Newbies, Check Your Drivetrain

RapDaddyo said:

The bottom line is that I advocate a drivetrain with a low gear equivalent to a 34/29 (1.17 ratio) for newbies.

Is that locale specific?

RapDaddyo said:

The problem with being over-geared is that one is forced into a low cadence in the all-important upgrade or upwind segments of a ride.

In the context of long hills, I agree with all you've said. I don't recall ever being forced into the granny by the wind, though, even as a newbie with my triple.

frenchyge said:

Is that locale specific?

It's more speed specific than locale specific. It's really a function of the speeds one is going to be forced to ride at newbie power levels (e.g., <200w). I think if one's bike speed gets to <8mph, then the drivetrain's low end capability becomes important. While this is typically caused by hills, it can be caused by hills or wind or a combination.

frenchyge said:

In the context of long hills, I agree with all you've said. I don't recall ever being forced into the granny by the wind, though, even as a newbie with my triple.

Well, maybe we have stronger winds here, but I have definitely used my smallest gears into a strong wind (e.g., 25mph). We have such winds here regularly (yesterday, in fact). More broadly, my point is that it is more important to have small gears than it is to have large gears. If one errs on one side or the other, one should err on the side of a drivetrain too small. The key question is, "What does it matter if I don't have small gears. So what?" I think the answer to that question is that it matters a lot. You will be forced into low cadences and a compromised riding style that, at a minimum, is inefficient and, at a maximum, can result in muscle soreness or injury. It comes down to the question, "Who's in charge?" In terms of cadence, the rider should be in charge and not the drivetrain. The rider should be able to choose his preferred cadence under even extreme conditions (hills or wind or both).

RapDaddyo said:

It's more speed specific than locale specific. It's really a function of the speeds one is going to be forced to ride at newbie power levels (e.g., <200w). I think if one's bike speed gets to <8mph, then the drivetrain's low end capability becomes important. While this is typically caused by hills, it can be caused by hills or wind or a combination.

Well, maybe we have stronger winds here, but I have definitely used my smallest gears into a strong wind (e.g., 25mph). We have such winds here regularly (yesterday, in fact). More broadly, my point is that it is more important to have small gears than it is to have large gears. If one errs on one side or the other, one should err on the side of a drivetrain too small. The key question is, "What does it matter if I don't have small gears. So what?" I think the answer to that question is that it matters a lot. You will be forced into low cadences and a compromised riding style that, at a minimum, is inefficient and, at a maximum, can result in muscle soreness or injury. It comes down to the question, "Who's in charge?" In terms of cadence, the rider should be in charge and not the drivetrain. The rider should be able to choose his preferred cadence under even extreme conditions (hills or wind or both).

Yes I agree. Most 2 chainring road bikes are sold with gears similar to what Lance rides in the TdF yet most of the people buying them can only produce about half his sustainable power. Then you have to pay serious dollars to change things or make do. Not much chance of keeping up a high cadence on hills if your gears are too high. I wish I had a third chainring and I'm amazed at the number of people that boast that they don't need one or never use it. Either they can produce 400-500 wts or don't ride decent long hills. Perhaps they are like me and can only sustain 200-300 wts up a long steep hill but don't mind grinding away at 40-60rpm.

I have a mtb with a triple, though I haven't used the smallest chain ring on the road since about 2 weeks after I started riding again 🙂 . The middle is a 34, and the biggest cog is a 30, so it's pretty much the same as what you've recommended RDO. I do regular hill repeats up a local hill and have passed many a roadie up this hill who is struggling, grinding away in a big gear (there's been plenty I can't catch too, presumably with suitable gearing or the power to drive whatever they've got, so I'm not bragging about being super fast 😉 ). I always say gday, but inside I'm shaking my head wondering why people persist with gearing they can't drive. Meanwhile, my times up this hill have been improving weekly, which motivates me to keep doing the hill repeats. On Wed I knocked 20secs off my fastest time, then went up it in the next higher gear and knocked another 5 secs off. Obviously my next goal is to get into the next higher gear, and so on....

A bloke at work today told me he hates going into his smallest chain ring, even when he's out in the dirt where you need it. I shook my head at him and said who gives a f!ck what gearing you use if you're the one waiting at the top of the hill for your mate to catch up? The when he does catch up, you've had a minute to rest and can [censored] while he's catching his breath 😄

I live in a VERY hilly area - there's even a few small 20% hills near me.

The very first road bike I had only went as low as 42x23.

In hindsight this was an insane decision as I would often have to climb off the bike and walk on some of the longer, more severe hills. Couldn't even get my legs turning at 50rpm in 42x23.

I'm now looking to get a 2006 Giant TCR 2 30 speed bike. This will give me a very nice range at the top end (53x12) but more importantly at the bottom too (30x25). But I'll probably still have to get out of the saddle on those 20% slopes!

