Question About 3 Chainrings

the_ryder said:

[font=arial]Hey all - [/font]

[font=arial]When I bought my bike (Scattante R550) it came with 3 chain rings and my friends let me know real quick that the extra gear was like having training wheels, lol. What I found is I can hit an ideal and more efficient cadence (80-100 rpm) on that small gear when I'm going up hills and choose to stay seated. My question, however, is should I train with that small gear when it seems appropriate and assume my legs will get strong enough to not use it as proper training follows or should I burn myself into using only the last 2 chain rings now and seek a sharper learning curve which could mean a lower cadence on some hills?[/font]

[font=arial]Cheers,[/font]

First of all, your "friends" are simply predjudiced against triple chain rings. Yes, the vast majority of us race on doubles, but even the pros use triples on occasion when that's what they need for the gearing - getting up the hill is what counts, the rest is just equipment. First issue in your note: you can get the same wattage by turning over a small (i.e. easier) gear at high cadence as you can using a bigger (harder) gear at lower cadence - one doesn't make you "stronger" than the other. However, the lower cadence will probably fatigue you more quickly. So my recommendation is use the gear which keeps you in an efficient cadence range, even if it is the granny ring on your triple. If you are intent on racing on a double, your challenge is to find a combination of chain ring and cogs which keeps you in that higher-cadence range - it may well turn out to be a compact crank design (which allows smaller chain rings) and larger cogs. If I remember correctly, when Tom Danielson won the Mt. Washington Hill Climb he used a mountain-bike derailleur to handle the casette he needed, and Tyler Hamilton rode his last TdF using compact cranks to get lower climbing ratios (which he needed because of his broken collarbone). What you do not want to do is climb at an inefficient cadence simply because (as an example) someone said that "real racers always use 53/39 chain rings and 12-23 casettes."

the_ryder said:

[font=arial]Hey all - [/font]

[font=arial]When I bought my bike (Scattante R550) it came with 3 chain rings and my friends let me know real quick that the extra gear was like having training wheels, lol. What I found is I can hit an ideal and more efficient cadence (80-100 rpm) on that small gear when I'm going up hills and choose to stay seated. My question, however, is should I train with that small gear when it seems appropriate and assume my legs will get strong enough to not use it as proper training follows or should I burn myself into using only the last 2 chain rings now and seek a sharper learning curve which could mean a lower cadence on some hills?[/font]

[font=arial]Cheers,[/font]

Just shrug it off. Keep your granny gear and spin like it sounds like you are doing. About the only thing you are doing is saving your knees from sure damage. Not sure why anyone would want to do that.

As far as training, yes, do what's sensible, increase gearing and try to maintain your cadence (on the same hill). If you can do that, your legs will no doubt, get stronger over time. The real reason people (read: men) shun the third ring has something to do with manhood/being macho. There is no need to lower your cadence while climbing. If anything, you want to raise it. You can be in the granny, spin faster, and beat someone climbing, say in a 42-25; unless the other person is stronger and can spin the 42-25 combination about as fast as you spin your 30-25.

I'm sure racers will chime in and curse you for even considering the 3rd ring, it's there for a reason. You will do well to use it, but use it efficiently as you've suggested. Good luck!

There's nothing wrong with using the small ring for climbing; do what it takes to get up the hill. Over time your power may develop to the point that you don't use the small ring anymore, and if that's the case then look for a double when you upgrade your bike.

By no means should you restrict yourself to big gears and/or low cadences to try to train your legs in a particular way. Your aerobic fitness will develop much faster than your joint and tendon strength, and you'll be risking injury or pain by trying to force things.

the_ryder said:

[font=arial]Hey all - [/font]

[font=arial]When I bought my bike (Scattante R550) it came with 3 chain rings and my friends let me know real quick that the extra gear was like having training wheels, lol. What I found is I can hit an ideal and more efficient cadence (80-100 rpm) on that small gear when I'm going up hills and choose to stay seated. My question, however, is should I train with that small gear when it seems appropriate and assume my legs will get strong enough to not use it as proper training follows or should I burn myself into using only the last 2 chain rings now and seek a sharper learning curve which could mean a lower cadence on some hills?[/font]

[font=arial]Cheers,[/font]

If the climbs are not too long one should train only on a gear ratios approx
42/16 or 39/15.When these gears can be pushed on flats or undulating terrain
at 80 to 100 rpm one can say one has a good base.
After one has reached this stage these gear ratios become the recovery ride ratios or off season ratios.Then one changes gear for those days of speed work or for other speciallizations.

If the hills are high grade or long the gearing is to be accomodated.In theory
the trainned cyclist should have enough bandwidth on the above gears to generate 70 to 110 rpm on different terrain.(hills or flats 32kph to 40kph).
So you will change gears only for those hard days TT or Intervals etc.

Hope this helps.

Happy cycling and there will be roads!!!!

🙄

Thanks for the feedback everyone - ima keep cranking at whatever keeps me in the 80-100 rpm range.

the_ryder said:

Thanks for the feedback everyone - ima keep cranking at whatever keeps me in the 80-100 rpm range.

Here was today's standing when I paid particular attention to my cadence and kept it 80-100 at all times...2 mph AVS increase overall, heartrate was through the roof though...

Date:09-20-2005
Location: H/Edge/Can/Ral/H
AVS: 17.3
MXS: 49.0
T: 1:06:00
DST: 18.75 miles
HRT (avg/day mx): 195/208
Terrain/Comments: Mild/Hilly,temp low 80s, low winds experimented w/ 80-100rpm and increased, dead on arrival : )

In general, the more fit you are (or become), the lower your heart rate becomes for the same sustained effort. Those numbers do seem a bit high, but there are other things to consider, possibly: Were you well rested? How much higher than typical is this?

