What gear ratio for road touring in the Rockies?
Caleb Dods
those of you used when (raod) touring in the rockies. I realise
that this will be different for everyone, but never having been
in the Rockies, and planning on bikeing from Vancouver to Jasper,
I'd like an idea of how low a ratio I need.
I have an old Peugot (model 102) that is about 12 years old. The
small chain wheel has 42 teeth. It looks like it will be difficult
to change this to a smaller one. So I figure I'll go to a larger rear
cog. A 32 tooth on the rear will give me a ratio of (42:32) or 35 inches.
A 34 tooth cog on the rear will give be a ratio of (42:34) or 33 inches.
I'd like to go with the 32 tooth cog on the rear if this would be
low enough.
Any information would be appreciated, including your gear ratios, and if
you know where I could get my hands on a smaller chain ring. (The only
name I could find was on the crank itself, and it says Peugot. Its the
original crank for that bike if that helps.)
Thanks in advance,
--
Caleb
---------------------------
Any views stated here are my own, and not those of my employer or anybody else.
Jeff Haferman
> Bring a triple crank and you will have all the low gears you want. If
> you use a double chain ring crank you would need a long cage derailler to use
> any thing lower than a 39/28.
You'll most likely need a longer bottom bracket spindle, and and
new front and rear derailluers.
--
==============================================================================
+ Jeff Haferman PH: (319) 335-5384 +
+ Department of Mechanical Engineering FX: (319) 335-5669 +
+ and Center for Global and Regional The University of Iowa +
+ Environmental Research Iowa City, IA 52242 +
==============================================================================
+ http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/people/haferman e-mail:hafe...@icaen.uiowa.edu +
==============================================================================
Jobst Brandt
question is analogus to asking what kind of car should I drive in
Vermont, or France for that matter. Roads are built for the same
vehicles the world around. Usually exceptionally steep roads can be
found in most places but this isn't the goal of this exercise as it
appears. Just go ride bike.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Richard Birke
must be nuts or superman! I can't imagine it.
I've ridden the Cascades, lots of big New England hills, and some pretty
big European stuff (France, Switzerland), and I had anywhere from 30-60
pounds of stuff on the bike.
My lowest gear on that bike was a 24/28, and now it's a 24/30. Of course,
that is a triple chainring.
You can buy a new triple crank with chainrings for about $60 (it may be
three years old, but you can get decent stuff). If you are planning a
multi-day tour, the investment is wll worth it. In addition to bail out
gears with the granny (for a day whn you don't feel great, but you have 40
miles to go and the next 12 are a hard climb), you have a comfortable
range in your middle chainring. The 36 tooth middle ring sees 70% of the
action on my touring bike.
I started riding on the absurd "half-step plus granny" setup common to
touring bikes. It had a 42 tooth middl chainring. I was never spinning
as comfortably as my two partner, who both had 34-36 tooth middle rings.
I changed mine immediately and am very glad I did.
I ride a 39/28 as my low gear on my road bike, unloaded, and I am thinking
of going to a 30 in back.
Mountain bike has 20/30 as a low.
Tandem has 24/24 (not low enough).
I like speed, and I like to ride hard, but without knees, I couldn't ride.
Get a low end for touring. Low gears are where its at on loaded climbs.
I don't think I'm alone on this one. While there may be people who would
say my low end is a tad too extreme, they would not adjust it down a lot,
especially on th touring bike.
Good luck to all tourista!
--
Professor Richard Birke <rbi...@willamette.edu>
Director, Willamette University Center for Dispute Resolution
245 Winter Street, SE (503) 375-5388
Salem, OR 97301 fax (503) 370-6375
Caleb Dods
That has got to be the most useful response I can imagine. In fact
given that the gear ratio doesn't matter would you like to come tour
with me, you can borrow my BMX :)
Bill Lloyd
Well, generally it might be useful to have a move varied range of
gears in the rockies than it would in, say, Iowa or Kansas. Of
course, Jobst, you would be able to ride the rockies with your
44/18 low gear or whatever it is, but many of us, knee problems
notwithstanding, find that to be a bit of a grunt. Oh yeah, that
comparison word you used is spelled "analogous."
Bill
Tim Smith
For those who have not yet experienced them, most roads in the Rocky
Mountains of the US have very gradual grades. 6% is normal, 8% is
unusual. Roads in the eastern US or California (as well as France or
Italy) can be much steeper.
Jobst's advice was cool; just ride bike, or get off and walk. If you
tour long enough, you'll find that your climbing ability has improved
lots, and you won't be walking much.
--Tim (tss...@netcom.com)
Caleb Dods
|> Caleb Dods writes:
|>
|> >> The answer is: the same gears one would use anywhere on the road. The
|> >> Vermont, or France for that matter. Roads are built for the same
|> >> vehicles the world around. Usually exceptionally steep roads can be
|> >> found in most places but this isn't the goal of this exercise as it
|> >> appears. Just go ride bike.
|>
|> > That has got to be the most useful response I can imagine. In fact
|> > given that the gear ratio doesn't matter would you like to come tour
|> > with me, you can borrow my BMX :)
|>
|> have many different gear clusters that they select for the ride they
|> intend to take on weekends so as to have precisely the right gears in
|> the selected terrain. Being old fashioned, I haven't changes the gear
|> selection on my bike in a long time because my lowest gear goes along
|> for the ride most of the time.
|>
|> My point, if it seems to be so obscure, is that the mountain roads,
|> although scenically different have the same gradients the world
|> around. You can find 8% highways and 18% back roads. You can even
|> find super steep sections anywhere you go that isn't in the plains.
|> What you do with your BMX doesn't have much to do with touring in the
|> Rockies, however, touring in the Alps or Sierra Nevada has a lot to
|> do with it and it isn't a whole lot different.
|>
|> Now put your side arm back in it's holster and don't go around
|> shooting from the lip... ride bike instead.
Actually if you had taken the time to actually read my initial post
you would have discovered that I have only one gear cluster with a
low ratio of 42:28, not low enough for riding up any mountain when
loaded with 40 lbs of camping gear. This setup came with the bike
and is great for riding around here (unloaded) where we do get short
grades of 15% but nothing that goes on for miles at a time.
Seeing as I am going to have to make some modifications I was simply
wondering how low a gear ratio others have used when touring in the
mountains, as well as how to get this low gear ratio, while keeping
my higher gear ratios that I have now, so that I don't have to keep
change gear clusters, or chain wheels, when I want to do short, fast,
unloaded rides.
Thanks to every one else who responded, I've decided to get a triple
chain wheel, I still have to look around to find one that will serve
my purpose. Any suggestions anyone?
-Unruh,J.D.
This is a good answer for someone living in the Bay area, but it is not
a good general answer. Quite a few people around here have a 42 x 17 or
so as their easiest gear. The courses we call hilly are called flat in
California.
>The
>question is analogus to asking what kind of car should I drive in
>Vermont, or France for that matter. Roads are built for the same
>vehicles the world around. Usually exceptionally steep roads can be
>found in most places but this isn't the goal of this exercise as it
>appears. Just go ride bike.
>
The altitude of the road doesn't make much difference with today's
comuterized engine controls, but with the old carbeurator and distributor
systems, a car that was tuned for use at sea level didn't do very well
at 10,000 feet. I don't know just what adjustments were made, but people
I know who moved to high altitude locations had their carburators
adjusted, just like cyclists who will be doing significantly more climbing
at higher altitudes sometimes change their gear ratios. Besides, changing
a chain ring, freewheel, or cassette cog isn't that big a deal.
