Is it possible to get up hills on a compact set up

[jimboalee]

The OP's question was "Is it possible to get up hills on a compact set up".
That's the same as asking "Will a Reliant Robin tow a caravan up Porlock hill?"

My answer is "If the Reliant Robin has a Keith Black 500 cu inch Nitrous oxide injected Hemi."

My answer to the OP's question must be "If you have a pair of legs that can produce a quarter of a kilowatt for an hour".

 

[peanut]

The OP's question was "Is it possible to get up hills on a compact set up".
That's the same as asking "Will a Reliant Robin tow a caravan up Porlock hill?"

My answer is "If the Reliant Robin has a Keith Black 500 cu inch Nitrous oxide injected Hemi."

My answer to the OP's question must be "If you have a pair of legs that can produce a quarter of a kilowatt for an hour".

come on Jim cut the guy a little slack . He's a new member and isn't used to your perverted sense of humour like wot we is anyway any fule no that a piece of string is twice as long as it is from the centre to one end

 

[ColinJ]

This has been done for the two bikes. The difference IS noticeable. The 17lb Spesh with a half full bottle DEFINITELY is easier to ride up a hill. That's not a surprise. The surprise is the slow speed I ride The Dawes.

A group of C+ forum members got together for a very hilly 100 km ride in West Yorkshire in 2006. One rider was tall and slim (6' 2", 12.5 stone), but he was riding a heavy old steel touring bike. He reckoned it weighed 32 pounds. By the time we were at the halfway point, he was getting tired. The hills in the second half almost killed him!

Now, the same rider turned up at a similar ride I organised in 2007. He was the same weight and he'd done his usual amount of riding i.e. he wasn't suddenly super-fit from doing extra training. What was different was his bike. He'd invested in a Specialized Roubaix carbon fibre bike which probably weighed around 17 pounds, so that was 15 pounds less than his tourer. We came to the first hill and he just shot away from me!

I rode the Kirklees Sportive with him last year, and the replacement event, the Brian Robinson Challenge yesterday and once again he was climbing with ease. He swears blind that it is all down to the lighter bike.

I was on a light bike yesterday, but I weigh about 20 pounds more than I did for that first ride. I grovel up steep climbs now. It's amazing how much difference 15-20 pounds makes when you are riding uphill. For me, it is much more than the theoretical numbers would suggest. 20 pounds is only about 10% of my body weight and much less than 10% of the weight of me, bike, water, clothes, tools and spares, yet it slows me down by at least 25% on steep hills, if not more.

 

[jimboalee]

I'll put it another way.

The 'Off the peg' bike manufacturers spend a lot of cash, not only sourcing the best prices for the components, but to fit the appropriate components for the bike.
When it comes to gearing, a 52/42 chainset would be the most cost effective and a 12 x 23 cassette. But who's going to buy a bike with gearing for a 'flat' stage when it will no doubt be asked to get up hills.
So the manufacturers go for 53/39 or a 'Compact' and marry it to a 11 x 25 cassette. They might even fit a 52/42/30 for those riders who are starting the sport from scratch.

If you can read between my lines, I am suggesting the likes of Trek, Spesh, Giant, Cannondale, Felt et al have equipped their bikes with what they consider suitable.

Older makers, such as Peugeot and Dawes geared their bikes to how they perceived a 'typical' customer. Peugeot put a 42 ring to 28 sprocket lowest on a 26lb 'Sports' bike which was intended for the beginner. There was opportunity to fit a 38 ring if there were going to be hills steeper than 10%.
Peugeot fitted a 53 x 39 and 13 – 23 block on a 21.5lb full Roadrace bike. They cost a stack of money and Pug reckoned the customer had already been competing for at least one season.

Historically speaking, bikes these days are UNDER geared. They are built up to appeal to a wider audience who might use ( or need ) the lower gears that were once retro-fit.

A 20lb mid-range roadbike might have a 'Compact' 34 with a 25 sprocket. After a few rides up their local mountains, the owner will probably be climbing up a 10% on the 34 ring and 19 sprocket, as per mythology.
Then they will be wondering if they will ever use the 25 sprocket again.

 

[Chris James]

It's amazing how much difference 15-20 pounds makes when you are riding uphill. For me, it is much more than the theoretical numbers would suggest. 20 pounds is only about 10% of my body weight and much less than 10% of the weight of me, bike, water, clothes, tools and spares, yet it slows me down by at least 25% on steep hills, if not more.

