Hill Climbing & Gear Shifting

[Bucknutschell]

I am fairly new to cycling and I have been riding some pretty steep and long rolling hills lately. I like to get as much speed as possible going down the hill and then maintain that cadence for as long as I can in the drop bar position without looking up to the top of the hill I am climbing until I no longer can maintain the cadence. This helps me mentally because by the time I look up, I have climbed 2/3 or 3/4 of the hill and the remaining portion is far less daunting.

However, the problem is that when I finally lose cadence, I need to shift down and at that point, the torque (or force) on the chain is immense. It really puts a lot of stress on the chain, derailer and sprocket.

People have advised me to shift at the base of the hill but I do not want to lose the cadence and if I am hitting 40+ miles per hour after a long steep down hill, my legs cannot keep up in a lower gear. That momentum carries me through most of the hill with each pedal stroke propelling me farther up before I have to slowdown. Is there a technique to shift mid-hill before I hit the "have-to-shift" point but still get the benefit of the momentum and higher gear at least half way up the hill?

 

[AyeYo]

You need to shift before the "have to shift" point to allow yourself enough momentum to soft-pedal for a second and enough chain speed for the shift to happen quickly. If you're trying to maintain 100rpm while pedaling up the hill, you need to start downshifting one gear at a time when you hit 90rpm, not when you hit 50rpm. Like any other shift, you shouldn't be shifting under load. Right as you move the lever you need to soft pedal (which is easier said than done on a steep hill), but in any case just ease up for a split second while the chain is between gears. The higher cadence will also help with the shift speed and smoothness because the new gear will engage quicker if you're spinning quicker, rather than trying to shift under heavy load while slogging up the hill at 40rpm.

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by Bucknutschell
I am fairly new to cycling and I have been riding some pretty steep and long rolling hills lately. I like to get as much speed as possible going down the hill and then maintain that cadence for as long as I can in the drop bar position without looking up to the top of the hill I am climbing until I no longer can maintain the cadence. This helps me mentally because by the time I look up, I have climbed 2/3 or 3/4 of the hill and the remaining portion is far less daunting.

However, the problem is that when I finally lose cadence, I need to shift down and at that point, the torque (or force) on the chain is immense. It really puts a lot of stress on the chain, derailer and sprocket.

People have advised me to shift at the base of the hill but I do not want to lose the cadence and if I am hitting 40+ miles per hour after a long steep down hill, my legs cannot keep up in a lower gear. That momentum carries me through most of the hill with each pedal stroke propelling me farther up before I have to slowdown. Is there a technique to shift mid-hill before I hit the "have-to-shift" point but still get the benefit of the momentum and higher gear at least half way up the hill?

Well, YOU obviously have Shimano shifters ...

With Shimano shifters (as indicated by AyeYo), you have to overcome the in-built "dwell" in the manner suggested where you momentarily un-weight the drivetrain JUST BEFORE you shift ...

OR (the EASIEST technique involves opening your wallet!!!), you can simply retro-fit your bike with Campagnolo shifters and shift when you want to shift without worrying about the chain skating on the Cog's teeth ...

OR, you can follow oldbobcat's periodic suggestion & buy SOME REALLY AGGRESSIVE MARKETING shifters & derailleurs to replace your current shifters & derailleurs if you are willing to live with an occasional mis-shift which will may-or-may-not occur during the first few weeks of using the Double-Tap shifters ...

OR, if you insist on continuing to use Shimano's shifters, then you can install a Shimano RAPID RISE rear derailleur which will partially correct the downshifting problem with the possibility of encountering an occasional problem when upshifting (there's no free lunch -- don't opt for this alternative if you like to upshift when you are sprinting as you have reversed the problem) ...

• if you don't change the rear derailleur's cage (kid's don't try THIS at home!), then you will eventually want a (new) longer chain (not really necessary, initially).

 

[Bucknutschell]

Thanks AyeYo. I try to soft pedal but I obviously wait until it is too late (more honestly, I overestimate my ability to maintain the cadence). I guess it will come with more experience.

