stoatsngroats
Legendary Member
- Location
- South East
Within 6 miles of me!MacBludgeon said:
Struggling with hills
- Thread starter Rider Rich
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
jimboalee said:Had a look on the map. Succombs hillThe proverbial 'staircase'..
When you can get up this one....( cus yer bike doesn't have the gearing )?? , then your ready for a local Audax.
Ah Jim, that hill was my route to school in the mornings
Rider Rich
Active Member
Thank you for all the advice, its very much appreciated.
I will just keep at it for now, and try and get out as much as I can.
By the way I have 50/34 at the front and 11-25 at the rear.
I will just keep at it for now, and try and get out as much as I can.
By the way I have 50/34 at the front and 11-25 at the rear.
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
Hi, agree with all said about practicing hills, the more you do, the easier they get. Technique plays a big part... many try to wrestle their bikes up the hill to poor effect, whereas a nice relaxed approach will pay dividends. My big tip here is prior to the climb, get comfy, sit back on the saddle, AND RELAX - especially the upper body, arms, hands, neck, every part of your body you don't need to propel you forward... then find the right gear and then gently wind yourself up, find a nice rhythmn... oh, and RELAX... did I mention that?
It's also good to learn to climb 'out of the saddle' or 'Honking' as it allows other muscles to share some work and gives extra short-term power, again, relax...
I also as mentioned tend to look at the road just in front of me and try to think of something that's not cycling and before you know it, you'll be at the top (or in a ditch
). Much about climbing is all in the mind!
Box Hill is a good hill to practice, nice long even gradients with bends to mark progress. I used to haul up it on a 42 x 15 fixed so your 34 x 25 should be a peach after some practice
It's also good to learn to climb 'out of the saddle' or 'Honking' as it allows other muscles to share some work and gives extra short-term power, again, relax...
I also as mentioned tend to look at the road just in front of me and try to think of something that's not cycling and before you know it, you'll be at the top (or in a ditch
). Much about climbing is all in the mind!Box Hill is a good hill to practice, nice long even gradients with bends to mark progress. I used to haul up it on a 42 x 15 fixed so your 34 x 25 should be a peach after some practice
simon_brooke
New Member
- Location
- Auchencairn
Rider Rich said:
HJ said:
Triples are ugly.
Hills are always hard for heavier folk, I'm afraid. But this has an upside - as you get fitter you get lighter, so hills become easier in two ways at once!
A larger cassette will help a bit - I think you can get a 12-27 tooth Shimano road cassette, and if the worst comes to the worst with Shimano you could fit a mountain bike mech and cassette. But really what will help is fitness, which means get out on the bike and ride.
There must be someone of roughly similar ability locally you can ride with. Find the local CTC group, or whether your local road club has 'social' rides. Also, learn the less taxing local routes.
With some friends I do an annual autumn ride up from Dumfries to the Mennock Water, and from there up to Wanlockhead up the Mennock Pass, and back down the Dalveen Pass. It's 85 miles, and the Mennock Pass is a cat one climb. The first couple of years we did it I got off and pushed a lot of the way up the Mennock. But those days are long past. I won't say I fly up there, but I no longer struggle.
Fitness will come.
Yes, I was thinking that.Sittingduck said:^ compact = 34 inner or maybe a 36 tops...
Spa Cycles will sell you a lovely Stronglight chainring for £8, which will be a massive improvement.
And when you wear out your current gears, consider a lower geared cassette. 28 is probably the most your derralieur can take, but it will make life much easier.
Randochap
Senior hunter
- Location
- British Columbia, Canada
I'm always amazed when people ask for a help on gearing because they are new to cycling and struggling with hills ... only to have people advise, basically, HTFU.
Going on specs for an off-the-peg Trek 1.9 double compact, your lowest gear is in the realm of 35 inches. You are new to cycling and, by your own admission, overweight.
This is a very unhappy combination -- you and this bike I mean -- and it's not going to be much fun ... until you reach this idealized condition that is being held out for you. It may well be that you might give up before that time comes, as I've seen many others do. It's why my most common rant is against shops selling "racing bikes" to regular mortals, telling them "this'll be fine" with no concern for the fitness level of the customer or intended use of the bike.
I am a fit, 135lb, 57 y/o ex-racer and regular randonneur and tourer. At moderate fitness, I am capable of riding over 400km a day.
The highest low gearing I have on any of my bikes is 27" -- not because I'm a wimp (and who cares if anyone thinks I am), but because I like to climb the hilly topography I live around comfortably, without undue agony.
Going on specs for an off-the-peg Trek 1.9 double compact, your lowest gear is in the realm of 35 inches. You are new to cycling and, by your own admission, overweight.
This is a very unhappy combination -- you and this bike I mean -- and it's not going to be much fun ... until you reach this idealized condition that is being held out for you. It may well be that you might give up before that time comes, as I've seen many others do. It's why my most common rant is against shops selling "racing bikes" to regular mortals, telling them "this'll be fine" with no concern for the fitness level of the customer or intended use of the bike.
I am a fit, 135lb, 57 y/o ex-racer and regular randonneur and tourer. At moderate fitness, I am capable of riding over 400km a day.
