Feedback on your gears wanted

[needforspeed]

My Specialized Allez Sport had a triple 50/39/30 with 11/25 cassette. I recently got free Dura-Ace shifters which replaced the Sora. Unfortunately these Dura-Ace shifters aren't compatible w/ the triple crank. So I am now effectively on a double 50/39.

It's been noticeably harder climbing without the granny gear. My friend said most everyone has this setup, and I just need to kick up my training and forget about the granny days. I'd like to take a survey what most gals my size are using, or if any changes to going compact 50/34 or larger rear cogs made a huge difference. Like would going 12/28 be worth it?

I'm 5'5 tall, 150 lbs and been riding road bike for 3 yrs. Am entering my 1st sprint tri in one month. I consider myself pretty strong and fit for my age (41) I cross-train 6 days a week which includes long distance rides and hilly terrain.

Thanks

[indysteel]

I have a 50/34 crank paired with a 13/28 cassette. Most of the men in my area get by with a standard double, but I can't say the same for the women I ride with, most of whom have a triple or a compact double.

I don't know what kind of terrain you ride, but if a friend of mine basically just told me to HTFU with respect to gearing, I'd tell him/her to eff off--in so many words. Get gearing that suits YOU! It doesn't need to suit anyone else!

[pll]

I also have a compact crank (50/34), but paired with a 11-28 cassette. I suffer quite a bit in hilly rides (for which I have to travel to WI or IN), but I find them doable. Even if I have to walk a little bit during those rides, I get the sense that I just need more hill practice.

Anyway, with a 50-39-30 and a 11-25 cassette, your lowest gear has a ratio of 30/25=1.2. With a 50-39 and the 11-25 cassette, your lowest gear has a ratio of 1.56, 30% higher than before. If you switched to the compact with an 11-28 cassette, the lowest gear would have a ratio of 34/28=1.21, ~1% higher than your original lowest. If you just change the cassette, then the lowest gear would still be ~16% higher than your original granny gear.

I am with Indysteel on this: get the gearing you need. You don't want to damage your knees.

[Skierchickie]

I'm about 1" taller and 4 years older than you, and about the same weight, if that matters. I have a standard double (53/39 with 11-25 (I think? Maybe 11-26?) on the back) and it works fine for me. We don't have mountains around here, but we do have some big hills (around 15% is the max grade that I ride somewhat regularly, but I can find 20%+ if I want to). Mostly rolling stuff, but I can make up routes that contain 3-5 big hills over 40 or 50 miles if I want. The steepest stuff is borderline for my ability, and a challenge for me, but otherwise I don't feel a need for lower gearing. I stand up and crank when I need to, and I like that it makes me stronger.

For comparison, I do find that on one particular hill where I need to stand up on my road bike, I can remain seated on my touring bike with a triple. But I like the variety of occasionally standing - you may or may not.

It's a personal choice, and if you are used to using the lower gears and you miss them, then get what you want. Just don't think that you can't ride a standard double if you choose to. You mention that the hills are noticeably harder - are they way too hard now? Or just not as easy? Sucking the life out of you? That should factor in there.

[Christopher]

If you still have the left-hand Sora shifter, use that.

[OakLeaf]

Your gearing is your business, your body, your comfort, not anyone else's - not ours and especially not your friend's.

For one thing, there's absolutely no reason to be running around with a triple that you can't use. Swapping out the crank is expensive - if you need a narrower crank, that would be a reason to do it - one free shifter just doesn't make sense.

Basically, it comes down to two things:

(1) the range of grades where you ride, and

(2) the width of the "power band" of your legs.

If you WANT to swap your triple for a compact, and you're comfortable spinning in a wide range of RPMs, then it's *very likely but not definite* that with a 34T small chainring and a change of cassette (and possibly rear derailleur) will give you a range of gearing even wider than you probably need. A low gear of 34x32 is lower than the 30x25 you had on your triple.

But if you have a narrower "power band," i.e., you don't spin efficiently or comfortably at a wide range of RPMs, then the steeper your terrain, the more likely it is that you really need a triple. A compact can give you almost the same range from high to low, but it leaves bigger jumps in between gears.

No one would tell you that an inline four cylinder engine "ought" to be able to perform as efficiently at 3,000 RPM as it does at 8,000 RPM. Why should your legs be any different?