John Unruh
Thomas H. Kunich
Caleb Dods <cd...@bmerhbd1.bnr.ca> wrote:
>
>Actually if you had taken the time to actually read my initial post
>you would have discovered that I have only one gear cluster with a
>low ratio of 42:28, not low enough for riding up any mountain when
>loaded with 40 lbs of camping gear.
That's true. So how strong are you? I can tour with a 30/28 low gear
carrying 50 lb.s of gear wobbling around on the bike and going over
8% grades. Maybe you, like Brandt, can ride a 39/21 up anything.
How are we to know what your capabilities are?
>Thanks to every one else who responded, I've decided to get a triple
>chain wheel, I still have to look around to find one that will serve
>my purpose. Any suggestions anyone?
So, your bike will take a triple? And then you'll buy the new front
derailleur, probably a new rear derailleur, a new bottom bracket
and new chain, not to mention the new triple cranks and the new
freewheel to go with the new chain that is going with the new triple?
Hope you understand about chainlines and wheel dish.
ALAN FAIRLEY
>derailleur, probably a new rear derailleur, a new bottom bracket
>and new chain, not to mention the new triple cranks and the new
>freewheel to go with the new chain that is going with the new triple?
>Hope you understand about chainlines and wheel dish.
Why are people flaming this guy? He asked a simple, and reasonable
question (admittedly, he didn't say what his capabilities were, but that's
pretty hard to qualify).
An appropriate answer to his post would be along the lines of "I weight XXX
lbs, am very fit, ride XXX miles per year, of which XXX is loaded touring,
and I ride a xx/xx carrying XX lbs. in the rockies."
If you find a question too simple, or whatever, keep your negativity to
yourself.
Alan
Bob Bundy
for the Rockies. I have gone for rides in both places and it is not
unusual to accumulate 3,000 ft. of climbing in either place. If
anything, the roads in Iowa are steeper since they go straight
rather than try to wind around to keep the grade to about 6% as they
do in Colorado. The real question is whether you like to sit and spin
or stand up and grind it out.
Bob Bundy
Jobst Brandt
>> The answer is: the same gears one would use anywhere on the road. The
>> question is analogous to asking what kind of car should I drive in
>> Vermont, or France for that matter. Roads are built for the same
>> vehicles the world around. Usually exceptionally steep roads can be
>> found in most places but this isn't the goal of this exercise as it
>> appears. Just go ride bike.
> That has got to be the most useful response I can imagine. In fact
> given that the gear ratio doesn't matter would you like to come tour
> with me, you can borrow my BMX :)
From the mail I got and this response, it appears that most bicyclists
have many different gear clusters that they select for the ride they
intend to take on weekends so as to have precisely the right gears in
the selected terrain. Being old fashioned, I haven't changes the gear
selection on my bike in a long time because my lowest gear goes along
for the ride most of the time.
My point, if it seems to be so obscure, is that the mountain roads,
although scenically different have the same gradients the world
around. You can find 8% highways and 18% back roads. You can even
find super steep sections anywhere you go that isn't in the plains.
What you do with your BMX doesn't have much to do with touring in the
Rockies, however, touring in the Alps or Sierra Nevada has a lot to
do with it and it isn't a whole lot different.
Now put your side arm back in it's holster and don't go around
shooting from the lip... ride bike instead.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Richard Hennick
> [snip] And then you'll buy the new front derailleur, probably a new rear
> derailleur, a new bottom bracket and new chain, not to mention the new
> triple cranks and the new freewheel to go with the new chain that is
> going with the new triple?
Heeheehee. Nothing personal, Mr. Kunich; I do learn a lot around here, but
you guys crack me up sometimes, with your "new" this and "new" that and
unobtainium everything.
On Monday I picked up a triple for my road bike at the recycling depot;
it's a Sugino 28-46-50, 170 mm., all alloy of course, dirty but almost no
wear. It came on what was once a nice touring frame (too big for me), with
mounting lugs everywhere, Dia-Compe cantilever brakes, all bearings
trashed, chain rusted, junk wheels, handlebars turned upside-down (do
people do that anywhere else, or is it special to BC?). It was the usual
price; $5 for the whole bike, no tax.
As well as the triple crankset, I salvaged the front derailleur (Suntour
Mountech), the randonneur bars with a very nice set of Dia-Compe brake
levers, and a whole bunch of Allen-head metric stainless screws. I pulled
out the old BB axle as a model for the new one ($7), then took what was
left of the bike back to the recycling depot today. Sad to think of that
nice frame going into the baler, but I can't keep bikes that none of us
here can ride, and I salvage all the parts I can.
I don't anticipate any difficulty changing the BB axle (time for a repack
anyway) and fitting the triple, before transferring my (heavy discount)
Maillard pedals with (even heavier discount) Campagnolo toeclips. No
kidding! Hey, I have to put something expensive on the bike somewhere,
right, otherwise all you other roadies will laugh at me! :)
My Suntour V-GT rear der. shouldn't have any trouble handling the range.
The biggest problem so far seems to be finding a couple of different
sprockets for my Shimano HG-20 six-speed freewheel to adapt it for
half-step; can anyone suggest a source?
With friction shifters (Suntour Powershifters now), I never have to worry
about all the minutiae of compatibility of cog spacings in fractions of
millimetres which periodically take up so much net bandwidth here. I move
the lever, the gears shift, I adjust for minimum noise.
So please, spare me the stuff about how difficult and expensive these
conversions have to be... I can't believe I'm the only low-budget cyclist
who reads this group. Fact is, you don't have to spend a lot of money to
get a really useful and enjoyable bike, and when you've put it all together
yourself, mostly from salvaged parts, then repairs and upgrades go a lot
quicker and easier too. Not to mention cheaper.
--
I've all my wisdom teeth |Crash Test Dummies
Two up top, two beneath |"Bereft Man's Song"
And yet I'll recognize |
My mouth says things that aren't so wise |Richard...@mindlink.bc.ca
Jobst Brandt
> Actually if you had taken the time to actually read my initial post
> you would have discovered that I have only one gear cluster with a
> low ratio of 42:28, not low enough for riding up any mountain when
> loaded with 40 lbs of camping gear. This setup came with the bike
> and is great for riding around here (unloaded) where we do get short
> grades of 15% but nothing that goes on for miles at a time.
Well that certainly reassures me that my first suspicion was right.
You know pretty well what gears you need and just wanted to let us
know that you were going touring in the Rockies. You didn't really
need advice because, as you just said, you know what you want.
This reminds me of the guy who asked how to keep his water bottle from
freezing when its -30 or some such temperature. He didn't want to
know either, but I got the message. He wanted to tell us that he
rides when it's cold. How nice.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
ALAN FAIRLEY
>find super steep sections anywhere you go that isn't in the plains.
The problem is that a 10% hill is a different beast from a 25-mile 10%
uphill stretch. My advice for extended mountainous touring is to go out and
experiment and set your lowest gear so that you can spin at 60 rpm for
an extended period of time at 10-12% grade. That should make it safe for
your knees no matter what. If you're going to pack a load, do it when you
experiment. For me this means a triple crank.
Alan
Mark Irving
> My point, if it seems to be so obscure, is that the mountain roads,
> although scenically different have the same gradients the world
> around. You can find 8% highways and 18% back roads. You can even
> find super steep sections anywhere you go that isn't in the plains.
Gradients over 20% are not uncommon in the hillier parts of
Britain. At least one pass in the Lake District is 25% (and not
recommended for cycling down - it zigzags and is full of cars
driven by tourists). Why stop at 18%?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Irving Mark Irving<m...@uk.gdscorp.com>
Cambridge, England Don't force it! Use a bigger hammer.
