# Lowest gear too hard!



## adamangler (26 Dec 2012)

So coming from a mountain bike to a cx bike which im riding on the road....

Today for the first time i did a fair bit of climbing and i just couldnt spin the lowest gear ratio on my bike, really struggling to get up the hills and it hurt my knees mashing the hard gear, i had to get out of the saddle a lot, just dont have enough fitness to climb.


So my question is, what to do? how would you train to be able to climb better, should i continue pushing a hard gear on the turbo trainer or work on spinning?

I dont really know what im asking, i just want to be able to climb without my legs stalling!


----------



## compo (26 Dec 2012)

Two possibilities. You say you went climbing for the first time and struggled. With practice and a few more rides under your belt it will become easier. It may just be that you are undertrained for what you attempted today. Alternatively you may want to look at the gear ratios on your bike and sort out a lower gear.


----------



## Sittingduck (26 Dec 2012)

I would imagine it being a CX bike would yield quite a low, lowest gear... By your own admission, you've only tackled a fair few hills Today, on this bike. Rome wasn't built in a day 
Forget about turbo workouts and just get out and keep doing the hills on the new bike. You will improve, with practice and an improvement in fitness.


----------



## DaveyM (26 Dec 2012)

I kind of felt the same (like I didn't have a low enough gear) but with practice you get better at working harder, so you can start to climb hills that were too hard previously.
good luck


----------



## Oldspice (26 Dec 2012)

Was your gears set up correctly. I found out, when i purchased a bicycle and took it in for it's free service that the gears were set up wrong (explains the swearing). I only buy from trusted shops now and only purchase triples.

What bike have you got. Maybe if you post a pic of your bike in the low gear a smart person may be able to help


----------



## smokeysmoo (26 Dec 2012)

+1 for replies 2, 3 & 4, or if all else fails see rule #5


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Dec 2012)

You aren't fit enough, get fitter, riding your bike more would go a long way toward achieving this.

Also what are the chainrings and cassette fitted to your bike?


----------



## simmi (26 Dec 2012)

What ratio is your lowest gear?

I was finding hills very hard to start so changed my cassette to give me a lowest gear with 28T instead of 23T which made hills a lot easier.

The only trouble with this was that it gave me larger gear spacings in the 15-20mph range where I do 80% of my riding, which was not good for my cadence.


Ended up changing to a compact crank 34 and 50 teeth chainrings and reverting back to my original cassette (12-23 teeth)

This gave me the best of both worlds, help with the hills and single tooth gear changes in the money zone.

The other option which others will always tell you when you start threads like this is STFU and man up a bit


----------



## adamangler (26 Dec 2012)

I'll stfu then lol. I'm used to using granny ring on mtb and spinning . My cx bike is 46/34.
So lowest ratio is like using middle ring on mtb. I guess just need to climb more. Cheers


----------



## Rob3rt (26 Dec 2012)

What is the cassette? 34:25 should get you up just about anything! If you absolutely need to you could try a cassette with a 27t.


----------



## ianrauk (26 Dec 2012)

Get bike
Ride Bike up hill
Ride Bike up hill again
and again
and again
and again
etc
.
.
.
.
.
.
And you get better at the hills


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Get bike
> Ride Bike up hill
> Ride Bike up hill again
> and again
> ...


Or improve threshold on the flat?


----------



## simmi (26 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Or improve threshold on the flat?


 
Hi TMHNET,

I think I know what you mean, but this is a beginners thread so could you please elaborate a bit.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Dec 2012)

simmi said:


> Hi TMHNET,
> 
> I think I know what you mean, but this is a beginners thread so could you please elaborate a bit.


Hills don't become hard because they point up. Hills become hard when you physically can't turn the pedals fast enough relative to your selected gear. The exact same thing happens on the flat so there is no reason at all to repeatedly climb hills. Why would you? (unless there was a cafe at the top!)


----------



## cyberknight (26 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Hills don't become hard because they point up. Hills become hard when you physically can't turn the pedals fast enough relative to your selected gear. The exact same thing happens on the flat so there is no reason at all to repeatedly climb hills. Why would you? (unless there was a cafe at the top!)


For fun 
I must admit that i did not used to enjoy hills and i am certainly not the fastest up them but i regard the challange as the carrot.


----------



## jowwy (26 Dec 2012)

At nearly 16stone a 34/25 hardly gets me up anything


----------



## potsy (26 Dec 2012)

I think some people don't realise this is the beginners forum and automatically assume everybody else is as fit as they are, not all of us can make it up the hills without low enough gearing.
34-25 is not particularly low imo, is this what the op has?


----------



## cyberknight (26 Dec 2012)

I run an 11-28 on my compact, plenty of get out gears if i need them needed them .That said i have not been on a long ride for ages so come new year i will be gasping as much as anyone.
When i got my boardman it came with a long cage rear mech that can run up to a 32 on the back.
34x32 will get you up a cliff face.


----------



## jowwy (26 Dec 2012)

What do you weigh cyberknight


----------



## Nearly there (26 Dec 2012)

Sounds like you just need to put the miles in and the climbing will improve and getting the gears right makes a difference too.


----------



## jowwy (26 Dec 2012)

Not to thread jack but just cause some people can climb using 34/25 doesnt mean all of us can


----------



## cyberknight (26 Dec 2012)

lately ?
On club runs i have not been using the "granny " ring unless i had to as i could keep reasonable cadence in the big ring if i did not cross chain below a 50 x 21 mainly as the compact has too bigger drop to a 34 and i end up spinning away and getting passed so maybe a 36 is needed at the front.
Err to answer i was 147-150 llbs pre x mas but i have lost a load of weight recently i am only 5 foot 7 "though.
With the apex wifli groupset and the 34x 32 i always felt undergeared and nevere really used half the cassette .
Currently running a 12-25 with a compact chainset on a 11+ kg bike that most the week i also have 2 panniers strapped to the back and this is what i use for training as there are a couple of hills both way that i use for training .I also found as T.M.H.N.E.T said that doing a 25 mile rolling circuit at tt/ as fast as i can pace also helped with my overall cycling.


----------



## cyberknight (26 Dec 2012)

I used to be terrible at hills, always used to be dropped untill one of my club leaders said i need to do sprints for signs and work on powering up hills .


----------



## jowwy (26 Dec 2012)

So your 10 stone. I could climb hills if i was that weight. But alas i am not.


----------



## Banjo (26 Dec 2012)

Also depends where the guy rides, some peoples ideas of big hills are different to others.

If i was the op I would fit a bigger rear cassette (ask in your lbs if a 27 or 28 tooth cassette will fit,) keep the old one by the time the new bigger one is worn out you may be fit enough to revert to the original one.

