The "is low gearing better?" challenge

Membrane

Some roadies have claimed that a standard double (F:53/52-39 R:11/12-25) is all that a fit rider needs to deal with the Wicklow terrain in an efficient manner. I don't believe this and I once posed a challenge in this forum to put this to the test. It was repeated in various other threads over time, with bits of the how and why explained [1]. I am now posting it as a separate thread for clarity.

My position
IMO the most suitable gearing is the one that allows a rider to maximize his performance. Standing is widely considered to be less efficient than staying on the saddle. Having to stand to be able to tackle a climb (when your gearing doesn't go low enough) will IMO damage overall performance if it is maintained for more than a short burst. The effort that such standing requires is likely to land you in the VO2Max zone which is characterised by a level of lactic acid production that the body can't easily get rid of, resulting in a damaged cycling ability [2]. IMO it therefore follows that a rider should choose a gearing that will allow him to tackle all the climbs he encounters whilst staying seated and maintain a healthy cadence of about 80RPM minimum (a low cadence is widely believed to hinder blood flow).

In my experience of cycling in the Wicklow mountains this means that a standard double doesn't cut it. Others have disagreed and said that this is due to my lack of fitness and that a standard double is fine for a properly fit rider. The claim is that a fit rider has a much higher power output and can turn such gears with no drawbacks.

I don't believe it (c) Victor Meldrew
So I posed a challenge to test this claim.

The test
Can someone on a standard double beat me on my low geared hybrid on a test climb? To test the claim the rider taking me on has to be properly fit and ride a standard double (39x25). He can be of any age, use the most advanced and lightest bike on the market, UCI weight limits don't apply I on the other hand will use my low end Halfords bike which cost E215, it weighs 13Kg, it has 37c tyres and (importantly) it has MTB style low triple gearing (22x28). Me: I'm 46YO, I go out once per week on average for a ~80Km spin through the mountains so I am not what you can reasonably call fit.

The climb

Length of the climb is about 400M in total.

So how difficult is that climb?
Only a bit more difficult than more familiar climbs like Glencree to Sally Gap, Roundwood to Sally Gap, Howth harbour to Sutton, etc.

So why this particular hill?
I chose this particular hill because it is a stiff climb, but even and not too long (about 400M). On other more familiar Wicklow climbs the gradient varies a lot more, making them a less straightforward test case.

History
A somewhat similar gearing challenge was posed in the early 20th century when the champion of the day, riding a single speed bike was beaten by a woman on a 3 speed bike [3].

Are you up for it?
So far no-one has taken up this challenge. For me to take part it should probably be organized before the end of November.

[1] Some previous threads on this forum that discussed this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055094093
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055146579
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055158008
[2] http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm
[3] http://cycling.ahands.org/bicycling/velocio.html

Morgan

Standing start on the steep bit or do you get to take a run at it?

Raam

as mentioned elsewhere, this is an interesting challenge.
I'd love to take part, but I'm sick and out of shape (ah yes, an excuse )

rp

Membrane wrote: »

A somewhat similar gearing challenge was posed in the early 20th century when the champion of the day, riding a single speed bike was beaten by a woman on a 3 speed bike [3].

Are you up for it?
So far no-one has taken up this challenge. For me to take part it should probably be organized before the end of November.

Sounds like a bit of fun: I'll have a go if you like, not that I particularly agree with the claim you want to disprove. Or if you've already got a roadie, I'll bring the fixie.

el tel

I might have a wee reconnaissance tomorrow and see what I make of it. Although I've virtually zero miles in my legs this year I dig hills and reckon I could do it. Although I'd say that if you are getting out for a weekly ~80Km spin through the mountains I'd say you are fitter than me Membrane!

kenmc

I'd agree with el tel. I'd say you're definitely in the 'above average' fitness levels.

Membrane

kenmc wrote: »

I'd agree with el tel. I'd say you're definitely in the 'above average' fitness levels.

I used to think that I was reasonably fit, but I've changed my mind after having done the Wicklow 200 which gave me a chance to compare myself against others. Having seen the speed that properly fit riders are able to push out I know better now. I was doing fine up to about 60KM (Laragh). After that I got passed left right and center, I completed the W200 without bother after that, but my climbing ability had disappeared.

The strength disappearing from my legs after about 60KM happens every time, I examined all sorts of things looking for a cause (food, hydration, cadence, heart rate), all to little avail. In the end I concluded that I am just not properly fit. Others have confirmed that getting out once per week isn't enough, apparently to get properly fit I would have to go out about 4 times per week.

I hope that this makes it clear that with this challenge I am not trying to ridicule fit roadies, I have a lot of respect for really fit riders.

Junior

Does this have to be done in the saddle ?

Membrane

Junior wrote: »

Does this have to be done in the saddle ?

