Gearing for randonneurs

[Six jours]

I'm a long retired road and track racer who is looking into this randonneuring business. In putting together my bike (Heron Randonneur) I've been thinking about gears quite a bit. At the moment I have an Ultegra triple (32-42-52) on the front with a 12-25 9 speed rear. This should certainly give me any gear I could hope for, but I have to admit that I don't care for the clunky appearance of the triple and its accompanying derailleurs. Looking at the classic randonneuring bikes I see an awful lot of 50-32 style doubles, very much like today's "compact" cranks. Those look to me like an elegant solution, but coming from the era of 42-52 Super Record cranks, I wonder if the compact stuff results in overly large gaps and other complications.

So I'm looking for opinions on the broad issue of appropriate gearing for randonneuring, along with the rather more narrow question of triples vs. wide range doubles (34-50 apparently being the common set-up.)

And for those of you who are already using "compact" doubles, do you use standard derailleurs front and back or is something more specialized called for?

Thanks in advance!

[Heron Todd]

Heron Randonneur, eh? Personally, I favor lower gearing. My most popular crank is easily the Sugino XD600 with 46, 36, and 26T chainrings. If you use a modern 9-speed cassette with an 11T small cog, your highest gear (46x11) will be higher than on your old racers (52x13). The 26T will come in handy. Lots of racers (and former racers) scoff, but when you are climbing a 15% grade when you have already been in the saddle for 30-plus hours, having an extra-low bail-out gear is much appreciated.

[SharpT]

I have little long distance experience and have no reason to reply; however, I just finished building a bike that I hope to use for long distance riding and went with 42-52 chainrings, and a 13-34 7 speed (13,15,17,20,24,29,34) cassette. I hope to tackle any terrain comfortably with this setup, without the need of a triple crank.

SharpT

[DogBoy]

I personally need the low gearing, and I've tried both the compacts and the triple and by far favor the triple. Currently I'm running 28-39-50, 12-25. I was running a 34-50, 12-27. With the triple, I get the same low gearing (about), but I do not suffer from dramatic shifts between low and high gears. With the compact, any switch of chainring required a double or triple shift in the back to approximate an equal gear. For me, this switch happened around 16-17 mph so I was constantly switching back and forth and it became a major pain. With the triple I mostly ride in the middle/big ring for cruising, and I find I am able to manage the small jumps to fine tune my cadence much better than I could with the compacts. Also, I can still have the low gears for hill climbing. Good luck with your choice.

[Six jours]

Hey Todd! I'm the fellow that bought the 59 cm Ebay frame a few weeks back. Awfully nice so far; I just got tires in the mail today, which was the last step. I'll ride the thing for the first time this afternoon.

You mention the 11 cog; I can't imagine using it with anything more than 47 ring or so. Hell, I remember making fun of the folks that ran out to buy 12 tooth freewheel cogs when they became available. Always figured Kelly won on a 13 so who am I pretending to be with an 11? I've had a 14 cog on my old race bike the last couple of years and it's all that I need with the 52, so top end is no problem. As for low gears, believe me, I scoff at no hills! My 42x24 is adequate for most grades right now, but on the "walls" I want something lower. Who knows what I'll want after 30 hours in the saddle. A taxi, maybe.

Thanks for the post!

[Six jours]

With the triple, I get the same low gearing (about), but I do not suffer from dramatic shifts between low and high gears. With the compact, any switch of chainring required a double or triple shift in the back to approximate an equal gear. For me, this switch happened around 16-17 mph so I was constantly switching back and forth and it became a major pain.
Arg. That's what I'm afraid of.

As I understand it, the folks with the "original" compact cranks (TA Cyclotouriste) are/were able to access nearly the entire cluster from the big ring, so they could ride around in a 50x27, if they wanted. I know that the TA/9 speed combination works in that way, but I also know that the "Q" factor of the TA crank is extremely low, possibly getting the big ring closer to the middle of the cluster.

Have you (or anyone) tried using the outer ring of a compact crankset across the entire range of the cluster?

[bmike]

I went through this debate when I built my new bike.
I moved from an Ultegra triple on my LeMond (the bike I used for my first series) to a Ritchey compact.
I used a 12-27 9 sp rear cassette.


When I built my rando specific bike I chose a TA Carmina double in 94 BCD. I have 32,34,48, and 50 tooth chainrings and mix and match. Currently I'm using the 34/48 combo - but I think I'll drop to a 32/48 or even a 32/44 combo as brevet season starts.
I'm using a Campy 13-29 rear cassette.

I use a Campy Chorus Compact FD and Record Ergos. The Chorus FD seems to be working fine, but I have read that a Shimano standard FD may work better as it is not "scuplted" as much as a compacts. I'm debating switching to friction for the FD as I never shift the FD while standing - and would like a bit more flexibility with 'trim'.

