Finding my ideal gears

Membrane said:

For my leisure/fitness rides in the mountains I am currently using a
hybrid with a 22-32-42 triple, a 7 speed 13-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette
and 170mm cranks. The low end of this gearing suits the combination of
the mountain terrain, my climbing ability (I'd like to have the option
to remain seated turning a cadence of ~80rpm on the steepest inclines)
and the 12.5kg weight of the hybrid. I run out of gears too quickly on
the top end, pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

I hope to replace that bike with a road bike, I expect to save ~4kg
weight in the process. In specifying the gears I'd like to have on that
bike I am considering a 34-50 compact double with a 9 or 10 speed
cassette. I'd loose gear inches at the bottom end compared to my current
bike, but I think the lower weight of the new bike would compensate for
that a fair bit.

4kgs saves about 5%, which is a looong way of your 34T/22T = 155 %
gearing increase, assuming the same sort of cassette.

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Membrane said:

I really like the progression that my current initial "2-up" cassette
gives me. Looking at the higher spec systems available (105, Ultegra) I
don't think that the initial one tooth progression on a 9 or 10 speed
cassette would work for me (example 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27).

A smaller progression means you change gear more often but are in a
sweet spot more of the time.

As long as the max and min are big and small enough respectively
then the smaller the jumps the more efficient you'll be on the
road, as long as you get into the habit of using the gears
commensurately more than you do at present.

I'd be inclined to try and borrow a road bike and take it out for a
good run and get the hang of smaller jumps: in theory they should
be better if you can get used to them, though obviously if you
genuinely don't like them you'd be silly to buy them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Membrane said:

For my leisure/fitness rides in the mountains I am currently using a
hybrid with a 22-32-42 triple, a 7 speed 13-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette
and 170mm cranks. The low end of this gearing suits the combination of
the mountain terrain, my climbing ability (I'd like to have the option
to remain seated turning a cadence of ~80rpm on the steepest inclines)
and the 12.5kg weight of the hybrid. I run out of gears too quickly on
the top end, pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

I hope to replace that bike with a road bike, I expect to save ~4kg
weight in the process. In specifying the gears I'd like to have on
that bike I am considering a 34-50 compact double with a 9 or 10 speed
cassette. I'd loose gear inches at the bottom end compared to my
current bike, but I think the lower weight of the new bike would
compensate for that a fair bit.

No that much. Even on a road bike, a triple chainset would be a safer bet
for you, since you are used to such low bottom gears.

Quoted message said:

The top end problem would be solved
by that configuration.

I really like the progression that my current initial "2-up" cassette
gives me. Looking at the higher spec systems available (105, Ultegra)
I don't think that the initial one tooth progression on a 9 or 10
speed cassette would work for me (example
12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27).

All you have to do is change by two gears at once (or in quick succession)
when a one-tooth difference would be too small. That's no big deal. The
one-tooth differences are great for fine tuning your cadence. Admittedly
these are more useful on flatter roads but still you're bound to enjoy them
very much sometimes.

Quoted message said:

I realise that gear progression should be judged not by the cassette
alone, but as a whole (chain wheels and crank length), but comparing
gear inch tables does my head in, the only useful information I can
extract from them are the maximum and minimum.

Any recommendations for my situation?

Campag triple chainset and 13-29 cassette, or similar Shimano. The triple
comes with a 30t granny but this is easily changed for a smaller one if
wanted.

~PB

"Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For my leisure/fitness rides in the mountains I am currently using a
hybrid with a 22-32-42 triple, a 7 speed 13-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette
and 170mm cranks. The low end of this gearing suits the combination of
the mountain terrain, my climbing ability (I'd like to have the option
to remain seated turning a cadence of ~80rpm on the steepest inclines)
and the 12.5kg weight of the hybrid. I run out of gears too quickly on
the top end, pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

I hope to replace that bike with a road bike, I expect to save ~4kg
weight in the process. In specifying the gears I'd like to have on that
bike I am considering a 34-50 compact double with a 9 or 10 speed
cassette. I'd loose gear inches at the bottom end compared to my current
bike, but I think the lower weight of the new bike would compensate for
that a fair bit. The top end problem would be solved by that
configuration.

You're looking at a very much higher bottom gear. Are you prepared to put up
with that - ie put the effort in to climb the hills rather faster than
before?

With a 22/32/42 chainset, you really want a 11t little sprocket rather than
the 13t you've got there. That'd give you a bit of a bigger gear.

What you could use with that road double is a 12-34t 9sp cassette - there's
an XT one. (LX and lower is 11-32 or 11-34). That's as low as you can get
with the double chainset. It also starts off with the gear jumps you're
after.

Or go triple with a more sensible crankset than you've currently got -
52/38/24 isn't unfeasible..

cheers,
clive

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Membrane wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope to replace that bike with a road bike, I expect to save ~4kg
weight in the process. In specifying the gears I'd like to have on
that bike I am considering a 34-50 compact double with a 9 or 10 speed
cassette. I'd loose gear inches at the bottom end compared to my
current bike, but I think the lower weight of the new bike would
compensate for that a fair bit.

