Finding my ideal gears

[Ben C]

On 2007-05-14, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> 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.

I agree, I find it easier to walk for hours than to stand still for one
hour. Static force maintenance is not particularly useful and so
(evolution etc.) we're not particularly good at it.

The _energy_ required for static force maintenance is effectively a red
herring. I doubt it contributes much to tiredness. It just means that
theoretically you might have to eat one extra peanut after the ride to
compensate (which is nothing beside the huge pile of cakes to replace
the energy used when you were actually pedalling).

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Membrane wrote:
>> 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.

The alternative would be a compact double with a 13-29 block, a setup I
have considered for myself. With your triple suggestion 30x24 gives a
lowest gear of 31.5 inches; 50x12 gives a highest of 109.5"; and there's
massive overlap and redundancy in between.

With the 50-34 compact double, you get a lowest gear of 34x29 = 30.8",
lower than the lowest gear on your proposed triple setup, and a highest of
101.1", which is also smaller - but the guy is used to low gears, and you
have much less complexity, much less overlap, some less weight and a
better looking bike. With a conventional 53-39 double you get a lowest of
35", which isn't desperately high, and a highest of 107.1"; and it should
be possible to use a custom 53-37 double (and still get away with a medium
cage mech) to give a range of 33.5" to 107.1". I can see no merit to a
triple on a road bike, if you're using a modern 9 or 10 speed cassette.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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).

No, not at all. The advantage of 8/9/10 speed blocks is they give you a
wide range of gears without the need for a triple. The reasons this is a
good thing are:

(1) a triple increases Q;
(2) front mechs are a lot less sophisticated than rears, and tuning a front
triple sweetly so it doesn't drop the chain at either end of the range can
be tricky;
(3) triples are ugly.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the ****, the wise man plants courgettes

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Pete Biggs
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Membrane wrote:
>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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? ;-)

No, he lives somewhere with decent hills! Of course you want to go faster
than 27mph. I still, accidents not withstanding, want to hit 50mph, and
40mph is a fairly regular thing.

> 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.

True.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Daniel Barlow
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ben C wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> 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

You also, in my opinion, want to spin up to as high a speed as possible
before tucking down. Of course on a good enough hill you will accelerate
in the tuck, but up to a point you accelerate faster under power.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> I can see no merit to a triple on a road bike, if
> you're using a modern 9 or 10 speed cassette.

A triple is great for those who like to climb steep hills with gears lower
than 36" while also having plenty of pretty closely-spaced medium and high
gears as well. It's just not possible to get all that from any double. It
enables you to ride like a tourist going up the hills and like a racer going
down. Nothing wrong with that! (if you're not actually racing or training).

As for "ugly", I'm well prepared to ride ugly looking stuff if it feels
beautiful. Although actually it just looks normal to me because I'm so used
it.


~PB

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> 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.
>
> The alternative would be a compact double with a 13-29 block, a setup I
> have considered for myself. With your triple suggestion 30x24 gives a
> lowest gear of 31.5 inches; 50x12 gives a highest of 109.5"; and there's
> massive overlap and redundancy in between.
>
> With the 50-34 compact double, you get a lowest gear of 34x29 = 30.8",
> lower than the lowest gear on your proposed triple setup, and a highest of
> 101.1", which is also smaller - but the guy is used to low gears, and you
> have much less complexity, much less overlap, some less weight and a
> better looking bike.

Another alternative, probably with a weight/absolute efficiency penalty,
would be a Schlumpf. If it's not for your actual racing it might be
viable, and will keep the looks even cleaner (only one chainring) and a
big shift: Mountain Drive is 1:2.5, Speed Drive is 1.6:1, SperSpeed
Drive is 2.5:1, but IIRC must be used with an integrated 29 tooth wring
(ICBW about that). Also with just one ring you should be able to use
the whole back block without undue naughtiness.

I don't see them used on racing machinery... whether that's because
there's some hideous Gotcha of which I'm unaware, or simply because Road
Bike Implies Derailleurs Front and Rear and it's just not The Done
Thing, I don't know...

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Pete Biggs]

I wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> I can see no merit to a triple on a road bike, if
>> you're using a modern 9 or 10 speed cassette.
>
> A triple is great for those who like to climb steep hills with gears
> lower than 36" while also having plenty of pretty closely-spaced

31" that should be (to take account for compact doubles)

> medium and high gears as well. It's just not possible to get all
> that from any double. It enables you to ride like a tourist going up
> the hills and like a racer going down. Nothing wrong with that! (if
> you're not actually racing or training).
> As for "ugly", I'm well prepared to ride ugly looking stuff if it
> feels beautiful. Although actually it just looks normal to me
> because I'm so used it.
>
> ~PB

 

[Arthur Clune]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> and it should be possible to use a custom 53-37 double

Yuck. That would be a horrible solution. As it is, the
main problem I found with running a 34 inner ring
is that it's too small for most normal use, and one ends
up swapping at the front a lot (on 34/50), or just leaving
it in the big ring too long (with a 48).

