Road bike gearing?
#26
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,042
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10468 Post(s)
Liked 11,968 Times
in
6,128 Posts
The one that always gets me is the jump from 11-13. The others aren't too bad, at least for me
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
I do a couple thousand miles at the velodrome every year. I think this helps my ability to be comfortable riding at different cadences and still put out decent power. I ride 11-32 and don’t have any issues with it at all.
#28
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,656
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4755 Post(s)
Liked 1,537 Times
in
1,006 Posts
For OP, I think if he actually currently uses his lowest gear of 28/42, he'll have to resign himself to getting comfortable with lower cadences. At cadences in the 90s in his current lowest gear, with an eg. 34/34 road gear, he'll probably be dropping to about 65-70rpm
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked 67 Times
in
48 Posts
...Plus he likes to sit and spin. A lot of people really do ride slower than 10 mph up hills - in fact most people do. ....
I don't think there's a lot of point in running an 11-28 these days, when 11-32 or 11-34 is now pretty standard issue on new road bikes with a compact crankset.
escarpment - a long steep slope.....
I don't think there's a lot of point in running an 11-28 these days, when 11-32 or 11-34 is now pretty standard issue on new road bikes with a compact crankset.
escarpment - a long steep slope.....
As to cassette, does it always need to start @11? I mean, those folks furiously spinning up hills while hardly moving, being on the verge of falling off their bikes, are they actually ever utilizing such a steep gear? Even with today's smaller big chainrings, that's some clip and I just don't see them caring to even go that fast, as they are usually not the daredevil or that fit types, that need to pedal even at high speeds.
I am sure there are some who utilize the range because they have respectful abilities but I just don't see that being typical.
Escarpment - I can't say I know the term but would have thought it means steep but not overly long slope. Actually I doubt it refers to a slope as such at all, probably it means a cliff in normal folks speech? Maybe also promontory in non-folksy way of speaking? Let others google up the definition
Last edited by vane171; 06-17-21 at 09:17 AM.
Likes For vane171:
#30
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 15,071
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6239 Post(s)
Liked 4,840 Times
in
3,337 Posts
As to cassette, does it always need to start @11? I mean, those folks furiously spinning up hills while hardly moving, being on the verge of falling off their bikes, are they actually ever utilizing such a steep gear? Even with today's smaller big chainrings, that's some clip and I just don't see them caring to even go that fast, as they are usually not the daredevil or that fit types, that need to pedal even at high speeds.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4460 Post(s)
Liked 4,926 Times
in
3,047 Posts
That 'sit and spin' makes people look like a character from comics pages, when their legs go into a blur under them while they gain little ground under them. In such a case, I'd rather dismount and walk it. It is a toss up which is more degrading, though in a different way. You even get better fitness out of walking it once in a while, you exercise different muscles that otherwise atrophy with people who ride their bikes in a serious fashion. And if you see dismounting as demeaning, you can always run with your bike uphill, or switch walking and running in an indian fashion.
Likes For PeteHski:
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,341
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8313 Post(s)
Liked 9,108 Times
in
4,503 Posts
That 'sit and spin' makes people look like a character from comics pages, when their legs go into a blur under them while they gain little ground under them. In such a case, I'd rather dismount and walk it. It is a toss up which is more degrading, though in a different way.
If someone can spin their legs into a "blur" then they have enough left to shift into a higher gear and turn a more reasonable cadence.
I have a 28 front ring on my mtb with a 46 in the back. There are times I wish for another gear. I am never spinning into a blur.
On my road bike I have a 34x29 low gear and sometimes I wish I had another gear or 2 back there, but I am old and fat. In April I did a ride with 8000 feet of climbing in 80 miles. It was fine and I did spin my 50x12 a few times.
The OP might be fine on his climbs with a nice road bike and a 34x34. It just might take a little work to get there. He did say he uses his current bike on trails and a little off-roading.
