# useing gears



## reacher (21 Feb 2011)

can anyone shed any light on this for me , 
my buddy who is a pretty good cyclist tells me that when he is on the road he uses only the 39 chain ring and the 11 12 and 13 on the back , 
what is the reason for this and what does it mean , i thought the whole idea of the gears was to use them all ,


----------



## tyred (21 Feb 2011)

You don't need to, and indeed probably shouldn't use them all. Some are duplicates, some give a poor chainline.

I deliberately built my Peugeot with a single front chainwheel and wide range freewheel block as I find it convenient.


----------



## iAmiAdam (21 Feb 2011)

He'll be grinding his chain very nicely there, I wouldn't advise that.


----------



## gavintc (21 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> can anyone shed any light on this for me ,
> my buddy who is a pretty good cyclist tells me that when he is on the road he uses only the 39 chain ring and the 11 12 and 13 on the back ,
> what is the reason for this and what does it mean , i thought the whole idea of the gears was to use them all ,



He is certainly not using his gears correctly. Running a 39 - 11 combination puts the chain at an unacceptable and unnecessary angle. You do not need to use them all. Indeed, the extremes 39-11 and 53-25 are not recommended. There are a number of duplications of ratio in a set of gears and you should use gears depending on the need. In summary, if your friend is claiming to be a 'good cyclist', he needs to learn how to use his gears.


----------



## Scoosh (21 Feb 2011)

I would agree with you.

My understanding of gears is that they are there to enable you to maintain a steady cadence (pedal rpm). As the 'weight' comes 'on' the pedal, you change to an easier (lower) gear; when it comes 'off', you change to a harder (higher) gear, endeavouring to keep your cadence ticking along between, say, 80-100 rpm.


Your buddy may be supremely fit/ trying to get supremely fit/ not fully understanding gears/ whatever - but I'll keep doing it the way I have done, which works for me




.


I think you might (intuitively) know a bit more than your buddy ....


----------



## reacher (21 Feb 2011)

he trains on the velodrome as well , will that have infuenced his choice ? , he claims a near on 24 mph average on a undulateing road , although i'v not seen him do this i have seen him on a spin bike and he can definately push a big setting around , although he do's a very low rpm but on a high setting , the time although he doe'snt pedal fast is extremely good for the 20 k distance , he just seems to grind it round like a machine untill he has finished the 20 k , no one can touch him on the bikes in the gym , 
my brother said the same he had never heard of any one doing this , i must say i was a bit surprised when he told me , i can see how some would duplicate , but on the twice i'v been out i was up and down the whole range ,


----------



## mcshroom (21 Feb 2011)

His knees aren't going to thank him for grinding like that.

The way I see it gears are there to be used. I have a triple and 8sp on the back. I'll use the big ring with 4-8 on the back, the granny ring with 1-4 and the middle ring across the whole cassette. Don't know if that's right but it seems ok


----------



## gavintc (21 Feb 2011)

mcshroom said:


> His knees aren't going to thank him for grinding like that.
> 
> The way I see it gears are there to be used. I have a triple and 8sp on the back. I'll use the big ring with 4-8 on the back, the granny ring with 1-4 and the middle ring across the whole cassette. Don't know if that's right but it seems ok



I know it is a high gear, but 39-11 is 'only' 53-15. Not quite as bad as running in the big ring.


----------



## mcshroom (21 Feb 2011)

Good point, although riding the spin bike with a slow cadence on a hard gear won't be doing him any good.

Wouldn't know what a 53x11 felt like as I only have a 48t big-ring


----------



## Rouge Penguin (21 Feb 2011)

Maybe he's able to hold a higher cadence with those, but he will need twice as many chains and cassettes as everyone else. Doesn't sound like a knowledgable fellow though, that's a lot of wasted speed not shifting up. 

Think of a line straight back from each cog, every thing on the same side of that as the cog is good, everything else is bad.


----------



## Alien8 (21 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> what is the reason for this and what does it mean




He's not very mechanically minded?


----------



## reacher (21 Feb 2011)

Alien8 said:


> He's not very mechanically minded?



he cant be , which is strange , as he knows his stuff , he can tell me every thing about the technical side of bikes , what to buy and why ,
my brother said the same , what a strange way to ride , 
also i'v tried these setings on the spin bikes and i agree they just hammer your joints rather than build fitness , 
its an impressive work out he do's though , i cant get near it , he is ripped to hell as well , he must have zero body fat , as in nothing at all , 
the guy looks like a cartoon freak he is so cut up , 
this is the guy who i'm going to race by the way , 
or maybe just follow him round i reckon after seeing him on a spin bike this last few weeks he has improved tremendously


----------



## Sittingduck (21 Feb 2011)

That hurt my eyes.


