Gearing ?
 

hello everybody , I have kind of a newbie question on gearing .
To try to explain I come from a MTB background and have been riding a Trek 8700 Composite for the last 9 months for fitness ands wieght lose (started at 334 1 1/2 ago now 260 ) i am building myself a reward bike and my first real road bike ..
I have bought a 2013 Ridley noah pro and have deciede to go with Campy Chorus gearset < i am very interested in getting involved in Endurance cycling , but coming from a background of mtb's and triples i am wondering what would be the best chainring & cassette set up

Cassette options are a 11-25 or 12-27
and for crankset would i be better off with a standard 39-52
or a compact 34/50

I plan on doing alone of my riding alone the Pacific coast highway and some climbing ... any help or ideas would be greatly appretiated

Tony

If you plan on climbing anything but a small hill and still want to ride long distance with more hills I suggest the compact and the 12-27. I have two bikes I use for brevets. One is a fuji mtb running a 28/38/48 triple and a 12-32 in the back. The other is a 16 speed roadbike running 52/39 and 11-34 on the back. I used to run 12-25 on that bike it made climbing zero fun. Too painful in the knees. In all honesty I almost never use my 53-11 and if I go on a 300km or longer ride I always ride the fuji. Great to have more gears than I need after 20 hours in the saddle. :)

Compacts are good for what you want to do; and having bail out gears is never a bad idea.

There's no such thing as a "small" hill after 400km.
GEt the lowest gearing that will fit. Doesn't campy go to 29?

Consider a triple cranks. As a heavier rider, you will find that hills require a seated position with a cadence above 50 rpm. Climbing while standing at a very slow cadence is more difficult to sustain on longer or steeper hills, and most cyclist with double need to stand while climbing. I use a 50, 39 & 26 triple with a 12-27 ten speed cassette.

Most noob cyclist over-exert themselves on the hills and this increases the risk of DNF. I only need the small inner ring on a few miles while completing a 100 mile, or longer, event. Having the gearing to climb a 15% grade at 5 mph while seated helps save my stamina and finish easily.

yes Campy has a 13-29. I used it in the crazy Tour de Hugel in Austin.

If you want to ride long distances with climbing, you will really appreciate having some low bail-out gears.

Can the shifter/front derailleur combo on your road bike handle a triple crankset? If so, setting up a triple crank with a 28 or 26 tooth granny ring is probably the easiest way to get lower gearing on your road bike.

I run a compact double, 34/48, and 11-32 8 spd cassette. To sum it up in a single portmanteau - shimergo. Lots more options.

Tony, it depend on your strength, the climb, temperature, and your nutritional state as to whether the 34x29 will be low enough.

Moons ago I used to think my 39x28 was a sissy gear and truth be told, I rarely used it but when I needed it.....I NEEDED IT!!

When the wind is in your face, it is 100F, you are bonking, and the climb is steep, you will look at the 11 (or 12) sprocket with utter contempt and as I did, you will long for a triple crank like the one on my touring bike safely tucked away in the garage far, far away.

If you think a 40 inch gear is sufficient based upon normal riding, put something closer to 30 inches on the bike just in case. What I am saying nicely is you are dreaming if you think a 39x27 is sufficient. I was not the strongest rider but at 6'3'', I weighed 165 pounds, rode sub 1 hour 40K TT, etc.

Get the Compact and the 29 tooth. It will almost be sufficient.

I used to think that 42-24 was a sissy gear, only used that in training. I am trying to strengthen my core now, but 34-32 is not a sissy gear on a lot of the big climbs around here

I have two road bikes I use for brevets, gran fondos and training ...

I have a 2011 Raleigh Record Ace with a 50/34 compact and 11-32 cassette. I use it mostly for training, and flatter long rides, sometimes. I have used it on rides with 4000' of climbing, but regretted it ... after 100 miles I found i wanted my other bike.

My main bike is a 2010 Lynsky R300 which I built up myself. I use an Ultegra triple 52/39/30, with an 11-32 cassette. On flatter rides I rarely go off the middle chain ring. On hillier rides I've done with 5000' or more of climbing, I use the 30 chainring all the time. I start climbing early on with the small chainring, so that when I get beyond 100 miles my legs are still willing to roll over the pedals.

