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

[Chris James]

I appreciate all your comments but get the feeling that ultimately its down to my own power output and how many pies Ive eaten! .

Spot on.

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.

A triple is no more mechanically complicated than a double in my opinion. I think I have adjusted my front derailleur once in 2.5 years! But if you feel more comfortable with two rings up front then go with that.

If you live somewhere hilly and / or you are not very fit then you will feel the benefit of the compact setup. A 34 front ring 27 back ring is about as low a gear as a road bike will go, so if you struggle to get up hils with that then you just need to practice more!

 

[Mortiroloboy]

Jeez...just get out and ride the bl**dy thing, afterall that's what it's about, isn't it?

 

[Over The Hill]

Are you all not making it a bit complicated?

As I see it- what small ring on the front and what big ring on the back do you have?

Now be it compact or not as long as you have the same size cogs you will get the same ratio and the same ease/difficulty with a hill (assuming you are in first gear for the hill).

If you compromise your nice triple by trying to get two cogs to do the job of three then you have to either miss out another cog (not the small one) or suffer from less gear range. That is not progress to me. Your carbon bike does not look cool if you are pushing it up the hill and fat old me goes past you on my triple.

 

[Greenbank]

Here's my take.

If you're going to use it for loaded touring in hilly terrain I'd go for a triple every time. You need the low gears.

If you're going to be doing long (100 mile+) hilly rides then you may find that you can cope fine with a Compact until near the end of the ride when you get tired, your blood sugar is depleted and you wish you could change down to a 30T chainring and spin up the hills.

If you've got a high level of fitness then a compact may be perfect for you. You'll be on the big ring most of the time until you get to the real hills where you can drop to the small ring.

If you're not quite that fit you may find that your usual range of gears for your normal terrain spans both the small and big chainrings of a compact. That means in usual terrain you'll be swapping between the two, which can be a right pain. Compare this to a triple where, for the majority of the time, you can sit on the middle ring and use the majority of the range of rear sprockets. Changing to the big ring for long descents or tailwinds, and the small chainring for big hills.

I use a 30/40/53 triple (with 13-29 cassette) for really hilly long rides (5000m+ climbing in 300km).

I use a 34/50 compact double (with 13-26 cassette) for sub 100km blasts (including hills). I'll only change down to the small chainring on hills over 10%.

I use a 46x18 fixed for commuting and other long rides (including hills).

I rarely use my bike with a 39/53 standard double. I should probably sell it.

 

[theclaud]

you can stand up on hills and honk, or just grind - learn to 'heel' it and you can find extra torque from the hamstrings. riding fixed helps a lot with this

Bonj - would you mind explaining this technique? I'm a relative newbie to road bikes, and though I'm enjoying mine enormously the 53/39 double was a choice guided by bargains and aesthetics rather than best suitability for the Welsh terrain. For someone used to winching themselves up big hills in mtb gears, it's a bit of an adjustment. Good to have a serious cyclist to ask about these things.

 

[bonj2]

Bonj - would you mind explaining this technique? I'm a relative newbie to road bikes, and though I'm enjoying mine enormously the 53/39 double was a choice guided by bargains and aesthetics rather than best suitability for the Welsh terrain. For someone used to winching themselves up big hills in mtb gears, it's a bit of an adjustment. Good to have a serious cyclist to ask about these things.

you just sort of relax your ankles, pedalling such that at the bottom of the pedal stroke, your heel is lower than it would be if you keep your ankle rigid. But you have to relax it gradually and smoothly, so that the power exerted by your leg isn't going into simply rotating your foot about the pedal axle - after all it is the toe-end of the foot rather than the heel end that transfers the power to the crank.

anybody else know what i mean?
Greenbank might be able to explain it better than me? (can probably do it better aswell )

 

[MacB]

anybody else know what i mean?

limp ankles?

 

[theclaud]

you just sort of relax your ankles, pedalling such that at the bottom of the pedal stroke, your heel is lower than it would be if you keep your ankle rigid. But you have to relax it gradually and smoothly, so that the power exerted by your leg isn't going into simply rotating your foot about the pedal axle - after all it is the toe-end of the foot rather than the heel end that transfers the power to the crank.

anybody else know what i mean? Greenbank might be able to explain it better than me? (can probably do it better aswell )

Is that the same thing as ankling, or something else entirely? I thought ankling was pretty much agreed to be either pointless or potentially harmful these days?

