gregf83 

The OP has access and wants to train on steep, long hills. His current gearing is inadequate for that and he won't be able to 'spin' and 11-25 or 11-28 on steep hills. If you only have access to or want to train on less steep hills then his current gearing is OK but that's not the advice he asked for.

rm -rf

Strava says 3.8 miles and 1040 feet. 3.8 miles at 9% is 1800 feet.

It still looks like a very hard climb, with lots of 9-10% sections.

~~~~~~~~~
I have a 34-29 low gear, and really like it. It's much better than my old 34-26 low. I can rest and recover on a 9% grade by pedaling easy (at a really low mph) while seated. I'd have to stand with my old gearing.

ThisIsNotMic

Yea, looks like, based on the course they use for the race, there's a decent flat section in the beginning, and I know from running there there's a nice flat/slightly downhill section after the first climb as you turn into the park, and 2 more slight flats, definitely knocks down the average grade. I should have said that the climbing portion is about a 9% grade, those flats skew it. Now that I have the 11-30 cassette on the way, I'm hoping it works well for exactly this type of grade, there's af ew climbing races near here that are comparable. Some are longer, but similar grades, easier to tackle than Washington and Ascutney.

Judge Mental

Everyone here loves to bash on everyone else. Great community.

Why not just run a XT 28/40 MTB crank? You can find them for cheap. The 5-10mm of Q-factor isn't going to kill anyone, and 28/26 would give you some respite. 40/11 is a respectable high-end gear as well, especially if you're injured.

Anyway, that's my vote for a $75 fix.

link0

Why such a long discussion over this? Just get a big 34 or 36 mountain bike cassette, a cheap mountain bike rear derailleur, and a longer chain. Done. You can get all three on eBay together for about $50.

The suggestion above to only swap to a MTB crank is also good and cheap.

Bah Humbug

Yeah, I'm seriously amazed we're all the way up to eight pages of this.

achoo

You must be new here.

achoo

For Shimano, make sure it's a 9-speed RD.

Only if you can drop your FD far enough so it works.

Lanterne Rogue

The whole premise of this thread is wrong. Washington is not a mountain. East of the Mississippi River, there are only hills. Good luck on your eastern hill climb.

RE: Running fitness vs. cycling fitness. I knew a terrific runner who had the track record for the mile in his age class in Colorado. He trained for a week-long bike tour mainly by running. On his third day of the tour, he was riding with a hotel towel shoved in the back of his shorts. He wasn't tired, but he was suffering.

The OP's butt won't fall off on a single eastern hill climb. It could feel like a long car ride home, but it will be worth it!

Jakedatc

you're saying that Alp d'huez isn't a mountain then? because the stats are pretty damn close.. except Washington is more difficult
Alpe d'Huez - Climbbybike.com
Northeastcycling.com - Hillclimb Races


ignorant western ******... hikers do the same thing and get their ass handed to them on the northern part of the AT...

no big gentle switch backs out here.. straight up.

blarnie

34-26 is a pretty low gear. Should be fine for 10% sustained grades. And riding up hills to train for riding up hills is good for an experienced cyclist. An unexperienced cyclist should be spending more time on the flats before progressing into a climbing regimen.

blarnie

Oh, wait. I thought this was a fire road. If it's pavement, 34-26 is way too low of a gear. 39-23/25 would be the absolute lowest gearing you would need. 9% on the pavement is not very steep at all. even sustained. 20-25% would be steep. On the trail, it's different. And sections can be much steeper than the pavement could ever be.

Jakedatc

99% pavement. the very last few hundred feet are/used to be hard dirt but is where it is 20%. the average is 11.9% not sure where you got 9%

Northeastcycling.com - Hillclimb Races

there are no fireroads on Washington.. you have the auto road, the cog railway and trails which are mostly rock.

blarnie

Not sure either. But, that's not really that bad and only 7.5 miles. An hour of climbing. Sounds fun.

woodcraft

Looks like the winning time was under an hour at 9 mph.

That's about 34/25 at 80 rpm

Finisher # 100 @ 5.9 mph- that's still 34/28 @ 65 rpm or so

Finisher # 500 @ 2.8 mph- that'd be 30/34 @ 40 rpm (but there may have been some walking involved...)



Recently did a ride 50+ miles w/ 10k climbing, on 34/28

I did envy another guy his 32 on the final 28% hill, 'tho.

gregf83 

Here's just one example of the bad advice I was talking about. I doubt it's sincere, just another flatlander troll.

blarnie

Not insincere. Riding a sustained incline is more mindset than anything. Developing power necessary to climb efficiently is more effectively done without all the climbing that you may have been under the impression is required when you have not the base.

But, whatever. You do what you want.

RollCNY

Your bad advice comment was directed at the first page, which is what I had reread and asked about. Absolutely the scatter diagram got much wilder afterward. And as I ride in the Finger Lakes and Adirondacks, I am one of those flat landers you mentioned, so I have largely refrained from commentary (other than pointing out the absurdity of "its only an hour climb").

Dan333SP

ORLY? 39/23 is fine for 9% sustained grades? Excellent advice.

contango 

39/23 was probably based on the OP being a runner rather than a cyclist. Anyone knows an experienced cyclist would go up a mere speed bump like Mt Washington in the big ring.

ThisIsNotMic

Guys, the freaking winner of the Mt Washington Hill Climb, who is obviously a way better cyclist than I'll ever be said this:
"For Mt. Washington I ran a 36x36"
And I've got people telling me to just stick with my 34-26 and "train a bit harder"?? I'm not going to skimp on training, but I'm also not going to ride a 34-26.

BillyD

Just a reminder of the reason opinions are so cheap . . . . everybody's got one.

superdx

Go with a 12-30 rear cassette. Your climbs will be noticeably easier. And should be the quickest and cheapest fix.

Upgrading your wheels or frameset will be very expensive. And won't provide as much immediate benefit. I'm kind of in the same boat as you, I'm running 12-28 and it's much better now (from 12-25). But I do intend to upgrade to a much lighter road bike soon as extreme expense

2manybikes

You have it right. If you have a compact crank 10 speed with 34 and 50 rings. You can put on an 11-34 cog set. Then your low gear is 1 to 1 or 34 teeth to 34 t. Same as 36 to 36. A ten speed derailleur will not work with a 10 speed road bike. Get a nine speed rear mtb derailleur. This is exactly what I have done on a climbing bike. It works great and I still have good close ratios in the middle of the cassette and a high gear of 50-11. That puts me at about 42 mph at 120 rpm. It makes me very happy. It's been in use for about 4,000 miles. That's a couple or years, I have 15 bikes, that also get mileage on them too.
The bike was all 105 Shimano. Now it has an LX rear derailleur. I think an XT cassette. You have plenty of high gears for training and for the hills no down side unless you are racing.

Then go train your brains out !! You're don't need any more equipment options.

edit: left out the initials "MTB" on what derailleur will not work with 10 speed road shifters. OOPS.

svtmike

I've got a Shimano 10-speed cassette for my steep climb setup --

HG81 SLX 10 Speed Cassette 11-36T
LX M581 Rear Derailleur Long Cage SGS, Not Rapid Rise (Might not be available anymore)

I bought these based on solid advise in a similar thread. These work perfectly with the Ultegra 6700 triple on the bike, and shift much more precisely/reliably than the cheap 9 speed MTB derailleur and SRAM cassette I used in the first iteration. Total cost was around $95. I already had a long enough chain, so figure that in.