Yes, that is the essence of the challenge for the reasons outlined in the OP. But it might also be interesting to do a second run standing. The hill in question is a stiff climb, one cyclist reported having serious trouble climbing it with a road triple [1], so it wouldn't surprise me if standing with a standard double would also prove to be a tall order. I suspect that a properly fit rider can do it (standing), but grinding with a low cadence. The hill might just be long enough for that to be a problem.

[1] http://www.wicklow200.ie/discus/messages/362/397.html?1180097342

Planet X

When is it? I'll have a go.

Planet X

Sorry, after reading the posts above, I've got a Compact on one bike, 50/34 and a triple on my winter bike.
That rules me out then?

Membrane

Planet X wrote: »

Sorry, after reading the posts above, I've got a Compact on one bike, 50/34 and a triple on my winter bike.
That rules me out then?

It does.

FWIW, as I mentioned in my OP, my participation had a time limit on it, regrettably I am no longer able to take part as of now.

doozerie

I don't understand what this challenge is intended to prove. If cycling efficiency is the main target, then tackling one short climb will not give a definitive answer to anything.

The best range of gears to have on your bike is a range which allows you to tackle all of the terrain that you expect to encounter on a ride. If you choose a very high range of gears, you will suffer more on climbs (doesn't necessarily mean that you can't get up the climbs though), and if you choose a very low range of gears you will suffer more on the flats and downhills as you'll have to spin your legs faster to maintain any kind of reasonable speed (doesn't mean that you can't achieve and maintain decent speed though).

The ideal range of gears to have will vary from route to route and from day to day (depends on how strong you are feeling on the day), so what you end up with is a compromise that gives you a low enough gear to get you over any climbs you expect to encounter and a high enough gear that you can push whenever you need more speed - the best range of gears between these two ends is one with a very gradual change from one cog to the next. Ideally you'd go for a block with each cog being only one tooth bigger/smaller than the previous one as this would provide the greatest efficiency of movement, but it is not always possible to achive this - making a jump of several teeth from one cog to the next puts more demand on your body as the change of effort required can be significant.

Personally, I am happy to cycle around Wicklow with a double chainring on my racer. I have a triple chainring on my mountainbike and can never envisage having to use the granny ring on the road under normal circumstances - I have used that ring the odd time when touring with weighty bags on the back, when offroad where you needed to stay in the saddle to maintain control of the bike, and also when tackling a laneway once that was the closest thing to a wall that I have seen in a bit of road (didn't quite make it all the way up as the front wheel was trying to lift due to it being so steep!).

As for getting out of the saddle while riding, this is useful not only for putting greater pressure on the pedals when on climbs but also for accelerating (sprinting), straightening your legs to take pressure off your knees when necessary, changing leg position to help get rid of built-up lactic acid, keeping weight over the front wheel so that it doesn't lift on a very steep climb, etc. Basically, getting out of the saddle is about a lot more than struggling on the bike.

Raam

doozerie wrote: »

.

But do you think you would win?

simplybikes

Hi there....I've just happened upon this thread and it makes for interesting stuff. If I get you right membrane what you are saying is that you would be far more efficient climbing that hill with your low geaing than me with my standard 39 / 25 for example - both of us in the saddle. While in theory you may be right and I don't disaggree, needless to say it is completely silly in so far as any racing cyclist worth his or her salt would just leave you for dead because they could climb that hill at probably twice or tripple your speed out of the saddle and simply recover at the top with a nice cup of tea and biscuit while you spun your legs trying to make up the ground. Good racing cyclists race over this type of thing and just recover, simple as that, its part of racing. If you ever want to disprove me I'm your man.

Planet X

Wow lads, I thought it was a bit of craic for God's sake.

Membrane

simplybikes wrote: »

it is completely silly in so far as any racing cyclist worth his or her salt would just leave you for dead because they could climb that hill at probably twice or tripple your speed out of the saddle

You haven't followed the argument in my OP.

I myself am well capable of going faster if I stand. Key to my argument is my observation that I always enter my VO2Max heart rate zone when climbing standing. From what I've read a characteristic of the VO2Max zone is that muscles produce lactic acid at a rate which the body can't get rid of quickly enough. Instead of being carried of through your vains, the surplus gets lodged into the muscle tissue. Afaik this is a key factor in why people can only maintain riding in VO2Max zone for a short while. If I understood what I read correctly, then the body will take a significant amount of time to get rid of such a build up of lactic acid. So my theory is that for maximum efficiency VO2Max should be avoided except for training runs (where pushing yourself into VO2Mx can help to enlarge your cardiovascular capability, particularly using interval training), and perhaps for short bursts.

As I said, this is merely a theory I derived myself from reading multiple sources on the subject and combining the knowledge they contained. I can say that staying seated and avoiding VO2Max has helped my riding, but obviously one empirical experience doesn't prove a theory.

I don't really follow pro riding myself, but I've been told that Floyd Landis avoids getting out of the saddle if at all possible.

doozerie

Membrane wrote:

I myself am well capable of going faster if I stand. Key to my argument is my observation that I always enter my VO2Max heart rate zone when climbing standing.