----------



## totallyfixed (21 Feb 2011)

I only use one gear







BTW, deliberately turning a big gear is called resistance training and is widely employed by time triallists.


----------



## JNR (21 Feb 2011)

I deliberately complete hills sat on my seat and turn a higher gear than is necessary on my bike so eventually I will have a few cogs to turn down into when I'm in trouble on the mountain passes I'll be doing next year. My strength has improved already from a total newbie upwards. So far I don't have to use the lowest two ratios on my compact 50x34 with 12x25 even on short severe climbs. On longer climbs I'm normally ok but sometimes allow myself the luxury of changing down. I aim to be able to do most hills with at least half that cassette 'spare' so that when I'm in trouble on the mountains I have more than a prayer to save me and can change down gear.

It's cheaper than buying a new triple bike at least and I'm becoming a far better climber in the process. I still practice climbing out of the seat a bit whilst turning higher gears. I suppose it is down to fitness, strength and your power to weight ratio ultimately. I ride bikes that winners of the Tour de France couldn't dream of riding thirty years ago and I would pale into comparison of their ability.


----------



## Tollers (22 Feb 2011)

The guy seems to be going for the single experience, but with the handy option of changing to 20 different ratios  He just invented the Multiple Ratio Single Speed or MRSS as i'll be calling it when i file the patent tomorrow!


----------



## Rouge Penguin (22 Feb 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> I only use one gear
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats fine, but he's not turning the biggest gear is he?


----------



## reacher (22 Feb 2011)

Rouge Penguin said:


> Thats fine, but he's not turning the biggest gear is he?





i'm new to this so i dont realy know , but my brother out in Australia who is a cyclist said exactly the same , 
its lost on me as to why he do's this , since he rides dura ace set up as well , this is not a cheap bike he rides its a nice bit of kit , seems a waste of gears to me , 
can some one explain to me , 
if he stays in these gears and another guy used the big chain ring and moved to the 12 or 13 or 14 who would be the quickest ? 
also if he use's a cadence say of around 85 would a big chain ring with higher cadence beat him as long as you could move it to a bigger gear on the back cassette ? which would have to be ? 
i think i'v worded this correctly ,


----------



## Scoosh (22 Feb 2011)

A previous CC member would be giving you all sorts of power calculations by now



but it can be viewed in a simple manner.

Two people start to walk up stairs/hill, with one taking (lots of) small steps, while the other takes fewer big steps.

If both arrive at the top at the same time, I think I am right in saying that they will have used the same amount of energy and have had the same power output.

The 'lots of small steps' is the equivalent of spinning a lower gear/higher cadence.
Equally, the 'fewer big steps' is the higher gear/slower cadence (aka 'grinding').

Most people (cyclists



) use the smaller steps way of getting up stairs/hill but the big step route is the way to build bigger muscles.

It's the same as going to a gym and doing lots of reps with a small weight, against fewer reps with bigger weights - different results.


----------



## I am Spartacus (22 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> he cant be , which is strange , as he knows his stuff , he can tell me every thing about the technical side of bikes , what to buy and why ,
> my brother said the same , what a strange way to ride ,
> also i'v tried these setings on the spin bikes and i agree they just hammer your joints rather than build fitness ,
> its an impressive work out he do's though , i cant get near it , he is ripped to hell as well , he must have zero body fat , as in nothing at all ,
> ...



I just so love posts like these... 
being ripped has balls nothing to do with being good on a bike
mention races? why not mention a few results if he is worth adoring him like obviously you do (nowt wrong with that actually bud)
and why you bothering? you write as though you are beaten already 

riding ( racing?) on the 39 .... give me strength


----------



## reacher (22 Feb 2011)

I am Spartacus said:


> I just so love posts like these...
> being ripped has balls nothing to do with being good on a bike
> mention races? why not mention a few results if he is worth adoring him like obviously you do (nowt wrong with that actually bud)
> and why you bothering? you write as though you are beaten already
> ...




