sqroot3

hey everyone,

i need advice on hill climbing and equipment. i am a noob and i ride a 53-39 in the front with a 12-27 in the back. when i got the bike, it didn't even occur to me that this might be too aggressive a gearing for a beginner in southern california. since then, i have realized i can barely go up a 10% grade with what i have.

i would like to ride more hills and steeper hills. i have read lots of threads here and elsewhere about training for hills, so i realize a large part of the training process (maybe all of it) is confronting those hills and just riding them again and again--but i'm afraid i'll have to walk my bike up most of the hills in malibu with my current setup. and furthermore, my cadence will be pretty darn low on most hills that i CAN manage.

what should i do? the obvious options seem to be
1) htfu, mash away at a slow cadence until i improve, and walk my bike if i need to
2) change out my double for a compact
3) change out my double for a triple
4) get a $400 beater bike with a triple and use it for hills until i improve

what do y'all think?

btw, i know there are a bunch of gearing calculators out there, but one of the problems is it's hard to estimate my power output. it's probably close to 50W or something!

(for the record, i am hauling 160 lb on a 5'10" frame, so i could stand to lose a few pounds, but that alone won't solve the problem.)

thanks!

colombo357

You're not heavy for 5'10.

Definitely need to HTFU. Stand up and you'll find that 39-27 is too low of a gear for 10% grades.

oc_rider

I would go for option 2 and get the compact. It will shift better than a triple. As for getting better, you just have to keep at it....

icyclist 

How old are you, sqroot3? That might be a factor in how long it takes you to get in shape, but it wouldn't be a limiting factor.

You're certainly not heavy at 5'10 and 160 lbs. At that height and weight, if you're willing to put in the effort, you should be able to pedal up steep climbs, and do it all day. You can't expect to ride steep hills, though, without paying your dues, which means putting in the time to build up your strength.

If you're not a serious cyclist, and you've got one bike, then yes, maybe you need to spend some money to switch to a compact, although that won't make it easy to climb 10% grades either; you'll still struggle.

A triple? If you were going to ride for hours up long, steep grades, a triple would be OK. You're not going to do that, apparently, so stick with and work with what you have for a while.

If you aren't already in good shape, and you want to be, it'll take about two weeks of weeks of dedicated riding to become strong enough to ride up 10% grades without blowing up.

revchuck 

+1.

One thing that may help in the interim is ensuring you're keeping your cadence up as much as possible while climbing. That means downshifting before you start mashing. Do this until you run out of cogs, and then just do what you have to. If you end up walking, make sure you get some cleat covers - cleats get expensive. Cleat covers also help when you want to go into a store or restaurant with tile floors...walking on tile floors with plastic cleats can get pretty interesting.

doctor j

I live in a reasonably hilly area. I've had good luck with a triple.

My triple cannot read. It does not know that it is not capable of shifting smoothly.

DXchulo

I think getting a compact crank is your best bet. It's an easy and relatively inexpensive solution. All you really have to do is switch the crank, adjust your FD, and check your chain length. If you feel like you "outgrow" the compact you can always switch back. I normally use a 53/39, but I have a 50/34 that I switch to when I do a double with lots of climbing. If you get a compact I doubt you'll ever regret at least having that option available.

HTFU is fine up to a point, but if you cross that line you can injure yourself. Only you know your body well enough to say where that line is.

catonec 

39/27 should be plenty low for climbing. quit smoking?

pgjackson

Pedal with your heels down when going up hill.

big john

We are all different and some of us need lower gears than others. For someone to tell you what gears you need on the internet is crazy talk.
It's better to have a lower gear than you need, at least at first, and spin if you can instead of mash.
You will also get a lot of anti-triple stuff on this forum but if you like using a triple then use one. I've been using a triple since 2002 after using a standard double for years.
Another thing is many people have compact doubles set up with gearing lower than a standard triple. Just because it's a triple doen't mean a super low granny gear.

rangerdavid

Lower gear, higher cadence. Nuff said.

BarracksSi

If you never use the biggest cog, you could afford to switch to a cassette with a smaller big cog. But, if you're in your lowest combo and you still have to walk, you should get a bigger cassette and/or a compact crank.

I'd just go straight for a compact instead of a triple because you won't have to change your FD (and, in some cases, you'd need a different shifter, too).

pgjackson

Cassettes are pretty cheap. Probably get a 12-28T for around $70. Get a compact 50/34 up front and you should be fine.

SpongeDad

I'd go with option 2. Honestly, for new riders, I think compact's should be the default.

I can ride 39/27 up 10% grades now, but it's taken a while to develop the leg strength to do that and it's still not fun. Anyone who tells you 39/27 if fine for going up 10% after you've already said you're having trouble with it, well such is bikeforums. Ride whatever feels comfortable and gets you out there.