[Hi Ho Silver]

The “best” gearing is a highly individual thing. Until recently I always rode a triple. I now have a compact double (50-34) coupled with a 12-32 cassette. I find that this gearing is okay for anything I’ve encountered in the “Hill Country” out here in Austin – and if it works for me (5’5”, 120lbs, mid 60’s, with bad knees), it will work for anybody.

Your suggested low gear of 39/28 will be roughly equivalent to the 30/23 combo (i.e., the next to lowest gear) on your triple. If you really miss your current lowest gearing of 30/25, then a compact double (50-34) and paired with an 11-28 cassette would give you about the same low gear. That seems like a pretty expensive deal just to accommodate the free DuraAce shifters.

Jean

[roguedog]

+1

Dude - do what you're comfortable with and makes it an enjoyable ride for you. We all have room to grow... and we're all at different levels.

I'm with Indy <insert colorful language here :mad:>


I...I don't know what kind of terrain you ride, but if a friend of mine basically just told me to HTFU with respect to gearing, I'd tell him/her to eff off--in so many words. Get gearing that suits YOU! It doesn't need to suit anyone else!


Your gearing is your business, your body, your comfort, not anyone else's - not ours and especially not your friend's.

For one thing, there's absolutely no reason to be running around with a triple that you can't use. Swapping out the crank is expensive - if you need a narrower crank, that would be a reason to do it - one free shifter just doesn't make sense.

Basically, it comes down to two things:

(1) the range of grades where you ride, and

(2) the width of the "power band" of your legs.

If you WANT to swap your triple for a compact, and you're comfortable spinning in a wide range of RPMs, then it's *very likely but not definite* that with a 34T small chainring and a change of cassette (and possibly rear derailleur) will give you a range of gearing even wider than you probably need. A low gear of 34x32 is lower than the 30x25 you had on your triple.

But if you have a narrower "power band," i.e., you don't spin efficiently or comfortably at a wide range of RPMs, then the steeper your terrain, the more likely it is that you really need a triple. A compact can give you almost the same range from high to low, but it leaves bigger jumps in between gears.

No one would tell you that an inline four cylinder engine "ought" to be able to perform as efficiently at 3,000 RPM as it does at 8,000 RPM. Why should your legs be any different?

[ivorygorgon]

I ride a triple and I use the small chain ring. Recently I used on a 16% grade where I needed every little cog! I also rode a 7 mile hill, average of 8% but with some pitches of up to 10% I used my small chain ring. DH used his small chain ring recently on the Death Ride - 129 miles with 16,000 feet of climbing.

I never know what people mean on here when they talk about "hills." Are we talking 40 mile rides with 3-4,000 feet of gain? Which to me involves some "hills." Are we talking a 40 mile ride with 1-2,000 feet of gain? Probably not as many "hills." Are we talking shorter rides of 20 miles? I just think it is all relative and is very individual.

I went on a group ride on Sunday and we were riding really fast on some rollers. I couldn't keep up because there were some 5-8% grades on the rollers. I heard guys in the group talking about how it was so "flat." To me 4% is ok, but certainly not flat, and I can't go up a 4% hill at 18 mph. The group could.

My husband can climb grades in his middle chain ring that I can't. I may be able to in the future, but not now.

As a few others have said it is so individual. I get a little irked when people start talking about what you SHOULD be able to do. Look at what you can do. Look at how you ride, length of climbs, grades, how fast you want to go on the grades. Do you want to feel absolutely wrecked on a ride? Do you mind walking some grades? It is all about you and you feel on the bike. Not what other people think.

[indysteel]

Of course, I would never actually cuss at anyone!

But it really does irk me off when someone tells someone they should just train harder in order to use particular gearing. Easier said than done for one. I, for one, benefit from easier gearing because I don't have the opportunity to climb enough to become really strong at it. So, when I do encounter hills, I want to have gears that allow me to complete the ride without a whole lot of walking. Why kill myself? Now, when I have been able to train more specifically to climb, I have been able to get away with harder gears, but it's still nice to have a few easy gears in my back pocket. What I can climb at mile 15 is different than what I can climb at mile 60. Plus, when you're doing multi-day tours, you need to factor fatigue into the equation, too.

But that said, there's certainly nothing wrong with standard doubles either--if they offer what you need. Just don't beat yourself up simply because your friends says all the cool kids are doing it. Some of the strongest cyclists I know who run standard doubles have been cooked during hard climbing rides. Secretly, I bet they wished they had easier gearing. Not that they'd ever admit that mind you.

[smilingcat]

39 chain ring versus 30 for climb IS a big difference.

If you are finding it really hard, do switch to compact double and use 28 cog in rear. Not sure what cog set you have right now but I would suspect using a compact double with 28 cog would make it much easier.

Also, do remember that your top speed is going to be compromised because your top gear is going to be lower than using a "standard" sized chain rings 53/39 with 11/23 kind of cassette.

If you do decide to switch to a compact double, do remember that your front derailleur location on the seat tube must be readjusted.

[nscrbug]

I'm running a 50/34 up front with a 12-25 cassette. I'm 45, 5'6", 153lbs. There are some hills (not many) in my area that we ride which can peak at 9-10% (but they are very short), and I often find myself trying to shift into a lower gear when I'm already out of gears. :p But I admit that I'm not a strong climber...not even close. I often find myself struggling on a measly 2 or 3% incline, while others are flying past me doing 18-20mph. Oh well...I hate hills and they hate me right back. :D

[OakLeaf]

Of course, I would never actually cuss at anyone!

I think if someone says HTFU, it's fair to drop the HT and send it right back at 'em. :cool:

[lph]

:d :d

(so why did that come out small d's...? I meant grins)

[Eden]

It's totally personal and even dependent on the bike. I run a 39/50 something on my race bike with a 12-28 on the back and that works fine for me on that bike, but I'd never run gears that big on say a touring bike. OTOH I think I run bigger ones on my TT bike, which I wouldn't ever use for a super hilly race. My rain bike has the same gearing as my race bike, but runs smaller wheels. While theoretically it has "easier" gearing, it's heavier (especially the wheel set) and certainly doesn't climb as easily as the light bike. Every bike, every rider an individual.

I'd say start with a larger cog in the back. It won't be super expensive to test out a 12- 28 or 29 (I think you can get that configuration...) If that's still not enough consider switching the shifter back or going for a compact. Depending on the Bolt pattern on your crank, you may be able to simply swap your 39 with a 34. I did that with a triple once - went from a 30-42-52 to a 39-52 with the small ring locked out.

[Crankin]

If someone told me, an almost 58 year old, whose been riding for 11 years, to HTFU, I would respond with just the FU.
When you look at the majority of the population, everyone on this forum is doing more. Way more. Who needs this macho crap? I don't care if it was a woman who said this to the OP, it's the stuff that discourages people.
There's always going to be someone who is faster and stronger. I am proud of what I do and if I want to get better, that's my own choice.

[featuretile]

I have a compact double (50-34) with a 12-32 rear cassette. I put that in when I could not get up most hills with the 12-28 that the bike came with. So, with your 39-25 combo, riding up hills would be very difficult.

I live in an area of mountains. Even the 34-32 combo is not really enough low gearing for me. I'm 59. I ride with a club and most are faster than me. I'm starting to be able to keep up on the flats and downhill, but still am slower on the hills (but I get up them now without walking - YEAH!). But all the women and most of the men here ride with triples and mountain bike gearing in the back - even the experienced riders. You don't need it all the time, but when you need it, you do.

Yesterday I was riding with a woman friend and she wanted to do the hilly route back (she has a triple with MB gears). I said I'd go with her if she would wait for me at the top. Her response was that I must be really strong to get up that hill without a granny gear, and that I would have no trouble if I had the right gearing.

So, I am looking to increase to an 11-34 or 11-36. I was so jazzed that Shimano came out with 10-speed MB gearing (Dyna-Sys), only to find out that they are incompatible with road bike shifters and derailleurs. Why would they finally make what I need and make it not work? I have been looking on forums to see what other people have done. So far the recommendation has been to use the new 10-speed Shimano cassette or a SRAM 10-speed cassette, with a MB derailleur (and not the new Dyna-Sys one which is incompatible, but the older one). I think I will do that.

I don't think anyone should tell you that you should just suck it up and work harder. I've been doing that and I have improved, but it's still a drag. If you have grades over 10% and they last for a long time, I think you just need lower gears. Again, it depends on the geography of where you live, your age, your weight and your fitness. And I think long legged men and some bike mechanics just don't understand.