People are different some like grinding hard gears others (like me) prefer to look after their knees and spin the pedals faster and easier.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Dec 2012)

jowwy said:


> So your 10 stone. I could climb hills if i was that weight. But alas i am not.


 
weight is not really the issue - aerobic fitness is.


----------



## Helidoc (26 Dec 2012)

My hybrid had a 28/34 bottom gear, so 34/25 on my road bike was a bit of a shock. Now that I have ridden a lot more, I don't find myself wishing for a much lower gear, but West Lancs is famously flat. I think it gets easier with practice miles under your belt.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (26 Dec 2012)

As already posted get fitter and change those rings and cassette until you are happy.

Also and at the risk of repetition this is a beginners forum and climbing hills is not easy - not everyone has legs like tree trunks and thank christ for that; last week I followed a cyclist going up a long long steep hill local to me in my car. I had a little over 15mph on the speedo.

Although he was seriously quick he was utterly emaciated imo with ridiculous out of proportion legs - whilst I was impressed with his speed I would not want his body shape.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Dec 2012)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As already posted get fitter and change those rings and cassette until you are happy.
> 
> Also and at the risk of repetition this is a beginners forum and climbing hills is not easy - not everyone has legs like tree trunks and thank christ for that; last week I followed a cyclist going up a long long steep hill local to me in my car. I had a little over 15mph on the speedo.
> 
> Although he was seriously quick he was utterly emaciated imo with ridiculous out of proportion legs - whilst I was impressed with his speed I would not want his body shape.


 
Body shape is fairly unique to individuals, but anyway it wasn't his leg muscles that were allowing him to ride up the hill at 15mph - it was his CV and aerobic system...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Body shape is fairly unique to individuals, but anyway it wasn't his leg muscles that were allowing him to ride up the hill at 15mph - it was his CV and aerobic system...


This is the Beginners forum don't you know? How dare you question leg muscles


----------



## Stonepark (26 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> So coming from a mountain bike to a cx bike which im riding on the road....
> 
> Today for the first time i did a fair bit of climbing and i just couldnt spin the lowest gear ratio on my bike, really struggling to get up the hills and it hurt my knees mashing the hard gear, i had to get out of the saddle a lot, just dont have enough fitness to climb.


 
Try going back to the mtb on the road and train yourself out of the bottom front ring, with y hybrid ( 48, 36, 26 and 11-32 in 9 cogs), to start with i had to use the middle front rings for the local hills and dips (nothing too severe) and it took quite a bit of effort to every week only use a smaller rear cog each week, until i was comfortable to change up to the big ring at he front (and to a large rear cog) and then start the process again.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> This is the Beginners forum don't you know? How dare you question leg muscles


 
sorry - I should have mentioned squats...


----------



## Boon 51 (26 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Get bike
> Ride Bike up hill
> Ride Bike up hill again
> and again
> ...


 
You missed a bit...

Then do the same tomorrow..


----------



## Sittingduck (26 Dec 2012)

The OP has a CX bike. Would be surprised if the largest sprocket has only 25 teeth...? Then again, I know next to nowt about CX bikes but thought they were meant to have lower gearing than the avg compact dbl.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Dec 2012)

CX is not a mountain sport, most CX bikes leave the shop with a 34/50 and 12-25 or thereabouts. My own has 34/42 and 11-26.


----------



## Sittingduck (26 Dec 2012)

Blimey, didn't know that. Always thought they had lower gears. CX is so not for me


----------



## SpokeyDokey (26 Dec 2012)

My CX (Giant TCX1) came with 46/36 & 12/28 which I thought was more normal (at least at the front).


----------



## SpokeyDokey (26 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Body shape is fairly unique to individuals, but anyway it wasn't his leg muscles that were allowing him to ride up the hill at 15mph - it was his CV and aerobic system...


 
Well - his leg muscles must play some part I would have thought; I can't imagine a wonderful CV and Lungs doing much with atrophied muscles.

Whatever, his legs looked awful - my wife's words were "freaky" & "disgusting".


----------



## lavoisier (26 Dec 2012)

I use my lowest gear and get as far up a hill as I can. Then I stop, get my breath back and set off again. I stop and start as many times as needs be. 
Next time I try to go a little further on each stage. After a number of times doing this, dependant upon the hill, it does get easier. I managed a hill with a 17% gradient in part of it that I never dreamed of doing when I started. Alas having been off the bike for 8 or 9 weeks I am now back to square one. Just keep the faith.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (26 Dec 2012)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Well - his leg muscles must play some part I would have thought; I can't imagine a wonderful CV and Lungs doing much with atrophied muscles.
> 
> Whatever, his legs looked awful - my wife's words were "freaky" & "disgusting".


Your reference to tree trunk legs implied that not having them was a problem of concern for a relative newbie to hills, struggling on hills.

This of course isn't the case.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (26 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Your reference to tree trunk legs implied that not having them was a problem of concern for a relative newbie to hills, struggling on hills.
> 
> This of course isn't the case.


 
Not what I implied at all - was just being conversationally jokey.


----------



## MrJamie (26 Dec 2012)

Aren't MTB and Road/CX ratios different too, in that they're connected to different sized wheels, making the same gear ratio on his presumably 700c CX bike harder than on a 26" MTB?

Personally id prefer to have a nice low gear for when you need it, my hybrids got lowest at 28 front 32 rear, which at over 18 stone I still only need very occasionally, but I like that ive got it. I think id really struggle with typical CX gearing until i fix my cake addiction


----------



## lukesdad (26 Dec 2012)

Its a supply and demand equation, the muscles make the demand the CV system is the supply if they are mismatched performance will suffer, oversimplified I know, hence bodybuilders get out of breath doing the shopping


----------



## billy1561 (26 Dec 2012)

I don't understand hills and gears whatsoever. I'm roughly 110 kg and can keep up with my mates relatively easily on the flat over any distance. Once a hill is attempted, I'm left for dead. To me that is a weight thing as my mates are at least 20 kg lighter.
My bike is probably the lightest in the group too.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Dec 2012)

billy1561 said:


> I don't understand hills and gears whatsoever. I'm roughly 110 kg and can keep up with my mates relatively easily on the flat over any distance. Once a hill is attempted, I'm left for dead. To me that is a weight thing as my mates are at least 20 kg lighter.
> My bike is probably the lightest in the group too.


 
of course weight plays a part in performance - especially uphill, but at 110kg you are either 7ft tall, or you are carrying significantly too much of it. If you are overweight, then reducing your weight will obviously improve your power/weight ratio.


