Another Gearing Question: Old vs New

[HillSlugger]

Hi,

I'm currently riding a 34 pound hybrid with 28/28/48 crankset, a 11-34 8-speed cassette, and 32mm tires. I find I pretty much need all the lower gears for my (sluggish) hill climbing and that on downhills I sometimes have trouble keeping up in the highest gear. I'm lusting for a Specialized Sequoia Elite. It weights somewhere in the low 20's, has 25mm tires, a 30/39/50 crankset and a 12-25 9-speed cassette. I'm concerned that the reduced range of gearings will kill me on the hills and make it even harder to keep up on the downhills.

Question 1: How much of a difference can I expect from the lighter bike with narrower tires?

Question 2: If I switch out the cassette for an 11-32 I get back about the same range I had. Does this sound like a good idea?

Thanks, Nicole

[mimitabby]

I can help with question number one, but number two is beyond me.
That new bike is going to let you FLY!

[Kathi]

I read somewhere that for every pound lost there is a 1% improvement in climbing.

Can you demo this bike and try it out on some hills?

[Trekhawk]

Hi,

I'm currently riding a 34 pound hybrid with 28/28/48 crankset, a 11-34 8-speed cassette, and 32mm tires. I find I pretty much need all the lower gears for my (sluggish) hill climbing and that on downhills I sometimes have trouble keeping up in the highest gear. I'm lusting for a Specialized Sequoia Elite. It weights somewhere in the low 20's, has 25mm tires, a 30/39/50 crankset and a 12-25 9-speed cassette. I'm concerned that the reduced range of gearings will kill me on the hills and make it even harder to keep up on the downhills.

Question 1: How much of a difference can I expect from the lighter bike with narrower tires?

Question 2: If I switch out the cassette for an 11-32 I get back about the same range I had. Does this sound like a good idea?

Thanks, Nicole

Hey Nicole
I think Bikerz changed out her back cassette so she might be able to give you some info and thoughts on that. Look back thru the old threads or perhaps PM her if she is not following this thread.

[bikerz]

I've got a meeting to go to (arggh - work! Why is it always getting in the way of cycling?) but I'll post my experience when I am done - stay tuned!

[spokewench]

I think you will be fine with the gearing on the Sequoia. You will be amazed at what the lightness will do for you.

For instance, I went from a Bridgestone RB1 (steel, heavy tug boat) with double chain ring up front 38-52 and lowest gear in the back 25 to

the same set up on a Giant TCR (very light carbon).

I rode the colorado tour on the giant - there is no way with all the climbing that I would have been able to do that on my old Bridgestone (would have had to put a compact or triple on it)

I'm thinking tho if you don't have enough gears, you could probably change your rear cassette on the Sequoia to put a lower gear on. Ask your LBS.

[Cassandra_Cain]

This is kind of an interesting scenario, that I can sort of relate to.

How? Well because my mountain bike is about 30-31 pounds or so w/2.5" knobbies and has an 11-34 setup vs my roadbike which is about 20-21 pounds with a 12-27 (i swapped out the 12-25) cassette.

I've ridden some of the same roads on both and the feel, in terms of effort is similar now. While I had the 12-25 on the roadbike though I would have said the MTB was easier to spin on for hills & climbing.

The 12-27 swap on the roadbike though has made a big difference and I'd say that makes it easier to spin. In terms of speed, it is no contest obviously.

To see if you'd have the exact same range with the various cassettes try this calculator:

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

You can see the gear inches for just about any gear combination.

[bikerz]

Hey Nicole -

I changed both the rear cassette and the front chanin rings on my Sequoia - I have an 11-34 in the back and a 24-38-52 in front - so I have a very wide range of gears, and I use all of them. I used a gear calculator spreadhseet i put togeteh rmyself, and compared all the gear inches by all the variosu combinations of front/back cogs, and this arrangement gives me a very little overlap. I sometimes notice the gaps between gears - like - too hard/too easy, but I know (or I hope!) that will change as I get lighter and stronger.

My bike is actually fairly light, I guess, but since the rider isn't , I think there is nothing more I can do to make hills easier except dropping more weight myself!

I did get new wheels (Mavic Ksyrium) and I love them - I think they made a big difference in stability. Climbing while standing as well as descending feels way, way better than the stock wheels. I also have 700x23 tires, so I guess that helps. But really, just getting gears I could spin in up hills was the main thing. I did need a new XT derailleur for the rear cassette.