I have always been MUCH happier on a bike with gears I don't use, but can if I need them, than riding all day and not having an extra gear when needed.

Although the triple might give you some redundant gear combinations, the high and low gears you will be able to obtain will give the widest possible range.

If I get weaker on a ride, it means I need to eat. Having said that, climbing in gears that are too tall just means you go through your glycogen stores faster. It's not worth it on a longer ride, so smaller gears are the rule of the day. It doesn't matter on a shorter ride, but then again, it's no faster to strain up a hill over spinning

I'll take spinning any day. You leave more in reserve for that nasty climb in the.rain at 2am when the ladt thing you want is to ride.

first brevet last year was on a triple crank, second brevet last month was on a compact 50/34 with 11-28t. my asthma kicked in on the second brevet near the end, and of course before a big climb. i struggled to stay upright and could pretty much only breathe deeply enough for my HR to be around 130-140 (normally i would probably be around 180bpm and be trucking much steadier).

just spruced up my triple crank bike for this year. i'm subscribing to the 'better to have it and not need it' camp for sure.

One quote from some friends of mine is that if you have low gears on your bike, it doesn't mean you're a sissy; it means you know where the good hills are. :)

My own input is that if you're choosing between a triple and a double, you should pay attention to the difference in q-factor. It doesn't matter at all to some people, but it does matter to others. And some prefer it wide, some prefer it narrow. Personally I'm much more comfortable with a narrow q, so even my touring bike has a compact double and a gigantic cassette instead of a triple. If you're used to a MTB, you're comfortable on it, and your knees are happy, that might be a good reason to stick with a crank that has similar dimensions. To me, that would be a bigger concern than the difference in shifting performance or weight between a double and a triple.

Ideal gearing for me would be something like a XTR Mt double crank 42-28 with an 11-28 11 speed cassette. I don't need more than a 102 inch gear on a longer ride as would be afforded by the 42x11.

This is true! I am doing brevets on Specialized Tricross with 34-46 crank and 12-27 cassette. Any climb at the beginning I am able to do with big ring in front must be done with small on return. There were so many brevets I wished I had at least one more small gear. :)

I am now looking into a new bike and the first thing I am considering, is to move from compact crank to triple and have this extra gear just in case.

If you're planning to do serious long distance on hilly terrain, then I think you need to think in terms of having a very-low bailout that lets you spin up the steepest climb instead of having to stand up. On our most recent 200km, there is a climb that's about 420 feet -- the first 200 are at about 11 percent, then there's a "flat" bit where you climb only about 20 feet in 1/4 mile, then you hit the steep stuff climbing at 17 to 20 percent for the final 200 feet of the climb. (If anyone watching this thread guesses "Marlu Ridge, the hard way" -- that's what I'm talking about.)

Even with a 24-tooth granny and a 32-tooth cog, I find it pretty hard to stay seated all the way up that last bit. I use a Sugino XD600 triple (24/34/46) paired with an SRam 11/32. I seldom need the 11-tooth, though it came in handy on the last ride when I found that the front derailleur wouldn't shift up to the "big" ring in front, so it turned into a compact double. I was surprised how few times I wanted a gear bigger than the 34x11. Partly, that's because it was pouring rain and I wasn't pedaling hard on the downhills.

Nick

Tony,

Here is the real issue, who could puts a triple on a Ridley Noah but the real truth is for randonneuring, this bike is unsuitable for anyone other than someone at the very front of the Vedettes on PBP who is on pain killers. Some 25mm tires won't fit this frame. This is an all out aero racing bike with the seatmast soup to nuts. Great bike. Just not a rando rig and this comes from someone who has been on carbon fiber on long rides since the 80's. I love carbon. This bike is not built for randos or comfort. Pure speed. If you find you like long rides, you will be selling this bike or buying another one. Don't worry there are plenty of used bikes with triples for sale out there. GL.

I'll let you know how pain I feel on a 12% climb on tomorrow's brevet with just a compact crank 34x28. If I still weighed 250, no way. Even at 205, it is going to be a real challenge.