Guessing this is your first foray into higher cadence/lower gear combination. I'd give it time. You will become less tired and the heart rate should drop.

the_ryder said:

Thanks for the feedback everyone - ima keep cranking at whatever keeps me in the 80-100 rpm range.

Good call - your friends have no idea what they are talking about. Turning a gear that's too tall doesn't help you get in shape faster - it just burns your legs out faster. Keep your cadence where it should be so you can ride longer - and you'll be faster up the hills too.

Thanks for the replies -

Frankbattle:

Yeah I was very well rested, hydrated, and well fed for this ride. Before I was paying attention to cadence I wasn't usually taking myself above 190 bpm (usually hovered around 180-190 in similar scenarios) unless I stood up to climb a hill. Today I was averaged 195 and saw above that quite often. So there was a pronounced difference in heart beat and perceived effort.

Wingnutt:

Hooah

For those who use HRMs regularly, surely an average 93% of MHR for 18.75 miles is approaching the "not to be recommended" zone. At that kind of distance I would have thought 80% would be a more sensible zone and if achieving that means using the smaller ring when required then so be it.

Your heart is a tad more important than trying to conform to someone else's ideal so take care . . .

Yeah I'd be careful. The thing with cadence is that you are striving to make things easier, not harder. So if all you did was raise your cadence and kept your gearing where you had it before, then your perceived (and real) effort would go up.

Ideally, you want to lower your gearing and raise your cadence; I wonder though since you say your speed went up considerably too. If you already did all this and your HR still jumped, then I'd ease up a bit until you get used to this new style. It's shifting the demands from your legs to your cardio system. If you are not as fit as you once thought, this will show up .. initially.

Denia said:

For those who use HRMs regularly, surely an average 93% of MHR for 18.75 miles is approaching the "not to be recommended" zone. At that kind of distance I would have thought 80% would be a more sensible zone and if achieving that means using the smaller ring when required then so be it.

This time last year I would have thought the same thing, but that's just because I never spent any appreciable amount of time in the 90+% HR range as a club rider. 80% is not any more sensible than 93%, but the club/recreational rides tend to be down there because you can carry on a conversation at 80%. 93% is probably 'hammering' in club lingo, but there's nothing unhealthy about it.

After spending this year racing and training to race, I realized that my heart will beat along merrily for as long as it needs to at 93%. That is typically what someone would see if they were racing a time-trial, and those will sometimes go for an hour or more. True, it feels hard, but the more time you spend up there the more comfortable you will get. I realized that there are levels of perceived effort available that I never even scratched before on club rides.

troll36 said:

If the climbs are not too long one should train only on a gear ratios approx
42/16 or 39/15.When these gears can be pushed on flats or undulating terrain
at 80 to 100 rpm one can say one has a good base.
🙄

Where did you get this idea?
Does it apply pro level racers? Elite national amateurs?
Is it intended for Cat IV age 50 and over?
How about overweight club recreational riders?
Gears should be set to allow an appropriate cadence. This can vary over a huge range depending on wind, grade, and rider.

BobT

the_ryder said:

[font=arial]Hey all - [/font]

[font=arial]When I bought my bike (Scattante R550) it came with 3 chain rings and my friends let me know real quick that the extra gear was like having training wheels, lol. What I found is I can hit an ideal and more efficient cadence (80-100 rpm) on that small gear when I'm going up hills and choose to stay seated. My question, however, is should I train with that small gear when it seems appropriate and assume my legs will get strong enough to not use it as proper training follows or should I burn myself into using only the last 2 chain rings now and seek a sharper learning curve which could mean a lower cadence on some hills?[/font]

[font=arial]Cheers,[/font]

Over 80% of the [amateur] golfers cannot swing a stiff shafted club, but, they buy them because "you're not a man if you don't play stiff shafts." Most of these duffers spend most of their time trying to get out of the right ruff.

There is a reson for having 3 chain rings and it appears you have discovered that reason. Use what combination of gears necessary to maintain your pace efficiently. You are on the right track. You will get to the finish line and won't spend any of your time on the right side of the road catching your breath.

The only concern I had on this ride (with significantly higher cadence) was not my heart rate but instead the feeling of nausea. I imagine this arose from spinning much faster then usual with a little food in my stomach - nothing too serious though. As I am training for the UCLA racing season, I find it necessary to work in the 90 percent and above zone.

cheers
-matt

The truth is you can get the same gears on the granny ring as you can on your second smallest ring. depends which gear you select. I mean, I can get some fairly big gears on my granny ring as well as the tiny ones.
I wonder about larger gears and knees, though. I find I'm faster using big gears but sometimes worry I could wear my knees out. I try to stand a lot when climbing in bigger gears as physios recommend this.
My best bike is a triple but now I realise I can get by without the granny ring if I want to. So, maybe my next very expensive bike will see me going back to the double but with a larger cassette on the rear wheel. But certainly I'll keep my triple in service and I don't feel any loss of ego if I use the granny ring.

FrankBattle said:

Just shrug it off. Keep your granny gear and spin like it sounds like you are doing. About the only thing you are doing is saving your knees from sure damage. Not sure why anyone would want to do that.

As far as training, yes, do what's sensible, increase gearing and try to maintain your cadence (on the same hill). If you can do that, your legs will no doubt, get stronger over time. The real reason people (read: men) shun the third ring has something to do with manhood/being macho. There is no need to lower your cadence while climbing. If anything, you want to raise it. You can be in the granny, spin faster, and beat someone climbing, say in a 42-25; unless the other person is stronger and can spin the 42-25 combination about as fast as you spin your 30-25.

I'm sure racers will chime in and curse you for even considering the 3rd ring, it's there for a reason. You will do well to use it, but use it efficiently as you've suggested. Good luck!