BarracksSi

OP has a 12-27, so a 12-28 won't make much difference.

Thinking about it again, he might not be able to go any bigger in back without getting a RD with a longer cage. I've been told (correctly) that I need to get a long-cage MTB RD for the 9-sp Shimano setup on one of my bikes if I want to put a 32t rear on it. I'd say that a compact crank would be the next logical step.

Soloist Assassin

You def. need to HFTU. You will get better at climbing I once sucked, but now I routinely climb 20%+ hills. One even goes to 28%. I climb these hills with a 39-23. I weigh a few pounds less, and I am the same height. If you keep at it you will drop weight. In the summer I get down to the high 140s. That helps. Whatever you do, don't get off and walk it up. You'll never get better if you do. Grind it up that hill the best you can. Unless your vision is blurring you aren't trying hard enough.

billydonn

+1 Tripple...

rm -rf

You'll be able to handle bigger hills as you ride more. When I started back riding on a mountain bike years ago, I would need to use the 22 front chainring(!) all the time on local hills. Now I can do them easily on my road bike.

Still, I think bikes are geared too high for many riders to be able to spin up long steeper hills. I switched to a 34-29 low gear to ride some long climbs in the Blue Ridge, and ended up keeping it on the bike. I can sit and spin up 8% grades that have other riders standing up.

If you want to ride lots of long steep hills, a triple could really help.

For less extreme climbing, you'll improve soon if you ride a lot. I like my local group rides that hit some of the bigger hills around here (350 feet in 1 mile), and regroup at the top. Trying to keep up with other riders pushes me a lot harder than I would do on my own. And I do a lot better on familiar hills, since I have a good idea of how hard to go.

EDIT-- I looked at Malibu on Google Maps using Terrain view. There's not much flat land there at all, and some big climbs. On ridewithgps.com, the hill routes posted look like this: latigo -Encinol loop 37 miles, 4800 feet of climbing, and some over 10% grades. That's well over the 100 feet/mile rule of thumb for a hilly ride. I'd want a triple on those rides.

gregf83 

Don't listen to the HTFU crowd. The fact is you have are riding basically the same gearing up front as pro riders who probably have double your power output.

Get a compact up front, buy a book or two on training (e.g. Friels' cycling bible) and start a structured training program.

alexvpaq

Yeah right but if he's a noob, he will injure his knees or legs muscles/ligaments...

Unlike you I don't think he's a small cog madman lol...

sqroot3

Thank you all!

I am 25 I and I thought I was somewhat fit...but I get passed by riders on PCH all the time! and no, I don't smoke.

I'll keep a triple in the back of my mind, but it seems like the most inexpensive change, if any, would be to switch over to a compact. So I'll try the malibu hills after I put in my time on easier hills and after I get a compact. Now off to go riding! woohoo!

Soloist Assassin

Nah, he'll be alright. I got owned up some hills for many rides. Now I do the owning. Trust me on this. Try, try, try again. It doesn't get any easier you just get faster.

bsektzer

Speaking as a former health care professional, pushing 'til you puke is OK. Blurred vision, not so much...

-Bert

deacon mark

Mybe you just need to ride more and practice riding while standing up. Push higher gears on the level pavement standing to get use to standing. Get some miles in over the course of 6weeks build up to riding 150 miles a week in 3 of 4 rides. This is long enough to get in good shape and see how you do before doing anything. I am runner 1st so being in shape to me is how far can you run in 12 minutes. At age of 25 if you can run over 1.75 miles you are a decent aerobic condition and it is time on the bike. When I added biking to my running I was really not good at standing to pedal but I could spin fine up the hills in lower gears. Once I made a point to stand into the hills I now actually downshift on a small hill 2 gears and stand for a bit, then sit and upshift untill I get my self back together. I had to really practice standing and pedaling.

As far as being in shape on a bike I just do not know what is the bench mark for cyclist. I would assume if you can ride 50 miles in 3 hours in the flats that is ok, but 2.5 hours would be a good pace. Maybe some cyclist could chime in and give the thoughts. I really does matter what kind of shape you are in because then you might have to work on specific training. FWIW, I have a compact and a standard double and use them equally but I don't live in the mountains. I almost never go in the small ring on my compact unless it is a huge wind, which we have here all the time it seems like

jamesdak 

Well, I've got three bikes all set up different. One standard double, one triple, and one compact double. I don't work hills much and my bad knees don't like them. But of the three the triple is the easiest for me to use to get up a mountain. Tried the standard double and about died after a mile or so of steady climbing.

I am training for a 209 mile fall ride with about 10,000 of climbing. My plan is to start with the triple as I build strength so that I can save my knees. Then as I get comfortable I'll switch to the compact double. Truth is I get similiar ratios with them but the triple (maybe it's all in my head) just seems to work better for me. Maybe it's closer ratios as I tire, I don't know.