----------



## totallyfixed (26 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> So coming from a mountain bike to a cx bike which im riding on the road....
> 
> Today for the first time i did a fair bit of climbing and i just couldnt spin the lowest gear ratio on my bike, really struggling to get up the hills and it hurt my knees mashing the hard gear, i had to get out of the saddle a lot, *just dont have enough fitness* to climb.
> 
> ...


Most of the answer is right there, however once you are fit [and there are degrees of fitness] there are still good climbers and not so good climbers. It is a big mixture of genetics which determines morphology, physiology and not a small amount of psychology, added to all that [and I'm not getting into a discussion about this] there is technique.
This is a beginners thread and I respect that few want an over complicated answer, so I would just say keep working at it and try to look at hills in a different way, learn to like them and when you get on one try for a comfortable rhythm that you can match to your breathing, enjoy. Oh and being out of the saddle is not an offence.


----------



## simmi (26 Dec 2012)

Arguably the greatest climber is history is Richard Virenque.
according to wiki he is 1.79m tall and weighs 65kg
enough said!
​






​​​​


----------



## billy1561 (26 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> of course weight plays a part in performance - especially uphill, but at 110kg you are either 7ft tall, or you are carrying significantly too much of it. If you are overweight, then reducing your weight will obviously improve your power/weight ratio.



Yep, absolutely too heavy at just over 6 foot. I know this and have made efforts to lose the excess. Was 122 kg a year ago so heading in the right direction albeit slowly. Still don't fully understand gearing tho. I have a compact with an 11 28 cassette so in theory i think i should be able to get up some hills with that but as usual the weight drags me back. Gravity eh.


----------



## MrJamie (26 Dec 2012)

billy1561 said:


> I don't understand hills and gears whatsoever. I'm roughly 110 kg and can keep up with my mates relatively easily on the flat over any distance. Once a hill is attempted, I'm left for dead. To me that is a weight thing as my mates are at least 20 kg lighter.
> My bike is probably the lightest in the group too.


 That's just what I'm like, on the flat I'm plenty happy with my pace, but anything resembling a substantial hill and my pace is forced right down. One guy i ride with sometimes is maybe 60kg and the difference is like night and day when we hit hills. I think we'll also tend to drop down gears a lot more, as do loaded touring cyclists when faced with a gradient.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 Dec 2012)

billy1561 said:


> I have a compact with an 11 28 cassette so in theory i think i should be able to get up some hills with that but as usual the weight drags me back. Gravity eh.


 
The weight is certainly an issue when it's that high, but the other way of looking at it is that you lack the ability to sustain your pace up hills - which is a fitness issue.


----------



## cyberknight (26 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> weight is not really the issue - aerobic fitness is.


Now i cant say i agree with black on all his posts but i got to agree with him on this .
Sure a lower weight helps a bit but there are plenty of guys , much bigger guys in my club who climb and roll faster on the flat because they have the time to train .The only training i get is a 10 mile commute each way and about 2 sunday runs a month so i have to maximize what i have .
All i have tried to do is pass on the advice given to me by various sources and the great cannibals quote always resides in my thoughts
"Don`t by upgrades Ride up grades "
Before i trained on my weak areas my lungs were the parts that held me back and now its the legs that the things that scream for rest first.
I am more of a puncheur , ok on shortish climbs but on long drags i do get caught as more powerful riders reel me in and i suffer on the descents as they go downhill faster .As for pushing a big gear i just cant be assed to change down unless commuting as i have to take every opportunity to work on my fitness as i spin a lot on the flat .
All i can do is try to offer advice and that is work on your weaknesses but not at the expense of your strengths .


----------



## billy1561 (27 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> The weight is certainly an issue when it's that high, but the other way of looking at it is that you lack the ability to sustain your pace up hills - which is a fitness issue.


Yeah i agree with all that. Also my technique could be better i suppose. I used to try and power up hills which was ok on short ones but anything decent caught me out. I've started to go up slowly and steadily recently and that has improved my climbing a little.


----------



## lulubel (27 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Today for the first time i did a fair bit of climbing and i just couldnt spin the lowest gear ratio on my bike, really struggling to get up the hills and *it hurt my knees mashing the hard gear*, i had to get out of the saddle a lot, just dont have enough fitness to climb.


 
The part I've highlighted is the most significant for me. Part of the reason it's hurting your knees is probably because your muscles aren't strong enough at the moment to support the joint, and strengthening the muscles (through climbing hills) will help. However, knee pain isn't good, and if you keep on hurting your knees you're in danger of doing long term damage to them.

Unless you're sure it's only a bit of short term discomfort, I'd look at changing your cassette. Changing to a long cage rear mech and a megarange cassette isn't hugely expensive, but will give you a lot more low gears. You can always change back to the original road cassette when you've done more road riding, and your fitness and strength have improved.


----------



## adamangler (27 Dec 2012)

It's definitely the lungs rather than my legs. I have quite stong legs. I can squatt over 100kg in the gym. My legs feel fine. But my heart rate was right upvat 170 plus at times.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> It's definitely the lungs rather than my legs. I have quite stong legs. I can squatt over 100kg in the gym. My legs feel fine. But my heart rate was right upvat 170 plus at times.


Great. Useless for cycling though


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Hills don't become hard because they point up. Hills become hard when you physically can't turn the pedals fast enough relative to your selected gear. The exact same thing happens on the flat so there is no reason at all to repeatedly climb hills. Why would you? (unless there was a cafe at the top!)


 
In response to the above, and the previous threshold comment. I completely accept your point, but it's exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort. It's a lot easier, and generally more fun, to ride hard at 12mph uphill than it is to ride along at 30mph+ on the flat.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> In response to the above, and the previous threshold comment. I completely accept your point, but it's exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort. It's a lot easier, and generally more fun, to ride hard at 12mph uphill than it is to ride along at 30mph+ on the flat.


 


> but it's exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort


What?



> It's a lot easier, and generally more fun, to ride hard at 12mph uphill than it is to ride along at 30mph+ on the flat.


What about those who live in pancake flat areas? They shouldn't ride hard on the flat because it's dangerous?

Stress = adaptation. If you go out and say good morning to every magpie you pass then you probably aren't riding(stressing yourself) hard enough.

If it's fun you aren't training.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> What?
> 
> 
> What about those who live in pancake flat areas? They shouldn't ride hard on the flat because it's dangerous?
> ...


 
I never said people shouldn't. I ride a 7.5m TT at full chat that's on fast, open, A roads.Effectively 4 long sections, 2 flat, two rolling, with the final 1.5 miles uphill. It's brutal.