what a strange reply ,
what do you mean adore him ? 
i train in a gym , i see a guy ripped to shreds with zero fat sat on a spin bike turning a leval thats so far ahead of any one else , for sure i'm interested in how he is doing it , 
whats wrong with that , 
why am i bothering ? 
personally i dont think for one minute i can beat him , i'm always up for a challenge , but thinking that i can beat some one who turns an obvious massive leval on a spin bike and thinking that he will only do 18 mph on the road is totally stupid , the guy has power thats for sure , i only have to watch him to see that , 
and actually being ripped has everything to do with being good on a bike , if your a cyclist , for him , thats why he is so good i expect , fat dont turn wheels bud 

i'l let you know how good he is in around 6 or 8 weeks time when i follow him home , i wont beat him but i will be fast thats for sure , he has been training me on the spin bikes , i thought i was training hard untill i did some sessions with him , differant planet entirely , 
i did'nt think it was possible to train that hard at my age , real eye opener for me ,


----------



## JNR (22 Feb 2011)

I am Spartacus said:


> I just so love posts like these...
> being ripped has balls nothing to do with being good on a bike
> mention races? why not mention a few results if he is worth adoring him like obviously you do (nowt wrong with that actually bud)
> and why you bothering? you write as though you are beaten already
> ...



What's wrong with riding on a 39? Many members of my cycling club, including me, spend lots of time on a 34 and we get round the roads just fine...


----------



## Chris S (23 Feb 2011)

I learned to ride with a Sturmey Archer 3-speed and now spend almost all my time in the equivalent 3 gears on my MTB. 

I occasionally drop down to the big rear cog for steeper hills but I never use the small front cog. I occasionally go on the large front cog going downhill but that's it. 

As an earlier poster said, a lot of gears on a mulit-speed are either redundant or close duplicates.


----------



## reacher (23 Feb 2011)

i dont understand that at all , if the gears are redundant then why are they on their ? 
surely the use of gears is partly what raceing is all about , 
correct me if i'm wrong but as i see it if he is on the 39 and i'm on the 53 same cadence then i'm going to go past him ?


----------



## fossyant (23 Feb 2011)

Sounds like the lad has little idea about gears.

Expecially running DA on a 10 speed like that = expensive stupidity.


----------



## JNR (23 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> i dont understand that at all , if the gears are redundant then why are they on their ?
> surely the use of gears is partly what raceing is all about ,
> correct me if i'm wrong but as i see it if he is on the 39 and i'm on the 53 same cadence then i'm going to go past him ?



No, because if he is on a really small cog at the back and you are on your biggest (which you shouldn't be) then he will be going faster than you. That is where the gears ratios cross over. I still can't get my head around the cogs I'm 'not meant to use'...why are they there in the first place?


----------



## I am Spartacus (23 Feb 2011)

JNR said:


> What's wrong with riding on a 39? Many members of my cycling club, including me, spend lots of time on a 34 and we get round the roads just fine...



Nothing 'wrong' with it... but laddo mentioned racing.... best get used to the big ring, thats all... you dont have time to faff about with front changes... and as the weather improves from cold and nasty, so should your training change from spinnin about on the 39 to some decent leg work... I am not really talking about Sunday club runs


----------



## Rouge Penguin (23 Feb 2011)

Because if you're on the small cog up front, you use the top half of the cassette. If you're on the big cog, you use the bottom half. The other way round causes wear and stress on the chain/cassette due to the angle. 

Simples.


----------



## Rouge Penguin (23 Feb 2011)

That was for JNR


----------



## reacher (23 Feb 2011)

JNR said:


> No, because if he is on a really small cog at the back and you are on your biggest (which you shouldn't be) then he will be going faster than you. That is where the gears ratios cross over. I still can't get my head around the cogs I'm 'not meant to use'...why are they there in the first place?




hang about , 
if he is on a 39 x 11 and i'm on a 53 x 11 , should'nt i be faster ?


----------



## Dan B (23 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> hang about ,
> if he is on a 39 x 11 and i'm on a 53 x 11 , should'nt i be faster ?



Yes. If the setup is identical in all other respects (sprocket, cadence, wheel diameter), then the 53T will go further on each revolution than the 39T


----------



## reacher (23 Feb 2011)

Dan B said:


> Yes. If the setup is identical in all other respects (sprocket, cadence, wheel diameter), then the 53T will go further on each revolution than the 39T





how much harder will it be to turn the 53 x 11 than his 39 x 11 , a huge amount ? 
i dont understand why he runs the 39 , would it not be better speed wise to go up to the 53 , this is the bit i dont get , 
i cant ask him untill i see him on friday


----------



## Arch (23 Feb 2011)

JNR said:


> No, because if he is on a really small cog at the back and you are on your biggest (which you shouldn't be) then he will be going faster than you. That is where the gears ratios cross over. I still can't get my head around the cogs I'm 'not meant to use'...why are they there in the first place?