Jobst Brandt
> Jobst Brandt writes:
>
>> The answer is: the same gears one would use anywhere on the road.
>> The question is analogous to asking what kind of car should I drive
>> in Vermont, or France for that matter. Roads are built for the
>> same vehicles the world around. Usually exceptionally steep roads
>> can be found in most places but this isn't the goal of this
>> exercise as it appears. Just go ride bike.
>
> Don't be disingenuous. Don't pretend to be omniscient. Try to avoid the
> false humility which motivates your conception that anyone can get up
> any hill, _at all comfortably_, in a 47x24.
I see no reference to specific gears in my reply nor any reference to
large or small gears. I think you are reading all sorts of things
into the simple and straight forward paragraph that I wrote. How can
you suggest gears that you prefer to someone while suggesting that the
gears that I didn't prescribe are incorrect?
How did you arrive at 47x24 from my posting? I guess you read what
you wanted to see. From the tone of your response, and a couple of
others, I detect a type of fan club that is waiting for an excuse to
piss and moan. You seem to have found your opening.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Art Harris
In <3itbpf$s...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>, Caleb wrote:
CD>Realizing that mileage will vary, I'm what the lowest gear ratio
CD>those of you used when (raod) touring in the rockies. I realise
CD>that this will be different for everyone, but never having been
CD>in the Rockies, and planning on bikeing from Vancouver to Jasper,
CD>I'd like an idea of how low a ratio I need.
CD>I have an old Peugot (model 102) that is about 12 years old. The
CD>small chain wheel has 42 teeth. It looks like it will be difficult
CD>to change this to a smaller one. So I figure I'll go to a larger rear
CD>cog. A 32 tooth on the rear will give me a ratio of (42:32) or 35 inches.
CD>A 34 tooth cog on the rear will give be a ratio of (42:34) or 33 inches.
Are you going to be carrying loaded panniers? That would make a big
difference. I toured in the Colorado Rockies back in 1980. I carried a
full touring load (rear panniers and handlebar bags) and used 10-speed
gearing with a 15-34 freewheel and a 42/52 crankset. I found it to be
adequate. Remember that altitude will lower your performance compared to
what you're used to at sea level. On my trip I reached an altitude of
over 12,000 feet at one point (Trail Ridge Road) and I definitely felt
it!
Art
Thomas H. Kunich
-Unruh,J.D. <j...@intgp13.ih.att.com> wrote:
>This is a good answer for someone living in the Bay area, but it is not
>a good general answer. Quite a few people around here have a 42 x 17 or
>so as their easiest gear. The courses we call hilly are called flat in
>California.
Sure, but the guy said his low gear was a 42/28 -- that's a 40 inch gear.
The lowest gear on any of my road bikes is 39/24 -- a 43.5 inch gear and
I have used that gear once in the last year, I normally use the 39/21
(a 50 inch gear) for all climbing under 13%. Moreover, the lowest gear on
my Colnago is a 42/21 and I used the 42/19 for most climbing (a 60 incher).
Now he was talking about loaded touring and that's fine, but you have to
realize that a week of touring puts on lots of muscle and takes off lots
of weight. It isn't difficult to lose 10-15 lb.s if you're the slightest
overweight.
If you're touring for less that a couple of weeks, why camp? Why not
credit card tour?
That may sound a little elitist, it isn't meant to. I really love having
a hot shower, soft bed and good meals when I'm on the road.
So use the 42/28 and just pick your route. What's wrong with that? I'm
always careful with my routes so that I don't do impossible climbs
anyway.
Jobst said it -- ride bike. Forget about worrying whether there's a
climb out there with your name on it. When you finally get there you'll
be able to go over it in the 42/21.
Nick Wilde
> you wanted to see. From the tone of your response, and a couple of
> others, I detect a type of fan club that is waiting for an excuse to
> piss and moan. You seem to have found your opening.
Actually. from where I sit, it appear more to me like one particular
writer is looking for an excuse to piss and moan.
"You know what gears you want, and are only showing off"
"Turning your bike upside down signifies you're mechanically inept"
"The word "Frameset" is and abomination of the (American) language"
Really, Mr. Brandt, your technical knowledge and contributions are legendary,
but can you take the rest of this to alt.grumpy.old.men ?
Spring is coming. Get on that big yellow bike and ride a few 100 miles.
Maybe you'll feel better.
- Nick
--
Nick Wilde
Dept of Computer Science wi...@cs.umt.edu
University of Montana, Missoula (406) 243-4975
Missoula, MT 59812
DNAS...@esoc.bitnet
I think Jobst is close to the answer, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
The roads may be the same the world over, but you personally may
be in different circumstances from the other 350 days in the year.
You could try to:
(a) find a hill near you that climbs 1000m at 7%, or the incline you
expect to encounter (yes, I know this might not be readily available)
(b) load your bike with the weight you expect to carry on your trip
(c) stick a 28/32/36 cog on the back of your bike
(d) ride up the hill
You'll soon find out what you need.
Dave Nastaszczuk. Cray Systems@ESOC, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany.
Thomas H. Kunich
Richard Hennick <ric...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>So please, spare me the stuff about how difficult and expensive these
>conversions have to be... I can't believe I'm the only low-budget cyclist
>who reads this group. Fact is, you don't have to spend a lot of money to
>get a really useful and enjoyable bike, and when you've put it all together
>yourself, mostly from salvaged parts, then repairs and upgrades go a lot
>quicker and easier too. Not to mention cheaper.
As Jobst mentioned, it was plain from the first that you already knew what
you wanted to hear. It is interesting that you should have asked advice in
the first place. Was this to assure yourself that you knew so much or was
it a ploy to be able to explain to others how clever you are?
And the whole point remains that I find it unlikely that you will ride your
bike in such a manner that your new found ratios will be of any serious
significance. So you could have gone lower budget still and ridden the
gearing you already had.
There's nothing wrong with low budget and nothing wrong with playing with
bikes to your hearts content. But if you are having trouble cranking up
a hill in a 42/28 you will have trouble with the marginally lower ratio
of a 28/28. But I'm sure you'll discover that yourself sooner or later.
The human body has a pretty wide power band.
Thomas H. Kunich
Alan Fairley <fai...@law3.law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Let's look at that statement a little more deeply. If my
>strength is such that when I'm in 42/28 I have to grind up the hill at a
>cadence of 40 rpm (a cadence that will surely trash my knees if I do it for
>a long time), then when I'm on a 28/28, I will be able to ride at a cadence
>of 60. That's a *BIG* difference, both in terms of strain on the knees and
>in terms of not blowing up. The statement in the above post is simply not
>true. I have no problem with people posting their opinions, but I sure wish
>they's take the time to see if they bear a even a marginal connection to
>reality.
Let's see if I have this right: you want others to observe reality but
you insist that riding your bike at 40 rpm will "surely trash my knees"?
Look, it isn't candence or gear ratios that get you to the top of a hill,
but the amount of power you can produce. The human body, in fact, seems to
be _more_ efficient at lower cadence than the reverse. If you can grind
up a hill at 60 rmp you can carry the same load at 40 rpm. When you are
less than fit you may not be able to pull a big gear as long, but touring
rapidly puts you in shape. Two years ago my fiance' took a dozen 12-14
year old kids down the Oregon coast by bike. They had mostly what even
you would consider garbage bicycles. Yet they made it fine and averaged
some 50 miles per day, the first three days of which were in continuous
rain.
I suggest that adequate gear ratios are adequate. Instead of adding the
triple you could just as easily added a 15-32 freewheel and gotten your
super low gear. Lord knows it isn't speed you're looking for.
Alan Fairley
>a hill in a 42/28 you will have trouble with the marginally lower ratio
>of a 28/28. But I'm sure you'll discover that yourself sooner or later.
>The human body has a pretty wide power band.
Let's look at that statement a little more deeply. If my
strength is such that when I'm in 42/28 I have to grind up the hill at a
cadence of 40 rpm (a cadence that will surely trash my knees if I do it for
a long time), then when I'm on a 28/28, I will be able to ride at a cadence
of 60. That's a *BIG* difference, both in terms of strain on the knees and
in terms of not blowing up. The statement in the above post is simply not
true. I have no problem with people posting their opinions, but I sure wish
they's take the time to see if they bear a even a marginal connection to
reality.
Alan
Frank Krygowski
Well, that's reducing things to essentials. Yep, it doesn't matter
_what_ you're doing on a bike, don't match the equipment to the job,
just go out and "ride bike".
The same can apply to frames, of course (no need for a mountain bike
frame for downhilling; your Alan track frame will do fine); tires
(hey, knobbies, tubulars, whatever); and come to think of it, a guy
would _really_ have to be foolish to write an entire book about
the tiniest details of bicycle wheels, right?
In fact, Jobst's reply removes any reason for this newsgroup's
existence! He should post a "request to end discussion"!
Sarcasm off, the original guy's question was a good one. The Rockies'
grades may not be steeper, but they sure as hell are _longer_, and to most
people that _does_ make a difference. Having the gears to match
also makes a difference.
This was settled in 1902, in an event between Edouard Fischer (racer
without low gears) and Marthe Hesse (tourist with low gears). Marthe
was faster in the mountains, and no doubt enjoyed the ride more.
But I suppose she still got flamed by "experts" once she got home.
--
Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu
Unknown
>Actually if you had taken the time to actually read my initial post
>you would have discovered that I have only one gear cluster with a
>low ratio of 42:28, not low enough for riding up any mountain when
>loaded with 40 lbs of camping gear.
How much can you comfortably haul with what you have now? When you
can answer this question you can calculate what you need. Everyone
will have their own answer; you have to decide for yourself. Of
course, if you live in Kansas or Delaware or someplace equally flat,
you might have trouble finding a hill on which to test yourself, so
I recommend a 27" low gear as a backup.
Good luck,
David Winyard
Annapolis, MD
Anthony Campbell
In <3j5db2$n...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>m...@uk.gdscorp.com (Mark Irving) wrote ...
>Gradients over 20% are not uncommon in the hillier parts of
>Britain. At least one pass in the Lake District is 25% (and not
>recommended for cycling down - it zigzags and is full of cars
>driven by tourists). Why stop at 18%?
>
A lot steeper than that. The Hardknot and the Wrynose are both 1:3.5, which
works out at nearly 30%.
Anthony
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Irving Mark Irving<m...@uk.gdscorp.com>
>Cambridge, England Don't force it! Use a bigger hammer.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Campbell London UK
email: acam...@achc.demon.co.uk or acam...@cix.compulink.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Royce Myers
wrote:
> In article <3j4hiv$7...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>,
> Caleb Dods <cd...@bmerhbd1.bnr.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
> >Thanks to every one else who responded, I've decided to get a triple
> >chain wheel, I still have to look around to find one that will serve
> >my purpose. Any suggestions anyone?
>
> So, your bike will take a triple? And then you'll buy the new front
> derailleur, probably a new rear derailleur, a new bottom bracket
> and new chain, not to mention the new triple cranks and the new
> freewheel to go with the new chain that is going with the new triple?
You might need a new front derailleur, but then again, you might not.
Even if you do, it's not that much for LX or RSX. Maybe $25.
You don't necessarilly need a new bottom bracket. The old style cup and
bearing bottom brackets need only a new spindle to be triple compatible.
At worst he'll need a cartrige bb like the UN71, which costs around $20.
A new RSX triple will cost $70 mail order.
New Sachs ATB chain, $11; a good idea, but unless you're adding a bigger
chainring, it's unnecessary.
I don't know why the rear cluster needs to be messed with at all. I put a
triple on my Master Ironman Centurian and all it needed was the cranks and
the front derailleur. Some people upgrade to a triple with only a $30
adapter.
The best way to upgrade is to find an old mountain bike in a garage sale
and use its components. You can probably get everything for $50 or so.
>
> Hope you understand about chainlines and wheel dish.
It is unlikely you'll need to change either of these.
--
Royce Myers Ro...@ug.eds.com
Richard Hennick
writes:
>
> Richard Hennick <ric...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>+ [my stuff snipped]
>
> As Jobst mentioned, it was plain from the first that you already knew
> what you wanted to hear. It is interesting that you should have asked
> advice in the first place. Was this to assure yourself that you knew so
> much or was it a ploy to be able to explain to others how clever you are?
Mr. Kunich, I was not the person who originally asked for advice on this
subject. I was merely questioning the attitude that it must inevitably be
difficult and/or expensive to convert a bike to suit your personal needs,
which is what I thought you were implying.
Flaming me for something I didn't do is really not very appropriate. Can
we call a truce, please?
--
I've all my wisdom teeth |Crash Test Dummies
Two up top, two beneath |"Bereft Man's Song"
And yet I'll recognize |
My mouth says things that aren't so wise |ric...@mindlink.bc.ca
John Lepingwell
writes:
>Realizing that mileage will vary, I'm what the lowest gear ratio
Seems like everyone has opinions, but few people have ridden the route. I've
ridden from Jasper down to Banff on the Icefields parkway, and a bit in the
Kootenays. I've also ridden from Rocky Mtn House (Alta) to the Icefields
Parkway and then north to Jasper and beyond.
If I recall correctly, there are 2 very steep grades, heading up to Bow Pass
(and the pass before it, I forget the name). Don't know how steep, but I was
using a very low gear on a triple-crank (32/28 or something, I recall) and
was straining, even though I was in good condition. (Loaded touring
bike--Miyata 1000.) However, apart from these two tough climbs (which you
could walk) the grades are not as bad as one might think. I don't know what
the route from Vancouver to Banff is like--but consider going through
Kootenay national park, I found it quite pleasant.
On the positive side, prevailing winds are from W to East ususally, so you
don't have to worry about climbing with the wind against you.
Anyhow, I think the advice to lower the gearing and get a triple crank, if
possible, is sound.
Have Fun!
John Lepingwell
Alan Fairley
>bit over 100. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, it does seem
>relevant.
I was thinking of a university study (can't remember when or where)
that stuck in my mind because it concluded that 85 was more efficient
than the 95-100 that was the conventional wisdom at the time. As to
Rominger, could well be...I suspect that it's an individual thing...or
that he's such an animal that it doesn't matter :-^. Coach Mike Walden
has riders experiment to find their optimal cadences & gear for different
speeds....
Alan
a
> This reminds me of the guy who asked how to keep his water bottle from
> freezing when its -30 or some such temperature. He didn't want to
store it in the cage turned on its head. that way the water freezes at
the bottom of the bottle first and doesn't plug up the nozzel.
ALAN FAIRLEY
>you insist that riding your bike at 40 rpm will "surely trash my knees"?
>Look, it isn't candence or gear ratios that get you to the top of a hill,
>but the amount of power you can produce. The human body, in fact, seems to
>be _more_ efficient at lower cadence than the reverse. If you can grind
>up a hill at 60 rmp you can carry the same load at 40 rpm. When you are
First, my personal experience tells me that riding at 40 rpm will surely
trash *MY* knees. Second, everything I have read in the cycling press,
indicates that a cadence of 40 rpm will trash the the knees (assuming that
the rider is doing any real work and not noodling along the flat at 6 mph).
Every statement I have read states that you shouldn't let your cadence
drop below 60 rpm while climbing.
Why do you think the elite riders in the TDF change their gearing on
climbing days instead of grinding up the climbs in a 42/19 (I recall reading
that Andy Hampstead rides a 53-39/12-26 combo on climbing days)? Watch the
tapes of them climbing, and you will see that their cadence is above 60 rpm
all the time. You can bet they'd be riding at 40 rpm if there was any
advantage to it. There isn't.
The statement that the human body is more efficient at lower cadence is not
entirely true. It *is* generally true that a cadence of 85-90 rpm is more
efficient than a cadence of 100. But that will not be true in the lower
range we are talking about. I'm not a sports physiologist, so I can't
explain it scientifically, again, I'm speaking from my experience. (It's
the same principle that you can do more total work before your muscles quit
weight lifting by doing more reps with less weight.) If you don't
believe me try this experiment: Put on a HRM and pick a long steady grade.
Choose a gear that allows you to ride at a specific heart rate (say 80% of
your max) at 40 rpm. Note your speed. Then do it again, riding on a gear
that gives you the same heart rate at 60 rpm. Note your speed, which will
be higher. In each case, as indicated by your heart rate, you are
doing the same amount of work, but at 60 rpm you are going faster.
Thereore, riding at 60 rpm is more efficient than riding at 40 rmp.
Alan Fairley
John Frampton
: >around. You can find 8% highways and 18% back roads. You can even
You might even decide that "spinning" for you means a cadence of 85, or
maybe 90, or even 95. The common mode of answering questions on the
internet is to assume that everyone has the same riding style, age,
physical capabilities, training time, etc. This obviously absurd. Even
a brief look at a hill climb in the Tour de France makes it obvious that
even at the highest levels of the sport, where you would expect to find
the smallest differences of style, there are wide differences in
cadence, seated vs. standing climbing preferences, etc.
So go out and find out what works for you. And make sure the hills you
experiment on are as long as possible. Ten miles of 6% may be tougher
than a half mile of 12% - depending on your particular capabilities.
And most of all - forget all the macho bullshit that equates "manliness"
with big gears.
John Frampton
John Frampton
<big snip>
: The statement that the human body is more efficient at lower cadence is not
: entirely true. It *is* generally true that a cadence of 85-90 rpm is more
: efficient than a cadence of 100. But that will not be true in the lower
: range we are talking about.
I seem to recall that Rominger set the hour record with a cadence of a
bit over 100. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, it does seem
relevant.
John Frampton
Thomas H. Kunich
Frank Krygowski <ae...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>Apparently generations of cyclists have found that even if 40 rpm is
>_efficient_, you make more power and last longer at 80 - 100 rpm.
>And since that's what we're after, we choose our gears correspondingly.
I have the idea that everyone has their own cadence and that it is
generally around 80. When you are fresh you can push 110-120 but tire
out more rapidly. The more fit you are the longer you can sustain high
cadences away from your 'natural' cadence. When you tire out you naturally
slow down to a more efficient cadence which is somewhere around 60.
Mind you, this is only an observation. But I suspect it is an accurate one.
Richard Birke
have (at least in my lifetime) and probably always will -- at least until
Shimano forces us to buy incompatible quadrings or something.
Touring means long days on a heavy bike. Sure 6% is not a crushing grade
on a 39/26 -- provided you don't have a tent, sleeping bag, clothes for a
week, etc.
I'm unsure how easy it would be to set up panniers on most bikes that come
equipped with doubles. The seatstays are usually too short to accomodate
panniers without hitting your feet.
So....assuming you have some sort of triple, you will have the gears. If
you are touring without a triple, you aren't on a touring (or mountain)
bike. I don't believe that the average recreational tourist could do the
Rockies fully loaded on a double -- even granted that you can have a
double with a 39/32.
All you major buff dudes who could do that in your sleep, please refrain
from flaming. You probably ride 5 days a week with a training purpose in
mind. My advice is for the person who averages 2-3 rides a week, with 1
or 2 being mostly fun rides (hard fun but still fun), and has perhaps a
few weeks to really train before a big ride. No offense to the hardcores,
but the kind of training it takes to do the Rockies on a loaded racing
bike leaves little time for family, work and other pleasures.
I've ranted long enough. Now go ride bike.
--
Professor Richard Birke <rbi...@willamette.edu>
Director, Willamette University Center for Dispute Resolution
245 Winter Street, SE (503) 375-5388
Salem, OR 97301 fax (503) 370-6375
Frank Krygowski
Regarding gearing and cadence: there have been several studies where
exercise physiologists have measured efficiency at different cadences.
Typically, they did find higher efficiencies at lower pedaling cadences.
However, they were defining efficiency in the usual engineering manner,
which is power output over power input. (If I recall correctly, they
used oxygen consumption to determine the "fuel" burned by the muscles.)
But this just isn't very relevant to cycling.
Rominger and the rest of us want to maximize power output over a certain
time duration, or perhaps maximize duration over which we can exert a
given power (if we're interested more in riding far, not fast). In
either case, loosely speaking, we want to maximize our energy output.
To maximize energy output, we don't have to maximize efficiency. It's
too easy to just eat and drink a bit more, thereby putting more energy
_in_.
Apparently generations of cyclists have found that even if 40 rpm is
_efficient_, you make more power and last longer at 80 - 100 rpm.
And since that's what we're after, we choose our gears correspondingly.
--
Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu
Richard Hennick
writes:
>
> Regarding gearing and cadence: there have been several studies where
> exercise physiologists have measured efficiency at different cadences.
> Typically, they did find higher efficiencies at lower pedaling cadences.
>
> However, they were defining efficiency in the usual engineering manner,
> which is power output over power input. (If I recall correctly, they
> used oxygen consumption to determine the "fuel" burned by the muscles.)
> But this just isn't very relevant to cycling.
Agreed. I think the relevant issue is mechanical advantage rather than
efficiency. At a given road speed and with increasing cadence, the muscle
fibres "travel" a greater distance in order to perform the same amount of
work, therefore the mechanical advantage is higher and the effort required
per muscle fibre is lower. Obviously though there is a point where the
increasing mechanical advantage is overcome by other factors (such as
inertial effects of the oscillating leg mass, and the reciprocating speed
of the muscles themselves).
Just my $0.02, and Canajun money at that.
Adriana C. Bruggeman
[common sense stuff deleted]
: And most of all - forget all the macho bullshit that equates "manliness"
: with big gears.
Yes, I also think that small gears is a typical female thing.
So, please, women, no big gears!
Jeaan
--
(__) `. ,' Jeaan Bruggeman (je...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu)
`\------(oo) X Dept. Biological Systems Engineering __o
* || (__) U ,'A`. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg _`\<,_
* ||w--|| \|/ /_\ VA 24061-0303, USA (_)/ (_)
Whitney Elfner
: > given that the gear ratio doesn't matter would you like to come tour
: > with me, you can borrow my BMX :)
: From the mail I got and this response, it appears that most bicyclists
: have many different gear clusters that they select for the ride they
: intend to take on weekends so as to have precisely the right gears in
: the selected terrain. Being old fashioned, I haven't changes the gear
: selection on my bike in a long time because my lowest gear goes along
: for the ride most of the time.
Maybe a more serious reply will get a more serious responce!