I wouldn't recommend a beginner to go out and do that. It's not necessary. Riding a bike on the flat to see a high heart rate results in a very high speed, even if you're pushing a big gear. That's not always sensible.

It's far better for someone to go up some hills. (The 'what if' scenario is moot as we know the OP has hills) Speeds are lower, plus you can't cop out. On the flat you can take it easy and ride at 80% but kid yourself that you're pushing. No option on a hill but to put a full effort in.

Don't misapropriate the word 'Fun' either. We're not athletes. 'Training' should be fun. If I knock 10 seconds off my TT time, it was fun. If I get to the top of a brutal climb having pushed all the way and my prize for doing so is a view over a valley, there's my fun. Let's not kid ourselves that we're all striving to meet our absolute potential.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I never said people shouldn't. I ride a 7.5m TT at full chat that's on fast, open, A roads.Effectively 4 long sections, 2 flat, two rolling, with the final 1.5 miles uphill. It's brutal.
> 
> I wouldn't recommend a beginner to go out and do that. It's not necessary. Riding a bike on the flat to see a high heart rate results in a very high speed, even if you're pushing a big gear. That's not always sensible.


That's right! You said it was "exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort"

Why would anyone be riding a bike hard on the flat to see a high HR? Last time I checked higher output for lower HR was the key to CV fitness.



> It's far better for someone to go up some hills. (The 'what if' scenario is moot as we know the OP has hills)


Why is it "far better"?



> Speeds are lower, plus you can't cop out. On the flat you can take it easy and ride at 80% but kid yourself that you're pushing. No option on a hill but to put a full effort in.


So let me get this straight. You race Time Trials but state that "but it's exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort" So it's better to ride up hills as they are slower?

If it is soo dangerous, why do you do it then recommend something else to others? 



> Don't misapropriate the word 'Fun' either. We're not athletes. 'Training' should be fun. If I knock 10 seconds off my TT time, it was fun. If I get to the top of a brutal climb having pushed all the way and my prize for doing so is a view over a valley, there's my fun. Let's not kid ourselves that we're all striving to meet our absolute potential.


Leisure should be fun. Training should not be.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> That's right! You said it was "exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort"
> 
> Why would anyone be riding a bike hard on the flat to see a high HR? Last time I checked higher output for lower HR was the key to CV fitness.
> 
> ...


 
So you suggest that to increase someones CV fitness, riding easy on the flat would help? I could ride along at 20mph quite comfortably for many many flat miles and add the square root of zero to my climbing ability.

It is far better because a beginner who struggles with hills, is not going to flog themselves to death on the flat, to give them the fitness to go up.

I don't race time trials. I ride one regularly as part of my training plan / a yardstick for where I'm at vs last month/year.

It's nothing to do with flat, up or down. Your original post suggested any form of threshold training to improve fitness. I agreed with this, as it's 100% accurate, but said that the OP would be better served by doing that at lower speeds, on the very thing he's trying to improve on (hills), than higher speeds somewhere completely different. It's not tough to grasp that concept.

If you choose to resolutely ring fence where you find fun in your life, cool. This is a beginners thread. I'm not going to tell the guy he can't dare to have fun until he's raised his VO2 Max, and trained to within an inch of his life. There are areas for that, but this isn't one of them.


----------



## Hip Priest (27 Dec 2012)

I have similar problems on hills. The steepest I've managed to get up was 15% and I was exhausted at the top. The options are to change the cassette to add a lower gear, or lose weight and do lots of hill training.

I've chosen the latter.


----------



## malcermie (27 Dec 2012)

When I came back to cycling four months ago having not ridden since dinosaurs roamed the earth I found it imposable to get up the hill that runs past Dover castle, can quite see why it was built where it was! I set myself a challenge of getting one lamp post more each time I road it. Within a month I could complete the entire hill while my bike's payload dropped by half a stone and the sixty eight year old power source, i.e. my legs no longer cramped. Hope to change my hybred for a road bike soon and so what new challenges await me.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> So you suggest that to increase someones CV fitness, riding easy on the flat would help? I could ride along at 20mph quite comfortably for many many flat miles and add the square root of zero to my climbing ability.


At no point did I suggest that, in fact I never even came close.



> It is far better because a beginner who struggles with hills, is not going to flog themselves to death on the flat, to give them the fitness to go up.


Your heart,lungs and type1 muscle fibre don't give a damn if you ride on the ceiling,on the flat or up 35% gradients. They do care that you are challenging them enough to adapt. The same adaptations can be made on the flat,on the ceiling,on the top of a moving train. If you can't sustain momentum up a hill,that is a CV/muscular issue - not lack of riding up hills. The OP stated, he lacks fitness. In lacking fitness he lacks sustainable output gradient or otherwise.



> I don't race time trials. I ride one regularly as part of my training plan / a yardstick for where I'm at vs last month/year.


You don't race TT, but you ride one regularly? I'm not really sure how that is different.



> It's nothing to do with flat, up or down. Your original post suggested any form of threshold training to improve fitness. I agreed with this, as it's 100% accurate, but said that the OP would be better served by doing that at lower speeds, on the very thing he's trying to improve on (hills), than higher speeds somewhere completely different. It's not tough to grasp that concept.


Really? So riding a hill slowly and placing very little stress on your CV system is better than riding hard on the flat and stressing your CV system? Stress which leads to adaptations in an area the OP admitted to lacking ie:fitness???? Do you not know how the body works?

I don't have a sub 40 resting HR because I climb hills slowly. 



> If you choose to resolutely ring fence where you find fun in your life, cool. This is a beginners thread. I'm not going to tell the guy he can't dare to have fun until he's raised his VO2 Max, and trained to within an inch of his life. There are areas for that, but this isn't one of them.


Beginners or not. Information should be clear and correct.


----------



## adamangler (27 Dec 2012)

I'm interested to know why riding slow up hill at max effort is different to riding on flat at max effort in terms of cv fitness? Shouldn't both train my cv system equally? I.e at my threshold?


----------



## cyberknight (27 Dec 2012)

simmi said:


> Arguably the greatest climber is history is Richard Virenque.
> according to wiki he is 1.79m tall and weighs 65kg
> enough said!
> ​​​​​​​​​​​​


he climbed well but was also on the lance program of artificial aids


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Really? So riding a hill slowly and placing very little stress on your CV system is better than riding hard on the flat and stressing your CV system? Stress which leads to adaptations in an area the OP admitted to lacking ie:fitness???? Do you not know how the body works?


 
Ach, I can't be bothered with the rest. You seem to be struggling with the point.