It's not individual cogs you're not meant to use, just certain combinations. Your smallest cog and biggest chainring is ok (your highest gear possible), as is largest cog and smallest chainring (lowest gear). But mixing smallest and smallest, or largest and largest is putting sideways stress on your chain, and anyway those same equivalent gears, which are in the middle, will be replicated by other better combinations. For example the highest gears you get on the smallest chainring will be overlapped by the lowest ones on the next chainring up.

The more gears you have, the more will be replicated, because you'll tend to keep a similar over range, just with smaller increments between gears. That's why a 14 speed hub gear like the Rohloff can be as good as 27 speeds on a derailleur - because on the hub gear each gear is unique, whereas the derailleur has overlaps.

If you stand behind your bike, and look down at the line the chain takes between chainrings and sprockets, you'll see that biggest/biggest and smallest/smallest cause the chain to run at an angle relative to the frame. Look from the side, and you'll see that those combos also cause the derailleur arm to be bent right back (in which case the chain can rub against itself) or right forward, under a lot of tension, because the chain is either very slack (smallest/smallest) or very tight (biggest/biggest).


----------



## quassleberry (24 Feb 2011)

I must be really dense but I've been trying to follow this thread, just when I think I've got it another opinion is posted and throws me into a panic that I'm doing it all wrong and cycling ineffectively.

I only commute, life gets in the way of cycling for long distances or for pleasure.

Now if I understand this correctly - I have 3 cogs at the front and I use the biggest one (we don't have decent hills here), I have 6 smaller cogs? at the back of which I use 3,4,& 5 (mostly 5) sometimes 6 if the bike feels easy to ride. 

To me this feels as if I'm working hard (to burn calories & build a little bit of muscle) but also to go up slight inclines (compared with Wiltshire where I grew up) I think I'm changing down into 3/4. Is this right? 
I only cycle 4 miles (through traffic) which takes between 15 -20 mins am I using my energy efficiently?


----------



## reacher (24 Feb 2011)

if your only cycling 4 miles in 20 minutes your probably not useing much in the way of anything m8


----------



## quassleberry (24 Feb 2011)

Oh did I forget to mention I'm female!
That must explain it then reader I'm not worth bothering with because I only do 4 miles. That 4 x 4.2 miles each day.


----------



## quassleberry (24 Feb 2011)

Sorry (k)reacher


----------



## reacher (24 Feb 2011)

it was meant tongue in cheek , 
your question was not about distance it was about burning calories and building muscle, what your doing is better than nothing but if your question is how can i use 20 mins efficiently to exercise then the answer is no this is not an efficient way ,


----------



## Arch (24 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> if your only cycling 4 miles in 20 minutes your probably not useing much in the way of anything m8



Whereas you've just done a very good job of sounding like a tosser. Mate.

12 miles an hour is perfectly respectable for commuting in traffic. If all you care about is speed, good luck to you and go and post in Race, as you know soooo much. How far do you cycle daily? Like every day, in the real world, not just sat in a gym?

Quassleberry: if you're using the big cog (at the front - actually called a chainrings) and the middle ones (sprockets) at the back, but mainly the outermost ones (I assume you mean '1' is nearest the wheel, the biggest sprocket, and 3,4 and 5 are further out, getting smaller) then you are fine. In fact you could probably upgrade to some higher gears, because you're mostly using the highest gears you have. That's what it sounds like. The thing to check is that when you're on the big chainring, you're using the outermost sprockets and not the couple nearest the wheel.

The main thing is to find a cadence that suits you - cadence is how fast your feet spin the pedals round. Generally it's better to spin nice and fast and free, rather than 'honk' hard, just to save injuring your knees. But find a cadence that feels comfortable for you, and use your gears to try and maintain it - uphill, you change down so that you can keep spinning the pedals at the same rate - you just go a little slower.

If you're doing 16 miles a day, you're maintaining a good base fitness, and it sounds like you're fairly strong if you're mostly in the higher gears. Just keep on doing it. If you want to push yourself, work up to using the highest gear most of the time, and then think about getting the gears upgaded to some higher ones. Or just carry heavier panniers!

Frankly, you'll be sailing on when reacher is panting in a heap by the road side. Keep it up!