Campag triple chainset and 13-29 cassette, or similar Shimano. The triple
comes with a 30t granny but this is easily changed for a smaller one if
wanted.

I have a low geared Galaxy with a 34 megarange cassette at the rear plus a
Deaore 48 - 36 - 26 chainset. It's still possible to pedal out at the hight
30's

My road bike has a Sora 52 - ?? - 30 chainset with an eight speed 11 - 28
SRAM cassette. I quite enjoy speeding along on it until I get to some of
the steeper hills and then it's hard work.

-=V=-

In article <[email hidden]>, Membrane
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

For my leisure/fitness rides in the mountains I am currently using a
hybrid with a 22-32-42 triple, a 7 speed 13-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette
and 170mm cranks. The low end of this gearing suits the combination of
the mountain terrain, my climbing ability (I'd like to have the option
to remain seated turning a cadence of ~80rpm on the steepest inclines)
and the 12.5kg weight of the hybrid. I run out of gears too quickly on
the top end, pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

Why do you need to go faster than that?

Quoted message said:

I hope to replace that bike with a road bike, I expect to save ~4kg
weight in the process. In specifying the gears I'd like to have on that
bike I am considering a 34-50 compact double with a 9 or 10 speed
cassette. I'd loose gear inches at the bottom end compared to my current
bike, but I think the lower weight of the new bike would compensate for
that a fair bit.

It won't make much difference - you still have to lug yourself and your
luggage up the hill.

Quoted message said:

The top end problem would be solved by that configuration.

I really like the progression that my current initial "2-up" cassette
gives me. Looking at the higher spec systems available (105, Ultegra) I
don't think that the initial one tooth progression on a 9 or 10 speed
cassette would work for me (example 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27).

The main (only?) advantage of 8/9/10 speed blocks is that they provide
lots of closely spaced ratios - if you're not concerned about that
there's not much point using them (apart from the fact that they are
becoming the most common types).

Quoted message said:

I realise that gear progression should be judged not by the cassette
alone, but as a whole (chain wheels and crank length), but comparing
gear inch tables does my head in, the only useful information I can
extract from them are the maximum and minimum.

What you want is evenly spaced ratios[1] - the difference between 12t
and 13t is the same as the difference between 24t and 26t.

[1] With the possible exception of an ultra-low gear which can have a
bigger jump.

Rob Morley said:

Quoted message said:

pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

Why do you need to go faster than that?

Because I can.
Because it is uncomfortable not being able to put pressure on the pedals
(all your weight being on the saddle).
Because I feel more in control of the bike, I feel like a passenger when
I can't put pressure on the pedals.

--
Membrane

In article <[email hidden]>, Membrane
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

Quoted message said:

pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

Why do you need to go faster than that?

Because I can.

If it's downhill you can often go faster by tucking in than by
pedalling.

Quoted message said:

Because it is uncomfortable not being able to put pressure on the pedals
(all your weight being on the saddle).

You don't have to take the load off the pedals just because they're not
imparting motive force.

Quoted message said:

Because I feel more in control of the bike, I feel like a passenger when
I can't put pressure on the pedals.

I don't understand that at all.

Membrane said:

Rob Morley said:

Quoted message said:

pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
~27mph.

Why do you need to go faster than that?

Because I can.
Because it is uncomfortable not being able to put pressure on the
pedals (all your weight being on the saddle).
Because I feel more in control of the bike, I feel like a passenger
when I can't put pressure on the pedals.

You want to go faster than 27 mph? Are you insane in the membrane? ;-)

Seriously, you can put pressure on the pedals while freewheeling and be
comfortable, but I don't blame you wanting to pedal at higher speeds than 27
mph. Any normal road bike gears will let you pedal at thirty-something
miles an hour, if not forty-something.

At really high speed though, it is actually faster to freewheel because you
can get into a more aerodynamic position. Even just the cranks being
horizontal helps a bit.

~PB

Rob Morley said:

If it's downhill you can often go faster by tucking in than by
pedalling.

But you need to be going faster than 27 mph before that's true.

~PB

Rob Morley said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
> ~27mph.

Why do you need to go faster than that?

Because I can.

If it's downhill you can often go faster by tucking in than by
pedalling.

I regularly run out of gears on the flat as well. Part of the aim is to
keep the effort up. I'm not comfortable bending down low, too old, back
issues, not strong enough etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because it is uncomfortable not being able to put pressure on the pedals
(all your weight being on the saddle).

You don't have to take the load off the pedals just because they're not
imparting motive force.

Transferring your weight onto stationary pedals wastes energy, better to
convert it to motion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because I feel more in control of the bike, I feel like a passenger when
I can't put pressure on the pedals.

I don't understand that at all.

I don't understand your objections, you may as well ask "why do you need
to go faster than 6mph?" Same arguments apply.

