Anyone running this setup? Particularly in a hilly environment?

We've got some hills here in SoCal and I'm currently running a 50/36 crank, over the past two weeks I've been pushing myself and keeping in my big cog only. Admittedly, I've been grinding pretty hard in the Big/Big on some sections of the Cat4 climbs we have here, but I find that I am able to complete the sections.

So, I am also in the process of upgrading my groupo with the original intention of going compact. With the way I'm riding now, I'm thinking a 34t cog will have me spinning more than I'd like. I thinking 39T may give me the cadence I'm looking for, but am also curious if there are any climbers out here running a 42T small cog?

Thanks!

Are you able to use those big gears after 70 or 80 miles of hilly riding?

We stopped using 42t chainrings back in the 80s for a reason. It's going to make you slower, not faster.

When I first got into road cycling way back in the early 90's, I ran a 39x23 low gear and felt foolish since so many others ran 42x21s. Since then, spinning has become the cadence of choice and 39x25s became more popular. Apparently you are a young and strong rider who can push the bigger gears. Although the smaller compact gears are probably not for you yet, you shouldn't go higher than 39x25 so you can save your knees for your next few decades of cycling.

I have a triple ultegra crank on my touring bike with 52/42/30. Works fine.

Good to know.

Good that you're completing the climbs in the big ring.

Now, ride 'em on the small ring and time yourself climbing hard on the big ring and on the small ring.

Compare the two.

Oh, and time yourself trying to do a sprint of say 300m immediately after you climb that hill.

All of us who bought "touring bikes" in the 70's were buying cafe racers (europe's idea of touring) with 52/42 and 24 was the biggest rear cog. No freaking way you could really tour (without taking a stroll now and then) with that so we would swap out free wheels to get 34 minimum on the back (and swap short arm derailuers to long arm). Thus 42-34 took me over the Canadian Coast range and Rockies. When I got home I liked having more low out back so I went to 42-28 low thinking I was being creative. That was ok 30 years ago but not now. I like the 80-90 cadence and I'm glad that manufactures no longer think we are all ape legged at 50 rpm. I've no issue with triples as rapid fire shifters make life so much easier but I see triples are fading away in favor of compacts. I've also noticed that retail sales people really don't understand compacts and if they would just say something like "similar low gearing less moving parts", most would understand. Dig this article.

https://bikehugger.com/m/view/the-ris...-compact-crank

Probably not. I get your point. Maybe I'll go standard...

my friend has a 53 42 on his old cannondale (from the 80s) he is always dreaming of going 39... grass is always greener on the other side eh?

I've been using Strava for a while and even when I don't ride hard on the big ring, my times are, close, if not better then the small ring times. When i push on the big ring, those times are far better then when I push on the small ring.

Here's my ride from yesterday. 34mi with just under 3k climbing. I blew away my time of the last climb, granted the wind was helping a little, but I literally felt like I was flying up the hill. I had a few PRs and a handfull of 2nd,3rd best times riding in the big ring and also riding into the wind.

https://app.strava.com/rides/9340834

A very strong former pro (owns a local shop) was talking about the old days of 53x42, where the absolute smallest ring you could get for those cranks (144 bcd) was a 41T. For flatter races he'd pair it with a 12-18 (7 spd), and for rolling terrain a 12-21, and hilly would mean going to a (gasp!) 23T. We're talking 3 mile long slogs. He laughed at himself, saying something like, "I have no idea how we did it."

A fellow competitor of his, a former Cat 1 and former state champion (120 mile road race, attacked at the first climb on the first of 5 laps, took that former pro and 2 others with them, and they all stayed away to the finish, course had steep climbs and long climbs), said something almost identical. He runs a 39x25 as a low gear and sometimes thinks it's not low enough.

It took me a while to get to that point, probably 2001? when I got a Campy 9s group (135 bcd so 39T was smallest, not like Shimano/SRAM's standard where you can run a 38T). Until then I ran Campy cranks that had a 53x42.

Another former pro, former pro team director, told me a few years ago that his ideal setup is a 52/36, and that's what he ran on his bike. He's a strong road racer, fast, and he was good with that and an 11-23 or 11-25.

One thing I realized recently is that if you're going a certain speed up a hill, say 8 mph, you're doing the same work no matter what gear you're in. A big gear may make you think you're working harder but you're not - it just feels that way. Spinning a small gear at the same speed is the same wattage but you don't build up lactic acid as much because you're taxing your aerobic system first, muscles second. Pushing a big gear is sort of anaerobic, depending on how slow you're pedaling.

I blow up either way but it's more comfortable blowing up while spinning than while pushing.