----------



## reacher (24 Feb 2011)

the question was is it an efficiant way to exercise for 20 mins , the answer is still no ,
is it an efficiant way to cycle through traffic , probably , it depends on differant traffic conditions every day as to is it efficient , 
will it build muscle and burn calories , some , not a lot , as i said better than nothing , but could you spend 20 mins acheiving more , absolutely , 
now i could say great you are burning at least a 1000 cals and you will soon look like victoria pendelton , 
which is what you want to hear ,


----------



## Dan B (24 Feb 2011)

There's a straight trade-off between being efficient and getting exercise - by definition, the more efficient you are, the fewer calories you're burning to the same end


----------



## Dan B (24 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> how much harder will it be to turn the 53 x 11 than his 39 x 11


14


----------



## Arch (24 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> the question was is it an efficiant way to exercise for 20 mins , the answer is still no ,



Not quite, the question was "am I using my energy efficiently". I'd say that getting 4 x 20 minutes of exercise every day and at the same time, getting to and from work, was pretty efficient. Getting very out of breath and pounding along isn't especially efficient use of energy, going at a sustainable pace, is. As DanB says.

Quassleberry said she wants to lose a little weight and gain a little muscle, not turn into an Olympic athlete. She also wants to get to and from work. Win win!


----------



## zacklaws (24 Feb 2011)

When I ride my double 39/53, I cruise along on the 39 ring with a cadence of around 80 rpm (providing its flat) and my speeds will range from about 15 to 20 mph using the 12 to 17 sprockets, soon as my speed goes above 20mph, then I go into the big ring and my speed range then becomes 20 to 28 mph, but it also becomes harder work turning the big ring. If you look on a gear chart, you will see how the chain ring and sprocket combinations work, and there are no duplicates on a 39/53, apart for a couple of close matches at the extremes, unless the cadence alters, so it is a natural progression on a 39/53, whereas on my triple there are quiet a few duplicates on all 3 rings so I ride differently. A few riders have queried why I do it, but it becomes evident to them when you put the hammer down and just slip into the big ring and pull away, they've been grinding a big gear at a lower cadence and tired, whilst you have been in a smaller gear with a higher cadence and are a lot fresher. It is also easier to get sudden bursts of accellaration in a lower ring if you need to by just increasing the cadence, but more difficult in the big ring with it being harder to turn. I even came across this method in a road racing manual, stating that you only use the big ring over a certain speed, which is the point where the speed increases and is unobtainable in the smaller ring unless the cadence increases which could be out of your comfort zone.

But at the end of the day, every rider has there own styles, its a case of getting out on the road, doing long rides 100+ or a distance that pushes you to your limits and finding out naturally what is the easiest riding style in about the last 20 miles when your tiring, too high a gear and its hard work and slow but a lower gear with a faster cadence and it becomes faster and more economical.

I've just had a look on Sheldon Brown, and he puts it over better and simpler than I do:-

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears.html


----------



## quassleberry (24 Feb 2011)

Arch & DanB thanks for your replies. My gears are being used large chainring to smaller sprockets (away from wheel) although whether they are 3rd - 6th or 15th - 18th I 'm not sure, although that is how I remember learning it in Physics way back in the mists of time when I was a teenager. Which is probably why I'm not familiar with the name Victoria Pendleton, although was she on TV at the opening of the Olympic Velodrome talking to Boris the Mayor?

That isn't the only exercise I get, there's 5 dogs to walk at least twice a day, housework, and trying to train for a half marathon so my 'big' brother doesn't beat me again this year not to mention the mental strain of teenagers!

Reacher, the basics haven't changed only the technical terms and nuances put on training techniques have. You sound young(ish) so have many opportunities that weren't around while I was growing up. Indeed I never had gears on my bike which was a nuisance traipsing after my friend on her sisters' horse especially as we lived in Wiltshire.


----------



## reacher (25 Feb 2011)

i will see my buddy this morning and ask him why he cyclces like he do's , 
but the above explanation by zacklows is very good ,
Arch ,
no offense to the lady member , it was as said tongue in cheek , evan with my limited experiance of cycling a commiute through traffic is just that , it would be like me trying to post a best time road running through a town centre and wondering why i cant get to a steady pace , 
do i cycle daily ? , i'v been out on a bike 4 times so far , 5 if you count the go on one as a kid


----------



## Sittingduck (25 Feb 2011)

Is this thread a wind up, or is it just me?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (25 Feb 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Is this thread a wind up, or is it just me?


It's not just you!



Dan B said:


> 14


I could swear that said 4 yesterday!


----------



## reacher (25 Feb 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Is this thread a wind up, or is it just me?



just you , concentrate more


----------



## Arch (25 Feb 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> Is this thread a wind up, or is it just me?



I dunno, but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when reacher learns English.... 