53/37 just makes this problem worse. It'd be ok if you
live somewhere where you are only either going up or
down steep hills.

I still think a triple is going to be a better solution
for the OP.

Personally I've gone back to 39/53 and 12/25, but I'm a
lot faster uphill than the OP I suspect

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

 

[Arthur Clune]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> Another alternative, probably with a weight/absolute efficiency penalty,
> would be a Schlumpf.

I've ridden Schlumpfs and really don't like them. It's a massive drop
when you engage it. It's very hard to keep any momentum going at
all.

The only sensible use for it (and it's a good use) is to get very,
very low gears on load carrying trikes IMO.

--
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

 

[Clive George]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I can see no merit to a
> triple on a road bike, if you're using a modern 9 or 10 speed cassette.

52-42-30, 13-23 in 9. Lots of nice closely spaced gears, conveniently
arranged in blocks, and it goes low enough for the occasional steep hill.
(though I must admit not really low enough for the 1:5 out of Settle with a
headwind).

(I'd have a 13-21 if there was one...)

cheers,
clive

 

[Clive George]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Another alternative, probably with a weight/absolute efficiency penalty,
> would be a Schlumpf.
....
> I don't see them used on racing machinery... whether that's because
> there's some hideous Gotcha of which I'm unaware, or simply because Road
> Bike Implies Derailleurs Front and Rear and it's just not The Done Thing,
> I don't know...

Um, you've mentioned the hideous Gotcha when you started. The other one is
the price...

cheers,
clive

 

[Peter Clinch]

Clive George wrote:

> 52-42-30, 13-23 in 9. Lots of nice closely spaced gears, conveniently
> arranged in blocks, and it goes low enough for the occasional steep
> hill. (though I must admit not really low enough for the 1:5 out of
> Settle with a headwind).

FSVO "steep hill". I've got 52-42-30 on the front but a slightly
smaller back wheel and a 34 big cog, so that would give me a
/considerably/ lower bottom end, and I'm very happy to have it!

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Clive George]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> 52-42-30, 13-23 in 9. Lots of nice closely spaced gears, conveniently
>> arranged in blocks, and it goes low enough for the occasional steep hill.
>> (though I must admit not really low enough for the 1:5 out of Settle with
>> a headwind).
>
> FSVO "steep hill". I've got 52-42-30 on the front but a slightly smaller
> back wheel and a 34 big cog, so that would give me a /considerably/ lower
> bottom end, and I'm very happy to have it!

Yebbut that's a tourer. Load makes a difference...

(I see your 30/34 and raise you 24/32, which is what our tandem has - 26"
wheels)

cheers,
clive

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> and it should be possible to use a custom 53-37 double
>
> Yuck. That would be a horrible solution. As it is, the
> main problem I found with running a 34 inner ring
> is that it's too small for most normal use, and one ends
> up swapping at the front a lot (on 34/50), or just leaving
> it in the big ring too long (with a 48).
>
> 53/37 just makes this problem worse. It'd be ok if you
> live somewhere where you are only either going up or
> down steep hills.
>
> I still think a triple is going to be a better solution
> for the OP.
>
> Personally I've gone back to 39/53 and 12/25, but I'm a
> lot faster uphill than the OP I suspect

I use 39/53 and 13/26, and that's OK for 95% of riding; but there's the odd
hill^W^W^W Tynron Brae where it isn't...

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

 

[Peter Clinch]

Clive George wrote:

> Yebbut that's a tourer. Load makes a difference...

It does, but I'm used to low gears and use the lot (at least at the
bottom end) on pretty much anything I ride these days (recumbency has
cured my of a honking habit, even on uprights, and my knees concur). If
the OP has and likes low ones (looks like he does) then it maybe makes
sense to keep things low.

> (I see your 30/34 and raise you 24/32, which is what our tandem has -
> 26" wheels)

That's more like I'll have when I finally get round to re-gearing (it
would help if the original set wore out!). I'm thinking of a more
MTB-a-like front end and a roadie-a-like back end, so I can still get
down to something around 20" but not have such big jumps. Or I'll keep
the bigger jumps via a Rohloff if the lottery numbers come up. The 52 I
have for a big wheel at the moment is rather under-used, and I've never
yet managed to spin out on 52-11 despite trying quite hard on some *big*
hills, so I'd be happy to move things generally down and/or closer.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Membrane]

[email protected] (Arthur Clune) wrote:

>Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> and it should be possible to use a custom 53-37 double
>
>Yuck. That would be a horrible solution. As it is, the
>main problem I found with running a 34 inner ring
>is that it's too small for most normal use, and one ends
>up swapping at the front a lot (on 34/50), or just leaving
>it in the big ring too long (with a 48).