 

[jimboalee]

Is that the same thing as ankling, or something else entirely? I thought ankling was pretty much agreed to be either pointless or potentially harmful these days?

That's my understanding.

 

[Chris James]

Here's my take.

If you're not quite that fit you may find that your usual range of gears for your normal terrain spans both the small and big chainrings of a compact. That means in usual terrain you'll be swapping between the two, which can be a right pain. Compare this to a triple where, for the majority of the time, you can sit on the middle ring and use the majority of the range of rear sprockets. Changing to the big ring for long descents or tailwinds, and the small chainring for big hills.

I agree, and have said something similar on many of the near identical threads we have had.

However, since I have been accused over complicating things (!), then I reckon the advice of just buy the bike and enjoy it sounds about right.

The OP seems to want either a compact or standard double. By the sound of it, the compact would be more suitable and should give low enough gears, even if it requires loads of double shifting to make full use of them.

 

[jimboalee]

As I said earlier, there are a few 'Gear calculators' around, but not many, if any, websites that tell you what gears to pack for the route you intend to ride.

Here's the 'witchcraft' again.

For a 10% hill. ( 1 / Weight of bike ( inc full bottles etc ) ) x 1000 = inches gear.

For every 2% steeper, add two teeth to rear sprocket.

EXAMPLE – 25lb fully laden bike. – 40" for a 10%. 30 x 21 will do.

12% gradient 30 x 23
14% gradient 30 x 25
16% gradient 30 x 27
20% gradient 30 x 32 ???
25% gradient 30 x 36 if you are really that crazy to let the walking dudes overtake you.

 

[jimboalee]

So if your bike weighs 22lb with a full bottle of drink, the 10% gear is 46". 39 x 23.
If there is a 12% climb on your route, pack a 25 tooth sprocket.
If there is a 14% climb on your route, pack a 27 tooth sprocket.

An 18lb bike.
10% - 39 x 19
12% - 39 x 21
14% - 39 x 23
16% - 39 x 25

A 15lb bike ( UCI limit )
10% - 53 x 22 or 39 x 16
12% - 39 x 18
14% - 39 x 20
16% - 39 x 22
18% - 39 x 24

 

[Greenbank]

25% gradient 30 x 36 if you are really that crazy to let the walking dudes overtake you.

The bloke who got up the 25% climb at the weekend was going faster than I could walk up it. He was on a triple, nothing special: 30x29 if I remember correctly.

The year before I watched someone wrench their way up it on a 34x26 compact double.

I pushed my 67" fixed up it

I got up most of the 3rd climb which is steep but not as bad: http://www.greenbank.org/audax/elenith_2009/phone2.jpg

 

[jimboalee]

The bloke who got up the 25% climb at the weekend was going faster than I could walk up it. He was on a triple, nothing special: 30x29 if I remember correctly.

The year before I watched someone wrench their way up it on a 34x26 compact double.

I pushed my 67" fixed up it

I got up most of the 3rd climb which is steep but not as bad: http://www.greenbank.org/audax/elenith_2009/phone2.jpg

Strong legged lads.

I wish there were more.

 

[Randochap]

It still depends, then, doesn't it?

It's impossible to shoehorn into some kind of one-size-fits-all formula. That might work very nearly for a motor car, but the bicycle is a different beast.

The nineteenth century's ingenious contribution to cybernetics, happily, is driven by an independent engine of wide-ranging abilities, governed by the most erratic of all organs -- the human brain.

A few specimens of those have offered up some practical advice in this thread, while others approach with overactive processing of mechanistic minutiae, outside of the human sphere. This is the root of our human problem: in thrall to our machines, we have turned rivers into sewers and mountains into slag heaps.

Might a good dictum be: Cyclists know thy engine?

Then you can begin to deduce what kind of gearing you need. After that, it's a matter of personal idiosyncrasy (there's that ineffable human realm again) on which everything else depends, because, as of yet, the best part of the bicycle cyborg is the mortal and inconsistent viscera of its engine.