Likes For big john:
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,341
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8313 Post(s)
Liked 9,108 Times
in
4,503 Posts
Likes For big john:
#34
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,042
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10468 Post(s)
Liked 11,968 Times
in
6,128 Posts
Likes For genejockey:
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked 67 Times
in
48 Posts
What I meant, that folks who furiously spin up hills while barely moving, are the kind who typically don't utilize 11 cogwheel on the back when going down hills steep enough to warrant it. Ergo, they could start with 13 or even 15 on the back...
But of course, there are those accomplished enough and riding in a very contrasting terrain that they do utilize the whole range, but that doesn't apply to bulk of folks. Today, even recreational kind of bikes come with top gear which people who buy them don't ever use.
On my old bike with 52x13 I have a hill around where I ride on which I make 40 mph tops (65km/h) and that is daredevil (especially because it it not quite straight) which many if not most care bear folks wouldn't go for. At this point, the aerodynamic braking starts to play big role because we are talking here solo riding. At this speed, common sense is telling me, what if something happens, an animal crossing road, or even a bird hitting my face, ^&* happens, and what then. At that speed you are basically free meat if anything comes up.
Last edited by vane171; 06-17-21 at 12:26 PM.
Likes For vane171:
#36
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,556
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3901 Post(s)
Liked 1,953 Times
in
1,393 Posts
In my 50s, low was 30/25. In my 60s, it was 30/27. Then it was 26/27. Now it's 26/30. I always hope I won't have to go any lower, but . . .We have 26/40 on our tandem.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
#37
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,042
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10468 Post(s)
Liked 11,968 Times
in
6,128 Posts
I see that it can be read like you did, still it holds up if you read the whole paragraph and have some good will to boot.
What I meant, that folks who furiously spin up hills while barely moving, are the kind who typically don't utilize 11 cogwheel on the back when going down hills steep enough to warrant it. Ergo, they could start with 13 or even 15 on the back...
But of course, there are those accomplished enough and riding in a very contrasting terrain that they do utilize the whole range, but that doesn't apply to bulk of folks. Today, even recreational kind of bikes come with top gear which people who buy them don't ever use.
On my old bike with 52x13 I have a hill around where I ride on which I make 40 mph tops (65km/h) and that is daredevil (especially because it it not quite straight) which many if not most care bear folks wouldn't go for. At this point, the aerodynamic braking starts to play big role because we are talking here solo riding. At this speed, common sense is telling me, what if something happens, an animal crossing road, or even a bird hitting my face, ^&* happens, and what then. At that speed you are basically free meat if anything comes up.
What I meant, that folks who furiously spin up hills while barely moving, are the kind who typically don't utilize 11 cogwheel on the back when going down hills steep enough to warrant it. Ergo, they could start with 13 or even 15 on the back...
But of course, there are those accomplished enough and riding in a very contrasting terrain that they do utilize the whole range, but that doesn't apply to bulk of folks. Today, even recreational kind of bikes come with top gear which people who buy them don't ever use.
On my old bike with 52x13 I have a hill around where I ride on which I make 40 mph tops (65km/h) and that is daredevil (especially because it it not quite straight) which many if not most care bear folks wouldn't go for. At this point, the aerodynamic braking starts to play big role because we are talking here solo riding. At this speed, common sense is telling me, what if something happens, an animal crossing road, or even a bird hitting my face, ^&* happens, and what then. At that speed you are basically free meat if anything comes up.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Likes For genejockey:
#38
Senior Member
The biggest hill I've cranked up is a 2.5km, 9.5% grade in CA (peaking at 14.9%, according to Strava), using a 32T ring and a 27T cog on my Bianchi. I was well, well under 10mph (well under 10 km/h, even), and would gladly have taken an extra cog as I hit the steep bits... or as I ran out of steam near the top.
On the other hand, I'm riding mostly flat lands now and you could almost eat off off my 34T and 30T cogs I use them so rarely. There's one 9.4% gradient on my normal route, but it's short enough that I can power over it.
My opinion to the OP is that if he's looking for close ratios and hill climbing ability, a sub-compact crank is the way to go. A 48/32 mated to an 11-32 would give 1:1, an 11-34 would do better- or as others have noted, going GRX would do even better than that. Alternatively, an 11-34 cassette when he's visiting the girlfriend, and swap in a SRAM PG-1170 11-28 for the close-ratio goodness he wants (single tooth differences between 11-17). Or better yet, have the GF visit him.