Here in north Florida and most of the areas I've toured (20+ states?)
I could ride my racing setup of years ago 52/39 straight 18 it was an
ideal set up giving a useful narrow cadance which I was most effective.
My brother and I went riding on the Blue Ridge Pkwy four fourdays and
I realized Flying a hill(mantaining a higher than normal force) for a
short period of time was a lot different than climbing for 8 miles
with a load.(I did switch to a 24 low)
Returning years later with a heavier load and not as good a shape I
found it no problem with a touring bike with 28-28 low(I think).
Whit
--
o \ Torn Between /|\
~ _ <<_ / 'All who wander are not lost' / / | \
~ /.\>/.\ \ & 'f/8 and be there' \ /0 | \
~ \_/ \_/ / whi...@freenet.fsu.edu / /[|]: \
Brad Anders
I've done a number of measurements on racing cyclists in the SF Bay Area
with regard to cadence, and have come up with some interesting data. In the
flat, the typical cadence of most riders varies from 75-90 rpm. Very few
riders consistantly ride at over 90 rpm, or below 75 rpm. On climbs of about
6% or greater, typical cadence drops to 50-65 rpm. If you don't believe me,
the next time you are out on a group ride, measure the cadence of riders
in the group with you (easy enough to do with your speedo's stopwatch, or
your wristwatch).
On a somewhat related topic, I measured the cadence of a number of finishing
sprints in the TdF's from the past few years by reviewing videos recently.
The typical maximum cadence was about 120-125 rpm, far below the commonly-
cited figures of "150+ rpm" for field sprinters. In the finishing sprint of
the 1990 TdF, for example, the winner (I think it was Musseuw) was spinning
at 122 rpm. If he were using a 53x12 (a good guess), his speed was about
42 mph.
--
*******************************
* Brad Anders / Sunnyvale, CA *
* ban...@netcom.com *
*******************************
Information Services
Thomas H. Kunich <to...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I have the idea that everyone has their own cadence and that it is
>generally around 80. When you are fresh you can push 110-120 but tire
>out more rapidly. The more fit you are the longer you can sustain high
>cadences away from your 'natural' cadence. When you tire out you naturally
>slow down to a more efficient cadence which is somewhere around 60.
>
>Mind you, this is only an observation. But I suspect it is an accurate one.
Obviously, every individual is different and I don't think you can
generalize about something of this nature; but while you may be right in
assuming this for the majority of recreational/casual cyclists, I don't
think it holds true for everyone, especially not elite/professional riders.
I'm just getting back into the sport after several years off the bike,
and have only been riding seriously since this past July; however I've
already trained myself to maintain a high cadence over an extended period
of time. Although I have yet to participate in a century, I've ridden
nearly 80 miles at about 20 mph, with no rest stops, and averaging a
cadence of 95-100 rpm (as reported by my cyclocomputer). I also
routinely ride 50+ miles at a time turning over this same cadence.
I realize that this really isn't comparable to riding a Tour de France
stage, but I think it shows that it really isn't that difficult to maintain
a relatively high cadence without slowing down because you're tired. What's
more, I *never* rode at a "natural" cadence of 80 rpm or less. From
day-1 I set out to maintain a cadence of between 90-100 rpm (on
relatively flat course with only rolling hills) and paced myself
accordingly, specifically so that I could maintain it. I don't consider
myself an elite rider, so I don't think that a high cadence is out of
reach of other casual cyclists also...it's just something that you have
to conciously train yourself to do.
Richard Strayer
--
KPMG Peat Marwick | Los Angeles
Information Services | California, U.S.A.
Mark Hickey
>>Apparently generations of cyclists have found that even if 40 rpm is
>>_efficient_, you make more power and last longer at 80 - 100 rpm.
>>And since that's what we're after, we choose our gears correspondingly
>I have the idea that everyone has their own cadence and that it is
>generally around 80. When you are fresh you can push 110-120 but tire
>out more rapidly. The more fit you are the longer you can sustain high
>cadences away from your 'natural' cadence. When you tire out you naturaly
>slow down to a more efficient cadence which is somewhere around 60.
>Mind you, this is only an observation. But I suspect it is an accurate ne.
>one.
Most of my roadie buddies have natural cadences of around 100 - I
gravitate more toward 105 or so - spinning just keeps my legs loose.
Invariably, on a long ride, I'll camp out in a gear that lets me keep
up the revs. OTOH, during a TT, I tend to want to mash the gears a
bit more - maybe 80-85 rpm (in a - uhhhhh - 60-11 yeah, that's the
gear.... ;-) ). I have seen that most new cyclists have cadences of
60 - 80, but years on the road seem to increase the rpms. Maybe the
extra leg speed is due to shaving? 8-O
YMMV.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
Thomas H. Kunich
Royce Myers <ro...@ug.eds.com> wrote:
>You might need a new front derailleur, but then again, you might not.
>Even if you do, it's not that much for LX or RSX. Maybe $25.
>
>You don't necessarilly need a new bottom bracket. The old style cup and
>bearing bottom brackets need only a new spindle to be triple compatible.
>At worst he'll need a cartrige bb like the UN71, which costs around $20.
>
>A new RSX triple will cost $70 mail order.
>
>New Sachs ATB chain, $11; a good idea, but unless you're adding a bigger
>chainring, it's unnecessary.
>
>I don't know why the rear cluster needs to be messed with at all. I put a
>triple on my Master Ironman Centurian and all it needed was the cranks and
>the front derailleur. Some people upgrade to a triple with only a $30
>adapter.
OK Royce, all our friend needs to do is spend $126 for parts. Is he capable
of putting this stuff on himself? Is the bike worth putting that kind of
money into it? Or would it be smarter to ride the bike the way it is until
he can buy a new, complete touring bike with proper components to begin with?
Also, in my opinion he most certainly _would_ have to replace the front
derailleur and there is a good chance the rear derailleur would have to
be replaced also -- remember, this guy needs big gears so he also probably
doesn't ride alot. If the rear derailleur has insufficient throw, you will
need to shorten the chain to get the lower gears on the triple to work
without chain jump. Then cross gearing can break the chain or derailleur
or both. So one would normally want to have enough capacity in the rear
derailleur to make it foolproof for a less than experienced cyclist.
>
>The best way to upgrade is to find an old mountain bike in a garage sale
>and use its components. You can probably get everything for $50 or so.
Then if you have the tools and skills you can get away with a minimum of
expensive replacement parts such as new cables etc.
>
(Hope you understand about chainlines and wheel dish.)
>It is unlikely you'll need to change either of these.
Royce, I didn't pull those critcisms out of a hat -- IF you are going to
put on a triple you are going to have to put on a longer spindle. Don't
you think that you ought to know what chainline is if you are going to
change yours? Does this guy have an old freewheel that has hooked teeth
and needs replacing? You seem to be assuming that he has nice shiny new
parts that don't need any maintenance. If you're putting on new chain
rings and new chain you normally change a worn freewheel. Six speed
freewheels are getting quite hard to come by. So he'll be getting a
seven. Wow, that means he'll probably have to change the wheel dish.
There are many things that are obvious about questions like, "What gearing,"
etc. that you will discover if you hang around bike shops. Another
is people calling up and saying, "What's a new rim cost," when what they
want is a complete new wheel.
So you have to read between the lines when people ask questions
about changing basic components on a bike. My take was that the guy
didn't ride too much (yet). He didn't have a whole lot of mechanical
knowledge (though that got confused by another person answering back
as if he was the originator) though was perhaps mechanically competent.