'Lady Member' indeed. How long before we do my grand reveal, do you reckon....?

Quassleberry, it sounds like you're doing just fine, and could probably manage with some higher gears if you want to push the exercise aspect - if you want to do that it ought to be possible to get either larger chainrings, or a different cluster of sprockets fitted.


----------



## quassleberry (25 Feb 2011)

Now there's a project for my other half  

I will try using 6th/18th? more & see if that makes a difference, thank you Arch.


----------



## Arch (25 Feb 2011)

quassleberry said:


> Now there's a project for my other half
> 
> I will try using 6th/18th? more & see if that makes a difference, thank you Arch.



I don't know how long you've been doing the commute, but you might find you gradually find yourself using the highest gear more anyway. I tend to lose fitness over the winter (despite pedalling a cargo trike at work, I do less long rides), and find myself dropping down a gear generally, compared to the end of summer when I've been doing extra long commutes and long leisure rides. 

Also, you perhaps know this, but remember that losing weight and building muscle aren't a direct relationship - muscle is denser than fat, so you'll lose weight to start with but as you increase muscle, the weight loss will slow down. How your clothes feel is a more reliable gauge of progress.

Good luck with the half marathon! That would be beyond me!


----------



## reacher (25 Feb 2011)

Arch said:


> I dunno, but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when reacher learns English....
> 
> 'Lady Member' indeed. How long before we do my grand reveal, do you reckon....?
> 
> Quassleberry, it sounds like you're doing just fine, and could probably manage with some higher gears if you want to push the exercise aspect - if you want to do that it ought to be possible to get either larger chainrings, or a different cluster of sprockets fitted.



you willl have to explain this one to me ? 
i'm a tad lost on what you mean , i thought she was a female ,
are you saying i'm in the blue oyster club here ? 
any how do you want to know what he said or not ?


----------



## Arch (25 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> you willl have to explain this one to me ?
> i'm a tad lost on what you mean , i thought she was a female ,
> are you saying i'm in the blue oyster club here ?
> any how do you want to know what he said or not ?



I'm sorry, I'm teasing. I was amused by your use of the term 'lady member', because it sounded a bit old fashioned, and also, I'm one myself - it's a bit of an in joke that people don't realise for ages.

Yes, Quassleberry is a woman.

You've got me lost too, I don't know what the blue oyster club is...

So, what did your mate say? Did you tell him we all think he's using a rather odd technique?


----------



## quassleberry (25 Feb 2011)

So glad you don't know what 'the blue oyster club' is either! I was going to go & ask the teenage sleepover contingent!! 

I guessed we were the same gender from the elephant and Arch is short for matriarch as opposed to patriarch. 

Been commuting for 4 years and have lost 2 & 1/2 stone, it went on slowly & so is coming off the same way. The fat/muscle conversion I've known for years but tend to forget it when they all obssess about diets and have the weekly weigh in at work. Since moving to this office and having to cycle, each time we have new uniform issued I'm always next size down and as it's every two years it's always way too big and I have to wear the belt to make the trousera fit.

I can't be doing with faddy diets and eat what I want when I want but always try to have something from all the food groups in moderation except fruit/veg which I have more of. Hence the question of energy efficiency so I can keep on kidding myself that chocolate is good for me.

Reacher you still haven't told us what your mate said.


----------



## reacher (26 Feb 2011)

i see , 
i guess thats because i'm old i expect , 
blue oyster club is from a film , if you google it you will see what i mean , the guy who called me a tosser is probably a member , i think thats a slang pick up expression if i'm, not mistaken , 
anyhow, 
i did ask him and he said its down to cadence , but he did say that he only do's the run we are going to race on as a training run , if he was going out for a longer run , which he do'snt then endurance would be a problem and he would start to drop off the pace considerably , 
he uses everything as a maximum effort to train for that period , so he his working constantly at around 100 % output on weights and cycling and spin bike , which ever he trains on , very effective as well , 
back to the spin bike he had me do a session with him , which to be honest this cycling lark is all new to me , i thought i was working at a good pace , untill i did one with him , and i can train pretty hard or so i thought on these bikes , he took me to a differant place entirely , 
in fact i would say , as my daughter pointed out that it looks a tad dangerous as far as giveing your self a heart attack is concerned , which was not an uncommon occurance on the squash courts when i played ,


----------



## reacher (26 Feb 2011)

this should be the route he takes 
ttp://ridewithgps.com/routes/270042 

this is the one we will race on , his time is 50 minutes ,
not sure if thats good or bad , 
if this link works , some else did this for me ,


----------



## Arch (26 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> i see ,
> i guess thats because i'm old i expect ,
> blue oyster club is from a film , if you google it you will see what i mean , the guy who called me a tosser is probably a member , i think thats a slang pick up expression if i'm, not mistaken ,




To be fair, I didn't call you a tosser, I said you were doing a good job of sounding like one... Subtle difference...