On the other hand, I'm riding mostly flat lands now and you could almost eat off off my 34T and 30T cogs I use them so rarely. There's one 9.4% gradient on my normal route, but it's short enough that I can power over it.
My opinion to the OP is that if he's looking for close ratios and hill climbing ability, a sub-compact crank is the way to go. A 48/32 mated to an 11-32 would give 1:1, an 11-34 would do better- or as others have noted, going GRX would do even better than that. Alternatively, an 11-34 cassette when he's visiting the girlfriend, and swap in a SRAM PG-1170 11-28 for the close-ratio goodness he wants (single tooth differences between 11-17). Or better yet, have the GF visit him.
#39
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,159
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3474 Post(s)
Liked 3,611 Times
in
1,813 Posts
10+ mph on a climb is hard!
Even when I was a much stronger climber, I rarely maintained 10 mph on a climb of any substantial grade & length.
Tossing some numbers around, 10 mph on a 7% grade requires about 4.25 Watts/kg. Hard effort for me back in the day, unthinkable now.
Likes For terrymorse:
#40
Method to My Madness
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,709
Bikes: Trek FX 2, Cannondale Synapse x2, Cannondale CAAD4, Santa Cruz Stigmata 3
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 1,499 Times
in
1,040 Posts
The biggest hill I've cranked up is a 2.5km, 9.5% grade in CA (peaking at 14.9%, according to Strava), using a 32T ring and a 27T cog on my Bianchi. I was well, well under 10mph (well under 10 km/h, even), and would gladly have taken an extra cog as I hit the steep bits... or as I ran out of steam near the top.
On the other hand, I'm riding mostly flat lands now and you could almost eat off off my 34T and 30T cogs I use them so rarely. There's one 9.4% gradient on my normal route, but it's short enough that I can power over it.
My opinion to the OP is that if he's looking for close ratios and hill climbing ability, a sub-compact crank is the way to go. A 48/32 mated to an 11-32 would give 1:1, an 11-34 would do better- or as others have noted, going GRX would do even better than that. Alternatively, an 11-34 cassette when he's visiting the girlfriend, and swap in a SRAM PG-1170 11-28 for the close-ratio goodness he wants (single tooth differences between 11-17). Or better yet, have the GF visit him.
On the other hand, I'm riding mostly flat lands now and you could almost eat off off my 34T and 30T cogs I use them so rarely. There's one 9.4% gradient on my normal route, but it's short enough that I can power over it.
My opinion to the OP is that if he's looking for close ratios and hill climbing ability, a sub-compact crank is the way to go. A 48/32 mated to an 11-32 would give 1:1, an 11-34 would do better- or as others have noted, going GRX would do even better than that. Alternatively, an 11-34 cassette when he's visiting the girlfriend, and swap in a SRAM PG-1170 11-28 for the close-ratio goodness he wants (single tooth differences between 11-17). Or better yet, have the GF visit him.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4460 Post(s)
Liked 4,926 Times
in
3,047 Posts
I have a fairly respectable 4W/kg FTP and 12 kph at 75 rpm is a typical climbing speed and cadence on a 7-8% gradient. That's not exactly spinning furiously.
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4460 Post(s)
Liked 4,926 Times
in
3,047 Posts
Greetings from a fellow Single Digit Climbing Club member (extends secret handshake).
10+ mph on a climb is hard!
Even when I was a much stronger climber, I rarely maintained 10 mph on a climb of any substantial grade & length.
Tossing some numbers around, 10 mph on a 7% grade requires about 4.25 Watts/kg. Hard effort for me back in the day, unthinkable now.
10+ mph on a climb is hard!
Even when I was a much stronger climber, I rarely maintained 10 mph on a climb of any substantial grade & length.
Tossing some numbers around, 10 mph on a 7% grade requires about 4.25 Watts/kg. Hard effort for me back in the day, unthinkable now.
But there are still plenty of people around with nowhere near 4.25W/kg on tap who think a 34/34T gear is still too low to even consider for hilly rides. I pass them all the time grinding away at sub 50 rpm in their lowest gear when they would most definitely benefit from a lower ratio.
