noobie needs help with gearing
View Full Version : noobie needs help with gearing
Hi,
I'm new to cycling and recently bought a Kona Jake cyclocrosss bike for on-road and occasional off-road/fire-trail rides. I've found though that on-road (where I do most of my riding), the hills are really kicking my tail. I've swapped out the stock 700x35 knobbies for 700x25 slicks which helped quite a bit, but I'm still being passed on the hills by just about everyone. I don't know much about gearing, but my bike is spec'd with the following:
Chainrings - 28/38/48T
Freewheel - Shimano Deore 12-25 8 speed
I know I have some work to do to build up my strength and endurance, but I feel like I'm working with gearing that's too high - is there a better range I could be working with, or do I just need to suck it up?
Thanks in advance-
Daniel
Unless you have grades >7% that you ride regularly, you should be able to have a reasonable cadence even down to bike speeds of ~6mph. You shouldn't need to change your gearing with your triple chainrings. It just takes a little time to develop the power to climb well. Get in your lowest gear and ride a steady cadence. After only a very few weeks, you'll be going up hills quite well.
Gee, when you are in the front at 28 X 25 in the back you are already in a very low gear. Do you ever stand up to pedal? What part of the country are you biking in? One of the things that annoys me, is that participants don't identify the part of the country they are from in their registration. In biking this is very important. Biking is a lot different in Colorado to that of biking in Florida. Take my word for it if you have never been there.
Unless you have grades >7% that you ride regularly, you should be able to have a reasonable cadence even down to bike speeds of ~6mph. You shouldn't need to change your gearing with your triple chainrings. It just takes a little time to develop the power to climb well. Get in your lowest gear and ride a steady cadence. After only a very few weeks, you'll be going up hills quite well.
That's another thing I don't know - how to judge percentage of grade. I live in New York - anyone know the grade of the "Great Hill" in Central Park? or of any of the big hills on 9W from Nyack to the GWB? I think they're fairly steep, but I don't know how steep.
On these hills, I'm doing about 6 mph, but at low cadence. I don't know how much RPM - how do you measure that?
Gee, when you are in the front at 28 X 25 in the back you are already in a very low gear. Do you ever stand up to pedal? What part of the country are you biking in? One of the things that annoys me, is that participants don't identify the part of the country they are from in their registration. In biking this is very important. Biking is a lot different in Colorado to that of biking in Florida. Take my word for it if you have never been there.
I tend to stay in the saddle on serious hill climbs, if for no other reason than I don't have the energy to stand up - I ride in and around New York City. I will stand on moderate inclines for a short period of time, but just to increase speed to a point I can sustain with a steady cadence.
I'm wondering what my options are. Can I swap out the front or the rear for anything lower?
The bike setup is fine for hills.
How much do you weigh?
Cadence for climbing, seated, is best around 90-96, if you have a watch with a second hand count the right leg for 30 sec, it should go down 45 times, thats a cadence of 90. Practice it daily until it comes naturally. Put the bike on a mag trainer and practice in the rain (indoors).
The bike setup is fine for hills.
How much do you weigh?
Cadence for climbing, seated, is best around 90-96, if you have a watch with a second hand count the right leg for 30 sec, it should go down 45 times, thats a cadence of 90. Practice it daily until it comes naturally. Put the bike on a mag trainer and practice in the rain (indoors).
That is assuming that a rider carries a cadence of 90+ on the flats. I am a spinner on the flats so spinning on the hills works well. Those who are more the masher type (many non-racers) and ride comfortably at 75-85 rpm on the flats are not going to spin it up on the hills, regardless of how much they "practice" it.
I do agree that the gearing is plenty low for a road bike on smooth roads.
Hi,
I'm new to cycling and recently bought a Kona Jake cyclocrosss bike for on-road and occasional off-road/fire-trail rides. I've found though that on-road (where I do most of my riding), the hills are really kicking my tail. I've swapped out the stock 700x35 knobbies for 700x25 slicks which helped quite a bit, but I'm still being passed on the hills by just about everyone. I don't know much about gearing, but my bike is spec'd with the following:
Chainrings - 28/38/48T
Freewheel - Shimano Deore 12-25 8 speed
I know I have some work to do to build up my strength and endurance, but I feel like I'm working with gearing that's too high - is there a better range I could be working with, or do I just need to suck it up?
Thanks in advance-
Daniel Work on the strength/endurance. Have no shame in using the small 28T chainring. Use your body weight and get out of the saddle on the steepest sections. And don't worry about being passed on the hills. As your conditioning improves, you'll keep up.
And most of all, enjoy the ride--hills and all.