> anyhow,
> i did ask him and he said its down to cadence , but he did say that he only do's the run we are going to race on as a training run , if he was going out for a longer run , which he do'snt then endurance would be a problem and he would start to drop off the pace considerably ,
> he uses everything as a maximum effort to train for that period , so he his working constantly at around 100 % output on weights and cycling and spin bike , which ever he trains on , very effective as well ,
> back to the spin bike he had me do a session with him , which to be honest this cycling lark is all new to me , i thought i was working at a good pace , untill i did one with him , and i can train pretty hard or so i thought on these bikes , he took me to a differant place entirely ,
> in fact i would say , as my daughter pointed out that it looks a tad dangerous as far as giveing your self a heart attack is concerned , which was not an uncommon occurance on the squash courts when i played ,



Well, it certainly doesn't sound like fun to me, but it takes all sorts and some people are more obsessed with power and speed above all else.

But, hasn't it been said that he's not using the best gear combos anyway? Whether he wants speed or endurance, it do his bike good to get the right gear combination.

Quassleberry, sound like you're doing perfectly. My wieght loss has been slowere than yours - about a stone in the last 18 months or so, down to more leisure cycling, and taking on a physica job with walking, lifting and cycling involved. But that's the way to make sure the wieght stays off (well, ok, I put on a bit over the winter, we all want to eat more when we've been working in the cold and wet.) and your figure goes the way you want it too. I'd be happy to lose another stone, but happier to just get down one more clothes size comfortably.


----------



## Arch (26 Feb 2011)

Yes, I've gone back and checked, and apparently he's using 39-11, which is an extreme chainline, and what we were all wondering about. How hard he wants to train isn't the question we're asking you to ask him, we want to know why he's using a gear combo that will wear his chain out faster when he should be able to get the same gear with other combinations. 

Unless of course, his bike only has a single chainring, or 39 is actually his biggest ring, but in that case, to do 20 miles in 50 minutes his cadence would have to be impossibly fast....


----------



## reacher (26 Feb 2011)

okey dokey ,
only sounding like a tosser is marginally better than being one i guess lol , cease fire agreed 
right i asked him this he uses a 54 x 39 , i'v seen his bike , dura ace set up 
and uses the 39 x 12 or 39x13 to do this run , and drops onto the 39 x 11 when needed 
he explained it to me but frankly i dont know enough about cycling and gears to fully understand , he said i need to get out on my bike to fully understand , 
he said , i dont use any other gears , and thats his training gears , 
i think he means that yes he could do it differantly but it wont get him the work out that he is after , i do know that the velodrome his what he realy likes and the bike is just for training , 
he said that to keep the cadence he wants at a constant rpm is why he do's this , 
thats the exact route and his time is 50 minutes dead , i know the route as i did it as a try out at xmas to see how hard it woud be and how much i need to improve to get alongside him , 
thats as much as i know realy , apart from i'm on a spin bike with him later for a session , 
he text me and said be prepared to enter hell , 
is that a good time ?


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Feb 2011)

I've come across several folk in the past who come out with statements like "I'm a really good cyclist, so good I only need two of my 18 or 21 gears" to me that just says "I don't know how to work my gears properly"... however i did find on my daily commute in the north lakes many moons ago that over time, my lowest gears became obselete... so much so I seldom dropped onto the smallest front ring after a year or so.


----------



## Dan B (26 Feb 2011)

54, really? 39x12 is 88 gear inches, which is midway between 54x17 (85.8") and 54x16 (91.1"), either of which would put less load on his chain.

He may be a strong rider but he doesn't exactly sound mathematically gifted.