I guess I'll be that annoying contrarian guy, since everybody else is so busy agreeing. For the most part, I guess I agree too; you need the gears you need. RD's advice is sound, especially for the "newbies" he targeted it at.

The hard part is, when are you no longer a "newbie"? When I first came to road-biking, I was persuaded by the small-gear argument RD is making here, and I rode triples exclusively. Once I got strong enough to climb absolutely anything, however, I think those tiny gears contributed to limiting my climbing for several years. At some point, if you want to climb fast, you will have to teach your body to overcome the resistance inherent in climbing. I think if you always have that teeny-tiny gear to reach for, it might be harder to push yourself in training. If you have a power meter, perhaps this is not such a problem, since 270 watts is 270 watts.

Also, those teeny-tiny gears can prevent you from really learning to climb. Most good climbers ride at a substantially lower cadence uphill than on the flats. 80rpm is not uncommon, nor particularly uncomfortable for those accustomed to climbing, even if you like to spin at 95 on the flats. This is because climbing on a bike is a subtly different form of exercise than riding on flats; there's less momentum involved, and it's more overtly rhythmic. If you try to maintain a flat-like, fast cadence climbing, I think it can actively prevent you from learning to climb well. Having some limits on your gear selection naturally prevents this technical rut. (Yeah, yeah, Lance, high cadence, blah blah. I'm not Lance. Are you?)

I also might be a bit of an outlier, since, like lanierb in a different thread, I produce much more climbing power standing than seated, so I probably gravitate to a low cadence style more than is usual.

Yeah, it's tough to debate some pretty sound, basic advice. The best we can really do is pick fine points about the how's and when's. 🙂

kmavm said:

The hard part is, when are you no longer a "newbie"? When I first came to road-biking, I was persuaded by the small-gear argument RD is making here, and I rode triples exclusively. Once I got strong enough to climb absolutely anything, however, I think those tiny gears contributed to limiting my climbing for several years. At some point, if you want to climb fast, you will have to teach your body to overcome the resistance inherent in climbing. I think if you always have that teeny-tiny gear to reach for, it might be harder to push yourself in training.

While I agree with RDO that a triple is probably the best for a starter bike, I think Kmavm's comment plays into the equation at some point as well. At some point, a rider may develop the power needed to maintain a comfortable cadence through most of the hills in their locale without needing the third chainring. The timing of that point depends on the individual, training habits, and terrain. I think most experienced riders understand that, and may advise newbies to 'tough it out' until that level of power is reached, contributing to the negative stigma hanging around the 'granny gear.'

While I disagree with avoiding triples because of the negative stigma, it may be wise to decide against a triple if you expect it to only be needed for a short time period because of fitness, training habits, and local terrain. That's more of a financial decision, of course, but in reality most decisions are.

I do agree with RDO's point that it's easier to get along without a very high gear (53x11 or 12) than without the necessary low gears. A 53/39 setup with a 13-32 or so would probably be ideal, since it's a lot cheaper to change out the cassette for a 12-25 later, than it is to convert from triple to double or compact to standard.

frenchyge said:

A 53/39 setup with a 13-32 or so would probably be ideal, since it's a lot cheaper to change out the cassette for a 12-25 later, than it is to convert from triple to double or compact to standard.

I agree that it's cheaper and easier to change the cassette than the chainrings (either for a specific event or permanently), but I would do something slightly different. If a newbie came to me today and asked what kind of drivetrain to get, I would advise a compact double crank (e.g., 50/34) and a 13-29 cassette, identical to my hillclimb configuration. The 13-29 cassette could be changed later to any of several options all the way down to 11-21 (in the Campy product line and probably similar in the Shimano product line), with no change in the rear derailleur. If you start with the 13-32, you probably need a long-cage rear derailleur, but the 13-29 works fine with the standard-cage rear derailleur. I don't think you'd ever need to change the chainrings from compact to standard. With 2-3 cassettes, this configuration would give you a huge range of gear combinations for virtually any topography, and it couldn't be easier to change.

Yeah, I made up the 13-32. I don't know if they're even available or what derailleur and/or chain mods would be necessary for a sprocket that big. Someone could probably 'tough it out' with a 13-29, though.... 😉

frenchyge said:

Yeah, I made up the 13-32. I don't know if they're even available or what derailleur and/or chain mods would be necessary for a sprocket that big. Someone could probably 'tough it out' with a 13-29, though.... 😉

But, you were on a good track. My OP only addressed the drivetrain consideration for starting out. You and kmavm were rightly looking downstream to how and why one would want to change the drivetrain as one gains fitness. Good question, and some solutions such as changing the chainrings are expensive. I like the line of thought, and was just wanting to challenge the assumption that a compact crank is limited to only the short-term needs.😄