Likes For PeteHski:
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked 67 Times
in
48 Posts
OK, another side thought. The trend is to easier gears, the days of the 53 chainrings and bigger are behind us - not saying it not ridden anymore, quite a few still have those rings but they are looked upon as not getting the message.
How does that trend square with the pretty well parallel trend to ever smaller cogwheel on the back, 12 to 11 and now to 10, where it probably has to stop, not because that would be enough but mechanical reality simply kicks in at this point.
And you bet that everybody with 30+ cogs on the back will try to merry (spelling?) it with the 10 on the small end. DOH
If you need that big plate on the back, maybe it is time to switch to triple chainrings on the front instead?
How does that trend square with the pretty well parallel trend to ever smaller cogwheel on the back, 12 to 11 and now to 10, where it probably has to stop, not because that would be enough but mechanical reality simply kicks in at this point.
And you bet that everybody with 30+ cogs on the back will try to merry (spelling?) it with the 10 on the small end. DOH
If you need that big plate on the back, maybe it is time to switch to triple chainrings on the front instead?
Last edited by vane171; 06-17-21 at 06:17 PM.
#44
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,954
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 982 Post(s)
Liked 517 Times
in
355 Posts
It's too bad that triples are essentially extinct. That allows close ratios along with very low gears.
I use my 34-32 low gear even on moderate grades. It's nice to have the choice to spin up the hill at 80-90 rpm.
And the 34-32 low lets me stay seated on 10-12% grades, where I would have to stand up with higher gearing.
14-32 cassette!
A few years ago, I got this idea from a BF thread: 50/34 front and a custom 14-32 rear. The link explains how to build it from a 11-32 and 14-28.
It was perfect for my fast-for-me group rides that also had some steep climbs. I had really close shifts from 18-24 mph, and the low climbing gears. I would spin out at around 30 mph, which was fine.
It's probably not too practical without electronic shifting -- in the 34 ring, the shifts are so close together that I would usually shift two cogs at a time. And I would shift the chainrings a lot more than with a wider range 11-32. To match cadences, a chainring shift needs 4 or 5 shifts in the rear, instead of the usual 3 shifts! Easy with electronic shifting.
Now, with smaller, less competitive groups, I'm back to 11-32, so that I have some high gearing to soft pedal on longer downhills.
I use my 34-32 low gear even on moderate grades. It's nice to have the choice to spin up the hill at 80-90 rpm.
And the 34-32 low lets me stay seated on 10-12% grades, where I would have to stand up with higher gearing.
14-32 cassette!
A few years ago, I got this idea from a BF thread: 50/34 front and a custom 14-32 rear. The link explains how to build it from a 11-32 and 14-28.
It was perfect for my fast-for-me group rides that also had some steep climbs. I had really close shifts from 18-24 mph, and the low climbing gears. I would spin out at around 30 mph, which was fine.
It's probably not too practical without electronic shifting -- in the 34 ring, the shifts are so close together that I would usually shift two cogs at a time. And I would shift the chainrings a lot more than with a wider range 11-32. To match cadences, a chainring shift needs 4 or 5 shifts in the rear, instead of the usual 3 shifts! Easy with electronic shifting.
Now, with smaller, less competitive groups, I'm back to 11-32, so that I have some high gearing to soft pedal on longer downhills.
Last edited by rm -rf; 06-17-21 at 06:48 PM.
Likes For rm -rf:
#45
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,954
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 982 Post(s)
Liked 517 Times
in
355 Posts
OK, another side thought. The trend is to easier gears, the days of the 53 chainrings and bigger are behind us - not saying it not ridden anymore, quite a few still have those rings but they are looked upon as not getting the message.
How does that trend square with the pretty well parallel trend to ever smaller cogwheel on the back, 12 to 11 and now to 10, where it probably has to stop, not because that would be enough but mechanical reality simply kicks in at this point.
And you bet that everybody with 30+ cogs on the back will try to merry (spelling?) it with the 10 on the small end. DOH
If you need that big plate on the back, maybe it is time to switch to triple chainrings on the front instead?