The Carmina is an interesting crank - you choose your cranks and your spider seperately. I chose the 94 bcd so I can mount a 30 inside ring for potential climby brevets and if I ever train up enough some hill climbs. (and for one of our difficult centuries - Six Gaps)


I moved away from the triple as I rarely used the granny and tended to stay in my middle ring and power through climbs. Moving to the Ritchey compact gave me lower gears than just using my middle ring, and when I built the new long distance bike I focused on low gears for climbing and have not worried about the high end.

If I were riding in flatter terrain I would tighten up the ring selection - but our Brevet coordinators in the NE tend to pile on the climbing.

I have debated getting a Campy 13(12?)-26 cassette as it smooths out a few of the larger shifts. I've noticed a time or two I wish I had a gear right in between several of the highest ones... but it is rare.

I do an average amount of double shifts - but this is usually 1 motion - I'll hit both thumb levers on the Ergos in succsession (or move each finger lever all the way) and I pop into a compatible gear combination. I can't say that I've found any issues with this when running flat out - I can typically find something that I like in either ring. (I should note that the Campy version I am using allows dumping quite a few gears at a time when moving down the cassette and chainring. This is different from the Shimano bike and is quite nice - esp with the compact)

*edit - I'm running 10sp now

[DogBoy]

...Have you (or anyone) tried using the outer ring of a compact crankset across the entire range of the cluster?

I was using an FSA compact crank with Shimano 9-sp cluster 105 LC RD and 105 std FD. I started getting chain rub (on the derailleur) in 50-21, and it was really bad in 50-27. Going the other way I started getting rub (on the chainring) with 34-13. I would usually shift up around 34-15, shifting to 50-19. I would usually shift down around 50-21, shifting to 34-15. My cassette spacing was this: 12,13,14,15,17,19,21,24,27

[bmike]

Have you (or anyone) tried using the outer ring of a compact crankset across the entire range of the cluster?

You might pull this off if you friction shift the FD, then you can trim all you want.
I've found that I get chain / chainring rub when I cross chain big - big and little - little.
(I'm running 10sp)

[Six jours]

Fantastic info; thanks DogBoy and bmike. I'm using Dura-Ace bar-ends so can trim the front.

I've never used brifters save for a 2 minute spin in a parking lot when it first came out. Assumed it was a fad at the time. Can the front derailleur not be trimmed with STI/Ergo?

[bmike]

Fantastic info; thanks DogBoy and bmike. I'm using Dura-Ace bar-ends so can trim the front.

I've never used brifters save for a 2 minute spin in a parking lot when it first came out. Assumed it was a fad at the time. Can the front derailleur not be trimmed with STI/Ergo?

The front can be 'trimmed'. On my Ergos I have 6 or so clicks to shift the FD. This works for the majority of combinations - but I'm limited by chain rub to not using the 2 cogs opositte the ring. With friction I could techincally use all the cogs. (but would limit myself to not using big big and small small - and with 10sp I would probably have chain - chainring rub in the small small combo) These clicks are pre-set - so if you're ring spacing is a bit off, or you move the BB off center, your indexed tirm will be off - and up front its not as predefined as the rear - seeing as most times folks run a matching RD and cassette combo.

[jcmuellner]

I've used many combinations from fixed/SS to a triple and compacts. Currently I am trying a Ultegra triple crank (130/74 BCD) with 48/38/26 and a 13-30 9 speed custom rear cassette (13 14 15 17 19 21 24 27 30). Downtube lever shifting all friction. Front derailleur is a Campy Racing T triple.

I have also run this with Ergo 9sp levers with a Shiftmate #3 on an Ultegra long cage derailleur. Both ways work fine, but I like the downtube shifters for the lighter weight, less cabling and it makes me move my hands around more. Ergos have great front trimming ability, so there's no real downside there.

If I were to move toward a double I'd probably leave the rear cassette and run a 46/32 (or 44/30) combo and spend most of the time in the big ring. I'd like the Carmina (94 BCD) for this combo.

Every year is an experiment...sometimes a few times a season!

Jon

[Six jours]

Thanks for everyone's input so far.

I ended up ordering a compact crankset yesterday, and today was the first time I was able to put in a real ride on the bike with the triple. Maybe I am going to forget about the way the triple looks as it really is quite a useful set-up, I think. I ended up riding with an old friend who is a bit out of shape, so I rode the hills by myself in the 42x23 or so, then headed down to ride back up again with my friend, this time going slow and playing around with the gears. The 32x23 and 25 are just luxurious. I think I might be able to ride up the inside of a well with them, and I'll bet they're just the ticket after 15 or 20 hours on the bike. And being able to ride the bike as a "standard" 42-52 with the 32 in reserve is extremely comfortable -- as DogBoy mentioned, I'm not sure I'd want to put up with the big jump between the 34-50 rings of the compact. Hmm...

