Struggling with hills

[dhague]

OK, to bring all this to a very practical point:

I have a bike with a Shimano 105 groupset - compact double (50/34) up front, and a 12/27 rear sprocket. It's almost perfect for me, but I'd really like another gear or two at the bottom end - I hit a 15% incline on my first ever sportive last weekend, and it was agony grinding away at 50-60 rpm instead of 90+. Didn't get off the bike though - I'm proud of that. And I really enjoyed the rest of the event too - I'll be doing more.

So, what's the best practical way for me to get another couple of gears on the bottom end? In terms of what's available from Shimano, I'm about as low as I can go with a double.

Cheers,
Darren

P.S. Yes, I know I will get better with time and not need those gears - but right now, I could do with less pain when I hit 15% inclines.

 

[MacB]

if you have 50/34 up front, any reason this couldn't become 46/30, same differential, lower gearing?

 

[buggi]

hi

i've come in on thread this pretty late so you've prob already had this advice but i can't be arsed to check , but here's my penny's worth. it was the advice given to me by a cycling coach when i did my first big ride.

you will be ok with a compact, technically you only lose the smallest gear from a triple and it's not worth worrying about around Surrey.

when you go up a hill, get in your granny gears, stay seated for as long as possible (your heart rate goes up as soon as you stand, and the longer you stay seated the quicker you will recover once you've gone over the top). only stand if you really have nothing left.

when you go up a hill, while seated, concentrate on relaxing the top half of your body and relaxing your grip on the handlebars, you might find it better to rest your hands on the top of the drop handlebar. This will enable you to then concentrate on pushing through the legs. get into a rythym. I call these hills 1, 2ers.. because as i go up i'm repeating in my head 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 etc (some people call them bar-stards, bar-stards, bar-stards )

now the thing to remember is... hills never ever get any better. what happens is, as you get better and fitter, you will just get up them in a harder gear and quicker, but you will always put maximum effort in. The trick is to get used to the feeling of exertion and then you become less scared of it. once you realise that it gets to a point where it doesn't get any worse you start to find that you actually begin to enjoy the fact that you can get up them... and the higher you go... the more rewarding it is.

hope that helps

 

[Davidc]

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.

Simple mechanics. The torque does change but its best considered as a change to the force needed at the pedal to produce the force on the ground to shove you up the hill.

If the crank length on the Giro is 6.7" the mechanical advantage from foot to ground is 6.7/5.5 times that of the Moulton. (about 20% greater)

Gear inhes are only a conversion of wheel diameters. Good for comparison of options, provided the cranks stay the same.

 

[dhague]

if you have 50/34 up front, any reason this couldn't become 46/30, same differential, lower gearing?

MacB,

That's pretty much my question: how to do this, practically speaking. For example, where to find 46 & 30 rings in a 110 BCD? Or would I need new cranks, front & rear mech, etc?

- Darren

 

[buddha]

I regularly ride near Warlingham. Some of the hills around there are absolute bu99ers!

When I started out (unfit/overweight - now a little fitter/still overweight) I remember the self imposed embarrasment of having to get off and walk a few times. To avoid this I stuck to longer, shallower 'climbs' for a few months to build up some fitness and strength.

One of my regular routes, a few miles north of Warlingham was (and still is) Layhams Road > Skid Hill Lane > Fairchildes Road > Chelsham Court Road > Beech Farm Road > left on to Limpsfield Road to the top of Titsey Hill. This gives you a relatively easy incline over a few miles. When I mastered this I substituted the Chelsham Court Road > Beech Farm Road section with Heisiers Hill > Beddlestead Lane, which is a bit tougher. You'll also meet a lot of (relatively) friendly cyclists on that route

Three years later I can now manage Tithepit Shaw Lane (the wrong way) on my 39/53 and the fixie. Still knackered at the top though.

Keep at it!

 

[MacB]

MacB,

That's pretty much my question: how to do this, practically speaking. For example, where to find 46 & 30 rings in a 110 BCD? Or would I need new cranks, front & rear mech, etc?

- Darren

Ah, now there you exhaust my limited knowledge as it's not something I've actually had to do yet. Unfortunately things I have had to do have shown a surprisingly large amount of incompatibility between what I'd like and what fits. I'd resort to Sheldons technical tables for this, it takes ages going via manufacturers websites

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/

 

[MacB]

Three years later I can now manage Tithepit Shaw Lane (the wrong way) on my 39/53 and the fixie. Still knackered at the top though.

Keep at it!

after Tithepit Shaw Lane, move on to Succumbs Hill, that last bend at the top can really test you, assuming it's still the same layout. I went to Warlingham School so had the choice, Tithepit seemed longer but easier, Succumbs harsher but got it over quicker.

