I'm a Gear Idiot

OK - I have a Trek 1000 SL with three rings in the front and eight in the back. I usually stay on the middle one in the front and the middle to largest (closest to the back wheel) in the back. I have no idea what rings I'm supposed to be using where. I find it easier to spin faster not harder in general (weak? trying to improve through weight lifting).

Should I be spinning fast and easier up hills? Or slow and hard (using farther out, smaller gears/rings/wheels in back)? What should I use on flats? Going down hills?

When should I use the biggest and smallest rings?

What is a granny gear?

I'm riding 20-40 miles at a time right now and I'm constantly trying out new things with my back rings, but I'm afraid of moving the front ones. I was told to never have my chain going from a largest in the back to smallest in the front and vice versa, and I don't know if I have to be on a particular ring in the back to change to a smaller or larger front ring.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I had hoped by bike manual would cover this but I guess they assume you know how to change gears. I don't even know how to drive a shift-stick car let alone change gears on my bike!

Anne -
You might find this article by Sheldon Brown helpful.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears.html

A few things... granny gear is the gears you are in when using the inner (small) chainring, used climbing a long or steep hill. The outer (big) chainring will make it require more force to pedal - used when going down hills, or perhaps on flats.

Spinning faster is what my legs and knees like.

--- Denise

Well I'm certainly no expert, but I'll try to give you the advice that I've heard, tried, and works for me....
When going up hill you want to "spin" as easily as possible, never try to mash a big gear on the hills, it will only blow out your legs. I don't think it's too good on the knees either.
What I do is gear down to an easier gear when I approach a hill to start the spin, then gradually shift to an easier cog as the hill starts getting steaper. This takes practice though, as you want to shift right before you really need to. BTW- that means shifting towards your bigger cogs in the back- towards the wheel. Then as I crest the hill I start reversing the process. If for some reason I have moved to my middle chain ring on the front, I will pop it back to my big chain ring once I crest the hill and start powering down the back side.
Don't be afraid of your big chain ring, on the flats and downhills your speed will greatly increase if you are in the big ring up front. I stayed in my middle ring for a long time thinking I wasn't a good enough cyclist to be in my big ring. Now I'm almost always in it.
As for the granny gear... That is your smallest ring up front. that is for really steep hills. I haven't used mine in years, so either I don't ride really big hills, or I've gotten used to suffering in the middle ring. I'm actually thinking of swapping mine out for a double.
And no, I'm not some super hardcore cyclist!! I'm an average rider, ride about 15-16 mph average. I'm also about 30lbs overwight and trying to get rid of it before my first IM next april. Since I'm training for the IM I'm on my bike ALOT these days, so I've just kind of found what works for me. So I guess my advice would be to not be afraid to play around w/ the gears and find what works for you.
Oh- and that last question about shifting patterns I think? I think what people are telling you is to be careful so your chain doesn't cross. When that happens it either drops off or jams. But I've never had that problem. I think I dropped a chain when I was a brand newbie. Actually come to think about it I was doing my first tri! WOW! I was a newbie. But I haven't had a problem since. Generally you wouldn't have a reason to shift into those patterns anyway.
Hope this loooonng winded reply helps!
Whatever you do- keep riding!
denise
Oh and one last thing.. You are NOT an Idiot!! We all have to start somewhere! Even though I've been riding for awhile I still have questions. Thats what we are here for. :)

I have the Trek 2100 with the triple in front.

I use the big front ring for all flat and downhill, and vary the rear to keep a pretty high cadence (rpm). The big chain ring/small rear ring is for the very easiest conditions. Assuming the same speed, a higher cadence has less effort/exertion.

I use the big front ring for small to medium hills, shifting progressively as difficulty increases to easier and easier (bigger) gears in the rear. If it is a short hill and I am going to stand for the last hard part, I first shift the rear gear two steps harder, (smaller) then stand.

If it is a long, medium difficulty hill, I use the middle front chain ring in the same manner.

If it is a difficult hill, I use the small front chain ring, and shift to bigger and bigger rear rings until I get to the biggest, then I just go the best I can. If it gets too hard, I stop, rest, and resume riding- I try not to walk. Usually I recover enough in a couple minutes to continue on.

If, on flats or easy hills, I notice my speed dropping, I stand and pedal faster for a few rounds to get my speed/cadence back up.