I think it all depends on how steep. When the hills are very steep and climbing them involves effort at or near your maximum then additional weight, headwinds etc have a disproportionate effect on you.

Once you have gone into the red a few times you tire rapidly. If the lighter bike (or lower gears!) helps prevent you going into the red at all then you can keep going for longer still putting out decent power.

On a similar theme I went home for lunch and the new Cycling Plus mag had come through the post. There is an article comparing the same rider riding a 1980s Pearson in 531c with a carbon Pearson. The new one was 6 minutes faster over 16 miles at moderate pace (1hr 7mins vs 1 hour 1min), with the same average heart rate.

But the old bike had toe clips, 12 speed (lowest gear 42/18), non aero wheels, down tube shifters etc so there were actually quite a lot of differences rather than just the fact that the new one was substantially lighter. Also he rode the steel bike second after a bit of a rest.

How did you enjoy the Brian Robinson Challenge Colin? Each year I quite fancy doing it, but lack of cycling time with two kids under three mean that I never feel fit enough to tackle it. Also, I get to cycle most of those roads for free whenever I feel like it!

I went for a ride on Sunday morning, a pretty lumpy 37 miles with 1100m height gain. I was feeling quite tired at the end of it but overtook one of the Challenge riders coming into Emley and gave him a cheery ‘good morning’. He must have been going pretty slowly as I rode away from him, probably a bit dispiriting as I was on my steel audax bike with mudguards, Brooks saddle etc and he was on a light road bike.

But I guess he was totally knackered due to all the previous hills by that point. He would have already ‘gone into the red’ several times that day. I felt a bit sorry for him actually as he still had a long way to go.

 

[jimboalee]

The new one was 6 minutes faster over 16 miles at moderate pace (1hr 7mins vs 1 hour 1min), with the same average heart rate.

That's because the new Carbon bike had a lower Coefficient of Drag ( Cd ). NOT because it was lighter.

 

[jimboalee]

The only way to evaluate how a rolling vehicle will perform is in a Wind Tunnel. Not some amateurish hotch-potch road test where the meteorological and human conditions are different.

 

[peanut]

that would be pretty pointless Jim as Chris points out you have so many different factors involved that it would be impossible to compare scientifically .
If you wanted to compare two factors everything else would have to be identical otherwise you weouldn't know to what extent any of the incidental factors were influencing the results .

 

[Chris James]

That's because the new Carbon bike had a lower Coefficient of Drag ( Cd ). NOT because it was lighter.

Yes, I am sure that is true, although the fact the rider struggled to turn his pedals over in the 42/18 gear also contributed. He lost a load of time (2 mins?) and averaged a mile an hour slower on the first climb. I think he was only going 5mph so for that climb at least aero effects would be minimal.

 

[Chris James]

that would be pretty pointless Jim as Chris points out you have so many different factors involved that it would be impossible to compare scientifically .
If you wanted to compare two factors everything else would have to be identical otherwise you weouldn't know to what extent any of the incidental factors were influencing the results .

In any case, it was just a daft article in C+, not a peer reviewed piece of research. When he rode the 1980s bike he was wearing an old Pearson cycling jersey and cloth cap etc!

It was just meant as entertainment. In the end the author said he liked both bikes. No-one in their right mind would actually try to race on the 1980s bike now.

Sorry, I seem to have pushed this thread right off topic now!

 

[jimboalee]

In between my Dawes and my Spesh, I have a 531 Pug PX10 from the seventies.
Compared to the Dawes, it glides along effortlessly, but compared with the Spesh, its a slug.

Spesh Cd is 0.80
Pug Cd is 0.88
Dawes Cd is 0.95

As I would expect knowing it's weight is midway between the other two, it climbs at a speed half way between the other two.

 

[ColinJ]

How did you enjoy the Brian Robinson Challenge Colin? Each year I quite fancy doing it, but lack of cycling time with two kids under three mean that I never feel fit enough to tackle it. Also, I get to cycle most of those roads for free whenever I feel like it!

I went for a ride on Sunday morning, a pretty lumpy 37 miles with 1100m height gain. I was feeling quite tired at the end of it but overtook one of the Challenge riders coming into Emley and gave him a cheery ‘good morning’. He must have been going pretty slowly as I rode away from him, probably a bit dispiriting as I was on my steel audax bike with mudguards, Brooks saddle etc and he was on a light road bike.