This is a good point, using the front derailer requires more care and
time, not a bother for me in the mountains, but on the flat and
particularly in the city (which I have to get through to get to the
mountains) I much prefer not to have to use the front and only use the
rear derailer. This requires less care which leaves me free to
concentrate on the traffic.

On my current bike the lowest gear I typically need for the city (e.g.
pulling away from a stopped position) is the 42 chain wheel and the 19
sprocket which gives me 60.1 gear inches. On a 34-50 compact double with
a 12-27 cassette using the larger chain wheel that approximately equates
to using the 3rd largest cassette sprocket @ 62.6 gear inches. Afaik
that just about puts the chain in an acceptable diagonal angle. So I
reckon that I should just be able to avoid having to use the smaller
chain ring for the city.

>I still think a triple is going to be a better solution
>for the OP.

I've come to the same preliminary conclusion based on the argument put
forward earlier by another poster that the expected 4kg weight saving
wouldn't compensate for the hike in size of the smallest chain ring when
moving to a compact double.

>Personally I've gone back to 39/53 and 12/25, but I'm a
>lot faster uphill than the OP I suspect

Perhaps the inclines that I take on are steeper than yours

The background to wanting to have such low gears has to do with me
losing to much ability over the course of longish rides (~7 hours/95
miles).

In trying to extend my range I explored a number of possible causes,
first I went out more frequently, then I switched from water to isotonic
drinks and I started eating fruit grain bars regularly instead of just
taking sandwiches with me for lunch. None of this helped noticeably.

I then read Sheldon Brown's article on cadence in which he compares low
cadence pedalling with power lifting which tires you out quickly, and
normal cadence pedalling with swimming, something that you are able to
sustain for much longer.

I used to always climb whilst standing on the pedals, I like that, but
to do that comfortably & safely on my current bike I need to drop my
cadence to ~<50rpm (hybrid with pedals with no cleats or toe clips). I
can comfortably climb using a considerably higher gear when I stand, but
after reading Sheldon's article I considered that this habit could be
the cause of me losing to much ability on longish rides. Over the last 4
weeks I've been trying to kick this habit with the help of one of those
£5 Aldi computers converted to a cadence meter. I now aim to stand only
for short durations, and stay seated and do ~80rpm on longer steep
inclines.

This seems to have helped to extend my range. Although breaking my own
pledge not to climb for long whilst standing for once last Sunday, I
noticed that I had lost lung and heart capacity over those last 4 weeks.
I found myself breathing more heavily with a higher heart rate than
previously on a familiar local hill.

--
Membrane

 

[Arthur Clune]

Membrane wrote:

> Perhaps the inclines that I take on are steeper than yours

Maybe, but maybe not

> [re: low gear climbing]
> This seems to have helped to extend my range. Although breaking my own
> pledge not to climb for long whilst standing for once last Sunday, I
> noticed that I had lost lung and heart capacity over those last 4 weeks.
> I found myself breathing more heavily with a higher heart rate than
> previously on a familiar local hill.

This is a learning thing. It takes time to get used to still
putting power down at the higher cadences. You're aiming to
spin, but not to twiddle if you see what I mean.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

 

[Andrew Price]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 03:08:39 -0500, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

[---]

>(which is nothing beside the huge pile of cakes to replace
>the energy used when you were actually pedalling)

If only. I was quite demoralised, the day I discovered that you need
to ride around 30km to burn off the calories contained in one single
mars bar.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Membrane
('[email protected]') wrote:

> [email protected] (Arthur Clune) wrote:
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>> and it should be possible to use a custom 53-37 double
>>
>>Yuck. That would be a horrible solution. As it is, the
>>main problem I found with running a 34 inner ring
>>is that it's too small for most normal use, and one ends
>>up swapping at the front a lot (on 34/50), or just leaving
>>it in the big ring too long (with a 48).
>
> This is a good point, using the front derailer requires more care and
> time, not a bother for me in the mountains, but on the flat and
> particularly in the city (which I have to get through to get to the
> mountains) I much prefer not to have to use the front and only use the
> rear derailer. This requires less care which leaves me free to
> concentrate on the traffic.

Ah! You use Shimano. OK, yes, the triple is probably the way to go.

> I used to always climb whilst standing on the pedals, I like that, but
> to do that comfortably & safely on my current bike I need to drop my
> cadence to ~<50rpm (hybrid with pedals with no cleats or toe clips).

Get cleats. You will never regret it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund