Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
Reload this Page >

Hill Climbing, Cadence, & Gears

Notices
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

Hill Climbing, Cadence, & Gears

Old 07-25-12, 10:37 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,841

Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Strava lies. Just saying.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline  
Old 07-25-12, 10:48 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
redvespablur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ouch. It's not lying if it says what I want to hear?
redvespablur is offline  
Old 07-25-12, 10:59 PM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,841

Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Sorry mate. Just having a bit of fun. In the absence of a powermeter, I to watch those power numbers. But, I take them with a "huge" grain of salt. I find it somewhat entertaining when a bunch of clydes start talking power numbers based on strava. .......Just a minute, let me go edit my "weight".
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 12:03 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Homeyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370

Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bigfred
Ego prohibits my adoption of your proposed solution, no matter whether it makes logical sense or not. For the sake of two hills out of all the hills in the area, I will not adopt a triple! The thing that keeps me from spending the bit of coin for a 34/50 isn't any loss of range. As has been pointed out many times 50-11 is actually a taller gear than 53-12. It's two things: One, the fact that while riding with Mrs. Fred I would find myself in the same auckward situation as her, with regard to constantly cross chaining (one way or the other) to maintain her comfortable cruising pace. Two, the increased gap between ratios, which would be completely unacceptable on my Saturday Morning Old Farts Ride. Although, at least on that ride, I would be spending the majority of my time in the big ring and several of the other old farts seem to do o.k. with a 34/50. But, on the flats, I really appreciate close ratios and the ability to fine tune cadence. Do I want to sacrifice that for "two" hills? Neither of which lasts more than 90 seconds?
I think you need to tell your "ego" who's boss. Nobody has ever been big enough to tease me about riding a triple, and I've ridden/raced with some very talented people. Your choice of gearing should be just like choosing the right tool out of the tool chest. Would you choose the wrong tool just because someone might perceive you as a sissy? That doesn't make much sense.
I don't understand why people want to point out that a 50-11 is bigger than a 53-12? Sure it is but it's not bigger than a 53-11. It's best to compare apples to apples. The advantage of running a triple is that you can run a tighter cassette. I personally am not fond of big jumps (on my compact) so I typically run an 11-25 cassette and for hilly rides a 11-27. I spend most of my time in the triple on the middle chainring so cross chaining isn't really an issue.
Just as an aside, I took my compact on a hilly century a few years back and was with the fast (Pro/cat1/cat2) guys for the first 65 miles of hills then we hit a 5 mile flat section and I got spit off the back of the group because I couldn't spin fast enough. That really sucked. Especially answering the "what happened to you" questions afterward... I still use the compact in the right circumstances but I'd rather have people make fun of my triple as I blow their doors off than get spit out the back because I don't have the right gears.
Homeyba is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 12:21 AM
  #30  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
OP, keeping it simple, you will definitely notice the difference if you get a compact. I agree with Homeyba that a triple is superior, but it's a more expensive switch.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 07:18 AM
  #31  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
cwcaesar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Carthage, Tennessee
Posts: 91

Bikes: Canyon Endurace AL 7.0; Shimano 105

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
As far as spinning out, I already run a 50 on the large ring; so I wouldn't be 'losing' anything with the compact cranks over my current set-up. I would only be gaining on the low end. I would really rather not go to a triple, though. But I do appreciate the suggestion.

A big reason that I was considering the switch is that I was actually considering a Quarq or Power2Max power meter. If I were to go this route, I would need to change the cranks anyway and thought that a compact may be the ticket. It is more than this one hill though. The area that I live in is all hills. I can't think of any stretch of road that is flat within 20 miles of my house, so this would not be solely for one hill. Hills are a way of life for me.
cwcaesar is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 07:23 AM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 9,086
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3355 Post(s)
Liked 5,432 Times in 2,811 Posts
Originally Posted by bigfred
Strava lies. Just saying.
If you are talking about the estimated watts, I must agree. People actually running power-sensors have a lightning bolt next to their power numbers, and there seems to be a big disconnect with those readings versus the estimated readings.
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 07:36 AM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
rumrunn6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,527

Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5218 Post(s)
Liked 3,564 Times in 2,331 Posts
for me hills and cadence don't relate to each to each other. hills are a challenge and anythign you can do to get up them regardless of cadence. triples are great. low gears are great. I do not care how slow I go up hills. I do care that I can move myself fast enough not to fall over and I do care that I can keep a fast enough cadence that I am not punishing my knees too much.

practicing any hills makes you better at those hills. I remember a series of hills on my homeward commute that kicked my butt even with my triple hybrid that was roadified but I got much better over time. then I got a new bike with higher gears and I had to work those hills all over again and get even stronger, but I did it.

btw goldfinch ~ that road looks like a no-shoulder kill zone to me ... be careful

Last edited by rumrunn6; 07-26-12 at 10:43 AM.
rumrunn6 is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 07:38 AM
  #34  
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996

Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
I've read that generally anything below 50rpm for sustained periods of time will eventually hurt your knees.

I know I have to hop off whenever I hit around 50 or my legs will give out. I'm not sure doing a mile at 30rpm is very smart, but I am not an expert either... I just know that I couldn't do it, and that 5-6 rpm extra is probably not significant enough to bother with.

My solution was going with a 26/34 low gear. I know most cyclists succumb to peer pressure and get gearing that is wildly inappropriate for them because they want to pretend they are pros, but at some point we have to realise that only the right tools are going to help us do the job properly. Perhaps you could go with a road triple, those often go down to a 30t granny, though at 3.4mph that should still only get you around 10-11 rpm extra, at around 40-41rpm.

For reference my 26/34 lets me do 3.4mph at 57rpm. I am not at all ashamed of using mountain bike gearing, especially if I'm climbing actual mountains.
Can't comment on the 50rpm bit, but agree that a good low gear is useful when climbing, especially when carrying extra weight. My granny gear is 30/32, a friend of mine has a 28/32 gear. On my MTB I can go down to 22/34 which is insanely low by comparison.

If you swap out your chainrings you may also need a new FD - they tend to have limits relating to the maximum tooth difference between large and small rings, and a minimum tooth difference between large and middle ring (if it's a triple)

My MTB chainrings are 44-32-22, my cross bike has 50-39-30 and my friend's touring bike is 48-38-28. As you say, if you've got the right tools you can do the job. Chris Froome might be able to climb the Pyrenees with a 39/25 gear but I can say with some confidence that if I did manage it (which is doubtful) I'd be desperately slow, to the point anyone timing me would be more likely to use a calendar than a stopwatch.

If your RD will support a larger cassette you can gain a lot by increasing the size of it. While on the face of it you might not like the idea losing your high gears (I instinctively want to keep my 11-tooth sprocket at the back even though I never actually use it) the simple reality is that you probably don't use the big gears all that much. On my MTB I'm often in the largest gears when I'm on the road, on my cross bike I think the only time I've ever used the 11t sprocket is when I was testing the bike after giving it a good clean.

My cross bike seems to give me a wide enough range to do all I need and then some, with gearing that ranges from 50-11 (that I never use) right down to 30-32 (that I have used several times when climbing). Depending how you are at climbing generally, in terms of your own strength and the hills around you, a 48-38-28 paired with an 11-32 cassette will probably help.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 07:39 AM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 9,086
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3355 Post(s)
Liked 5,432 Times in 2,811 Posts
Originally Posted by homeyba
your choice of gearing should be just like choosing the right tool out of the tool chest. Would you choose the wrong tool just because someone might perceive you as a sissy? That doesn't make much sense.
Exactly!
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 07:48 AM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Mithrandir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,399

Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
I would really rather not go to a triple, though. But I do appreciate the suggestion.
I'm curious as to why. It's pretty clear that a compact isn't going to solve your cadence issues. At 3.5ish mph (30-40rpm @ 39/27) for 1 mile you're spending around 20 minutes grinding your knees to dust each time you do it. That's just not healthy.

Don't worry about the freds that will think you're less cool for running a triple. In 20 years it won't matter if you need knee replacements. They don't weigh that much more than a double, and you'll get more benefits from losing the weight from yourself first, we are clydes after all. And contrary to popular opinion from people who don't run triples, they're not hard to shift either. Mine has never once had an issue.

It is more than this one hill though. The area that I live in is all hills. I can't think of any stretch of road that is flat within 20 miles of my house, so this would not be solely for one hill. Hills are a way of life for me.
I rest my case.
Mithrandir is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:02 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
cwcaesar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Carthage, Tennessee
Posts: 91

Bikes: Canyon Endurace AL 7.0; Shimano 105

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
I'm curious as to why.
Because it would require that I change everything. Shifters, deraileurs, cranks, the whole drive train. That is just something that I am not willing to do. If I were to go to that extent, I would just get a new bike.
cwcaesar is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:07 AM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
Mithrandir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,399

Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
Because it would require that I change everything. Shifters, deraileurs, cranks, the whole drive train. That is just something that I am not willing to do. If I were to go to that extent, I would just get a new bike.
Ok but if you're willing to plunk down $1-2k for a power meter crank, surely it's not the cost that's the issue here... ?
Mithrandir is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:15 AM
  #39  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
cwcaesar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Carthage, Tennessee
Posts: 91

Bikes: Canyon Endurace AL 7.0; Shimano 105

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Not entirely, I just really don't like a triple. I had one on a cross bike and I was always cross chaining, dropping the chain, and it just didn't give positive feedback for me. I hold nothing against those who have them, but I just don't care for them personally. Maybe if I had had a better experience previously, I would give it another go.
cwcaesar is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:18 AM
  #40  
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996

Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
Because it would require that I change everything. Shifters, deraileurs, cranks, the whole drive train. That is just something that I am not willing to do. If I were to go to that extent, I would just get a new bike.
So look at a compact along with a long cage RD and a cassette that offers a nice wide range like 11-34. The change from 39/27 to 34/34 should make a difference you'll appreciate.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:25 AM
  #41  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
cwcaesar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Carthage, Tennessee
Posts: 91

Bikes: Canyon Endurace AL 7.0; Shimano 105

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by contango
So look at a compact along with a long cage RD and a cassette that offers a nice wide range like 11-34. The change from 39/27 to 34/34 should make a difference you'll appreciate.
This is really where I am currently leaning. I think this will make enough difference to make these steep sections more bearable.
cwcaesar is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:40 AM
  #42  
Senior Member
 
Mithrandir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,399

Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
Not entirely, I just really don't like a triple. I had one on a cross bike and I was always cross chaining, dropping the chain, and it just didn't give positive feedback for me. I hold nothing against those who have them, but I just don't care for them personally. Maybe if I had had a better experience previously, I would give it another go.
See if you can borrow a triple bike for a while and try those hills with it.


I guess the only realistic solution you're going to have if you're intent on not changing derailleurs (assuming 10 speed?) is going to a compact 34 and using a Tiagra 12-30 cassette. I've heard the 12-30 works fine without a long cage. That gives you 34/30 which works out to about 40rpm @ 3.5mph. Still not really optimal but you get to stick with a relatively compact spacing in the cassette.

Another option would be to go for a long cage derailleur and slap an 11-32, 11-34 or 11-36 on the back. These gears are widely spaced though so they lose the nice 1-tooth increments near the top end.

34/32 works out to 42rpm @ 3.5mph
34/34 works out to 45rpm @ 3.5mph
34/36 works out to 48rpm @ 3.5mph


There's a new cassette coming out next year from SRAM that makes me laugh. It's a 10-42 cassette, designed for single cranks, and probably won't ever work on a road type bike, but just for fun:

34/42 works out to 55rpm @ 3.5mph

And on my crank:

26/42 works out to 72rpm @ 3.5mph. Daaamn. That's for, you know, whenever I feel like climbing the face of El Capitan, or something.


