Ideal cadence and strength - have we been spoilt by lower gearing?

[wafter]

Recently I've had cause to grind my way up a few hills thanks to the relatively unsympathatic 40/28 low gear on my Raleigh (which is about 1.4 times higher than the 34/34 afforded by my Genesis). This has raised a few points in my mind as a result of noticing the after-effects of these climbs a lot more the following day; with soreness / DOMs in areas I'd not usually expect such as my glutes and inner thighs (whatever those bits are called!).

In practical terms lower gearing is great for allowing steeper grads to be tacked with less exertion if desired, while also providing the ability to tackle ascents that might for some otherwise be insurmountable with higher gearing. However, I wonder if low gearing is also hampering the development of strength in some riders (myself included) who opt to spin their way up ascents and thus dodge high-load work that would build further strength, in favour or low-load aerobic exercise - which let's face it most of us get enough of on the bike anyway.

It might just be my imagination but since I've got the Raleigh and it's really forced me out of my cadence comfort zone up hills, and I do feel stronger / more capable on ascents..

Thoughts?

 

[si_c]

I don't think it's hampering the strength of riders, rather it's allowing them to choose what's comfortable. You're just training your legs to deliver the same power in a different way - high torque low cadence instead of low torque high cadence. You still have the option to use a higher gear instead of the 34/34 you opt for usually - you just don't.

Most of the time I ride with a 36/30 low gear - when I swap to the other bike with it's 34/34 low I fly up the same hills - measureably quicker as I tend to be turning the lower gear at a higher cadence overall, it's less fatiguing on my legs so I can sustain it better.

 

[Drago]

It's different for everyone, based upon physiology, fitness, dimensions, age, injury, etc. It's simply working for you.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

It's not a strength issue, it's a repeatability one.

 

[Twilkes]

I went from a 34/28 lowest gear to a 38/32 lowest gear, and the next time I tried the steepest climb I regularly go up I was actually slower in the 32. It felt easier though. I guess this makes sense on some level, as you would expect the fastest time up a climb to feel the hardest, but the sweet spot seemed to be the 24 cog - the 22 was too hard on my legs (and not really sustainable/trainable at this point in my development) and slower than the 24, and the 28 was also slower but felt easier.

I think the training thing is just about discipline - as long as you're not spinning out from too low a gear or snapping your leg muscles from too high a gear, it seems to be about the discipline of keep spinning/pushing as hard as you can and not easing off. The number of times I've thought I would give it all on a climb, only to find when I've got to the top I could do it again with a few seconds rest....

 

[DaveReading]

However, I wonder if low gearing is also hampering the development of strength in some riders (myself included) who opt to spin their way up ascents and this dodge high-load work that would build further strength, in favour or low-load aerobic exercise - which let's face it most of us get enough of on the bike anyway.

Thoughts?

You will find that you can restore the balance by climbing with the brakes on.

 

[raleighnut]

The TT bike has 39-25 as a bottom gear but that's quite light (653 frame and very short) that scuttles up hills far easier than the gearing would suggest.

 

[matticus]

Just get a fixie Mr @wafter ; if that works out even better, you've proved your theory. Ditch these half-arsed measures!

 

[fossyant]

Gone are the days of a 42 x 21 eh. My road bikes are 39 x 24 - can't get a bigger sprocket to work with my 7400 Dura Ace Mech.

I have a 'nemesis' of a climb on my local training route - it's only short, but it's a mix of roots, rocks and 3 rows of cobbles. It's also not much wider than an MTB's handlebars, so you usually are bouncing off the fence posts. That's a really fine balance of not spinning too much, the more you spin, the more handlebar movement you get, the more you clip the fence.

Cycling has opened up to more people, so you do need a wider range of gears for all.

 

[matticus]

We have a 6-pages on cadence still active:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/slowly-slaying-the-high-cadence-myth.266420

 

[matticus]

Gone are the days of a 42 x 21 eh. My road bikes are 39 x 24 - can't get a bigger sprocket to work with my 7400 Dura Ace Mech.

The thing is, the pros are using lower gears now - even on classic climbs like the Tourmalet. And I don't think it's about marketing, as they now tune their gearing to the profile quite a bit.

(I have a corncob cassette in a box at home - a 13-21 maybe? - and it's really pretty!)

Cycling has opened up to more people, so you do need a wider range of gears for all.

True

 

[ColinJ]

Thoughts?

My first thought was... "Er, are there any massive hills in Oxfordshire...?"

Gone are the days of a 42 x 21 eh.

On the Tour de France show the other night they said that late French climber Thierry Claveyrolat used to use a lowest gear of 44/23!!!

It must have helped to be a scrawny little chap, but even so...

My singlespeed bike has a 52/19 gear (very roughly equivalent to 42/15, 39/14 or 34/13). It is certainly hard work climbing in that gear. I have managed kms at 3-4%, hundreds of metres at 6-8%, 300 metres at 10%, and about 100 metres at 12% and those are about my current limits!

A bit more leg power might help, and losing some weight definitely would, but using lower gears is just so much more sensible! Having said that, as long as I haven't completely mashed my legs, I enjoy the sensation in them after a decent singlespeed ride. They certainly feel like they have done some hard work. I may be imagining it (I haven't timed myself recently) but I could swear that I am finding the local hills slightly easier on my multi-geared bike than I used to so maybe the overgeared ss climbing has helped?

 

[matticus]

2020 National Hill Climb - it's actually about 0.5miles into Berkshire, but there are tougher hills in Oxon. As used in the Tour of Britain :P

 

[ColinJ]

2020 National Hill Climb - it's actually about 0.5miles into Berkshire, but there are tougher hills in Oxon. As used in the Tour of Britain :P

I would definitely not make it up Streatley Hill on my singlespeed bike!

Absolutely no problem to bimble up it on my low-geared best bike though...

 

[matticus]

I would definitely not make it up Streatley Hill on my singlespeed bike!

Absolutely no problem to bimble up it on my low-geared best bike though...

On some of the lower-geared SS bikes I read about, i reckon I could do it by starting REAL slow!
But with gearing set-up to actually get anywhere, I might fail. Frankly it's non-trivial for me on something like 30x26!

(When I'm struggling on the local hills I wonder how I ever got up Devils Staircase, or Hardknott, or the Tourmalet ... :P )