Hope that helps!

Nanci

PS- After two edits, I think I finally have big and small straight!

Here's a copy of a message I sent to someone else privately earlier this year. Hope this helps too.. Kinda long though.


It's good that you ask. I'm amazed at the number of people I see walking off their bike on a small hill we have here in town and when I check their bike I see that they're not on their smallest gear yet. Most people totally ignore how to use the derailleur and are afraid to ask. I'm glad to tell people about this because I think it allows more of them to enjoy cycling and to keep riding instead of quitting after their first, frustrating hill.

There has been a couple of threads on the topic of gears out there many precious informations were published in them. I'll find them and forward them to you in a minute.

Anytime - especially on flats
Basically and especially if you don't thrust your knees too much, or simply if you want to keep them happy forever, you must make sure that you never have to push hard on the pedals. I know it feels weird and unnatural at first but you must always gear down to the point where you're almost bouncing on the saddle. If you can borrow someone's bike that has a cadence meter, that means 90 rpm (rotations per minute). I repeat: it doesn't feel natural... But it will become second nature faster than you think and keep you happy in the saddle for a much longer time. Ride behind a fast roadie for a minute or watch a stage of flats in the Tour de France and you'll know what I mean exactly. (Lance spins it at 110 rpm and sometimes more... you don't have to be THAT fancy. )

On a hill:
if you stay on the same gear, your RPMs will go down because gravity is working against you. The hill adds resistance, so the same effort from your muscles yields lesser results. So you have to downshift.

So if you can experiment (in reduced traffic so you'll be less stressed, for example), try this:

1) at the bottom of the hill go on the smallest gear you have, the one with the less resistance (smallest chainring in the front, largest cog in the back). You should normally feel like you're spinning in vain. Spinning 100 rpm will probably make you advance at about 5 mph!! If you're not spinning fast enough your movements will be kinda jerky -> go on to step 2.

2) After a few feet, shift up three gears (in the back - right hand) just so you'll be more comfortable and less jerky. Then go up on the hill. You'll be very slow but you're experimenting so that's ok.

3) as soon as you start feeling the slightest resistance: shift down, one gear at a time, towards your lowest gear (the one you started on).

4) No matter what you do, especially on a longer hill, your RPMs will go down anyway. You can work against gravity but only to a certain point. Don't sweat it, but try to always stay above 1 rotation per second.

5) At some point you'll want to shift down again but uh oh! no more gears to shift down to. That's life. Smile and use the mantras provided by your TE sisters! Also: you can stand up on the pedals to use your full weight. It's probably safer for your knees than trying to mash it while sitting down, but I'm not sure about that. Do what feels best for you.

5B) When you get more confident using your gears, you'll probably want to shift back up one or two cogs as you stand up but you can do that later.

6) The experiment is over and you are at the TOP! Next time you'll go on that hill you can probably start on a bigger gear so you have more gears to shift down to and don't get to stage 5. But for as long as necessary, start on your smaller chainring (in the front) at the bottom of the hill so you don't have to change chainring (which is kinda harder than shifting on the cogs in the back) while you're concentrating on taming that "*/$%"( hill.

When you buy your road bike you'll probably want to get a triple chainring so that leaves you more options. Some tend to think that triples are for sissies, but I don't care: just knowing that those smaller gears are there to help if needed makes me feel better, even if I don't use them. I HATE getting to the point where I can't click down anymore. Also: remember that the more teeth in the back, the easier it will be on climbs. So for example if you can turn to a 27-teeth cog in the back it will be easier than on a 23. I wish my cassette didn't stop at 23 but when I chose the bike I was not aware of all this. On the other hand, if you are sure you'll be riding flats for the rest of you life, you don't need the 27, but... you may eventually go further and further with the bike and hence need all those teeth.

Here's a pointer to a column I'm writing for a Quebec bike company web site. I didn't do the translation work but I think it's fairly simple: http://www.mielebicycles.com/2005/e...roniques_03.asp
Not very serious but it may help too.

That's a long message but it would take me more time to make it more succinct. I hope you understand what I mean. Do not hesistate to ask more questions.

Wow. I'm finally starting to understand. And it's promising to hear I won't have to push away so hard on hills. Lately I've been getting out of the saddle for the big ones - which is fun in itself :) I'll definitely try the smaller front cog next time.