Riding up a hill slowly can yield the same CV effort as riding fast on the flat. You obviously have a reasonable understanding of how the body works so you can accept that.

I'm quite obviously not advocating Granny Ring and 3mph up hill now am I? I'm comparing like with like.

- I can be broken, dying on my handlebars at 10mph uphill. The Speed is slow, the effort is high.
- I can be happy and whistling, at 20mph on the flat. The speed is high, the effort is low.

To me, the best prescription for a person who's symptoms are 'Can't climb hills' is... climb more hills. I'm not going to send them out thrashing themselves on the flat. I know they could get the same CV gains (and indeed acompanying weight loss and/or muscle gains) from doing so, it's just a lot more work (in terms of how far you will travel in that time, interactions with traffic etc).

1 hill, 3.2 Miles long, 6.7%, 25 Minutes to climb at 80% effort.
1 ride. 25 Minutes. 80% effort. 10.5 Miles covered (@ an arbitrary 25mph average).

It's a huge ask for a beginner to ask them to flog themselves for 10 Miles, it just is. Generally, they'll back off at the first sight of tiredness. This does not happen on hills. You can't roll a little, there is no coasting, there is getting to the top, or stopping.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Ach, I can't be bothered with the rest. You seem to be struggling with the point.


Quite the opposite.



> Riding up a hill slowly can yield the same CV effort as riding fast on the flat. You obviously have a reasonable understanding of how the body works so you can accept that.


No it can't in the same way riding slowly on the flat can't. 



> I'm quite obviously not advocating Granny Ring and 3mph up hill now am I? I'm comparing like with like.
> 
> - I can be broken, dying on my handlebars at 10mph uphill. The Speed is slow, the effort is high.
> - I can be happy and whistling, at 20mph on the flat. The speed is high, the effort is low.


Indicative of lack of fitness really. Low effort = low stress - little to no adaptation - little to no improvement.



> To me, the best prescription for a person who's symptoms are 'Can't climb hills' is... climb more hills. I'm not going to send them out thrashing themselves on the flat. I know they could get the same CV gains (and indeed acompanying weight loss and/or muscle gains) from doing so, it's just a lot more work.


You're right. The first thing you do with people who don't like heights, is send them up a ladder. 



> It's a huge ask for a beginner to ask them to flog themselves for 10 Miles, it just is. Generally, they'll back off at the first sight of tiredness. This does not happen on hills. You can't roll a little, there is no coasting, there is getting to the top, or stopping.


Yet here you are, sending a beginner who lacks fitness up a hill!


----------



## adamangler (27 Dec 2012)

Ok. So my understanding is I can train on either. But I like what scruffmonster is saying, its easier to slack off on the flat, or at least its easier to set the goal of reaching the summit.


----------



## cyberknight (27 Dec 2012)

I think a beginner should be just getting out there and riding , do not worry about it too much and just enjoy.
The rest will come with time and practise.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Ok. So my understanding is I can train on either. But I like what scruffmonster is saying, its easier to slack off on the flat, or at least its easier to set the goal of reaching the summit.


If you want to ride hills slowly go ride hills slowly. If you want to ride hills fast, and ride flat fast - ride fast/hard and challenge your CV system. Stress is rewarded with adaptation, you don't get anywhere tickling the pedals and stopping to smell flowers.


----------



## simmi (27 Dec 2012)

I love TMHNET.
When ever I read a thread he has posted on I admire his 100% conviction that everything he says and does is right.
As you have found out before Scruffmonster you might as well tell the sun not to shine as argue a point with him.
I am not criticizing TMHNET in anyway, I think his single minded belief and 100% commitment make him a great athlete and without it he would be diminished.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

simmi said:


> I love TMHNET.
> When ever I read a thread he has posted on I admire his 100% conviction that everything he say and does is right.
> As you have found out before Scruffmonster you might as well tell the sun not to shine as argue a point with him.
> I am not criticizing TMHNET in anyway, I think his single minded belief and 100% commitment make him a great athlete and without it he would be diminished.


It may well be because I generally have some form of a clue about things when I post.

PS: Did you ever find the 12lb you were looking for? Perhaps Scruffmonster's magic BMI/BF scales could help.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> If you want to ride hills slowly go ride hills slowly. If you want to ride hills fast, and ride flat fast - ride fast/hard and challenge your CV system. Stress is rewarded with adaptation, you don't get anywhere tickling the pedals and stopping to smell flowers.


 


T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Yet here you are, sending a beginner who lacks fitness up a hill!


 
Define 'Hills, fast'. I think it's this that you're struggling with.


----------



## simmi (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It may well be because I generally have some form of a clue about things when I post.
> 
> PS: Did you ever find the 12lb you were looking for? Perhaps Scruffmonster's magic BMI/BF scales could help.


No still looking


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Define 'Hills, fast'. I think it's this that you're struggling with.


 


Scruffmonster said:


> Riding up a hill slowly can yield the same CV effort as riding fast on the flat. You obviously have a reasonable understanding of how the body works so you can accept that.


After you.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> After you.


 
No, I'm after your interpretation of 'Hill, slowly'. (Or of course, Hill, fast) I think you've missed the point.

I'll simplify it for you.

1. What speed would you expect to average on a truly flat 10 Mile TT course?
2. What speed would you expect to average on a 7% grade 10 Mile climb?

Follow up question.... Is number 2 slower than number 1?


----------



## lulubel (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Yet here you are, sending a beginner who lacks fitness up a hill!


 
Absolutely. Great idea. I went from fat to fit by riding up hills. (I lived in Cornwall, so flat wasn't an option.)

As long as your gears are low enough, the great thing about hills when you're a beginner is that you get to enjoy whizzing down the other side, which is a nice reward for your efforts. Slogging along on the flat to try and gain fitness is just boring, miserable and endless.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> No, I'm after your interpretation of 'Hill, slowly'. (Or of course, Hill, fast) I think you've missed the point.
> 
> I'll simplify it for you.
> 
> ...


If you're going to question the figures of my posts. Perhaps your own should be in order first, after-all it was your terminology I used.

You also suggested riding "slowly" to improve threshold


> but said that the OP would be better served by doing that at lower speeds, on the very thing he's trying to improve on (hills), than higher speeds somewhere completely different. It's not tough to grasp that concept.


 


> *thresh·old (thrshld, -hld*)
> n.
> 1. A piece of wood or stone placed beneath a door; a doorsill.
> 2. An entrance or a doorway.
> ...


How exactly do you exceed it by working under it? How exactly does not exceeding it (therefore not applying stress) improve upon it?

So in your book, just how fast is slow? That riding hills slowly corresponds to challenging threshold?


----------



## simmi (27 Dec 2012)

cyberknight said:


> he climbed well but was also on the lance program of artificial aids


Yeah its a shame, guess it makes it impossible to say how great he was to riders from different eras.

He was riding at a time which is now widely excepted that it was the norm and not the exception so I guess that still makes him a legendary climber.

How long back do you have to go before you can be sure riders were drug free?


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> If you're going to question the figures of my posts. Perhaps your own should be in order first, after-all it was your terminology I used.


 
No, what you did, whas misappropriate my overall point of;

- It's safer/easier to ride up hills at a slower speed than it is to ride flat roads at a faster speed, for various reasons.

To suggest that I advocated riding slowly to get fit.

I then redefined my point (which only you seemed to struggle with) to insert a broad example of how a lower speed on more difficult terrain, could replicate higher speed on flat terrain. This made it relatable to you. Or so I would have thought?

If you ask for clarification on something, that's ok. It actually marks you out as more intelligent than splitting up a post and addressing things line by line. Post 67 highlights this better than most. You've separated 2 related things and treated them as 2 different points, when they're not.

One of the worst feelings in life is that point in an argument where you realise that things are not quite as they appeared and you're too proud to kind of admit it so you just keep going.

If there's something you disagree with, fine, but sectionally picking holes in things isn't actually of any benefit to anyone.

So, my only question;

Is it possible to get more fitness gains by climbing a steep hill at a slow speed, than it is on the flat at a higher speed?

More than happy for you to create your own working example.

EDIT ::: The above posted before your lengthy follow up.

As I said, you're reaching for this concept of 'slowly'. Speed is an arbitrary number, which is why, when you failed to grasp the original concept, I inserted an example relating speed and terrain to effort.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You also suggested riding "slowly" to improve threshold
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I don't believe that I suggested riding slowly. Feel free to correct me.

I don't believe that I suggested riding under threshold. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## DRHysted (27 Dec 2012)

When I changed from the cheap Viking with a 32 tooth rear sproket to the Allez with 26 (I think), I found myself struggling on hills that had become easy. It took time to get used to the change in gearing, and repetitions of those hills to get the fitnes. 
Riding all out on the flat takes utter commitment, reducing yourself to a weazing wreck with a heart rate over 170 on a hill is child's play. I would like to add that the weazing wreck now only happens on Blissford hill, but then I've only done it 4 times (failed once, succeeded 3).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I don't believe that I suggested riding slowly. Feel free to correct me.


Certainly.


> *Riding up a hill slowly can yield the same CV effort as riding fast on the flat*


 


> but it's exceptionally hard, and at times dangerous, to ride hard enough on the flat to maintain a decent level of effort


 


> It's far better for someone to go up some hills. Speeds are lower, plus you can't cop out.


 
So Scruffmonster. If riding slowly up hills can yield the same effort as fast/flat riding, but fast flat riding is dangerous,it's better to go up some hills where speeds are lower? ie: slower that flat and slowly due to low threshold,an issue of fitness(important to note for beginners) not the gradient.



> I don't believe that I suggested riding under threshold. Feel free to correct me.


In a roundabout way you did just this. You challenged that riding hard (threshold) on the flat is harder and more dangerous than riding slowly up a hill, without definition of the term "slowly" it can only be presumed that the climb is nowhere near threshold.

If the climber gets near threshold then you have a decent indicator that the climber simply isn't fit enough to sustain the output to climb it. But then you also state that on a hill you can't stop, which with a newbie working near threshold is pretty likely to happen. Either due to lactate or to have a puke in a hedge.

It's not so safe now is it?


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
10mph = slowly
30mph = fast

Effort is not linked to speed.
It's speed linked to terrain.

This is why I clarified with my example. You suggested there was obfusication. There wasn't. I merely said that slower speeds up a hill (suggested implication = the same effort that you were suggesting on the flat) *(My original post you countered stated 'Riding hard uphill at 12mph')* was a safer/more sensible way of getting fitter, over flying round roads at high speeds.

You keep bringing up 'Riding slowly' and 'Below threshold' as if these are things that I've said. In actual fact, you're merely quoting your own (deliberately) incorrect interpration of what I've said.

Anyway, OP, if you're still with us... Ride wherever you like, but push yourself, often. If you fancy crushing yourself on some flat, wet, traffic heavy roads at high speed for huge distances, go for it. Alternatively, find some hills and push yourself on those.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle is effectively saying the same as I am, but trying to be as contrary as possible. I don't know why, but you can judge for yourself as to what message resonates best.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> 10mph = slowly
> 30mph = fast
> This is why I clarified with my example. You suggested there was obfusication. There wasn't. I merely said that slower speeds up a hill (suggested implication = the same effort that you were suggesting on the flat) *(My original post you countered stated 'Riding hard uphill at 12mph')* was a safer/more sensible way of getting fitter, over flying round roads at high speeds.


Except it isn't in reality. An unfit newbie will be much better off on terrain they are fit enough to handle, this is generally not a hill unless you live somewhere with zero flat bits. Your apparent fear of being near traffic quite possibly isn't shared by all.



> You keep bringing up 'Riding slowly' and 'Below threshold' as if these are things that I've said. In actual fact, you're merely quoting your own (deliberately) incorrect interpration of what I've said.


I do?


Scruffmonster said:


> Riding up a hill slowly can yield the same CV effort as riding fast on the flat.





Scruffmonster said:


> It's far better for someone to go up some hills. *Speeds are lower*, plus _you can't cop out_. On the flat you can _take it easy and ride at 80%_ but kid yourself that you're pushing. *No option on a hill but to put a full effort in*.


Oh so full effort, you must mean threshold?

So you recommend to a newbie struggling on hills to ride hills hard, above their capability? Glad we've got to the bottom of that. We'll entirely ignore hard efforts on the flat where you can easily stop because you don't like other people being on the road, ok?



> Anyway, OP, if you're still with us... Ride wherever you like, but push yourself, often. _I*f you fancy crushing yourself on some flat, wet, traffic heavy roads at high speed for huge distances, go for it.*_ Alternatively, find some hills and push yourself on those.


People have been riding on flat roads for years with great success. Once again your hatred of traffic appears to be getting in the way of anything else you suggest.



> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle is effectively saying the same as I am, but trying to be as contrary as possible. I don't know why, but you can judge for yourself as to what message resonates best.


No I'm saying something entirely different.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> No I'm saying something entirely different.


 
Do you even know what you're saying? Make a point why don't you?

You're splitting posts up again, don't do it. It's beyond dumb. A singular example above.