All figures were calculated assuming 700Cx23mm tires. 25mm and higher will obviously decrease the cadence to maintain the same speed since you're traveling more per each pedal stroke. Similarly going to 26" tires will increase the cadence.

So anyway, as I see it, those are your options.
Mithrandir is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:51 AM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
Homeyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370

Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
Not entirely, I just really don't like a triple. I had one on a cross bike and I was always cross chaining, dropping the chain, and it just didn't give positive feedback for me. I hold nothing against those who have them, but I just don't care for them personally. Maybe if I had had a better experience previously, I would give it another go.
I don't really understand the cross chaining complaint. I rarely end up cross chained. Maybe it's just me. Dropping the chain and lack positive feedback is is just a mechanic issue. My triple is just as positive shifting as my double or compact. FWIW I run Ultegra and DA on all my bikes, even on my tandem with longer cable runs the performance is comparable. Performance should not be an issue when determining what set-up to use. Personally, having to deal with the gaps in a wide range cassette is a much bigger deal for me.

A compact might be the proper set-up for you, I don't know, you know how you ride and the terrain you are riding in better than I do. Your comment about just getting another bike was a good one, you can never have too many bikes!

Last edited by Homeyba; 07-26-12 at 08:54 AM.
Homeyba is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 08:56 AM
  #44  
Have bike, will travel
 
Barrettscv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lake Geneva, WI
Posts: 12,392

Bikes: Ridley Helium SLX, Canyon Endurance SL, De Rosa Professional, Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Schwinn Paramount (1 painted, 1 chrome), Peugeot PX10, Serotta Nova X, Simoncini Cyclocross Special, Raleigh Roker, Pedal Force CG2 and CX2

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 910 Post(s)
Liked 288 Times in 158 Posts
Here are some graphs to illustrate a few alternatives;

I use a 50, 39 & 26t Shimano road triple, a 50 & 34 compact is on the right. The 26t is a Salsa chainring, a 30t is standard;



Below is a 50 & 34 compact with a 11-32 cassette v the common 50, 39 & 30t Shimano road triple. Notice the large gaps between the ratios on the compact. The range is about the same.

The 39t chainring can be used without concern of cross-chaining and provides a great set of useful ratios. I use the 39t 60% of the time, it provides close ratios from 10 to 25 mph.

__________________
When I ride my bike I feel free and happy and strong. I'm liberated from the usual nonsense of day to day life. Solid, dependable, silent, my bike is my horse, my fighter jet, my island, my friend. Together we will conquer that hill and thereafter the world.

Last edited by Barrettscv; 07-26-12 at 09:03 AM.
Barrettscv is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 09:01 AM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,428

Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
Not entirely, I just really don't like a triple. I had one on a cross bike and I was always cross chaining, dropping the chain, and it just didn't give positive feedback for me. I hold nothing against those who have them, but I just don't care for them personally. Maybe if I had had a better experience previously, I would give it another go.
Perhaps you should try riding a decent triple before you write them all off? I have an Ultegra triple on my touring bike. It's never missed a shift, never dropped a chain, and rarely needs adjustment. Initial setup and tuning only took 5-10 minutes longer than a standard drive-train.
sstorkel is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 09:21 AM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times in 6,054 Posts
Originally Posted by paisan
200w is actually at the low end of what a reasonably trained cyclist can achieve for FTP. So to say "perhaps the best of us can go up to 200w" makes me curious what you are basing your numbers on? Do you have any studies to support this, are you using numbers from a power meter, or are you simply guessing?

To put what i am saying into perspective on 19May I weighed 240 pounds and climbed from Front Royal Virginia up to Skyline Drive. On the first leg from the park entrance to the visitor center I averaged 215w over 34minutes. I wasn't pushing the pace by any means. I just climbed at a comfortable speed because I still had another 36 miles to go of a metric on the drive. My point is I am far from "the best of us" on this forum and I averaged above your 200w number fairly easily.
Facts have no place in C&A.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 09:44 AM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Catlikeone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
Facts have no place in C&A.
Of course not, that wouldn't be "supportive". Group hug!
Catlikeone is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 10:44 AM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cwcaesar
I have a couple of monster hills near where I live. (Monsters to me, anyway.) My hill climbing gear is 39x27, and one one of these hills I can only manage a cadence in the low 30s for a certain stretch. It gets to about 18% grade for 80 to 100 meters. Most of this hill I can usually get a cadence aroung 40. This particular hill is not quite a mile in length, but it absolutely kills me. As soon as I get past this, I have miles and miles of great cycling roads, so I would love to be able to tackle this hill more easily.

I looked at the online calculators and for the same climbing speed, I would only gain about 5 or 6 rpm if I switched to a compact crank with a 34 tooth ring. Is this enough of a difference to worry about? Would I pick up some speed doe to the easier gear?

If I did get the smaller cranks, should I hang on to the larger ones incase they were needed down the road? Or just sell them to offset the cost?

I know losing weight would still be the best remedy, but I just live in a very hilly section of the country. I don't want to hurt my knees from mashing on the pedals at too low of a cadence. What would you all recommend?
You want to put your muscles to work and at some point slow cadence is just part of it, but too low a cadence will strain your knees more than your muscles, and eventually slow your process to fitness goals.
Cadence of 30-40 is just too low.
Need the right tool for the job: that's a 11-34 or 12-34 cassette, a long cage RD, and a compact crank (50-34). I'd say to do it in steps, first change the cassette and RD, but since most likely you'll need a new chain, might as well change the crankset to 50-34 and be done with it in one swoop.
Ratio spacing mentioned is overrated IMO, range is the issue and compacts give you as much range as you'll possibly need. 50-11 or 50-12 gives you plenty of flat/downhill terrain speed (downhill, bodyweight will make you gain speed faster than any spinning so unlikely to outspun 50-12 or 50-11 unless you turn into a downhill demon).
Unlikely to outgrow the set up: If fitness improves to the point that the 34-32-30 cogs stop being used (with cadences 60 and above) you simply change the rear cassette back to the 11-27 you're currently using (no need to do it, just noting that it'll work fine with the long cage RD).

Good luck
Acquaspin is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 11:07 AM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
IBOHUNT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Western Maryland - Appalachian Mountains
Posts: 4,026

Bikes: Motobecane Fantom Cross; Cannondale Supersix replaced the Giant TCR which came to an untimely death by truck

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked 26 Times in 10 Posts
If SRAM kit then throw on an X9 and a 12-36 and be done with it.
IBOHUNT is offline  
Old 07-26-12, 01:18 PM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
Homeyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370

Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Acquaspin
...Ratio spacing mentioned is overrated IMO, range is the issue and compacts give you as much range as you'll possibly need. 50-11 or 50-12 gives you plenty of flat/downhill terrain speed (downhill, bodyweight will make you gain speed faster than any spinning so unlikely to outspun 50-12 or 50-11 unless you turn into a downhill demon). ...
This is exactly why gearing choices need to be made on an individual basis not on a this works for me so it must work for you basis. For me, ratio spacing is a big deal and it is for a lot of people. If you really think your body weight is going to gain speed faster than I can pedaling down a hill you are sadly mistaken. I'd put money on the fact that you can't. Having been spit out the back of a paceline in the flats while on my compact (50/12) I'm keenly aware that it's not that unlikely.

Having said all that, the compact is a very legitimate choice when used in the appropriate circumstances. The problem with the "it works for me therefore it must work for you" religion is that it doesn't always work for the other person. I have a compact because I was sold the cool aid that it was the way to go and for me in most cases it wasn't. I still use it when the occasion demands it but not very often (about as often as I use my STD double setup. Hopefully what the OP will do is look at all the alternatives and make the appropriate choice for his requirements. If he goes out and buys what you or I think is the optimal set up he may be sorely disappointed.

Last edited by Homeyba; 07-26-12 at 01:21 PM.
Homeyba is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.