 

[peanut]

MacB,

That's pretty much my question: how to do this, practically speaking. For example, where to find 46 & 30 rings in a 110 BCD? Or would I need new cranks, front & rear mech, etc?

- Darren

well now you've sucessfully hijacked Rich's thread I would suggest you do what the rest of us do and look through the components of the big online stores instead of asking us to do it for you.
Try SJS Cycles under the chainring section

 

[jimboalee]

I'm back, with more crap to slag off.

On another thread a while back, I described a 10" gear bike friends and I built. It was a schooldays experiment to see if was possible to ride a bike up a 45 deg slope.
During those times, a lot of 'mucking' and 'messing' around was done and a LOT was learned about gearing and hill climbing.

Two major lessons were learned. 'Equilibrium of forces' and 'Mechanical advantage'.

It was noted there are two types of weight on a push-bike. Weight that contributes, and weight that doesn't.
When a rider stands up on the pedals, he changes a lot of 'doesn't' to a lot of 'does'.


You can test this in the same manner as I did when I was fourteen. Choose a hill and gear where standing on the pedal gives no forward movement. You can put more weight in your backpack and still no forward movement. You will have to load up with a BIG weight to get some forward movement, eg. a second schoolboy.
(The mechanical advantage is dependant upon the gear ratio, wheel radius and crank radius.) When 'equilibrium' happens, a lighter rider has no discernable advantage over a heavy rider and the heavy rider has no discernable advantage over the light rider. This is the reasoning behind my statement 'weight doesn't matter'.

Note here.. Transfering 'doesn't' weight to 'does' weight by shifting from bike to body gives a small bit of inbalance in favour of forward motion.

Convert the 'does' weight to 'doesn't' weight ( by sitting down ) and you will start to roll backward. Once the roll has started, you cannot stop it except by tugging on the backstroke or crashing.

The other test is to change crank length. Put on longer cranks, repeat the experiment ( same gear, same hill, same bodyweight ) and you will roll forward, albeit very slowly. This is due to a better Mechanical advantage.
To return to 'equilibrium', steepen the gradient or increase the gear ratio.

 

[garrilla]

Does the the "second schoolboy" have to sit on the shoulders of the first one?

 

[Bigtwin]

This is a wonderful myth trotted out frequently, and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the physics of moving weight against gravity.

It's nicely illustrated by getting someone to put a rucksack on with 50lbs in, and inviting them to ride up the same hill as they rode without.

Weight will not peddle a bike up a hill. It requires muscle power - energy. The more weight there is to move, the more muscle power - energy - is required to move it. It is an exactly proportional relationship - twice the weight needs twice the effort to move it. It matters not a jot how the weight is distributed, and weight does not produce it's own energy. If it's on the bike at rest, you have to move it with your weight and legs. If it's on you and dynamic, you have to move it with your legs, plus you have the added disadvantage of overcoming the enertia of the moving weight everytime you move up and down downstroke. Unless you pedal entirely smoothly from the hips down and keep the riucksack steady, in which case you are suspending its weight with your muscle energy, and still need to exert the same additional energy to move the mass.

 

[asterix]

If you cycled in North Yorkshire you would know that it would not be possible to cycle up a 45 degree slope, use what gears you like. After 1 in 3 it becomes nearly impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground.

Unless maybe you had a schoolboy to sit on the handlebars.

 

[Bigtwin]

If you cycled in North Yorkshire you would know that it would not be possible to cycle up a 45 degree slope, use what gears you like. After 1 in 3 it becomes nearly impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground.

Unless maybe you had a schoolboy to sit on the handlebars.

Nonsense.

You simply sit on the bars yourself and pedal backwards.

 

[jimboalee]

This is a wonderful myth trotted out frequently, and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the physics of moving weight against gravity.

It's nicely illustrated by getting someone to put a rucksack on with 50lbs in, and inviting them to ride up the same hill as they rode without.

Weight will not peddle a bike up a hill. It requires muscle power - energy. The more weight there is to move, the more muscle power - energy - is required to move it. It is an exactly proportional relationship - twice the weight needs twice the effort to move it. It matters not a jot how the weight is distributed, and weight does not produce it's own energy. If it's on the bike at rest, you have to move it with your weight and legs. If it's on you and dynamic, you have to move it with your legs, plus you have the added disadvantage of overcoming the enertia of the moving weight everytime you move up and down downstroke. Unless you pedal entirely smoothly from the hips down and keep the riucksack steady, in which case you are suspending its weight with your muscle energy, and still need to exert the same additional energy to move the mass.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

On a 1% incline, start from a stationary position with one foot on the pedal and one foot on the kerb.
To ride away when the lights turn green, simply transfer your bodyweight from the kerb to the foot which is clipped into the forward pedal and you will ride up the 1% hill on bodyweight alone with NO muscular effort.