But I guess he was totally knackered due to all the previous hills by that point. He would have already ‘gone into the red’ several times that day. I felt a bit sorry for him actually as he still had a long way to go.

I enjoyed it a lot more than the Kirklees Sportive last year even though the routes are almost identical.

I (obviously) liked riding round in sunshine rather than getting soaked from the start as I did in 2008. I also preferred getting the hardest two climbs out of the way first - Wessenden Head and Holme Moss.

What I didn't like was finding that there were no refreshments available at the end by the time I and fellow slow riders got back! We probably needed refueling more than the whippets who breezed round in 5-6 hours.

For some reason the long gentle drag up from Mirfield got to my back again and I had to keep stopping to stretch it. Amazingly enough, I seemed to get a 'second wind' after the second feed station near Ainley Top. The drag up to Buckstones didn't really bother me, and I coped with the climb over to Marsden from Delph, and the steep little climb out from Marsden to Meltham.

I'd really like to be fitter for it next year though - it was too much like hard work!

I think it all depends on how steep. When the hills are very steep and climbing them involves effort at or near your maximum then additional weight, headwinds etc have a disproportionate effect on you.

Once you have gone into the red a few times you tire rapidly. If the lighter bike (or lower gears!) helps prevent you going into the red at all then you can keep going for longer still putting out decent power.

I think you could be right about that. In my case yesterday though, it was more a case of tiredness in my aching back muscles than tiredness in my legs.

The first major climb on the BRC was Wessenden Head which is about 3 km at close to 10%. I was climbing ahead of one guy who sounded like he was busting a gut, he was breathing that heavily. My breathing was deep, but measured. What was getting to me was that I felt overgeared on my Cannondale's 39/29 bottom gear. I'd normally be using my Basso's 30/28 and spinning. The extra strain that was putting on me contributed to the backache that I felt later. The same thing on Holme Moss. My heart/lungs were okay, I just couldn't get my cadence high enough.

Later on, I was struggling on easy climbs because my back was hurting.

 

[ashtons99]

Well guys what can I say, its like going back to my grammar school physics!!!

I appreciate all your comments but get the feeling that ultimately its down to my own power output and how many pies Ive eaten! Albeit I get the impression that a compact set up is a good compromise between a double (which would certainly leave me pushing)and the triple with all its mechanical foibles.

Im currently riding a Giant FCR2 flat bar and can get about everywhere in the middle ring but do need to drop down to the granny on the steep stuff. Im just concerned that the 34 ring on a compact might just leave me high and dry. As some of you have said I really need to look what ive got at the moment and see how the ratios could be mirrored on a compact.

I really want to move to a compact as I think it would put more challenge into my riding but dont want to be disheartened.

Having said that the gear choice is only one element of my bewilderment in what bike to put my cash into.

 

[MacB]

Ashtons, go to Sheldons site and use the gear calculator and put in your current set up. Cut and paste the results to a spreadsheet, I like using gear inches for this. This will give you a clear idea of your existing gears. Then play with the gear calculator, put in combinations of cassettes and rings to see what you can get.

 

[jimboalee]

Well guys what can I say, its like going back to my grammar school physics!!!

I appreciate all your comments but get the feeling that ultimately its down to my own power output and how many pies Ive eaten! Albeit I get the impression that a compact set up is a good compromise between a double (which would certainly leave me pushing)and the triple with all its mechanical foibles.

Im currently riding a Giant FCR2 flat bar and can get about everywhere in the middle ring but do need to drop down to the granny on the steep stuff. Im just concerned that the 34 ring on a compact might just leave me high and dry. As some of you have said I really need to look what ive got at the moment and see how the ratios could be mirrored on a compact.

I really want to move to a compact as I think it would put more challenge into my riding but dont want to be disheartened.

Having said that the gear choice is only one element of my bewilderment in what bike to put my cash into.

I can remember doing the experiment with the 'free-falling' steel ball, and then sussing out the gravity-velocity equations; but not Aerodynamics.

The things they teach at Grammar school these days.

One of the most difficult things to mathematically model in cycling is the speed a cyclist climbs a hill.
In a nutshell, its all from self assessment and lots of upward mileage.

As I say, the bike manufacturers build bikes based on how they percieve the abilities of their customers, so a 'Compact' 34 to a 27 sprocket is deemed OK for most everything you might come across on the road - up to 25%
That's not my view, that's the opinion of bike builders.