Thank you so so much for the helpful advice.

Everyone has given great advice!

All I can say... is that I too had the same problem! I totally didn't understand how/why/when for my gears for the longest time! AND... I didn't even know HOW to get into my GRANNY GEAR... until I had owned the bike for about 8 months! Seriously.

Not knowing how to "spin" (sounds like you know how to spin... great!)... and having my cealts positioned wrong on my pedals = accute knee pain after a couple of months of hard riding!

It was then that I learned how to spin... versus muscling through the rotations.

Getting a computer with cadence on it really helped me understand what gear to ride in for different situations. I typically hang at 90-110 on my cadence. When I hit 110... I am really almost spinning "out of control"... but I only stay there if I know I will be slowing down soon.

When I was riding around 100 miles a week in the summer... I really got to know my bike and my gears... and I started using the right ones.

Best of luck! One day... it will just click... and you will get it! Have faith!

A little 'common sense' that I just figured out, switching back and forth from Shimano to Campy.
The bigger lever is always used to push the chain to a bigger ring. It takes more pressure to move the chain up. The small levers are used to drop back to a smaller ring. On the front ring, bigger is harder. On the back, bigger is easier.

Another approach. Instead of thinking about what gear I want to be in, just think which direction I want the chain to move. The closer to the bike, the easier it is to pedal. Yeah, that's it - don't think about gears, just about where the chain is.

Hmm,... I don't think this has helped at all... :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedal Wench

Another approach. Instead of thinking about what gear I want to be in, just think which direction I want the chain to move. The closer to the bike, the easier it is to pedal. Yeah, that's it - don't think about gears, just about where the chain is.

Hmm,... I don't think this has helped at all... :o

---

Hey, it's helping me! Gearing seems to be some sort of spatial thing that just won't go into my head! When folks here talk about 28/13 I finally know what they are saying but I STILL can't translate it into usable information when I'm actually riding. I LIKE "closer is easier"!!! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grog

...you must always gear down to the point where you're almost bouncing on the saddle. ...

---

Okay, tried that on this morning's ride.

Dang.

That really got the respiration rate up!

OK - one more question I swear. You all have been incredibly helpful and I feel like I finally understand how I should be using my gears. But what is this 23/18 number stuff? Maybe if I know the numbers then I'll really sound like I know what I'm talking about!

Far wiser heads than me will answer that but it refers to the number of teeth on the front cogs (chainrings) and the number of teeth on the rear cogs (cassette/freewheel). The bigger the number on the front, the harder to pedal. The bigger on the rear, the easier to pedal. Help, my brain hurts!!! ;) Anybody ready to switch to single-speed??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuthatch

Far wiser heads than me will answer that but it refers to the number of teeth on the front cogs (chainrings) and the number of teeth on the rear cogs (cassette/freewheel). The bigger the number on the front, the harder to pedal. The bigger on the rear, the easier to pedal. Help, my brain hurts!!! ;) Anybody ready to switch to single-speed??

---

Nuthatch - LOL glad to hear Im not the only one who's brain hurts after this sort of conversation. You girls do explain it much better than any article I have read though. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglewalker

Okay, tried that on this morning's ride.

Dang.

That really got the respiration rate up!

---

and burns fat - spinning burns more fat than muscling. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuthatch

Far wiser heads than me will answer that but it refers to the number of teeth on the front cogs (chainrings) and the number of teeth on the rear cogs (cassette/freewheel). The bigger the number on the front, the harder to pedal. The bigger on the rear, the easier to pedal. Help, my brain hurts!!! ;) Anybody ready to switch to single-speed??

---

nah - but I'm thinking about building out a fixie! ;)

and nutties right - that's what it is. so if you told me 28/13 I'd think you were on the small chainwheel in the front (28 teeth) and the smaller cog in the back (13)

My comfort bike is a 48/38/28 on the front chainrings: the biggest (farthest from the bike) chainring has 48 teeth, the middle one 38 and the smallest one (closest to the bike) has 28.
The back cassette is an 8-sp 11-32 which means the smallest cog (farthest from the bike) has 11 teeth, the biggest cog (closest to the bike) has 32 with the other 6 gears somewhere in between those 2 numbers.

