Struggling with hills

[asterix]

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.

5.5 inches, 140mm! That's hardly any crank at all!!

 

[MacB]

I like the Rando take on this, I'm far more likely to run out of low gears than high ones. If you fancy compact doubles then I'd personally suggest that a combination of 42/30 rings and 11-32 cassette would give a much more user friendly range - 24.6 inches up to 100 inches.

Maybe it's because I'm still fairly new to cycling but I haven't come across anyone, that I'm aware of, that uses gears above 100 inches very much.

 

[jimboalee]

5.5 inches, 140mm! That's hardly any crank at all!!

14" wheels! That's hardly any wheel at all!!

Luckily, I have acquired a pair of cottered 6.75" cranks with a 48 ring.
The Sachs Torpedo coaster takes the same sprocket pattern as Sturmey Archer so I will couple it with a 14T sprocket to get 48".

At 85ish cadence, it goes 12mph.
If I can find an Audax 100 with 10 - 20 kmh limits, I'll give it a whirl

 

[Dan B]

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.

I sort of agree, sort of don't. If their intention is to get fitter and they're prepared to work at it then they will once fitter be better off with the "normal" gearing than the triple+megarange or whatever would suit them in the initial stage. Personally, I'd be peed off at the prospect of having to buy (and probably to pay for fitting of) two chainwheels and probably two front mechs as well: I'd rather just sweat more. Or go up less steep hills.

Obviously if you have to get over some hill or other because it's on your way to work then that changes the equation a bit. But if you've bought a nice bike then a nice replacement chainring for it could easily be £100 extra which you might well otherwise want to save

Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation.

Er, right. I trust you are familiar with the concept of "conservation of energy", also that power is energy per unit time. The heavier rider+bike will expend more energy to lift themselves to a given height than the lighter rider+bike, and that must remain true irrespective of how much torque they can apply at the pedal. Therefore the heavier rider needs more power for the same hill, and that power has to come from muscles. It can't come from gravity unless the hill is less than half a crank revolution long
[/quote]

 

[SimonRoberts0204]

unfortunately, the energy you need to put down is mass*height of hill* 9.81.

The only way to put this on the road is through the muscles in your legs.

 

[cisamcgu]

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.

Longer cranks are like having a lower gear, that is all !

 

[jimboalee]

I sort of agree, sort of don't. If their intention is to get fitter and they're prepared to work at it then they will once fitter be better off with the "normal" gearing than the triple+megarange or whatever would suit them in the initial stage. Personally, I'd be peed off at the prospect of having to buy (and probably to pay for fitting of) two chainwheels and probably two front mechs as well: I'd rather just sweat more. Or go up less steep hills.

Obviously if you have to get over some hill or other because it's on your way to work then that changes the equation a bit. But if you've bought a nice bike then a nice replacement chainring for it could easily be £100 extra which you might well otherwise want to save


Er, right. I trust you are familiar with the concept of "conservation of energy", also that power is energy per unit time. The heavier rider+bike will expend more energy to lift themselves to a given height than the lighter rider+bike, and that must remain true irrespective of how much torque they can apply at the pedal. Therefore the heavier rider needs more power for the same hill, and that power has to come from muscles. It can't come from gravity unless the hill is less than half a crank revolution long

[/quote]

Yes, this is the contention. If the same weight rider+bike have to get up the same hill on the same gear in the same time, what crank length would you prefer?

 

[Dan B]

If the same weight rider+bike have to get up the same hill on the same gear in the same time, what crank length would you prefer?

Same time as what?

 

[jimboalee]

Same time as what?

This is an old chestnut that has been argued about since bicycles were invented.

As I have already mentioned, a heavy rider on a light bike can be the same 'whole vehicle' weight as a light bloke on a heavy bike.

The heavy rider has the advantage.

Anyway.
The bottom line here is :- Minimise body tissue that doesn't contribute (fat), Maximise lower body muscle mass.

 

[Rider Rich]

I will just keep at it for now, and try and improve my fitness.

I dont really want to have to spend extra cash on making changes to the bike at the moment, Im the one that needs changing, and with time I hope to get there!

Cheers

Richard

 

[Dan B]

As I have already mentioned, a heavy rider on a light bike can be the same 'whole vehicle' weight as a light bloke on a heavy bike.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of your original claim that "Bodyweight doesn't really come into the equation"

Minimise body tissue that doesn't contribute (fat), Maximise lower body muscle mass.

So, by putting water bottles in your jersey pockets you increase lower body muscle mass? Fantastic, I must try it

 

[jimboalee]

I said I'd start an argument.

 

[Dan B]

Yes, I'll concede that point certainly, but it was about the only accurate bit you did say.

 

[Ant]

I will just keep at it for now, and try and improve my fitness.

I dont really want to have to spend extra cash on making changes to the bike at the moment, Im the one that needs changing, and with time I hope to get there!

Cheers

Richard

Good idea. Try not to get too disheartened if it's tough at first, you'll get there.

I remember when I decided to get back into cycling a couple of years ago after a 20 years off a bike. I didn't do any research at all, just picked up an entry level road bike with standard 53/39 road gears....because that's pretty much what I'd ridden all those years ago.

I tried to ride up a short, but fairly steep, hill near to where I live......I thought I was going to have a heart attack, litterally. Pounding chest, sickness, blurred vision, feeling feint, the whole works. I could barely even push the bike up the rest of the hill.

Well, I was danmed if I was going to let it beat me. I could breeze up hills in my younger days and I was going to damn well do it again as far as I was concerned. It took a while, some pain and lots of tiredness, but I can get up that hill fairly effortlessly now and I actually quite like hills these days.

One word of advice though. Try and get a checkup with your doctor if possible and explain that you've started cycling. I knew that I had good strong heart and lungs and I wasn't overweight, and so could push myself fairly hard without much risk of doing myself any damage. I wouldn't recommend killing yourself up hills without being sure you won't do more harm than good.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Yes, I'll concede that point certainly, but it was about the only accurate bit you did say.

Post of the day...