--
Membrane

Pete Biggs said:

Are you insane in the membrane? ;-)

Congrats for discovering the song lyric that inspired my monicker, feel
free to stop by the cookie jar to collect your prize :-)

Quoted message said:

At really high speed though, it is actually faster to freewheel because you
can get into a more aerodynamic position. Even just the cranks being
horizontal helps a bit.

I'm still experimenting with the previous suggestion of stapling my ears
to my head. Initial results suggest that there's a flaw somewhere in the
theory, I'm actually *loosing* speed in tail wind situations.

--
Membrane

Membrane said:

For my leisure/fitness rides in the mountains I am currently using a
hybrid with a 22-32-42 triple, a 7 speed 13-15-17-19-21-24-28 cassette
and 170mm cranks. The low end of this gearing suits the combination of
the mountain terrain, my climbing ability (I'd like to have the option
to remain seated turning a cadence of ~80rpm on the steepest inclines)

Any recommendations for my situation?

Yes. Don't get a compact double. The gears will be too big for you. If
you actually use 22 x 24/28 on road, then the jump to a 34 small ring
is large.

I'd suggest getting a road triple (say 30/40/50) and a 12-25 block
on the new bike. That gives you a higher low and a (much) higher
high end, without being stupidly large.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

Quoted message said:

>>pedalling at my maximum rpm in top gear I max out at
>>~27mph.

I regularly run out of gears on the flat as well. Part of the aim is to
keep the effort up. I'm not comfortable bending down low, too old, back
issues, not strong enough etc.

You're old, can't bend much, not strong... and you can ride at over 27mph
on the flat? Is your real name Alan Holmes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't have to take the load off the pedals just because they're not
imparting motive force.

Transferring your weight onto stationary pedals wastes energy, better to
convert it to motion.

Rubbish. Work is force times distance.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

David Damerell said:

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Transferring your weight onto stationary pedals wastes energy, better to
convert it to motion.

Rubbish. Work is force times distance.

Not total rubbish, the human body does need to consume some energy in
order to maintain a static force.

Quoting Ben C <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Transferring your weight onto stationary pedals wastes energy, better to
convert it to motion.

Rubbish. Work is force times distance.

Not total rubbish, the human body does need to consume some energy in
order to maintain a static force.

How does that compare with the energy consumed in pedalling flat out to
add a very small amount of speed, when that energy could instead be used on
the next uphill?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

David Damerell said:

Quoting Ben C <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:
>Transferring your weight onto stationary pedals wastes energy, better to
>convert it to motion.
Rubbish. Work is force times distance.

Not total rubbish, the human body does need to consume some energy in
order to maintain a static force.

How does that compare with the energy consumed in pedalling flat out to
add a very small amount of speed, when that energy could instead be used on
the next uphill?

I think the energy required to maintain a static force is very unlikely
to be significant in the context of cycling. It's often better to put
quite a bit of weight on the pedals when cruising downhill because it's
more comfortable that way when you hit a bump at 40mph.

The faster you go the higher the rate at which you lose energy to wind
resistance (wind resistance power proportional to velocity cubed), so on
that basis it should be more efficient overall to take it easy on the
descents.

Also as someone else pointed out, above a certain speed you can actually
go faster downhill by concentrating on getting a good aero position
rather than pedalling at all.

I think if you want a good average speed it's best to pedal hard enough
on gentle descents to keep your speed up, but not so much that you wear
yourself out too much for the climbs.

Ben C said:

I think the energy required to maintain a static force is very unlikely
to be significant in the context of cycling. It's often better to put
quite a bit of weight on the pedals when cruising downhill because it's
more comfortable that way when you hit a bump at 40mph.

The _energy_, perhaps. But perhaps we'd be better off asking what are
the effects with respect to _muscle fatigue_ - I bet that most of us can
sustain a continuous up-and-down movement for a lot longer than we can
crouch without moving.

If you're standing on the pedals without much leg bend that probably
doesn't have much effect, but if you're trying to minimise frontal area
you probably want to bend the knees.

Quoted message said:

Also as someone else pointed out, above a certain speed you can actually
go faster downhill by concentrating on getting a good aero position
rather than pedalling at all.

Yep, exactly. But on a long descent I wouldn't want to do that without
being able to put some significant proportion of my weight on the arms
and saddle

-dan

Ben C said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Ben C <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On 2007-05-14, David Damerell <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Quoting Membrane <[email hidden]>:
>>Transferring your weight onto stationary pedals wastes energy, better to
>>convert it to motion.
>Rubbish. Work is force times distance.
Not total rubbish, the human body does need to consume some energy in
order to maintain a static force.

How does that compare with the energy consumed in pedalling flat out to
add a very small amount of speed, when that energy could instead be used on
the next uphill?

I think the energy required to maintain a static force is very unlikely
to be significant in the context of cycling. It's often better to put
quite a bit of weight on the pedals when cruising downhill because it's
more comfortable that way when you hit a bump at 40mph.

yeah, in some way more of a issue on road than off road. in that it's
easyer to relax and not notice a pot hole etc.

snips

roger