- My comment 'No option but to put _*a*_ full effort in' - ie You HAVE to get to the top to continue.
- Your take on it 'Oh, so full effort, you must mean Threshold'

NO. These are not the same things. You seem to have a fundamental failing with the english language. It's full of nuance, which is why separating sentences that were designed to rely on the ones both before, and after, makes you look stupid.

Regarding traffic; I commute 21 miles from Kent to West London. Traffic is not a worry of mine.

In case your attention span remains short.

Make. A. Point.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T & Scruffmonster - are you two bored or something? 

Scruff' - I wouldn't rise to it if I were you.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

SpokeyDokey said:


> T.M.H.N.E.T & Scruffmonster - are you two bored or something?
> 
> Scruff' - I wouldn't rise to it if I were you.


 
I'm the only one in the office and the thing I had to do relies on someone else doing a thing in Paris that they evidently didn't decide it was necessary to do today. So I'm planning my Tour trip.

So for all intents and purposes, yes, I'm partly bored.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Do you even know what you're saying? Make a point why don't you?
> 
> You're splitting posts up again, don't do it. It's beyond dumb. A singular example above.


It is what the quote function is designed to do. If you don't like it don't make statements that can be quoted.




> - My comment 'No option but to put _*a*_ full effort in' - ie You HAVE to get to the top to continue.
> - Your take on it 'Oh, so full effort, you must mean Threshold'


You question my knowledge of the English language while yourself not managing to write what you meant. You agreed with my previous post on threshold, but disagreed as to where the ride should be. You didn't bother to place the idea of threshold into your grand scheme of climbing hills. I don't believe at this point you have attempted to, therefore what you write and how you write it is open to interpretation. If I can't clearly see what you mean, then no newbie will ever figure it out.

So place the idea of threshold, which you agreed with. Into the idea of a newbie climbing a hill. Are they working at it? above it? or below it? One definitive answer please.



> NO. These are not the same things. You seem to have a fundamental failing with the english language. It's full of nuance, which is why separating sentences that were designed to reply on the ones both before, and after, makes you look stupid.


A product of the ability to quote,if it wasn't meant to be it wouldn't happen. I do believe that in the last thread we met you also questioned my understanding of the English language. I can tell you that since you are so concerned, English is my first language. I understand it pretty well after all these years speaking,reading and writing it.



> Regarding traffic; I commute 21 miles from Kent to West London. Traffic is not a worry of mine.


Then why is it safer and less dangerous to climb hills instead of riding flat roads? Do I need to quote you again or would that break some Internet rule of yours that I'm not aware of?



> In case your attention span remains short.


I've been attentive all day.



> Make. A. Point.


I did pages ago. Here it is, remember?


T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Hills don't become hard because they point up. Hills become hard when you physically can't turn the pedals fast enough relative to your selected gear. The exact same thing happens on the flat so there is no reason at all to repeatedly climb hills. Why would you? (unless there was a cafe at the top!)


 


SpokeyDokey said:


> T.M.H.N.E.T & Scruffmonster - are you two bored or something?
> 
> Scruff' - I wouldn't rise to it if I were you.


Yes Scruff, stay in the gutter. 

I am slightly bored yes.


----------



## Gingerbloke (27 Dec 2012)

Simple answer is to find a hill you are comfortable on and make sure your rides incorporate some hills, the more miles you do, the easier it will get. It's not really rocket science....!!!


----------



## albion (27 Dec 2012)

Bikes are well designed for the 10 stone, all protein, no fat type.

Thus there's a family tradition that when you find a steep hill you get off and walk.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It is what the quote function is designed to do. If you don't like it don't make statements that can be quoted.
> 
> You question my knowledge of the English language while yourself not managing to write what you meant. You agreed with my previous post on threshold, but disagreed as to where the ride should be. You didn't bother to place the idea of threshold into your grand scheme of climbing hills. I don't believe at this point you have attempted to, therefore what you write and how you write it is open to interpretation. If I can't clearly see what you mean, then no newbie will ever figure it out.
> 
> ...


 
Again you've chosen to miss the entire point. It's either choice, or a lack of understanding.

To split a point into two, and treat them as two distinctly different things, is not what the quotation function is for. If you believe that it is, you need to read a book or ask a friend. You don't do it to impart knowledge, you do it to be obtuse, facetious, and it just comes across as pretty contrived.

So. Even simpler for you. Three points.

1. Climbing hills will more naturally put you in a place that is improving fitness. You may ride at 7mph, and 2 months later ride at 10mph. However, there is no wimping out. You work the hill. At the point you get tired, you carry on working.

2. You have to thrash a bike in a tougher gear on the flat to approach anything like THRESHOLD pace. There is wimping out. If it hurts, people stop, coast, take a breather. There is a lot of concious thought and effort to maintain that intensity. Most will baulk at it.

3. Thrashing the bike at THRESHOLD pace on the flat road sees speeds north of 25mph and the distance covered at that speed is great. To do this involves fast, interactions with traffic moving at comparable speeds, throw in people, rain, and whatever other factors you care to list.

Theses are the foundations that I built my comment on. I don't think that anyone other than you needed such a systematic and thorough breakdown of it. I completely concurred with your original comment. That I quoted. In full. Endorsed it. I merely suggested, that as a beginner, the lower speeds (read slower, read slow) involved with hills, makes that a better choice for a beginner.

You can start pulling things apart to suggest what I did or didn't say, maybe conflate a few issues, divide some messages, and carry on believing your own messages (read 'Don't rise to it' becoming 'Stay in the gutter'), but it's beyond dull.

You often seem to raise a good point at times but you struggle so hard to build on that and flesh things out. It's kind of wrong to judge anyone based on an internet forum but I suspect that you're reasonably young, and haven't yet worked out that you don't have all the answers, and even more so, that that's ok.

Take it easy dude. I'm off home.


----------



## potsy (27 Dec 2012)

Another fun filled thread for beginners


----------



## raindog (27 Dec 2012)

I've seen this happen before on here. A newbie comes along and asks a simple, innocent question and the thread descends into a slag fest between "experts".


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Again you've chosen to miss the entire point. It's either choice, or a lack of understanding.


When you keep moving the goalposts it's incredibly hard to actually grasp what you are attempting to say. 



> 1. Climbing hills will more naturally put you in a place that is improving fitness. You may ride at 7mph, and 2 months later ride at 10mph. However, there is no wimping out. You work the hill. At the point you get tired, you carry on working.


What natural place?
You could also ride on the flat at 13mph and two months later ride at 16mph. At the point at which a newbie gets tired, may be the point at which it is mandatory to stop. What you've done is refer to a newbies inability to climb(due to lack of fitness)as "wimping out" so really now you are just making fun of those who aren't as fit or experienced as some of us. 