[ edit: nor am I mathematically gifted today, it seems. 20 miles in 50 minutes is really quite respectable, for some reason I was reading it as _10_ miles ]


----------



## reacher (26 Feb 2011)

i would have said that route was fairly taxing to do in 50 minutes , for a guy who just go's out once a week or so to train for an hour , i dont know what it equates to in mph though , i think i would be pretty happy to do that time , 
the bench mark seems to be 20 mph on an undulating route when i asked before which is what i was aimimg for when i start riding , 
to be fair he has never said he was good , or that he only uses 2 gears to show off , it was me that asked on here, as i did not know the reason why he did this , 
i'm new to cycling so i was curious is all , 
but i agree it is a strange way to use a bike ,


----------



## Dan B (26 Feb 2011)

Yep, my brain fart there I'm afraid - sorry. Have edited my post so it makes more sense, at the expense of making yours make less


----------



## JonnyBlade (26 Feb 2011)

All exercise is good and it's all relative to age, current fitness and so many other things. Don't let anyone tell you that it's not really worth putting the effort in. The arrogance of some is quite a different thing


----------



## reacher (26 Feb 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> All exercise is good and it's all relative to age, current fitness and so many other things. Don't let anyone tell you that it's not really worth putting the effort in. The arrogance of some is quite a different thing




blimey you lot talk in riddles on here , 
whats that mean ? 
look i'm an old codger i need plain english , 
the arrogance of some is quite a differant thing ???????

i dont think anyone is bragging , its a straight forward question about gears , and the way a buddy of mine uses them who trains down the gym is all , its not like he is a cyclist , he just uses a bike as part of his training on the weights once a week if that , to keep fit ,
now , is it fast slow or what ? for that route 

woops 

now i'm playing catch up , i just read the amended post about the time , ok


----------



## Arch (26 Feb 2011)

reacher said:


> blimey you lot talk in riddles on here ,
> whats that mean ?
> look i'm an old codger i need plain english ,
> the arrogance of some is quite a differant thing ???????
> ...



I think the thing some of us are saying, and I admit it's a slight departure from your question, is that cycling doesn't have to be about power and speed, but some people think that's all it's about. Some people see it as a matter of pride never to use the lower gears, whereas many (most?) of us use anything we can to help us.

The problem is that if someone new to cycling sees too many posts that are centered on power and speed, they might think "Oh, I'm nowhere as fast as that, I might as well not bother" and get discouraged and give up, which is a bad thing - we all want more cyclists in the world, be they for sport, or transport, or pure leisure.

Your buddy still hasn't really answered the question about why he choses to use those gears_ in that combination_. It's not so much the ratio itself, but the fact that he's getting it in a way that stresses the chain more, when he could get something very similar in a better combination. It seems he's all power (nothing wrong with that) but no mechanical sympathy. And to get that time for 20 miles, on a smallish ring like a 39, his feet must be going round in a blur. Ok, if that's the way he prefers it, but I know once I get about a certain cadence, I'm less stable on the bike because my legs are moving so fast, and it's hard to put the power through.


----------



## marzjennings (27 Feb 2011)

Arch said:


> Your buddy still hasn't really answered the question about why he choses to use those gears_ in that combination_. It's not so much the ratio itself, but the fact that he's getting it in a way that stresses the chain more, when he could get something very similar in a better combination. It seems he's all power (nothing wrong with that) but no mechanical sympathy. And to get that time for 20 miles, on a smallish ring like a 39, his feet must be going round in a blur. Ok, if that's the way he prefers it, but I know once I get about a certain cadence, I'm less stable on the bike because my legs are moving so fast, and it's hard to put the power through.



I've also wondered how important it is to maintain a clean chain line and so I'm sort of testing the theory of how chain line messes with chain stress on my new bike. I've set it up as a 1x10 (32x12,36) on a 29er. And so far so good. With the big old tyres (85 gear inches) I can maintain 20mph pretty easily on the flat, pedaling about 100rpm. So hitting 20miles in under an hour with a 39t on a road bike seems pretty easy. I usually get about 3-4 months out of a chain on a triple crankset and if this 1x10 setup means a shorter chain live time, I guess I'll see the impact of extreme chain lines.


----------



## reacher (27 Feb 2011)

actually i totally agree with what you say Arch , i was thinking more along the lines that he had some secret method out on the road , but it appears not , i'v adopted some of his training methods from the gym on the spin bike , being new to cycling i was intrigued as to how he actually trains in the gym , and how he trains on the road , but now i'v looked at it its not that benificial to what i'm trying to achieve long term , i can see now what he is actually doing but haveing tried it a few times with him , sure its interesting and to be fair something that is worth trying just to see what its like , but as an over all strategy for long term fitness as you age would be pretty useless , how ever the way he sets targets in his training and works towards them is actually pretty good , you would have to be the right age to follow it in its entirety , but targets are one of the reasons most people never improve or lose interest in training , 
cycling for pure leisure as you say is differant altogether, i'm more interested in the training aspect 
its a learning curve as they say ,


----------