Nicycles aren't hard to work on as you know, but there are definitely
tricks you have to know to rebuild the drive train. And going into
it naively will probably cause a beginner to put way to much money into
to low a quality bike. I gave my brother my first attempt at the world's
most expensive cheap old Peugeot. DuraAce on waterpipe.
Thomas H. Kunich
Richard Birke <rbi...@willamette.edu> wrote:
>Loaded bikes are touring bikes and touring bikes have triples. Always
>have (at least in my lifetime) and probably always will -- at least until
>Shimano forces us to buy incompatible quadrings or something.
You must sure be young. 15 years ago Alpine gearing was all the rage and
doubles were the only thing on touring bikes. Triples were just coming into
vogue.
>Touring means long days on a heavy bike. Sure 6% is not a crushing grade
>on a 39/26 -- provided you don't have a tent, sleeping bag, clothes for a
>week, etc.
Yet, with my triple in the 30/19 I've ridden up 6% grades for 4 or 5 miles
without finding it too hard -- even in the winter. And gosh, that's the same
ratio as your 39/26 and it is pretty easy to find mountainbike freewheels
with 14-32 cogs.
>I'm unsure how easy it would be to set up panniers on most bikes that come
>equipped with doubles. The seatstays are usually too short to accomodate
>panniers without hitting your feet.
This is a problem with short chainstays in general. Touring bikes are
generally built with longer chainstays but that may be as much of a
handicap as an advantage. It also makes speed wobbles easier.
>I don't believe that the average recreational tourist could do the
>Rockies fully loaded on a double -- even granted that you can have a
>double with a 39/32.
What do you suppose all those bicycle tourists did before triples? They
were all above average?
>All you major buff dudes who could do that in your sleep, please refrain
>from flaming. You probably ride 5 days a week with a training purpose in
>mind. My advice is for the person who averages 2-3 rides a week, with 1
>or 2 being mostly fun rides (hard fun but still fun), and has perhaps a
>few weeks to really train before a big ride. No offense to the hardcores,
>but the kind of training it takes to do the Rockies on a loaded racing
>bike leaves little time for family, work and other pleasures.
I find it interesting that people think that the Rockies are so difficult.
The people that I've talked to that have gone across the continent all
seem to think that the Apalachians were smaller but much more difficult.
And none seemed to think that the Rockies were all that hard. Am I missing
something or are you all imagining that a tourist goes out of his way
to find the most difficult passage?
Whitney Elfner
: On Monday I picked up a triple for my road bike at the recycling depot;
: it's a Sugino 28-46-50, 170 mm., all alloy of course, dirty but almost no
: wear. It came on what was once a nice touring frame (too big for me), with
: mounting lugs everywhere, Dia-Compe cantilever brakes, all bearings
: trashed, chain rusted, junk wheels, handlebars turned upside-down (do
: people do that anywhere else, or is it special to BC?). It was the usual
: price; $5 for the whole bike, no tax.
: My Suntour V-GT rear der. shouldn't have any trouble handling the range.
: The biggest problem so far seems to be finding a couple of different
: sprockets for my Shimano HG-20 six-speed freewheel to adapt it for
: half-step; can anyone suggest a source?
: So please, spare me the stuff about how difficult and expensive these
: conversions have to be... I can't believe I'm the only low-budget cyclist
: who reads this group. Fact is, you don't have to spend a lot of money to
: get a really useful and enjoyable bike, and when you've put it all together
: yourself, mostly from salvaged parts, then repairs and upgrades go a lot
: quicker and easier too. Not to mention cheaper.
I've made a few good deals.
Bought a Schwin touring bike (voyager?) like new with Cannondale
handle bar bag and rear bags for a $100.
I sold the bike to my brother for $100 and kept and used the bags for
the last 5 years! Gave the handlebar bag to a poor tourist a couple
years ago and wish I had kept it! $ 70 for a replacement!
Information Services
>>myself an elite rider, so I don't think that a high cadence is out of
>>reach of other casual cyclists also...it's just something that you have
>>to conciously train yourself to do.
>
>gaining by using a high cadence?
>
Uh, Thomas, I spin at a high cadence because all the medical and sport
literature I've read indicates that a high cadence increases
cardiovascular fitness, builds fast-twitch muscle fibers, and is easier on
the knees than a slow cadence. I've also determined for myself, on the
basis of a preponderance of literature in it's favor and the example of
elite/professional riders, that a high cadence *is* more efficient over
the long, relatively flat courses I'm accustomed to riding. My
understanding is that a lower cadence is only more efficient when climbing;
of which I don't do a lot.
Brad Anders
Personally, I couldn't care less what my cadence is. As a racing cyclist, I
choose whatever gear I need to for the situation at hand. I've noticed that
among equally matched riders, you will find a wide variation in their
gear selection for a particular situation. The more "aerobic" types tend to
favor a small gear and high cadence, while the "strength" types tend to
go for the big gear and low cadence.
For a recreational rider, it seems there is even less of a reason to worry
about your cadence. All but the most inexperienced riders will automatically
choose a gear and cadence for their riding that they feel the most
comfortable.
As for the myth of big gears trashing your knees, I haven't seen any evidence
of it among the people I ride with. In fact, I hear more complaints about
knee problems associated with people who are incorporating high cadence
workouts into their training.
Alan Fairley
I don't know about big gears and knees.... My original point was that
grinding up hills at 40 rpm would trash knees.
But your response leads me to wonder. Query: assuming that you are
doing the same amount of work (i.e., heart rate is the same) is there more
strain on the knees at 40 rpm on the flats or 40 rpm going up a 15% grade?
Alan
Thomas H. Kunich
Information Services <kpm...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Uh, Thomas, I spin at a high cadence because all the medical and sport
>literature I've read indicates that a high cadence increases
>cardiovascular fitness, builds fast-twitch muscle fibers, and is easier on
>the knees than a slow cadence.
I must admit that I've read quite a bit myself. But I'm sure I've never read
_any_reliable_ information that medium or fast or slow cadences had any
effect on one's knees. Oh yeh, there is plenty of cycling mythology out
there. But I noticed that my film of the Tour de France showed pro riders
running pretty low cadences up mountains.
>I've also determined for myself, on the
>basis of a preponderance of literature in it's favor and the example of
>elite/professional riders, that a high cadence *is* more efficient over
>the long, relatively flat courses I'm accustomed to riding. My
>understanding is that a lower cadence is only more efficient when climbing;
>of which I don't do a lot.
All that is well and fine, but what is the title of this string? How to
ride on the flats? And if you look at tapes of the top racers on TT's
you will often see them riding quite low cadences too.
Brad Anders had something to say about that yesterday I believe.
Hey, I ride as high a cadence as I am comfortable with. When I'm in good
shape that's probably 100. But most of my riding is closer to 80 and
when I'm tired it drops to 65 or so. There are two things at work here:
1) The amount of power you can generate more or less depends on your
cardio-vascular system. 2) The amount of torque you can produce depends on
yor skeletal muscular system. All else being equal, if you can climb a
hill (or push a gear on the flats) at a specific speed the only limits
on your cadence depends on your strength in pushing a gear. And while
some people can hurt themselves by misusing their strength, most people
have pain threshholds of sufficient notice that they don't do so.
What I'm driving at here is that most people don't climb as well as they
can because they don't have sufficient experience in doing so to teach
them the techniques and possibilities. I am a person with lower than
normal leg strength, I just don't have big leg muscles. Yet I can climb
practically anything in the bay area in a 39/24. Most of the year I
end up using a 42/19 for most climbs. I'm not saying how strong I am --
I'm saying that if I can do it, most other people can as well.