> 2. You have to thrash a bike in a tougher gear on the flat to approach anything like THRESHOLD pace. There is wimping out. If it hurts, people stop, coast, take a breather. There is a lot of concious thought and effort to maintain that intensity. Most will baulk at it.


And the same pain is achievable on a climb too. If anything quicker by an inexperienced,unfit newbie. You don't seem to consider or understand this at all. You are thinking in an ideal world,not a real world.

But it's all good, because newbies who physically can't yet climb hills are now "wimping out" 



> 3. Thrashing the bike at THRESHOLD pace on the flat road sees speeds north of 25mph and the distance covered at that speed is great. To do this involves fast, interactions with traffic moving at comparable speeds, throw in people, rain, and whatever other factors you care to list.


It's called being a road user and when I use the road, I will do my own risk assessments thanks. I have also driven many vehicles on the road at speeds double and triple that ^ I have ridden vehicles on tracks at 5x that speed. 



> Theses are the foundations that I built my comment on. I don't think that anyone other than you needed such a systematic and thorough breakdown of it. I completely concurred with your original comment. That I quoted. In full. Endorsed it. I merely suggested, that as a beginner, the lower speeds (read slower, read slow) involved with hills, makes that a better choice for a beginner.


Yes but your foundations were built from sugar. 



> You often seem to raise a good point at times but you struggle so hard to build on that and flesh things out. It's kind of wrong to judge anyone based on an internet forum but I suspect that you're reasonably young, and haven't yet worked out that you don't have all the answers, and even more so, that that's ok.


You would raise a good point if you actually said what you meant. Instead you like to insinuate how stupid people are or how dumb they look. A perfect distraction from the topic at hand.



> Take it easy dude. I'm off home.


Be careful, you might go near a flat bit of road.


----------



## coffeejo (27 Dec 2012)

Sorry, what was the question?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

coffeejo said:


> Sorry, what was the question?


So coming from a mountain bike to a cx bike which im riding on the road....



> Today for the first time i did a fair bit of climbing and i just couldnt spin the lowest gear ratio on my bike, really struggling to get up the hills and it hurt my knees mashing the hard gear, i had to get out of the saddle a lot, just dont have enough fitness to climb.
> 
> 
> So my question is, what to do? how would you train to be able to climb better, should i continue pushing a hard gear on the turbo trainer or work on spinning?
> ...


----------



## simmi (27 Dec 2012)

potsy said:


> Another fun filled thread for beginners


+1


raindog said:


> I've seen this happen before on here. A newbie comes along and asks a simple, innocent question and the thread descends into a slag fest between "experts".


+1


> So my question is, what to do? how would you train to be able to climb better, should i continue pushing a hard gear on the turbo trainer or work on spinning?
> 
> I dont really know what im asking, i just want to be able to climb without my legs stalling!
> adamangler,


 
See what you have done Adamangler, you thought you were asking a simple newbie question.

But no you were WRONG!

You were opening *Pandora's Box*


----------



## adamangler (27 Dec 2012)

Lol. It's ok I knew exactly what scruff meant by riding slowly uphill vs fast on the flat. He meant for the same effort, I.e at threshold...Obviously for the same effort you would be going up slower. I think it turned into an argument because t.m.h.n.e.t doesnt want to give in!. It's ok though, I'm the same can't lose an argument. Thanks for the advice .


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Lol. It's ok I knew exactly what scruff meant by riding slowly uphill vs fast on the flat. He meant for the same effort, I.e at threshold...Obviously for the same effort you would be going up slower. I think it turned into an argument because t.m.h.n.e.t doesnt want to give in!. It's ok though, I'm the same can't lose an argument. Thanks for the advice .


Right or wrong I have time to waste(plenty of it!). Only you can decide how you want to ride your bike. Matters not to me who's advice you take,the fact you ride a bike is a common interest to be respected.

But you'd need to define "slowly" "slower" and "fast" first - and that is entirely up to your fitness level.


----------



## coffeejo (27 Dec 2012)

Slowly = enough forward momentum to prevent you and the bike from toppling over sideways. Not that I've ever done that. Oh no...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

coffeejo said:


> Slowly = enough forward momentum to prevent you and the bike from toppling over sideways. Not that I've ever done that. Oh no...


Sounds like many a newbie in a hill. Not a great margin of error there really.


----------



## Houthakker (27 Dec 2012)

I'm in a similar boat to the OP, had a hybrid for many years with a granny ring and a Shimano Hypergear (Big sprocket, not sure how big but big) and with that you could sit back and winch up anything.
Just got a road bike with a 50/34 chainring and a 12/27 cassette and found it a bit of a shock when I went out to ride some hills. I live on the flat Fylde coast so have go a bit of way to get to some hills, and will be making sure I do so more ofteh, however in the short term I was thinking of trying to put a lower gear on until I get better at hills. What would be the best option, a bigger cassette or a smaller chainring?


----------



## adamangler (27 Dec 2012)

mines 12/26 i think. 

so if i went for 11/30 etc i would need longer chain and probably a new mech
probably just struggle on for now


----------



## Sittingduck (27 Dec 2012)

If I was you - I'd keep what you have and go and practice a bit more. Costs nowt but a pound of flesh... if you're still finding it unworkable in a couple of months, then you could get a cassette with a larger sprocket but as you have eluded to, it may require a change of rear mech and so on...


----------



## lukesdad (27 Dec 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> If I was you - I'd keep what you have and go and practice a bit more. Costs nowt but a pound of flesh... if you're still finding it unworkable in a couple of months, then you could get a cassette with a larger sprocket but as you have eluded to, it may require a change of rear mech and so on...


Sage advice. If you want to get good at something you know what you have to do....... PRACTICE.


----------



## Rob3rt (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> 1. Climbing hills will more naturally put you in a place that is improving fitness. You may ride at 7mph, and 2 months later ride at 10mph. However, there is no wimping out. You work the hill. At the point you get tired, you carry on working.
> 
> 2. *You have to thrash a bike in a tougher gear on the flat to approach anything like THRESHOLD pace.* There is wimping out. If it hurts, people stop, coast, take a breather. There is a lot of concious thought and effort to maintain that intensity. Most will baulk at it.
> 
> ...


 
2) One could roughly equate threshold (lactate threshold) to the point where your legs start to burn, this would not involve thrashing the bike in a tough gear, it would involve riding at a controlled yet uncomfortable pace, it is not a maximal effort. A very often used training session is the 2x20 min at threshold session, this is usually done on the flat or the turbo trainer.

3) Possibly, if you are a pretty rapid rider!


----------

