guy putting out 400watts on a flat time trial is going to be pushing a significantly bigger gear than a 200w rider 

surely up a hill a guy holding 400w would turn a bigger gear than the 200w rider, the 200w rider could get bogged down and run out of gears, wheras if he could hold 400w he would not get bogged down and run out as he is putting out more power required to turn the pedals

i would have though the guy putting out 400w on a climb would spin out a 34-28 and wouldnt be able to put 400w out in this gear unless the gradient was ridiculously steep.


----------



## ColinJ (19 Apr 2016)

adamangler said:


> isnt wattage the same as turning force or torque?
> 
> for example a guy putting out 400watts on a flat time trial is going to be pushing a significantly bigger gear than a 200w rider
> 
> surely up a hill a guy holding 400w would turn a bigger gear than the 200w rider, the 200w rider could get bogged down and run out of gears, wheras if he could hold 400w he would not get bogged down and run out as he is putting out more power required to turn the pedals


No - 200 W guy might be using exactly the same gear as 400 W guy, but with a much lower cadence and therefore speed. Power and force are not the same thing.



adamangler said:


> i would have though the guy putting out 400w on a climb would spin out a 34-28 and wouldnt be able to put 400w out in this gear unless the gradient was ridiculously steep.


I used an online calculator to try out some numbers ...

On a 10% climb, (a particular rider on a particular bike who was generating) 400 W on a 34/28 gear with a cadence of 100 rpm might climb at a speed of about 16 km/hr or 10 miles/hr. So if the rider wanted to use a cadence of 100 rpm on the climb, they would need a gear of 34/28 or lower for gradients of 10+%. For less steep climbs and/or lower cadences they'd need to use higher gears.


----------



## Ajax Bay (19 Apr 2016)

Nibor said:


> please compare this picture with my avater (sic)


'Nibor' - your avatar image is a much 'harder' 'I mean business' look than the happy chappy in the photo @Accy cyclist posted.


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Apr 2016)

adamangler said:


> isnt wattage the same as turning force or torque?


Dimensions are different. Torque is Nm and power (as you have called it 'wattage') is Nm/s.
I think, moderating my earlier argument and having had a long relatively hilly ride today to, inter alia, think about it, the reason why the young lads 'stalled' may have been because they couldn't generate their 'powerrr' at very low revs. Just as cars have different torque curves: typically diesels can still pull (eg up hill) at revs which a petrol-fuelled car can't manage. The power @ColinJ was generating at his (much) higher cadence, was less than the young lads' but he could deliver it: they couldn't.


ColinJ said:


> Just before my turn, I was overtaken by a fast-moving group of younger male riders. One of them spotted the gearing on my bike and started laughing. He called out _"Ha ha - got yer triple ready have yer, granddad!" _
> They climbed away from me up round a RH bend where the road really starts to kick up. I engaged my 28/28 bottom gear and was twiddling my way up at a comfortable pace when I turned the bend and saw a slow-moving group of younger male _WALKERS_ ahead of me, dripping sweat, and pushing their bikes.


Or perhaps more likely, in a young testosterone-filled group, they competitively hammered the first bit of the climb, went way over threshold, and found there was no way but 'off'.


----------



## ColinJ (20 Apr 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> Dimensions are different. Torque is Nm and power (as you have called it 'wattage') is Nm/s.
> I think, moderating my earlier argument and having had a long relatively hilly ride today to, inter alia, think about it, the reason why the young lads 'stalled' may have been because they couldn't generate their 'powerrr' at very low revs. Just as cars have different torque curves: typically diesels can still pull (eg up hill), whereas @ at revs which a petrol-fuelled car can't manage. The power @ColinJ was generating at his (much) higher cadence, was less than the young lads' but he could deliver it: they couldn't.
> 
> Or perhaps more likely, in a young testosterone-filled group, they competitively hammered the first bit of the climb, went way over threshold, and found there was no way but 'off'.


Yes!

I am sure that they were fitter than me. I was overweight and suffering from a sore back that day, but I knew what I had to do to get up the climb at a reasonable pace. They completely misjudged it.

They were only having fun teasing me, and I thought it was funny giving it back to them a few minutes later.


----------



## Mikesshed (10 Aug 2016)

Very new starter, I have a triple, 50/39/30 and 12 - 25 at rear, only just made myself use the inner ring, too old to kill myself, would certainly consider bigger cogs on rear if needed, not explored enough yet


----------



## Apollonius (10 Aug 2016)

Don't rush to change anything until you have built up your fitness a bit. You will be amazed how quickly hills shrink once you have a few hundred miles of fitness in your legs.


----------



## fatjel (10 Aug 2016)

So .. my jamis has , as it's lowest gear , 26 on the front and 34 on the back...


----------



## GuyBoden (10 Aug 2016)

Mikesshed said:


> Very new starter, I have a triple, 50/39/30 and 12 - 25 at rear, only just made myself use the inner ring, too old to kill myself, would certainly consider bigger cogs on rear if needed, not explored enough yet





Apollonius said:


> Don't rush to change anything until you have built up your fitness a bit. You will be amazed how quickly hills shrink once you have a few hundred miles of fitness in your legs.


Excellent advice, you'll get up most hills with a 30T front chainring when you're fitter.....


----------