Right now I happen to be running a 55/44 setup with 11-25 for training and 11-23 for races (flat terrain mainly for all riding). I'll be going back to the 53/39 as soon as I overcome my "don't feel like working on the bike" inertia.

Along the big gear stuff, it's beneficial to explore limits. My fastest "climbs" are power climbs where I use huge gears, i.e. I'm way over my threshold but the climb is short enough that I can sustain the effort. In the post below my friend tells me that I ought to climb the steepest hill I know of in my biggest gear (53x15 or, on my bike at the time, a 48x14)

https://sprinterdellacasa.blogspot.co...ic-and-me.html

On the other hand last year I had a mechanical in a flat race and could only use my 39T so 39x11, or the equivalent of a 53x15. Ironically this is the same gear as the one in the story above. Although I wasn't in the lead group at the end of the race, there were at least a few Cat 2s in the group and a number of strong Cat 3s, and I managed to beat them all in a flat sprint using the 39x11. The fast rider that I follow a bit (and who didn't like me following him - go to about 8:20) I think won the 40+ National Crit championships. He's no slouch but I don't go flying backwards off his wheel either.

That's because you're not used to maintaining a higher cadence.

And FWIW, 33 miles in a bit over two hours, even with 3,000 feet of climbing, isn't really all that fast. I'd bet a hefty sum that a lot of the posters here trying to explain why you want a higher cadence are a LOT faster than that. I've done a double-metric century with probably 8,000 feet of climbing at a faster speed than that.

i noticed that the OP doesn't mention anything at all about racing or personal bests, etc. just that he was pushing himself (not the bicycle ).

so go ahead, do it. if you are running a 24T cog in back and a 42 chainring, assuming a 700c 23mm tire, you've got about 46 gear inches there. should be low enough for just about anything once you get your out of saddle technique down...

I used 42/52 aswell... never had a problem in the mountains or in races with that evenrhought the top cog i had was like 21 and 21 was pretty big back in the day. As for getting you slower thats not true at all... if you ride the whole day with 42x12 or 53x16 or 12 then you will get slower but in general i never had a problem to spin 42x16 in flats and hilly riders at 90+ RPMs...i was track sprinter too so pretty much the 42 never got me slower.

One of the things i have noticed related to the 42 is that at least to me, it's easier for me to keep cadence using even chainring in a matter of fact would love to have my 42 back or a 40.

+1

42t chainrings was a long time ago for me.

This is good advice.

There is no "a long time ago" for me. This is my first active year of cycling so I'm just getting a feel for cranks and cassettes and all the different combos out there. Running 50/36 and 11/26(9s) right now.

Thanks for all the info and advice!

My point was standard doubles have evolved into 52 or 53 with a 39 instead of a 42 for the most part.

Some shimano cranksets came with 47/52.. other ones were 40/53 .... I even had a 41 at some point I remember.


Campagnolo stock came with 42/52 and 42/53

Oh, I wasn't trying to give you a hard time or anything. Just trying to make you feel old. hahahah Just playing I'm 36, so definitely getting "up there" myself!

hmmm. 40/53, now that's an interesting combo.

I did ride today: https://app.strava.com/rides/9497243 and have come to the conclusion that I'll be sticking to 50T for the large chainring once I get my new crankset. It'll be interesting to experiment with the small chainring...

First off, not trying to be negative here. Looking at your route I see a lot of small climbs but I can now see why you can do them in the big ring. Start doing some real climbs (not little hills) and I am willing to bet you will be glad you stuck with the 39 (or smaller) small ring.

Again, not trying to be negative, just honest. 3.1 miles with 111 feet of climbing is not something you want to base your decision on. Your best time on it is over 9 minutes so I'm thinking that you aren't a really strong climber (yet) so I would stick with a compact if I were you. Looking at some more of the segments it looks like 1.2 miles with 110 feet elevation gain, still not what I would call a "climb". Your best time on that one is over 4 minutes so that kind of confirms my earlier thought.

Just to give a comparison, most of our one mile climbs are 400 - 600 feet elevation gain. That is why I LOVE my 34t chainring.

Sorry if I am coming across as a jerk, I'm not intending to be.

111 feet in 3 miles isn't even a hill. It's less than 1%- a false flat. Without a GPS you woudn't know it was up hill. 110 feet in 1.2 miles is 1.7%- another false flat. You might be able to detect that without a GPS, barely.

You have plenty of nice climbs in the LA area. Try Decker or Onyx Summit or the climbs on Mulholland and see if you still want a 42t small ring. I've ridden all of those (as part of long events) and the 34t is handy even if you're a reasonably strong climber.

Of course, if you don't do those sorts of climbs and stick to the flats a 42t ring would be appropriate.