I say this with a degree of humour, but with some seriousness... if you are doing a climb in the big ring, it is not a climb.

If you do randonnees in flatlands, a triple will be just a waste. But if you intend to graduate to really challenging randonnees and especially the 1000s and 1200s, a triple will be a good addition.

None of my randonnees have been on road doubles, and very few on road triples. Most of them have been on bikes retrofitted with MTB triples (most often a 22-33-44 but more lately a 26-38-48, and either 32-11 or 34-11 cogs on the rear. The tandem has even had a 36-11.

Weatherby is right about bike selection. Sharp angles, short wheelbase, stiffness and narrow tyres are good for speed, but over a long period in the saddle, all those factors can become extremely tiresome. I've gone the route of carbon (older-style Merlin) and Ti, and yet I still come back to my bikes that are ostensibly set up for touring because comfort, for me, is way more important a factor in finishing a randonnee than stiffness and the illusion of speed that some bikes present.

How many single speed randonnees Rowan?

1/3 of a one... PBP2007, but riding fixed on it wasn't the reason I dnf'ed.

I have, however, done a full year of centuries a month on the fixie, and I have done a few with double road cranksets (my fastest century was on the double CF Merlin), but they specifically aren't randonnees. :)

Rowan: Did I know you rode fixed on PBP 2007? My best guess at the time was that maybe 20-30 people did...

TCRoadie: Oh goodness, I just googled the frame you mentioned. All of the images show huge amounts of drop between the saddle and the handlebars, for starters. Out of curiosity, did you test ride one before buying it? It's possible that it won't be a problem (for example, if you have very long arms, or are exceptionally flexible, or if you have a very long torso and short legs so that you cut the seat mast fairly low) but it looks like it could be challenging to get the handlebars high enough in relation to the saddle to be remotely comfortable even over short distances for most riders.
That's not to say that handlebars shouldn't or can't be lower than saddles. But that frame is designed for a fairly extreme drop, which makes you aerodynamic for racing but will do a number on your back and neck fairly quickly if you haven't trained for it and possibly even if you have.
Another possible issue (and I don't know how to put this delicately, so I apologize) is that with a position like that, even super-skinny riders' knees are practically hitting their chests when they pedal if they are riding in the drops. If you have more bulk in front than a skinsuit, the problem is worse. I have seen some heavier riders with bars too low who end up pedaling with their knees sticking way out at the top of the pedal stroke in order to clear their torsos... which means that they can end up with knee issues because their knees don't have room to track straight up and down.

You actually didn't say what kind of "endurance" riding you were interested in, although you mentioned the Pacific Coast hwy, we just all jumped to the conclusion that you meant brevets. But you won't see many riders on any even that is called an endurance event with that kind of geometry except maybe some on a 12 or 24 hour race (and even then, it would be the exception not the rule). You won't even see that many bikes like that on most shorter regular weekend club rides. You see them at crits, time trials, and triathlons, but even a lot (most?) of riders who race on them do most of their training on other bikes.

I'm not trying to diss your bike, or tell you you have to go get another one. But it is something to think about. My own opinion is that the fit, contact points, etc, outweigh everything else, including gearing. And you can expect some of those preferences and requirements to change as you ride more, adapt to the bike, lose weight, find out what kind of riding you're doing the most of, discover new kinds of riding, etc. It's possible that everything will work out fine, and you will turn out to love the bike; but if you don't, it's not a model that is very forgiving in terms of making modifications.

Yes, I think you did know. But it's a while back now. I used the fixie (the frame was originally a Shogun 400) as an emergency measure after the right rear dropout on my regular bike broke during a 400 qualifier for PBP. It seemed easier at the time to build up the Shogun rather than fiddle about trying to repair the dropout (which I eventually did myself using an oxy set at my then-work, and found to be quite easy).

I believe you that I knew, then! :)

My better half mostly quit riding brevets on fixed after that ride. He built up a custom brevet bike with gears and never looked back. But I'm still stubbornly stuck in my decade+-long 42x16 rut. ;)