Thanks for the tips Alf... There is so much about this sport that I do not even know that I do not know. I'll look into the more advanced (expensive) equipment as soon as I prove to myself that this is not just a passing phase with me and that I will not invest thousands of dollars into "stuff" that will collect dust in my garage in a couple years.

 

[jpr95]

Bah. I shift my Ultegra under heavy load every now and then on steep hills. Works just fine, and after 2500 miles, the chain was somewhere between the 0.5% and 0.75% wear indicators on the Park chain-checker I have. The shift is definitely quicker and crisper when not under load, but it will still do it if it's properly adjusted, and the chain and derailleurs are frequently lubed.

 

[mpre53]

Originally Posted by jpr95
Bah. I shift my Ultegra under heavy load every now and then on steep hills. Works just fine, and after 2500 miles, the chain was somewhere between the 0.5% and 0.75% wear indicators on the Park chain-checker I have. The shift is definitely quicker and crisper when not under load, but it will still do it if it's properly adjusted, and the chain and derailleurs are frequently lubed.

Same with 105. It shifts, but it's a rough shift, when I'm standing and pounding. But sitting and spinning, it's no worse than any other shift.

Proper adjustment is also key. I was behind a guy who snapped his RD hanger while standing and mashing, when he tried to go to his biggest cog. Chain went over it, and, well, that was that.

 

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by jpr95
Bah. I shift my Ultegra under heavy load every now and then on steep hills. Works just fine, and after 2500 miles, the chain was somewhere between the 0.5% and 0.75% wear indicators on the Park chain-checker I have. The shift is definitely quicker and crisper when not under load, but it will still do it if it's properly adjusted, and the chain and derailleurs are frequently lubed.

Same here. I shift my DA 9 speed RD under load on steep hills sometimes also. In the 30 ring, I sometimes go from the 27 big gear down to 21 when out of the saddle and accelerating. But I try to avoid this kind of shift, because I don't like putting a shock on the chain and cassette.

Usually I get about 5K miles between chains, using the 0.75% wear on the Park gauge, but then confirming with a steel rule measurement of the pin distance. I do lube the chain frequently, every 200 miles or less, but never the derailleurs or cables.

 

[alfeng]

Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by jpr95

Bah. I shift my Ultegra under heavy load every now and then on steep hills. Works just fine, and after 2500 miles, the chain was somewhere between the 0.5% and 0.75% wear indicators on the Park chain-checker I have. The shift is definitely quicker and crisper when not under load, but it will still do it if it's properly adjusted, and the chain and derailleurs are frequently lubed.


Quote: Originally Posted by mpre53 .
Same with 105. It shifts, but it's a rough shift, when I'm standing and pounding. But sitting and spinning, it's no worse than any other shift.

Proper adjustment is also key. I was behind a guy who snapped his RD hanger while standing and mashing, when he tried to go to his biggest cog. Chain went over it, and, well, that was that.


Originally Posted by dhk2 .

Same here. I shift my DA 9 speed RD under load on steep hills sometimes also. In the 30 ring, I sometimes go from the 27 big gear down to 21 when out of the saddle and accelerating. But I try to avoid this kind of shift, because I don't like putting a shock on the chain and cassette.

Usually I get about 5K miles between chains, using the 0.75% wear on the Park gauge, but then confirming with a steel rule measurement of the pin distance. I do lube the chain frequently, every 200 miles or less, but never the derailleurs or cables.

I'm glad for all three of you ... at least, I'm glad you are not troubled by the slower-or-rougher shifting ... and that you apparently think that there is no advantage to a smooth shift.

BUT, apparently we have had a failure in communication (at least, with dhk2) ...

BECAUSE when I am referring to shifting while the drivetrain is under a load while going uphill, I am-AND-have-been referring to shifting onto a LARGER Cog ...

IMO, only a Rapid Rise Shimano rear derailleur may-or-may-not experience balky shifting when going from a larger Cog to a smaller Cog.