Anyone wanna buy an unused Ritchey compact crankset?

[Hocam]

I'm a big fan of 46/36/26 with a standard 12-27. Having a 1 to 1 ratio is amazing at huge grades. Nothing like spinning at 90+ rpm, going at jogging pace up a 15% grade.

[Machka]

My gearing went through an evolution ...

I started with a double (42-52) and something like a 12-27 chainring. I was told that would be more than adequate for me. It wasn't.

So next I went to a triple (32-42-52) with the 12-27 chainring. Again I was told that would be more than adequate for me. I ended up walking up Sunwapta Pass (and several others) on the Rocky Mountain 1200.

Then I got Machak with a triple (30-42-52) and an 11-34 chainring. I was told emphatically that with that gearing I could climb walls ... yes ... as long as I walked up them.

I now have a triple (26-36-48) with the same chainring (11-34). I've been told I should be able to climb walls with this too. We'll see. So far I haven't been able to test the 26x34 ... I haven't found a hill steep enough around here.

[Six jours]

I can easily see how one could get into a pursuit of ever smaller gears. It was kind of fun to go spinning merrily up hills that usually require a bit of a grunt.

OTOH, I remember from the occasional bout of off-season cyclocross racing that eventually it got to the point that you were faster running the hills than spinning up them in your 36x25 or whatever. So a 26x34... is that really faster than just getting off and pushing? ;-)

[Six jours]

In all seriousness, the trouble is that one can only know that what one is using right now is adequate, or not, as the case may be. Right now, I can hardly imagine needing anything less than a 32x27. But I've also never ridden more than 180 miles at a shot, and as a young bike racer that was an 8 hour ride. What I'll need as a not-so-young ex-bike racer when 180 miles is the warmup is anyone's guess.

Thanks again for everyone's replies.

[Machka]

Well, you see ... during the last 200 kms or so of the Paris-Brest-Paris (1200 kms), when I had the 30-42-52, I rode in my 30. I just stayed there and shifted up and down through my chainring. My legs were too tired to ride in my 42.

On other occasions, I've been in my 30x34, and have still been struggling to ride up some of the hills on some of the rides I've done ... I've been off and walking while everyone else spins by me.

And I never used the 52 ... well, OK, in the 3 years I had it, I used it maybe half an hour during that entire time. I had a lot of trouble shifting into it, and I never felt strong enough, or something, to use it.

So, the first thing I wanted to do was to get rid of that 52 ... after all, why cart around a ring you never use! So it was suggested that I go with a 48, and that sounded like a reasonable option. Then I wanted a lower gear than the 30. So we found the 26-36-48 for me, and so far I really like it. I have only had it since around the beginning of December, and already I have ridden in the 48 more than I ever did the 52. It's fairly comfortable, but my favorite gear is the 36 ... that's usually where I stay. As I said, I haven't had a chance to use the 26 yet, but I know the time will come.

I should also mention ... not only do I do randonneuring events and 24-hour races, I also tour ... everything from little weekend tours up to several weeks or months. When your bicycle is loaded with 40 lbs of gear, a lower gear is essential.

Believe me, mentally, if nothing else, it is nice to know you've got a bail-out gear. And spinning is much easier on the knees ... especially as the knees age. :)

[Hocam]

It's fairly comfortable, but my favorite gear is the 36 ... that's usually where I stay.

+1

[thebulls]

My gearing went through an evolution ...

I've been told I should be able to climb walls with this too. We'll see. So far I haven't been able to test the 26x34 ... I haven't found a hill steep enough around here.

Guess that means you've got some spare cranksets, Machka! Hope the new gearing works for you.

I do all my own bike work, so there haven't been people around to tell me my gearing is too low or won't work. I'm now on 22/32/44 mountain bike crankset paired with 11x32 or 11x34 cassette. I suspect that this might be a bit outside the specified tolerance for the XT derailleur, but nonetheless is still works fine.

This made getting off to walk on BMB optional, mainly as a way to give my butt a rest. The 44+11 gear is still high enough to spin to 30mph, and after that I'm happy to coast downhill. I usually just use the middle and big rings, but its nice to have a bailout for the really steep stuff, for injuries, for bonked-out-ness, etc.

[Fixedwheelnut]

48 x 18 = 69" gear and occaissionally the 'two foot' gear ;)

[bmike]

48 x 18 = 69" gear and occaissionally the 'two foot' gear ;)

since february i've been riding 42x19.
i really like fg riding... my new if with campy 10 sp has only been used for centuries. everything else i've done on the fg...

[brunop]

:) 44x16 on one fixed and 47x17 on another is fine for me in boston and nyc. i don't skid though (i can and all!), cause i want my knees to keep on workin'!!:eek: :)

[Richard Cranium]

I wonder if the compact stuff results in overly large gaps and other complications.If you have the bucks, then the compact set up will probably please you more.

Figure it out, no matter what the gaps, no one successfully integrates 32t granny into a shift pattern. My experience is to see people constantly ignore grannys and end up riding a lot 42-27 or 42-25...........

Obviously you have no choice, any kind of double you fix up is more suitable than going to a triple. Most people don't try it, but I run 53/39 with 11/28 9spd setup fro my "rando bike." If you need more than a 39x28, then of course....... what ever....

[bmike]

Figure it out, no matter what the gaps, no one successfully integrates 32t granny into a shift pattern. My experience is to see people constantly ignore grannys and end up riding a lot 42-27 or 42-25...........




This is what I found last year... most of a series went by and tried to avoid dropping into the granny ring. I switched to a compact with 12-27 rear half way through the summer and found it quite useful.

Currently I run 48/34 up front and 13-29 rear. If I work the 48/13 at 110 rpm I'll be at 32 mph.
I am looking at the Campy 13-26 to smooth out a big jump between the 19 and 23.

[Carbonfiberboy]

Here's another vote for the standard Ultregra 52-42-30. Either 12-25 or 27 on the back, depending on how steep your passes are. I don't use the 52 a lot, but I do use it, want it, and need it to stay with people I want to stay with, who all have big rings. That's important. The 30 is strictly a long climb ring. I only use it with the bottom 4 cogs, but it's so great to be able to shift between those 4 close ratio cogs when pass climbing. I almost never shift back and forth between the triple and middle.

I absolutely don't get the "what it looks like" thing. Or the "what it is" thing. All I care about is the "getting there" thing. As the people on fixies, steel touring frames, and 32c tires become a memory or just people I only saw at the start, less time in the saddle seems like a better and better thing. If one wants to handicap oneself to make a statement, have at it. But I just don't get it. If I could afford a Cervelo TT bike, I'd probably rando on that. But I'd spec a triple. :D

[bmike]

As the people on fixies, steel touring frames, and 32c tires become a memory or just people I only saw at the start, less time in the saddle seems like a better and better thing. If one wants to handicap oneself to make a statement, have at it. But I just don't get it. If I could afford a Cervelo TT bike, I'd probably rando on that. But I'd spec a triple. :D

Some wide tires are actually faster than skinnies. See Bicycle Quarterly.

Some wide tires make a 600k more comfortable than 23s, and a comfortable rider is one that can pedal for a long long time.

Go to analyticcycling.com and play with the numbers for power output and change up bike weight.
A carbon Cervelo won't change much over a lugged steel Riv, if the engine remains the same.
Throw away the aero bars if you plan on doing PBP, they are not allowed.

One of the faster riders doing the BBS last year did it on a Quickbeam fixie.

YMMV...


How often do you turn the 52x12,13,14? If your brevets are flat this might make sense... but at some point you'll have to weigh how much energy you put out to overcome air resistance vs. how far along the course you are getting. Recent reading suggests that over 28-30 mph you are really wasting effort for the return you get back (see latest issue of BQ).

[Six jours]

Well, let's see...

I'm happy with the triple. I use it like a regular crankset -- I rarely use the inner ring -- and get almost everything done with the 42x25. When the going gets ridiculous, or I'm wasted at the end of the day, the inner ring sees some work. As another poster mentioned, it's nice having some closely spaced granny gears.

The way a bike looks is quite important to me, to be perfectly honest. In my racing days I couldn't have cared less, but now that I'm a purely recreational rider, I get to focus on silly things. The triple and its derailleur still look clunky to me, but oh well. I think a cottered steel Magistroni single is the most graceful crankset ever made, but I do not have one on my rando bike. Sometimes practicality has to trump appearance.

The 52x12 is worthless to me and the 13 nearly so. At some point I will make up my own cogset, but for now, having a couple of useless cogs on my bike doesn't bother me at all, considering that I've just switched from 12 gears to 27.

Having said that, I do have the Ritchey compact crankset I ordered before riding the bike with the triple, and I may well try it just to get the experience, if nothing else. The concept does make sense; I think it's just a matter of whether the jump is too great, which of course is an individual thing.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

[Six jours]

As for tires... I've played around a bit. I used some Performance brand 25 mm tires, which seemed sluggish to me, especially compared to the tubulars I'm used to. I tried some Rivendell Ruffy-Tuffys, which I hated. Felt like riding through water. Intended to ditch the whole clincher thing altogether and go to the 27mm Dugast tubulars, but Jan Heine convinced me to try a pair of the silly looking 30mm Grand Bois Cypres puffball clinchers. When I rolled up to the start of a recent club run, an old friend looked at them and asked if maybe what I really wanted was a beach cruiser.

They turned out, however, to be among the fastest clinchers I have ever ridden, and come fairly close to a handmade pair of sewups. The ride, of course, is marvelous. So I have definitely learned something, and am forced to ditch most of what I thought I knew about tires.