Hope this helps!

[Triskeliongirl]

I would try the 12-27 swap before the 11-34 (and even ask the LBS to make this change free of charge at the time of purchase). I use both of these casettes, but prefer the 12-27 since the gaps between gears starts to get too big on the 11-34 which can degrade performance a lot. I expect you wil find this bike climbs so much better since its lighter that the 12-27 will be fine. If it isn't I would swap my smallest ring in front for something smaller before going to the 11-34 in back (you could also do this at point of purchase to for more bargaining power). Note, that if you go the 11-34 (or 32) roote in back, you'll also need a longer cage rear dearailleur.

[Grog]

BikerZ is in the Bay Area, CA, and MDHillSlug is in Maryland. I don't think the latter will have to do any kind of climbing like the former, even if there are hills in Maryland.

I have a triple (30-40-52) with a 11-23 cassette and I was not hill-trained when I started cycling. Then I lived in Quebec and had a few nice hills around. I enjoyed the 30 and could have used a 25 in the back sometimes, but I don't think I would have needed a 24 in the front, nor a 34 in the back. Now I live in Vancouver which is much hillier (although nothing like the Bay Area) and I still enjoy the 30-tooth chainring even if I don't use it as often as I did before.

I think a standard triple (similar to mine) and a 11-25 or 11-27 in the back would be sufficient to the task of going up but also of going on long flat stretches. Going to a 34 in the back might take a great number of interesting gear ratios off your fingers...

[HillSlugger]

I can work out a nice shifting pattern with the standard crankset and the 11-34 cassette, but I can't make it work out well with the 12-25 and a 28-39-50 up front. All the jumps from crank 1 to crank 2 are in the 25% range.

Thanks for letting me know that the 34 cassette would require a new derailler. I don't really want to do that. Can I get away without if I only go to 12-27?

I know that our hills are mere bumps, but at my level of training they are still hard!

Let me do the math with the 12-27.

[Triskeliongirl]

You just need a standard road triple derailleur for a 12-25 or 12-27 casette. I run a 50/34 in front with 12-27 in the back, and this gets me up anything in the texas hill country. For loaded touring or real mountains, I do have a 11-34 casette, but as I said I really prefer the 12-27. If you have a 30 in front that is plenty low when paired with the 27 in back. When you look at the ratio charts, don't think about shifting between rings in front as much as choosing a front ring, and then shifting up and down the back, which is the modern style with 9-10 speed rear casettes. You will probably just wanna be in your 50 for flats, shift to the middle if it gets hillier and to the granny when it gets really nasty. Also, its important to get over the idea that you will fix up your bike to do one thing and one thing only. While I have my 12-27 for *most stuff*, I have a touring wheel with an 11-34 that I can put on my touring bike (which does have a long cage mountain derailleur) when I need it. Once you learn how, swapping casettes is also an easy option. I personally think a mountain rear casette is overkill on a modern light triple. I need it since I only have a double.

[Kathi]

[QUOTE=Grog]BikerZ is in the Bay Area, CA, and MDHillSlug is in Maryland. I don't think the latter will have to do any kind of climbing like the former, even if there are hills in Maryland.

MDHillSlug,

I'm not sure where you are but don't discount your hills in Md. If you are on the eastern shore , yes, they probably are "liitle bumps" but if you're west of I 81 there are some hellatious climbs, in Garret County, Frostburg, US 40 between Cumberland MD and Hancock. Ride on any route in that area except the C&O canal and then say its flat!

I've driven through there a lot and done some riding and the climbs in CO. are a lot easier!

[HillSlugger]

I live in the MD suburbs of Washington, DC, about 12 miles north of the Capital Beltway, neither on the eastern shore, nor in the mountains of western MD. It's relatively flat but with rolling terrain. My typical 25-30 mile rides over rural roads will usually give me between 1000 and 1500 feet of climbing (as estimated by RouteSlip) with most of the climbing concentrated over a few miles near my midpoint. The last two miles are mostly uphill. It's definitely enough to give me a workout and push me towards my current limit.

Is improved hill climbing a factor of better conditioning and training or a matter of improved technique? I usually only get out for one of these rides once or twice a week. The rest of my miles are logged on a trainer stand.

[Kalidurga]

Hey there Nicole,
Funny that you and I posted similar questions about cassettes at around the same time. Our rolling mid-Atlantic hills are definitely nothing to sneeze at. Are you closer to getting the new, lusted-after bike?