Thomas H. Kunich
Mark Hickey <CMS...@maccvm.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>Maybe the extra leg speed is due to shaving? 8-O
I KNEW there was a reason to shave. If I cut off the 2" of hair on my legs
I'd have to spin just to keep warm.
Thomas H. Kunich
>I don't consider
>myself an elite rider, so I don't think that a high cadence is out of
>reach of other casual cyclists also...it's just something that you have
>to conciously train yourself to do.
Uh, Richard, _why_ wouldn you want to? What is it that you think you're
Jeff Haferman
> on a Cannondale touring bike, double crank, lowest gear 42/28. The
> only time I wished for a triple was a few years ago in the Appalachians;
> short but steep hills.
>
I've been training the last month for an upcoming tour. I converted
my Panasonic aluminum frame racing bike into a touring bike. There
are no eyelets or braze-ons anywhere for a rack or low rider, but I
managed to get a Blackburn rear-rack attached with the help of some
adaptors that Blackburn sells that wrap around chainstays. Anyway,
I've been riding fully loaded for the last month and have had no
problems with the rack or panniers.
I also put a triple crank on the front. Brand new Shimano crank.
Funny thing is, the outer and middle rings are both 130 BCD, which
seems odd based on what I've seen listed in catalogs. Also, the
middle rings has already had two teeth wear down (maybe they broke?)
but I had been planning on replacing it anyway. I've got a
52/42/30 on front now, and am planning on going to a 52/39/26.
Any ideas on why the middle ring might have lost a few teeth (
with less than one months use?).
--
==============================================================================
+ Jeff Haferman PH: (319) 335-5384 +
+ Department of Mechanical Engineering FX: (319) 335-5669 +
+ and Center for Global and Regional The University of Iowa +
+ Environmental Research Iowa City, IA 52242 +
==============================================================================
+ http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/people/haferman e-mail:hafe...@icaen.uiowa.edu +
==============================================================================
Dan Litoff
you use a double chain ring crank you would need a long cage derailler to use
any thing lower than a 39/28.
Alan Paxton
Gradients over 20% are not uncommon in the hillier parts of
Britain. At least one pass in the Lake District is 25% (and not
recommended for cycling down - it zigzags and is full of cars
driven by tourists). Why stop at 18%?
Hardknot and Wrynose passes are what used to be 1in3, and in the case of
Hardknot is a genuine 33%, Wrynose 31% or somesuch. I have failed to
climb Wrynose on a 28x21 - as you point out, the worst problem, up or
down, is the tourist cars, as the road is about 1 car wide.
There's this theory that because we don't have any big hills in this
country, road builders haven't learned not to drive roads straight over
the top. Thus there's a road near me which is 20% (Tulla Reservoir)
but it's short enough (150m climb) to bludgeon over. I need lower gears
for 20km of 8%.
--
Alan Paxton ala...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/students/pg/alanpx/
"If they hang you I'll always remember you".
Royce Myers
wrote:
[My price list]
> OK Royce, all our friend needs to do is spend $126 for parts. Is he capable
> of putting this stuff on himself? Is the bike worth putting that kind of
> money into it? Or would it be smarter to ride the bike the way it is until
> he can buy a new, complete touring bike with proper components to begin with?
>
Exactly the issue. My first bike, a lead-alloy "atb" wasn't worth
investing this kind of money into. My next bike had a triple. My latest
bike inherited the triple from my middle bike, so the investment was
minimal.
[about derailleurs]
Some of the latest stuff won't work with triples, you're right. The six
speed 600 stuff was OK in the rear, but I did need to put on the Exage
front. Other people have reported good success with front campy
derailleurs.
> >
> >The best way to upgrade is to find an old mountain bike in a garage sale
> >and use its components. You can probably get everything for $50 or so.
>
> Then if you have the tools and skills you can get away with a minimum of
> expensive replacement parts such as new cables etc.
New cables cost ~$7 mail order. I got them for around $10 from a local
shop. Not expensive.
Tools, I agree, can cost a bundle. But I love buying tools, and bikes,
and it's fun to tinker with bikes, so this option appeals to me.
I agree that it's not for everyone.
>
> Royce, I didn't pull those critcisms out of a hat -- IF you are going to
> put on a triple you are going to have to put on a longer spindle.
Not always. As I said, the six speed 600 stuff on my "new" bike had a
120mm spindle, perfectly adequate for an Exage triple. But I agree that
some of the modern low profile stuff might require a longer spindle.
However, XT triples use low profile spindles, and it seems to work on
113mm.
There are a lot of places to start from, but a lot of ways to put on a
triple, too.
> Don't
> you think that you ought to know what chainline is if you are going to
> change yours?
Yes, you're right. I'm not as certain as you are that he will need to
change his.
It's a lot more fun to argue about this stuff than to actually ask him
what kind of equipment he has, if he likes to work on his bike, how much
it's worth to invest, etc. I was interested to learn that most climbs are
under 10%.
> If you're putting on new chain
> rings and new chain you normally change a worn freewheel.
I've never changed my freewheel, but I only put 9 - 10k miles on my last
bike. It had a cassette which was worn when I retired it.
I change chains a few times a year without changing anything else in the
drive train. Chainrings are alloy and in my experience, wear much faster
than freewheels.
> Six speed
> freewheels are getting quite hard to come by.
Bike Nashbar, $29.95.
> So he'll be getting a
> seven. Wow, that means he'll probably have to change the wheel dish.
I didn't. I haven't changed my freewheel, either.
>...And going into
> it naively will probably cause a beginner to put way to much money into
> to low a quality bike. I gave my brother my first attempt at the world's
> most expensive cheap old Peugeot. DuraAce on waterpipe.
Good point. On the other hand, it's useful to practice on less expensive
stuff as long as it's applicable to the nicer stuff you'll one day buy
(e.g., it isn't useful to practice on cottered cranks).
--
Royce Myers Ro...@ug.eds.com
Dave Hayes
wrote:
> In article <kpmglibD...@netcom.com>,
For one thing, higher cadences help prevent knee injuries. And prevent--or
at least minimize--muscle soreness following long, high effort, rides.
"Grind away" (at the "natural" 60 rpm) at your own risk.
Dave Hayes
Mike Fabian
(TK) Richard Birke <rbi...@willamette.edu> wrote:
(TK) [...]
(TK) >I'm unsure how easy it would be to set up panniers on most
(TK) >bikes that come
(TK) >equipped with doubles.
(TK) >The seatstays are usually too short to accomodate
(TK) >panniers without hitting your feet.
(TK)
(TK) This is a problem with short chainstays in general. Touring bikes are
(TK) generally built with longer chainstays but that may be as much of a
(TK) handicap as an advantage. It also makes speed wobbles easier.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you have any evidence for that?
In my experience shorter chainstays make shimmy easier, especially
if you are forced to mount the panniers with their center of
gravity behind the rear axle, so that they don't hit your feet.
Mike
--
Mike Fabian fab...@apollo.ph1.uni-koeln.de
Universitaet zu Koeln, I. Physikalisches Institut
Zuelpicher Str. 77, 50937 Koeln, Germany
Ray Hall
low end on my barg, climbing passes, walls and pulling stumps. I am a spinner
and would use a lower gear if my system could take it. I run a 44-40-20 with
a 13-32 six block. I am looking at a "mountain tamer quad" to put four gears
on front. 16-28-38-48 with a 13-28 seven block. I don't know if it will work but
it will be fun finding out. A friend uses the same front end with a 12-18
straight eight block.
--
Ray Hall
ue...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
Victoria B.C.
(604) 380-0172