How does that trend square with the pretty well parallel trend to ever smaller cogwheel on the back, 12 to 11 and now to 10, where it probably has to stop, not because that would be enough but mechanical reality simply kicks in at this point.
And you bet that everybody with 30+ cogs on the back will try to merry (spelling?) it with the 10 on the small end. DOH
If you need that big plate on the back, maybe it is time to switch to triple chainrings on the front instead?
1. I can keep pedaling on steeper downhills, mainly to keep my legs moving.
2. The smallest two cogs aren't practical with the small chainring -- the chain hits the big ring pickup rivets and makes a noise. So an 11 and 12 smallest cogs allow 34-13 as a usable gear, allowing speeds close to 20 mph in the 34 chainring. Fewer chainring shifts needed.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Hacienda Hgts
Posts: 2,115
Bikes: 1999 Schwinn Peloton Ultegra 10, Kestrel RT-1000 Ultegra, Trek Marlin 6 Deore 29'er
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 824 Post(s)
Liked 1,966 Times
in
948 Posts
All I can add as a 6'2" 200+ lbs recreational cyclist is lower gearing for climbing makes for a more enjoyable ride, less trepidation about hills/mtns, less fatigue when climbing and less sore knees. Its a win-win all the way around for me. If I want to push a larger gear inch combo, I can choose this as a personal challenge.
I have a 50/34, 11-34 combo on my climbing carbon bike.
My all arounder I switched to a 46/30 GRX mated with a 12-27 10 speed cassette. The bike has more utility now and is enjoyable on climbs.
I have a fully rigid MTB with a 42/34/24 triple and 11-34 cassette 9spd that comes in handy on 15%+ grades.
I have a 50/34, 11-34 combo on my climbing carbon bike.
My all arounder I switched to a 46/30 GRX mated with a 12-27 10 speed cassette. The bike has more utility now and is enjoyable on climbs.
I have a fully rigid MTB with a 42/34/24 triple and 11-34 cassette 9spd that comes in handy on 15%+ grades.
#47
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,556
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3901 Post(s)
Liked 1,953 Times
in
1,393 Posts
IME one wants one's steepest anticipated climbing cog to be the second largest. As mentioned above, sometimes things get different near the end of a hard climb.
I still run triples on all my bikes. For the life of me, I can't figure out how the industry convinced bike buyers that they didn't need close ratios on climbs nor big gear-inches for descents.
I wonder a bit at the discussions of max necessary gear-inches expressed in terms of when one spins out the gear. Maybe that's applicable for racers but this isn't the 33. When descending, one wants to spin no faster than one's normal cadence on the flat. If one isn't producing reasonable power at that cadence, one should coast since the leg extension costs us speed. Thus what one really would like to have on a big descent is a 60/11 so one could turn a nice cadence and still make some power and go a little faster. A few years ago I decided to let my ratios be just a little further apart and go with an 11 cog instead of a 12. 53/11 is a noticeable difference and a little more enjoyment on moderate descents where I don't go over 35. Other riders disappear a little faster with less effort on my part.
I still run triples on all my bikes. For the life of me, I can't figure out how the industry convinced bike buyers that they didn't need close ratios on climbs nor big gear-inches for descents.
I wonder a bit at the discussions of max necessary gear-inches expressed in terms of when one spins out the gear. Maybe that's applicable for racers but this isn't the 33. When descending, one wants to spin no faster than one's normal cadence on the flat. If one isn't producing reasonable power at that cadence, one should coast since the leg extension costs us speed. Thus what one really would like to have on a big descent is a 60/11 so one could turn a nice cadence and still make some power and go a little faster. A few years ago I decided to let my ratios be just a little further apart and go with an 11 cog instead of a 12. 53/11 is a noticeable difference and a little more enjoyment on moderate descents where I don't go over 35. Other riders disappear a little faster with less effort on my part.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne, Oz
Posts: 9,547
Bikes: https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=152015&p=1404231
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1529 Post(s)
Liked 718 Times
in
510 Posts
Why so small, weight weenieism? You'd be much better off for drivetrain efficiency with 38/13.