Feedback on your gears wanted

[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 >

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?

[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. 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.