Interesting stuff, this randonneuring business...

[SharpT]

The 52x12 is worthless to me and the 13 nearly so. At some point I will make up my own cogset, but for now, having a couple of useless cogs on my bike doesn't bother me at all, .

After a bit of riding, I determined that my 52x13 is pretty useless as well for 100+mile rides. I just ordered a new 14 tooth starter sprocket on ebay, so soon I'll have 14-16-18-21-24-29-34 on a 42/52 crankset, which actually gives me a very linear set of 14 evenly spaced gear ratios. I'm limited to 14 gears at the moment... 1990 technology.

For flatter rides I'll switch to a 14-16-18-21-24-28-32 cassette.

SharpT

200k 7000' next weekend :D ...

[Carbonfiberboy]

Some wide tires make a 600k more comfortable than 23s, and a comfortable rider is one that can pedal for a long long time.

Go to analyticcycling.com and play with the numbers for power output and change up bike weight.
A carbon Cervelo won't change much over a lugged steel Riv, if the engine remains the same.
Throw away the aero bars if you plan on doing PBP, they are not allowed.

How often do you turn the 52x12,13,14? If your brevets are flat this might make sense... but at some point you'll have to weigh how much energy you put out to overcome air resistance vs. how far along the course you are getting. Recent reading suggests that over 28-30 mph you are really wasting effort for the return you get back (see latest issue of BQ).I hear what you're saying, and I do know riders with lugged Rivs who are very good. I also rode with two Furnace Creek 508 riders last weekend, one of whom has also done Team RAAM. 508 bikes look like normal road or TT bikes to me, with normal road tires. That's where the Cervelo comment came from. I realize that those are supported rides, not randos, so the equipment can be more fragile, but there's not much difference, really. Full rando gear only weighs a few pounds, if that. The guy I ride with who has the lugged Riv, also has an aluminum Cervelo on which he is 2mph faster. Computers are not bikes on the road, and the 508 is a definitely a long ride.

I'm not doing PBP.

I don't use the 52 very often, but like I said, if my group is on a long shallow drop, like a river valley in the mountains, I'll want to hang with them. Computer efficiency is not the same as being able to draft your buds. And some times it's just fun. I spun out my 52X12 at the end of today's ride, and I can spin pretty fast. About 45, I think. Downhill. :)

[lutz]

Machka,

which model is your triple chainring? Or which type allows for the most flexibility in chainring choices for experimenting?

Thanks in advance
Lutz

[Six jours]

The guy I ride with who has the lugged Riv, also has an aluminum Cervelo on which he is 2mph faster.
Then he needs to fix something on his Rivendell. Or perhaps he is just mentally adjusting: the Cervelo is for "going fast" and the Riv is for "cruising". Regardless, being retired from racing, the question I'd ask is "Which one do you have more fun with?": for me, anyway, getting done with the ride as quickly as possible is not why I ride, although there's nothing wrong with that as a goal if it's what you want to do. For me, I want to enjoy the ride, enjoy my bike, maybe strike up a nice conversation with a like minded soul, etc. That's why I don't ride a time trial bike with a disk everywhere I go. :)


I spun out my 52X12 at the end of today's ride, and I can spin pretty fast. About 45, I think. Downhill. :)

"Can" and "should" are perhaps two separate things, here. There are mountains in California and Colorado where 60 MPH can be exceeded. Attempting to pedal at these speeds will actually slow you down -- you can see it on your computer -- because wind resistance has become such an all-consuming factor that it is the only thing that matters. The small amount of power that a human is capable of adding to the storm is utterly irrelevant, and the aerodynamic clutter that is caused by pedalling does more harm than good.

The line forms somewhere around 30-40 MPH, depending upon what you are trying to accomplish. The time trialist will continue to pedal to near 40 MPH, as the few seconds to be gained through maximal effort at high speeds is worth it to him. The tourist has very, very little to gain by pedalling above 30 MPH -- he will go a tad faster, but at the expense of great energy expenditure.

As for drafting downhill at high speeds? Pedalling becomes utterly pointless, as the lead rider is incapable of adding enough speed through pedalling to prevent the following riders from having to ride the brakes. The fastest way down a steep hill with a group, then, is the rotating, coasting paceline, which often at least loosely forms all by itself.

The pros, BTW, use the 53x12 and 11 because some of them are capable of turning it, however briefly, on the flats. The rest of us are just flattering ourselves.

And that's the end of that lecture!

[Six jours]

BTW, I'm not going to bother with the compact. So... NIB Ritchey Pro compact, 175, black, 50x34, $65 plus shipping. :)

[Richard Cranium]

Attempting to pedal at these speeds will actually slow you down -- you can see it on your computer -- because wind resistance has become such an all-consuming factor that it is the only thing that matters.Your post makes several good points.

However, some one might misunderstand your post and conclude that since there's little to be gained from pedaling at high-speed, they assume that very "high gears" are not of value.