So when I'm tired and climbing home I may be riding a 28-32. Tells you I'm in the smallest chainring in the front and the biggest chainring in the back (the closest rings to the bike)!! also tells you I'm probably climbing since those rings will be the easiest gears to pedal.

Hope that makes sense! oh...and if you want to know what gearing your bike has and can't find it on the mfg website, you can always just count the teeth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorsairMac

and burns fat - spinning burns more fat than muscling. ;)

---

Burns more fat? Not necessarily. Your percentage of fat per calories burned may be higher, but as your intensity of effort goes way up the fat amount may stay the same and other fuel sources are also burned. Higher intensity burns more calories but a lower percentage of fat, but not necessarily less fat as a fuel.

This thread's been really helpful for me, too, although when I try to apply it while on my bike, my brain goes ka-phooey. It all seems bass-ackwards to me - or at least mutually inconsistent - on the front chainring, bigger is harder, but on the rear cog, bigger is easier. For the time being I'm still relying on the nice little numbers on my shifters, where a little number always means easier (which I have to admit is usually my goal, given my beginner's fitness level!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadieKate

Your percentage of fat per calories burned may be higher, but as your intensity of effort goes way up the fat amount may stay the same and other fuel sources are also burned. Higher intensity burns more calories but a lower percentage of fat, but not necessarily less fat as a fuel.

---

I'm sorry -- say what? I'm not understanding this in English; could you do it in numbers, please?

The higher spin rate and increased respiration rate is especially good for me because I have a lung thingy (both parents smoked [smoking killed my mom, my aunt, and my grandmother], and then we moved to the smoggiest town in Southern California. In this situation, one child in four will have some kind of lung problem, and I'm the statistic -- chronic bronchitis and reduced lung capacity, so anything that builds capacity is A Good Thing.) But I don't get the more fat/less fat thing -- I need a concrete example, with numbers, please? (Sorry again, but I am a nerd by profession and drive my friends nutty.)

The bigger chain ring (in the front) is harder to pedal, so you use it when you are riding in the easiest conditions- flat or downhill. The smallest chain ring in the front is the easiest to pedal, so you use it when the pedaling is the hardest- steeper hills.

Just remember that moving the chain toward the bike, either in front or back, makes it easier.

Nanci

I'm not an exercise physiologist so I deal in concepts only, but I pulled out an article I have from a Sally Edwards' presentation I attended several years ago to get some numbers. For more precise info, read any good books on training or heart monitor books. www.heartzones.com

Here goes for zones 1-3 (of 5 and where you spend the most time):

Zone #/% Max HR/% Fat Cals/% Carb Cals/% Protein Cals/Cals burned in 30 mins

Zone 1 / 50-60 / 70-85 / 10-25 / 5 / >180
Zone 2 / 60-70 / 50-70 / 25-50 / 5 / >240
Zone 3 / 70-80 / 40-60 / 50-85 / 5 / >330

If you do the math, you will see that the number of fat calories burned is approximately the same and even a little higher in zone 3, but the total calories burned goes up. The calories of fat as a percentage go down but not the actual amount of fat burned.

The fat burning capacity of individuals varies widely, but these are some averages. Burning capacity is based on unique physiology, fitness, dietary habits, frequency and time of eating.

Okay. I'm going to try to translate this as I understand it; somebody tell me if I get it wrong.

The body powers itself by burning available fuel (carbohydrates, stored in the blood as glucose[?]) and by converting stored fat into available fuel and then burning that. Any available fuel that is not burned is stored as fat.

The fuel usage continues at a given ratio (available fuel/stored fuel). This ratio varies, depending on the person. As the heart rate increases (presumably in response to increased activity), the fuel burn increases, the demand on available fuel increases, and so the ratio changes. Wild guess: the body can't convert fat quickly enough to meet the demand, hence the need for increased carbohydrate intake to avoid depleting blood sugar? This would explain why the number of fat calories burned does not increase dramatically -- it can't, because the conversion process can't speed up dramatically.

I do wonder about the third line on that chart, though. The math doesn't work -- is that a typo?

40% fat + 5% protein + 50%-85% carb = 95%-130%; that's okay, because the possible sums include the 100% that the numbers are supposed to add up to. However,

60% fat + 5% protein + 50%-85% carb = 115%-150%; 100% is not a possible solution to that equation, no matter how you slice it. Something is wrong somewhere.