IMO, unless you are using an 8-speed Campagnolo Veloce-or-equivalent Cassette whose Cogs were stamped out of sheet metal (!!!) on a pooly adjusted bike, then the shifting with Campagnolo shifters + ramped Cogs is equivalent to what the paid reviewers described when they initially swooned over Di2 shifting.

 

[AyeYo]

What's different about Campy shifting that it can shift smoothly under load?

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyeYo .
What's different about Campy shifting that it can shift smoothly under load?


Campagnolo's ability to shift smoothly under load is NOT magic ...

AND, what is true for Campagnolo's shifters is also probably true for the lowly MicroShift shifters & the fore mentioned SOME REALLY AGGRESSIVE MARKETING shifters because none of the three designs is handicapped with "dwell" which is the consequence of the eccentric take-up spool which is undoubtedly a legacy of the BioPace design team ...

• ALL shifters benefit from ramped Cogs which are a Shimano design meant (to try) to overcome for "dwell"

IMO, Shimano can "fix" their mechanical, STI shifters by simply making the spool concentric OR by re-installing the "cam" 180º on its spindle -- the former will allow the Shimano shifters to operate as well as the others (spool diameter IS a factor ... I suppose THAT means that Shimano can simply make the spool larger!!!) & the latter should actually accelerate the shifting & make it quicker ...

So, as far as I can tell, there are ONLY plausible reasons why Shimano has not "fixed" the problem (not necessarily in this order) ...

1. the head of engineering was on the fore mentioned BioPace design team
2. the bean counters have put the qabash on fixing it because it would remove the shifting advantage which Di2 drivetrains have

• if 105, Ultegra or Dura Ace mechanical shifters-and-derailleurs were already as capable as the Di2 drivetrains are purported to be, how many people would pay 3x (?) as much for comparable shifting just so they could have a battery to charge?!?

BTW. I had thought that Shimano was just waiting for its STI patent(s) to run out and that the eccentric spool would be abandoned when the shift cables went aerodynamic ... but, NOoooooooo, apparently not yet.

 

[dhk2]

alfeng, after your dozens of posts about "dwell", I took some time today to try to discover it for myself. I'm focused on the issue of shifting under load with the RD, specifically, shifting up to a larger cog on a hill which you've said is the place that Shimano falls down vs Campy due to this "dwell" which is designed into the Shimano shifters.

In order to perform this particular RD shift, of course the large lever is pushed in. When I do this action, I observe the shift cable does nothing until the lever sweeps in enough to take up the "free play" before beginning to pull the cable. This freeplay translates to about 1 cm of movement at the bottom of the shift lever on my old DA 7700. Once the freeplay is taken up, the cable immediately begins pulling, which of course results in the RD immediately moving in (towards the larger cog).

From this observation, which can be done on a workstand, ie, under no-load conditions, I can detect "freeplay" or "lost motion" in the shifter mechanism. Is this freeplay or lost motion in the big shift lever what you're referring to as "dwell"?

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk2 .
alfeng, after your dozens of posts about "dwell", I took some time today to try to discover it for myself. I'm focused on the issue of shifting under load with the RD, specifically, shifting up to a larger cog on a hill which you've said is the place that Shimano falls down vs Campy due to this "dwell" which is designed into the Shimano shifters.

In order to perform this particular RD shift, of course the large lever is pushed in. When I do this action, I observe the shift cable does nothing until the lever sweeps in enough to take up the "free play" before beginning to pull the cable. This freeplay translates to about 1 cm of movement at the bottom of the shift lever on my old DA 7700. Once the freeplay is taken up, the cable immediately begins pulling, which of course results in the RD immediately moving in (towards the larger cog).

From this observation, which can be done on a workstand, ie, under no-load conditions, I can detect "freeplay" or "lost motion" in the shifter mechanism. Is this freeplay or lost motion in the big shift lever what you're referring to as "dwell"?


Sheesh ...

No offense, but I can't believe that you have been bloviating for years about the non-existence of "dwell" in harmony with the absent DB-from-Tucson-and-now-elsewhere even though you apparently had zero idea what was being discussed!

The "freeplay" you have apparently observed is NOT the only problem ... the "freeplay" is NOT "dwell" ...
As I have mentioned in the past, "dwell" is even discussed on the PARK TOOL website ...