OH Contraire! My fast and furious little penguins..... In a past life, during serious attempts in long distance venues I routinely would use a 54x11 to "wind up" my speed to 45-50mph, before tucking in and freewheeling until reasonable cadence provided continued progress.

I'll be the first to admit I couldn't "spin" those gear ratios, but high-gear ratios certainly provided a method of accelerating to favorable "top speeds" on mountain slopes.

[Six jours]

...but high-gear ratios certainly provided a method of accelerating to favorable "top speeds" on mountain slopes.
I won't disagree with that. I'll merely point out that gravity provides another -- and IMO, superior -- method. YMM, as always, V. :)

[bmike]

I'll be the first to admit I couldn't "spin" those gear ratios, but high-gear ratios certainly provided a method of accelerating to favorable "top speeds" on mountain slopes.

Yes, high gears are great for cruising down mountain passes at top speed and top RPM.

I think one needs to weigh how much energy you want to expend going fast downhill vs. how much you want to save to go less slow uphill.

Fighting the wind is a losing battle. The faster you go the harder it gets... I think the math on this is exponential.

This is cycling though - and all is relative. Everyone's definition of high and low will be different... so ride what you love, and what works for your terrain.

For me, I've come to use the "Work the climbs and rest the rest." as a pretty good model... but where I like to ride the climbs are a plenty and the descents tend to be twisty...

*(and again, this is relative, if I need to chase down the ice cream truck I will turn a big gear on a descent, or on the flat) :)

[Hocam]

I think there's a pretty substantial difference between randonneuring and RAAM type races.

This is not a UCH event, this is a personal challenege. I like spinning (normally around 100 rpm, higher on climbs, up to 120 or so), so right now I'm running a 46/36/26 and 12-27 which works great for that. In the streets of Philly I have yet to spin out on a 46/12 but that's more because of the traffic lights then my ability to spin (which really isn't that great) and I've yet to feel the need for a lower gear. I'll be riding this in my first 200k hopefully at the end of this month.

I may be building up a new steel bike with brifters instead of bar ends, and will end up with a standard road triple on that with probably a 12-25 so I'll see how that goes.

[Carbonfiberboy]

The line forms somewhere around 30-40 MPH, depending upon what you are trying to accomplish. <snip>
As for drafting downhill at high speeds? Pedalling becomes utterly pointless, as the lead rider is incapable of adding enough speed through pedalling to prevent the following riders from having to ride the brakes. <snip>
And that's the end of that lecture!Thanks. I did drop the tandem, however briefly, which is what I was trying to accomplish. Sometimes acceleration is what you need.

What you say is all true, but there's also more to it. I've averaged 25 mph for the final 25 miles of a 150 mile ride and enjoyed it very much. About the most fun I ever had on a ride. I used the 52 a few times on the 200 a couple of weeks ago. I really needed it a couple of times to get back onto a group that had dropped me on long steep climbs. I descend a lot better than I climb. Those efforts paid off big time. I normally run the cassette in the 42. Around 24 I get into the big ring.

My group's rule is that the lead rider always pedals downhill unless he or she is spun out. We hate riding the brakes. The thing is that the point where one goes into aero mode from pedaling mode is different for every rider. The fact that I can coast past most pedaling riders doesn't mean that I don't follow the rule and pedal also, as long as I know that I'm adding speed by pedaling. I try to be sure that everyone behind me is pedaling or coasting, not braking. If people in the lead coast, those behind are braking, right? Unless the speeds get really high and everyone gaps, that is. It's a little different for me because I can coast most people off my wheel - I don't know why. Maybe from ski racing or something.

All that said, when I first got my alpha bike it had a defective left brifter, so that the cable would get stuck and I couldn't downshift from the big ring, so I didn't use it at all until I got a new brifter. That was OK, too, though more work to spin than to shift up. So my second choice would be a 42-30 and the same relatively close ratio 12-25 cassette. But I'd miss out on some of the fun. That's just my legs. Some people will want a straight block and others a 14-32. Whatever turns your crank.

[Carbonfiberboy]

I may be building up a new steel bike with brifters instead of bar ends, and will end up with a standard road triple on that with probably a 12-25 so I'll see how that goes.I built up a relatively heavy aluminum frame a few years ago, and went friction bar ends instead of brifters for reliability, low cost, and light weight. Otherwise the drivetrain is straight Ultegra. Never worry about drivetrain adjustment again. The weight saving is substantial, as was the cost saving. I ride that bike a lot and like the bar ends about as well as brifters. IIRC, in one TdF Lance had a climbing bike with one brifter and a friction shifter for the front, just to save weight. Something to think about.