I don't understand why you are doing the math with an absolute number for fat and a range for carbs. Each has a range. On the third line, the fat can be as long as 40%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadieKate

I don't understand why you are doing the math with an absolute number for fat and a range for carbs.

---

I'm doing the low end of the fat range and the high end of the fat range to determine whether the range as a whole is valid. It isn't. For the math to work, the percentage of fat + the percentage of carbs + the percentage of protein must = 100. If the equation works for the lowest number in the first range AND the highest number in the first range, then it works for all numbers within the range, and the range is valid.

The math works for the low end of the fat range, because 40% (fat) + 55% (carb) + 5% (protein) = 100%. 55 is within the range for carbs (greater than 50, less than 85).

It doesn't work for the high end, because no matter what carb number you chose from within the given range, the result is always greater than 100.

If the maximum fat percentage is 60, then the minimum carb range cannot be greater than 35 (because we still have to add 5% protein). Conversely, if the minimum carb percentage is 50, then the maximum fat percentage cannot be greater than 45.

Therefore, either the high end of the fat range is wrong, or the low end of the carbohydrate range is wrong.

The numbers tie out in Zones 1 & 2, but not in Zone 3.

Eagle, you are correct about the math. BUT, the calculations refer to what you are burning at the moment of exercise. You do NOT lose more weight by exercising in the aerobic range only. That is a commonly held misconception. There are very good and important reasons to exercise in an aerobic fashion, but NOT because it increases fat burned. The more total calories you burn - whether protein, fat or carb - the more calories you burn. Period. Then it's up to you whether you eat fewer calories than burned or not.

If you eat fewer calories than you have burned, you will lose fat. Assuming you exercised for 1 hour, during the remaining 23 hours of that day your body returns itself to equilibrium. Meaning it tries to replenish glycogen stores, fat stores and build muscle. HOWEVER, if you take in fewer calories than you expend, your body will choose to build muscle, replenish glycogen, and only store fat if calories in any form are left over. So, you will not be burning the fat during the exercise, but your body will be sacrificing fat later (yippee) for other things and therefore you will have the same outcome as burning more fat.

I don't know. Maybe Sally Edwards has a typo in her article. Read her books, go to her website, email her. All I care about is the concept which seems to be a universal agreement among trainers. Read Joel Friel. He says the same thing but didn't put the numbers to it which you asked for.

The whole point is that you can burn just as much fat at higher intensity efforts. There was a whole era when we were taught not to get above a certain level because it took you out of the fat burning zone. A bunch of people think that if you can't hold a conversation while working out that you aren't burning fat. Not true. This low level only means that the percentage of fat per calories burned is high and that you can sustain the workout for a long time. These same people that won't push above this level of effort are also the ones that never get faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadieKate

There was a whole era when we were taught not to get above a certain level because it took you out of the fat burning zone. A bunch of people think that if you can't hold a conversation while working out that you aren't burning fat. Not true.

---

I never bought that concept! I remember having discussions (arguments?) with aerobics instructors and trainers in the late 80's - early 90's. It just wasn't/isn't logical.

I know, I know. Where there is oxygen there is burning fat. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadieKate

A bunch of people think that if you can't hold a conversation while working out that you aren't burning fat. Not true. This low level only means that the percentage of fat per calories burned is high and that you can sustain the workout for a long time. These same people that won't push above this level of effort are also the ones that never get faster.

---

Exactly!
The one thing they were correct about is that if you cannot hold a conversation you are exercising using anaerobic energy. If you can talk, you are still completely aerobic. Good to know if you don't own a heart monitor because it is very accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc

Eagle, you are correct about the math. BUT, the calculations refer to what you are burning at the moment of exercise.

---

I was just trying to understand the calculations as given, being that I am a curious person (and fussy about math). I ride for the joy of it, fat or no fat. The gear issue on which this topic started got to the high rotation rate as recommended, which (see my earlier post) I discovered increases my respiration rate, so I seem to be getting more aerobic exercise with the low resistance/high rotation than by moving myself along by the power of my mighty haunches. And that presumably will lead to increased lung capacity, which again will be personally beneficial.

Slim is a nice-to-have; healthy lungs are a necessity. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nanci

Just remember that moving the chain toward the bike, either in front or back, makes it easier.

Nanci

---

Thanks - that's the easiest-to-remember explanation I've seen yet!