• Again, I did NOT make up the term "dwell" ...
• BUT, if you think-or-insist that I did then everyone else has apparently adopted it to describe the phenomenon!!!!!

You should be able to do-the-math about the consequences of an eccentric take-up spool ...

In lay terms, the eccentric take-up spool slows the motion of the chain JUST WHEN the engagement is about to occur ... in other words, at the critical moment when the chain is trying to engage the Cog's teeth the lateral motion of the chain is slowed down ... AND, that is what often causes the chain to skate on the teeth and/or cause rough shifts.

As has been noted by others for close to two decades, the way to overcome "dwell" is to un-weight the drivetrain before shifting.

You do NOT have to un-weight the drivetrain to execute a clean shift with Campagnolo, et al, shifters,

AND, as I have also noted numerous times, Campagnolo shifters can cleanly engage a vintage, non-ramped chainring cleanly with (AFAIK) ANY cable operated front derailleur.

 

[AyeYo]

Shimano must have a reason for intentionally designing the shifters that way though. I'd assume it's easier on the chain and sprocket teeth to have the chain lightly placed onto the new sprocket than slammed onto it, right? Sure it does mean you have to soft-pedal to shift gears, but shouldn't you be doing that anyway?

 

[dhk2]

alfeng, it's funny to be accused of "bloviating for years" about the non-existence of "dwell" from you. When is the last time I've responded to you on this subject, and how many posts have you had since I last did? In the 10 years I've been here, I don't recall more than a few times where I've dared to ask about or challenge your notion of "dwell". In this time, I'd venture you've posted about the Shimano "dwell", and the superiority of Campy shifters (which don't have the "dwell") well over a dozen times. That claim, as well as the posting of your favorite little blue table showing the various shift cable pull vs. cassette spacings.....we've all seen those many times now.

Anyway, based on your most-recent explanation that there is "dwell" designed into the Shimano shifter on purpose, I again will state that I disagree with you. My Shimano shifter exhibits no such "dwell", at least that I can determine. On a ride today, I was doing repeated upshifts while spinning at a decent cadence on flat road, at about 16 mph in 53/17 or 19. Carefully and smoothly pushing in the lever, I found that once the slight freeplay was taken up, the RD was moving and the shift was completed. When I rapidly clicked in the lever at all once, I found the shift was completed quickly, ie, without any delay that I could detect.

In all your years and many posts on this subject, has anyone ever come back and agreed with you? I can't recall a single case. Why don't you ask again here, and find out if anyone actually agrees with you? My guess is that most of us have just learned to ignore you on this subject. In that event, don't you think that you could be talking about something that the rest of us haven't experienced? So, as far as I'm concerned, even if there is some slight advantage in shift speed with Campy shifters, it's not significant in the real world.

As to your conspiracy theory about why Shimano would continue to use a more expensive cam-shaped spool rather than a round one since the creation Biopace, as a means to build demand for DI2...wow. Note, if you consider this post as "bloviating", add another one to my count. Now that I'm ranting....just who the hell is DB-from-Tucson?

 

[alfeng]

Quote:Originally Posted by AyeYo .Shimano must have a reason for intentionally designing the shifters that way though. I'd assume it's easier on the chain and sprocket teeth to have the chain lightly placed onto the new sprocket than slammed onto it, right? Sure it does mean you have to soft-pedal to shift gears, but shouldn't you be doing that anyway?


THAT's an interesting notion ... BUT, if it were true that Shimano wanted to make it easier on the drivetrain then WHY don't the Di2 derailleurs replicate Shimano's mechanical shifter's motion?

• OR, does Shimano NOT care any longer because they figure that if a person can pony up for a Di2 drivetrain then they can better afford the consumables?

Regardless, I guess that my expectations are greater than yours ... AND, my expectation is that I should not need to soft pedal in order to execute a clean down shift regardless of the load on the drivetrain.