[Hocam]

I built up a relatively heavy aluminum frame a few years ago, and went friction bar ends instead of brifters for reliability, low cost, and light weight. Otherwise the drivetrain is straight Ultegra. Never worry about drivetrain adjustment again. The weight saving is substantial, as was the cost saving. I ride that bike a lot and like the bar ends about as well as brifters. IIRC, in one TdF Lance had a climbing bike with one brifter and a friction shifter for the front, just to save weight. Something to think about.
Yeah I've seen the pictures, pretty innovative idea. I'm trying to keep my weight consciousness in line with my ability and I've never owned a bike with brifters before; the convienance seems amazing. The bar end 46/36/26 bike is a surly crosscheck set up for light touring, commuting, trails and comfortable distance riding.

The steel frame and fork I'm looking at is of infinitely greater quality and would take the spot of the surly as my distance bike. I'd be doing a veloce/centaur mix and building my own 32H centaur hubs laced with DT aerolite spokes to velocity aeroheads (OC rear rim). The frame will probably end up costing more than the group, but I can upgrade parts later. It may break 20 lbs but I'm not sure and not all that worried about it. It's the best I can afford for the time being, but will be built to last.

[bmike]

IIRC, in one TdF Lance had a climbing bike with one brifter and a friction shifter for the front, just to save weight. Something to think about.

I may do this as I've pieced together my drivetrain and want some more trim on my FD. I run 10sp Campy with TA Carmina cranks. I never (so long as I can remember) shift the FD standing, so a barend in friction would work just fine...

(nothing about weight though... I've got that covered with my body type)

[Six jours]

My group's rule is that the lead rider always pedals downhill unless he or she is spun out.
What an odd rule!

We hate riding the brakes.
That's where the coasting, rotating paceline comes in. Each rider is as aero as possible and pulls off the front as soon as possible. It feels almost like and endless series of passing and then immediately being passed. Take a good look at TdF riders coming off of mountains and you'll see what I mean.

The thing is that the point where one goes into aero mode from pedaling mode is different for every rider.
Absolutely. Which means some folks are either going to be riding the brakes or else passing everyone. No perfect solutions.

The fact that I can coast past most pedaling riders...
A detective would call that a clue.:p

...doesn't mean that I don't follow the rule and pedal also, as long as I know that I'm adding speed by pedaling.
Depending entirely upon the grade, I'll partly agree with you. At 30 MPH, for instance, pedaling can make the difference between pulling the train and holding it up. At 45 MPH -- "Spinning out the 53x12" -- no amount of pedalling is going to overcome the vast amount of draft that you are providing. At those speeds, folks are either riding the brakes -- or better, modulating speed by getting into the airstream a bit more -- or coming past.


I try to be sure that everyone behind me is pedaling or coasting, not braking. If people in the lead coast, those behind are braking, right?

That pretty much centers on the point I'm trying to make: at some point, it's impossible for the lead rider to generate enough extra speed through pedalling to offset the aerodynamic advantage derived from drafting. Moreover, at somewhere around that speed, the lead rider will actually go faster by being aero rather than pedalling. Short version: above a certain speed, riders who draft you are going to be "held up" and nothing short of you on a motorcycle is going to prevent it.

Now, that exact speed is open to debate and depends upon a number of different factors. The one thing that I am absolutely sure of, though, is that the 53x12 will generate in excess of 40 MPH at 120 RPM -- nowhere close to "spun out" for the average cyclist -- and is a speed at which the aerodynamic advantage for people behind you cannot be offset without adding more power than a human is capable of maintaining.

Having said all that, if you and your group mates have a system that works, I'm sure not going to tell you it's wrong! I just have a mild axe to grind with those who feel the 12 -- let alone the 11! -- is a requirement for the "serious" cyclist.

[Six jours]

Just for yucks, the results of a bit of math...

On a bike with 700c wheels and typical +/-23mm tires, and assuming that "spun out" for the typical "serious" recreational cyclist is about 150 rpm, 53x13=47 mph, 53x12=51 mph, and 53x11=56 mph.

Show me someone who can increase their downhill speed by pedalling at 50 mph and I'll show you someone on a tandem. :)

[Six jours]

I remember when STI first came out, a lot of pros worried about the weight. (I personally thought STI was a fad. :o ) You'd see lots of folks using a right side brifter with left side downtube, and some who reverted to downtube shifters for the big mountain days.

If you really want to be forced to rethink a few things, take a good look at the '89 TdF. LeMond rode a number of stages with downtube friction, beating, of course, entire teams of guys with STI. Good times!

[Heron Todd]

I remember when STI first came out, a lot of pros worried about the weight. (I personally thought STI was a fad. :o ) You'd see lots of folks using a right side brifter with left side downtube, and some who reverted to downtube shifters for the big mountain days.

Racers used STI before it was available to the public. Shimano had completed work on the rear shifter but not the front. The first season that any pros used STI, they used only the right shifter because that's all Shimano had.