Just about everyone is a bad climber when they start out. It sounds like sustainable power output is the issue rather than gearing. Spend some more time on flatter roads building up your strength and getting comfortable on the bike. Everyone has some opinion on optimum cadence, but it's very subjective. Experiment and find a pedaling speed that feels the most efficient for you. Put in the miles, keep it fun, and you'll be crushing the hills in no time.
Thanks all for the advice- sounds like everyone agrees I need more miles, not different gears. Maybe I'll just stick with the gearing I've got for a while.
-Daniel
That's another thing I don't know - how to judge percentage of grade. I live in New York - anyone know the grade of the "Great Hill" in Central Park? or of any of the big hills on 9W from Nyack to the GWB? I think they're fairly steep, but I don't know how steep.
On these hills, I'm doing about 6 mph, but at low cadence. I don't know how much RPM - how do you measure that?The Great Hill in Central Park is only ~5% average grade and the major climb on 9W from Nyack to the GWB is only ~3% avg grade, from Sparkill to Closter. Both climbs will have some steeper sections, but probably not >7%. The profiles are below. They look scary, but that's because of the scales of the two axes. You compute grade by taking the elevation gain divided by the horizontal, linear distance (rise/run). Unfortunately, there aren't many places to get this kind of info, although you can find some GPS files at MotionBased Technologies. Unfortunately, they're not well named, so in a place like NY you have to sort through lots of files.
stick with keeping cadence up... as some one told me ...leg speed, leg speed. thats what you want to work on..
Yep - agree with the above posters. In your 28x25 you're almost at one pedal revolution per wheel revolution. Time to suck it up and lay down the power - that gear will be no problem for you after a couple hundred miles or so.
(...)
Cadence for climbing, seated, is best around 90-96, (...).
Sorry but I disagree. 96 rpm is about what does Lance when putting out 450 Watts.
For a "human" racer 85 rpm over a fairly steep section is very good.
For a recreational rider 60 rpm is still good.
This article gives some data: http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27
Sorry but I disagree. 96 rpm is about what does Lance when putting out 450 Watts.
For a "human" racer 85 rpm over a fairly steep section is very good.
For a recreational rider 60 rpm is still good.
This article gives some data: http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27
Written by the same man who claimed EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice. There's no direct correlation between cadence and power output. It's obviously going to take a lot more power to turn 96 rpm in a 53x11 than it is in a 30x23. O2 consumption vs. cadence at a constant power output would have made a much clearer point.
Sorry but I disagree. 96 rpm is about what does Lance when putting out 450 Watts.
For a "human" racer 85 rpm over a fairly steep section is very good.
For a recreational rider 60 rpm is still good.
This article gives some data: http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27And I disagree with the article's analysis and conclusions. The author makes the fundamental error of using HR as the basis of selecting an optimal cadence. This will always drive one to a lower cadence. I think cadence should be selected independent of HR and rather should be selected based on RPE at a given power. I don't think there is any basis to declare a cadence as "good" in any absolute sense.
Written by the same man who claimed EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice. There's no direct correlation between cadence and power output. It's obviously going to take a lot more power to turn 96 rpm in a 53x11 than it is in a 30x23. O2 consumption vs. cadence at a constant power output would have made a much clearer point.
Anyway spinning 90+ rpm at 6 mph is far from efficient.
I see a lot of people that think that if Lance rides that way then anyone has to do it.
In addition, In my opinion *there is* a correlation between power and cadence: if you want to keep the force (about) constant, then when you increase power you also have to increase cadence.
Keeping the force you apply on the pedals under control is good because you limit the strees on your knees/etc.
Anyway spinning 90+ rpm at 6 mph is far from efficient.
I see a lot of people that think that if Lance rides that way then anyone has to do it.
In addition, In my opinion *there is* a correlation between power and cadence: if you want to keep the force (about) constant, then when you increase power you also have to increase cadence.
Keeping the force you apply on the pedals under control is good because you limit the strees on your knees/etc.
I'm not saying that there's no correlation at all, but it isn't as simple as foceXcadence=power. If you actually quantify efficiency vs. cadence, you'll have a peak somewhere. There are a number of physiological factors that determine where that peak is for an individual.
Anyway spinning 90+ rpm at 6 mph is far from efficient.
I see a lot of people that think that if Lance rides that way then anyone has to do it.I disagree. I spin 90+ rpm at 6mph all the time, not because LA does it but because that is my preferred cadence. I have no idea what you mean by "far from efficient.":confused:
I disagree. I spin 90+ rpm at 6mph all the timeCorrection: I checked my gearing and I can only do ~65rpm at 6mph. But, I would spin 90+rpm if I had a drivetrain that went that low. I far prefer 90s to 60s.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