The highest low gearing I have on any of my bikes is 27" -- not because I'm a wimp (and who cares if anyone thinks I am), but because I like to climb the hilly topography I live around comfortably, without undue agony.
Randochap
Senior hunter
- Location
- British Columbia, Canada
simon_brooke said:
Utter rot.
Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation. Now that's going to start a healthy discussion.
When you honk, think of your bodymass in Newtons. Think of the crank length and then think it is Nm torque on the BB shaft.
Fat bloaters like me can apply more torque to the BB and skinny types can't.
Peculiarly, the whole thing cancels out because each has to lift their mass upwards.
The only thing that determines climbing ability is the 'dead weight' of the metal ( and carbon ).
Incidentally, transfering your water bottles to your rear pockets HELPS climb a hill. They become part of the aminate mass ie. part of your body.
I carry nothing on my bike. Its all in my pockets. Why should cycle jerseys have evolved and developed over the years with rear pockets? Its so you can carry your stuff without it adding to the 'dead weight' burden.
BTW.. Question...When you sit your bum on the seat, how much of your bodyweight becomes 'dead weight' with the bike?
The other perenial question was the one about the two guys on bikes. One was a hefty chap on a light bike and the other a slim, light chap on a heavier bike. The 'total vehicle' weight was the same. Who got to the top of the hill quickest?
When you honk, think of your bodymass in Newtons. Think of the crank length and then think it is Nm torque on the BB shaft.
Fat bloaters like me can apply more torque to the BB and skinny types can't.
Peculiarly, the whole thing cancels out because each has to lift their mass upwards.
The only thing that determines climbing ability is the 'dead weight' of the metal ( and carbon ).
Incidentally, transfering your water bottles to your rear pockets HELPS climb a hill. They become part of the aminate mass ie. part of your body.
I carry nothing on my bike. Its all in my pockets. Why should cycle jerseys have evolved and developed over the years with rear pockets? Its so you can carry your stuff without it adding to the 'dead weight' burden.
BTW.. Question...When you sit your bum on the seat, how much of your bodyweight becomes 'dead weight' with the bike?
The other perenial question was the one about the two guys on bikes. One was a hefty chap on a light bike and the other a slim, light chap on a heavier bike. The 'total vehicle' weight was the same. Who got to the top of the hill quickest?
JtB
Prepare a way for the Lord
- Location
- North Hampshire
I know its stating the obvious, but if your saddle is set too low, hills will be excessively hard. I set my saddle so its comfortable for peddling, but that means I can't touch the road with my feet without getting off my saddle. Here's some useful information on setting the height of the saddle: http://sheldonbrown.com/saddles.html#height
To paraphrase someone else, 'Its not about the bike'. Keep at it and it will become easier!
Also once you get fitter you'd find that the inner ring on a triple would become superfluous then you would be using a 42 tooth middle ring most of the time instead of the 34 or 36 you have now.
Also once you get fitter you'd find that the inner ring on a triple would become superfluous then you would be using a 42 tooth middle ring most of the time instead of the 34 or 36 you have now.
cisamcgu
Legendary Member
- Location
- Merseyside-ish
jimboalee said:
Utter rot !
On the assumption that a human produces the same power regardless of their weight (and this is a fair assumption) then the heavier the person the more energy is required to lift that person up a hill at the same rate as a lighter person.
So therefore the heavier person must go slower if they are producing the same power - your talk about torque on the cranks is just complete drivel !
cisamcgu said:Utter rot !
On the assumption that a human produces the same power regardless of their weight (and this is a fair assumption) then the heavier the person the more energy is required to lift that person up a hill at the same rate as a lighter person.
So therefore the heavier person must go slower if they are producing the same power - your talk about torque on the cranks is just complete drivel !
Ah, so buying a chainset with a longer crank length is a total waste of money if you think they will help you climb a hill?
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
A useful technique to acquire is the ability to produce force on the up stroke of the pedal as well as the down stroke. It's extraordinary how much extra power can be achieved like this. Only really works with clipless pedals as toeclips don't grip enough and you'd best be fit.
Although compacts can do the job perfectly well with the right rings, I like my triple because it's very hilly round here and at the end of a long ride those low gears are rather welcome (home is at the top of a hill ).
Although compacts can do the job perfectly well with the right rings, I like my triple because it's very hilly round here and at the end of a long ride those low gears are rather welcome (home is at the top of a hill
).Two of my bikes are quite different, but quite similar.
I have a Dawes Giro 500 and a Moulton Mini.
They both weigh 23.5lb.
I put the Dawes in 42 x 23 (48") and ride up the 7% near where I live quite easily.
The Moulton Mini has a 52 x 15 with a 14" wheel = 49".
IT HAS 5.5 inch cranks and I STRUGGLE to climb the 7% because there's LESS torque.
I have a Dawes Giro 500 and a Moulton Mini.
They both weigh 23.5lb.
I put the Dawes in 42 x 23 (48") and ride up the 7% near where I live quite easily.
The Moulton Mini has a 52 x 15 with a 14" wheel = 49".
IT HAS 5.5 inch cranks and I STRUGGLE to climb the 7% because there's LESS torque.