[Six jours]

1989 was the first year any pros used STI, and I'm positive I saw Phil Anderson with both shifters that year. Wish I could prove it!

You can look at pics and video of the 1990 TdF and see a number of riders using right side only in the mountains. Andy Hampsten in particular mentioned weight as an issue, FWIW. :)

[Carbonfiberboy]

The steel frame and fork I'm looking at is of infinitely greater quality and would take the spot of the surly as my distance bike. I'd be doing a veloce/centaur mix and building my own 32H centaur hubs laced with DT aerolite spokes to velocity aeroheads (OC rear rim).Sounds like a very cool build. Have you considered a carbon fork? I know most of them don't have room for a decent tire and a fender, but sometimes you can rework a full coverage fender so that it stops flush with the aft face of the fork and with the inside of the fender flush with the inside of the crown. Carbon forks are so comfy and accurate feeling. And light.

A 20 lb. build of a steel frame would be very good. No need to be lighter than that. I don't notice much difference on a climb between my "heavy" aluminum bike and my carbon Trek. Maybe because they are both stiff bikes.

And yeah, if you've never owned a bike with brifters before, go for it. You'll love it.

[Carbonfiberboy]

What an odd rule!Actually it's a very good rule. It's because different riders have different coasting terminal velocities on shallow grades, but everyone goes about the same speed when we pedal. So if the lead rider pedals instead of taking his ease on the hoods, the riders behind him won't feel . . . well, so antsy and wanting to pass him or her. So it makes a safer rider environment. I highly recommend it.

But all this got way off my original thought, which was about rando gearing and how to get to point B, rather than how the bike intended to get to point B looks. And how I just like triples. I really like my 42. If I could have just one ring, that would be it. The 52 is a kick sometimes. I'd miss it. The 30 is for hunkering down and grinding it out. I seldom shift in the front. And the low gears are very close together in gear-inches. Compact is the hot thing now. I've never ridden a compact crankset, but I ride with people who have them. It seems to me that they have to shift the front a good bit and those shifts are slow, worse or at least as bad as my 30-42 shifts, which are no fun. Working out the gear-inches, their low gears are further apart. So I don't get it. What's the advantage? The weight of one ring?

And also how I just like my fast road bike. When I'm exhausted and hurting, what I want is a bike that goes down the road as fast as my limited power can push it, and that steers quickly and accurately. I want it to feel like it's moving as fast as possible. I don't give a rat's **s for aesthetics other than the aesthetics of getting there. But I guess that's just me.

[Six jours]

Actually it's a very good rule. It's because different riders have different coasting terminal velocities on shallow grades, but everyone goes about the same speed when we pedal. So if the lead rider pedals instead of taking his ease on the hoods, the riders behind him won't feel . . . well, so antsy and wanting to pass him or her. So it makes a safer rider environment. I highly recommend it.

I guess I find it odd because I just assumed that riders pretty much knew when to pedal and when not to, in a group. I'm actually finding a lot of things odd since I returned to this sport. Guess I'm turning into a grumpy old fart. ;)

But all this got way off my original thought, which was about rando gearing and how to get to point B, rather than how the bike intended to get to point B looks. And how I just like triples. I really like my 42. If I could have just one ring, that would be it. The 52 is a kick sometimes. I'd miss it. The 30 is for hunkering down and grinding it out. I seldom shift in the front. And the low gears are very close together in gear-inches. Compact is the hot thing now. I've never ridden a compact crankset, but I ride with people who have them. It seems to me that they have to shift the front a good bit and those shifts are slow, worse or at least as bad as my 30-42 shifts, which are no fun. Working out the gear-inches, their low gears are further apart. So I don't get it. What's the advantage? The weight of one ring?
The advantage for me, in all honesty, is that I don't have to look at the clunky triple and it's clunky derailleurs. That doesn't outweigh the gearing advantages of the triple, which you accurately point out, IMO.

And also how I just like my fast road bike. When I'm exhausted and hurting, what I want is a bike that goes down the road as fast as my limited power can push it, and that steers quickly and accurately. I want it to feel like it's moving as fast as possible. I don't give a rat's **s for aesthetics other than the aesthetics of getting there. But I guess that's just me.
Well, I understand your point, but I also think you overestimate the "slowness" of the classic randonneuring bike. Those fat tires don't at all have to be slow, as I've learned with the Grand Bois Cypres. And lugged steel certainly does not have to make into a "slow" bike. As for handling, even when I was racing I was irritated by the "race" geometry the Italians reserved for American-market frames and that has been copied by many modern makers. I personally have always wanted a stable bike that went where I wanted it to without putting thought into it, and that otherwise did not surprise me. The geometry of the rando bikes is very similar to the geometries I specified on my racing frames and, not coincidentally, the geometries prefered by the pros for long road and stage races. I think you'd genuinely be surprised if you spent some time on a proper rando mount.

Aesthetics? Well, each to his own. :)