 

[AyeYo]

I have no experience with Campy groups, but I can't imagine they lightly and crisply shift under heavy load. I'll have to go test ride a Campy equiped bike (if I can find one). To me, even if they did, I'd still soft pedal because hammering along while shifting is just putting unnecessary strain on the drivetrain. Why put down big torque when the chain is not fully engaged on the teeth of a single cog?

 

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by AyeYo
Shimano must have a reason for intentionally designing the shifters that way though. I'd assume it's easier on the chain and sprocket teeth to have the chain lightly placed onto the new sprocket than slammed onto it, right? Sure it does mean you have to soft-pedal to shift gears, but shouldn't you be doing that anyway?

I can think of one explanation, and it's in the eccentric take-up spool design. If a shifter is designed to produce less cable travel as the lever sweeps inward, that design would mean that there is more pull on the cable per degree of sweep as the shift takes place. IAW, the shifter is producing a mechanical advantage by having a varying ratio built into it. Meaning, as the RD cage encounters resistance from the chain contacting the next sprocket, you won't have to push with any more force to complete the shift.

IAW, if you sweep in the lever with a constant speed (when shifting to a bigger cog), that translates to an increasing-force (but slower) pull on the cable as the shift is completed. Everything's a trade-off here, so if you want lighter shift effort, you have to have more degrees of lever sweep (travel) or a longer lever.

But if that increased force is only needed toward the end of the shift, then you could use a variable-ratio cam which provides for fast cable travel at the beginning of the sweep, and then a bit more mechanical advantage as the shift is slammed home, to keep a nice, steady force requirement. The reason Shimano would want to prioritize a "steady force" vs a potential faster-shift with a round spool is that cable speed isn't as important to executing a fast shift as ease of travel, or consistent shift "feel".

Agree you should be soft-pedaling during any shift, but sometimes in the real world you just can't. But the fact that the new systems can accommodate a high load and still produce a shift is more a function of the cog and chain design than the shifter itself.

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyeYo .
I have no experience with Campy groups, but I can't imagine they lightly and crisply shift under heavy load. I'll have to go test ride a Campy equiped bike (if I can find one). To me, even if they did, I'd still soft pedal because hammering along while shifting is just putting unnecessary strain on the drivetrain. Why put down big torque when the chain is not fully engaged on the teeth of a single cog?


FYI. With Campagnolo shifters, you do not need to put any extraordinary THOUGHT INTO or pressure on the shifter's paddle to move the chain between a smaller Cog to a larger Cog OR onto the outer Chainring ...

 

[AyeYo]

It's not about pressure at the shift paddle though, it's about force on the chain and gear teeth during the shift.

What dhk2 said makes sense. The force required isn't linear, so the leverage at the lever can't be linear either if you want consistent lever force. I don't think that has anything to do with slowing the RD down. FWIW, the 6800 group I rode shifted flawlessly, front and back, under all conditions.

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by dhk2
alfeng, it's funny to be accused of "bloviating for years" about the non-existence of "dwell" from you. When is the last time I've responded to you on this subject, and how many posts have you had since I last did? In the 10 years I've been here, I don't recall more than a few times where I've dared to ask about or challenge your notion of "dwell". In this time, I'd venture you've posted about the Shimano "dwell", and the superiority of Campy shifters (which don't have the "dwell") well over a dozen times. That claim, as well as the posting of your favorite little blue table showing the various shift cable pull vs. cassette spacings.....we've all seen those many times now.

Anyway, based on your most-recent explanation that there is "dwell" designed into the Shimano shifter on purpose, I again will state that I disagree with you. My Shimano shifter exhibits no such "dwell", at least that I can determine. On a ride today, I was doing repeated upshifts while spinning at a decent cadence on flat road, at about 16 mph in 53/17 or 19. Carefully and smoothly pushing in the lever, I found that once the slight freeplay was taken up, the RD was moving and the shift was completed. When I rapidly clicked in the lever at all once, I found the shift was completed quickly, ie, without any delay that I could detect.

In all your years and many posts on this subject, has anyone ever come back and agreed with you? I can't recall a single case. Why don't you ask again here, and find out if anyone actually agrees with you? My guess is that most of us have just learned to ignore you on this subject. In that event, don't you think that you could be talking about something that the rest of us haven't experienced? So, as far as I'm concerned, even if there is some slight advantage in shift speed with Campy shifters, it's not significant in the real world.

As to your conspiracy theory about why Shimano would continue to use a more expensive cam-shaped spool rather than a round one since the creation Biopace, as a means to build demand for DI2...wow. Note, if you consider this post as "bloviating", add another one to my count. Now that I'm ranting....just who the hell is DB-from-Tucson?

WHAT?!?

First, by MY count, there are only two "dwell" deniers ...

1. you
2. the fore mentioned Dystopian-Boy-from-Tucson whose avatar was an image from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (... because you are a harmonizer with the DB, I figured you would know to whom I was referring).

• just like the DB, you seem to be suggesting that MY experience is a solitary observation regarding "dwell" and/or Campagnolo shifters

[*]and so, it is invalid

• Would YOU really have a different opinion regarding "dwell" or Campagnolo shifters if 1000+ people posted that they agreed with me???

[*]even though the PARK TOOL site refers to "dwell" by name
[*]and, numerous people & "experts" have indicated that the way to resolve the phantom-to-you phenomenon is to un-weight the drivetrain

• why is there a solution-or-technique for a phenomenon which doesn't exist?

• IMO, to harmonize with the DB even once is to bloviate regardless of actual frequency.

The fact of the matter is that with a bike in a workstand, there probably isn't a significant difference ... but, I don't know how you can extrapolate into the "real world" an unweighted drivetrain any more than Swanson did with the minimal weights he used to test wheel deflection which he posted several years ago ...

• I actually know a guy for whom (in addition to regular cuts of meat + hamburgers & hot dogs + fried chicken & Thanksgiving turkey) Bratwurst is about as exotic a "meat" dish as he figures that he needs to eat because it's what he grew up with AND there is no reason to try anything else ...

I seriously doubt that SRAM (there, I 'spoke' the unspeakable word!) would have found a ready-audience if they were only appealing to the first-on-the-block crowd.

Regardless, as I said before, I am glad if you (and, anyone else) feel(s) that you have not encountered any shifting problems with your Shimano shifters which were not your fault ...

But (as I have said), "Life is too short to have to deal with 'dwell' when there are options" AND SO "Why should I have to bother (since I have obviously experienced the dreaded "dwell")?"

As far as the "blue table" which you-and-by-your-estimate-others ignore, it is not meant for you since you are apparently amongst the multitude who cannot decipher a simple matrix ...

And/Or you-and-others are content with how your Shimano shifters function.

The "blue table" it is to assure the comparative newbies who frequently ask about what a good option to upgrade their SHIMANO (typically Sora, sometimes Tiagra or 105) shifters might be so that they will know that they are not limited to SOME REALLY AGGRESSIVELY MARKETED components just because the Cassettes are compatible ...

• Where I come from, it is better to spend less than $200 (closer to $150 if a person is a wise shopper) than to spend several times that amount for a mechanical group from that other brand OR over $1000 for a Di2 shifters-and-derailleur if a person is simply trying to achieve smoother shifting .

• I've got Campagnolo derailleur & wheels/Cassettes, but I am DELIGHTED that I can use Shimano derailleurs & wheels with my Campagnolo shifters because Shimano consumables generally cost a lot less ... WHY PAY MORE?!?

• Even if there were ZERO mechanical superiority, the fact that Campagnolo shifters are compatible means that they are better unless a person is a sponsored rider OR is not concerned about his/her finances because they can cost less unless a person is a unwise shopper... heck, if I had MicroShift shifters on one of my bikes AND knew they would last for a reasonable number of miles, I would probably recommend them, too.
• the flaws in SRAM's business model as I perceive it are enough reasons not to use their shifters/derailleurs ... where I come from, we try not to reward bad behavior aka "voting with one's wallet"

BTW. No conspiracies, per se. Just an understanding of business models; and then, projecting plausible-to-me scenarios which fit (some people call THAT process 'reverse engineering').