That depends entirely on how much effort you are putting in, your level of fitness, how physically tired you are at the time, etc., etc. Standing on the bike does not always entail significantly greater effort. I have known good riders to go over tough climbs in a high gear, out of the saddle, yet much more casually and faster than other riders who were in lower gears (both in and out of the saddle).

Basically, both riding out of the saddle in a high gear and staying in the saddle and spinning your legs in a low gear are equally capable of pushing you into anaerobic activity level. Whether it actually does or not is down to several factors.

simplybikes

You're spot on doozerie, it has bugger all to do with sitting in the saddle. I run out of puff far faster spinning my legs while in the saddle then I do while standing on the peddles. I comes down to level of effort. I usually want to get up a climb as quickly as possible not necessarily as comfortable as possible. As for Floyd Landis....nuff said.

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

Standing on the bike does not always entail significantly greater effort.

It does when you have to get out of the saddle because your gears don't go low enough to remain seated and maintain a healthy cadence, which is the case in this context (see my OP on why maintaining a healthy cadence is thought to be equally important with regard to getting rid of lactic acid).

Basically, both riding out of the saddle in a high gear and staying in the saddle and spinning your legs in a low gear are equally capable of pushing you into anaerobic activity level.

You can stay in the anaerobic zone for a long time without collapsing. VO2Max is one level higher that can only be sustained for a short while. Certainly you can also reach VO2Max whilst remaining seated, what matters in this context is that you should have the choice to stay below it (whilst maintaining a healthy cadence, not fall over etc.).

Apologies to those who think that this is a rather anal debate. Personally I don't mind exploring the medical side of it, using HRM's etc. I started getting interested in these issues in an attempt to explain a problem I had. Not everyone's cup of tea I'm sure.

jman0

i overtook 2 people on MTB's in this vicinity on a steep and steady climb a yeare ago.
Heading West toward Sally Gap.
At the time i was envious of the high cadence they had; while i on my 2 chainring road bike had to make do with a low cadence.
I generally don't stand except for the really really steep stretches.
But i did overtake them easy enough, i was probably fitter than they were though.

tunney

Training levels:

Recovery -> Endurance -> Tempo -> Threshold -> VO2Max -> Anaerobic -> Neuromuscular

So many holes in membranes argument it barely worth rading this thread.

Membrane

tunney wrote: »

Training levels:

Recovery -> Endurance -> Tempo -> Threshold -> VO2Max -> Anaerobic -> Neuromuscular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Exercise_zones.png
http://walking.about.com/cs/fitnesswalking/a/hearttraining_2.htm
http://www.howtobefit.com/five-heart-rate-zones.htm
http://www.fitness-concepts.com/voxmax.htm

Does that suffice, or do you need more references that anaerobic preceeds VO2Max?

doozerie

Membrane wrote: »

It does when you have to get out of the saddle because your gears don't go low enough to remain seated and maintain a healthy cadence, which is the case in this context (see my OP on why maintaining a healthy cadence is thought to be equally important with regard to getting rid of lactic acid).

If you fit your bike out with lower gears, then to maintain a reasonable top gear you end up with more significant jumps in the number of teeth on each of your rear cogs, which results in less efficient cycling overall.

If you fit a third chainring on the front, but maintain a close ratio block on the rear, then you get a lower first gear but now you lose several of your front-back combinations (with a triple chainring you shouldn't use the outer-most front ring with the inner-most two cogs at the rear, due to increased chain tension, and similarly the inner-most front ring with the outer-most two rear cogs, etc.). Thus, you effectively lose a few gears (which you may or may not be able to replicate with other front-rear combinations), which results in less efficient cycling overall.

It is all about compromise, you just select those things you are willing to compromise on, be it your lowest gear, your highest gear, extra hardware for extra gears, etc. It is not enough to focus on just a single climb as a measure of cycling efficiency as you have to cycle to and from that climb too and selecting a gear setup for maximum efficiency on a climb will often sacrifice efficiency on the other portions of your ride.

If you have a first gear which you can't comfortably push while in the saddle, then the most efficient way to push it is out of the saddle.

Membrane wrote:

You can stay in the anaerobic zone for a long time without collapsing. VO2Max is one level higher that can only be sustained for a short while. Certainly you can also reach VO2Max whilst remaining seated, what matters in this context is that you should have the choice to stay below it (whilst maintaining a healthy cadence, not fall over etc.).

Anaerobic activity is activity in the absence of oxygen i.e. where your body cannot supply sufficient oxygen to meet the demands of your efforts. It is high intensity and lactic acid is a by-product. You cannot stay in the anaerobic zone for long ('cos it hurts and your muscles will start to cramp). VO2Max is the maximum volume of air that your lungs can take in and use.

What defines a "healthy cadence" is entirely subjective and depends on a number of things.

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

If you fit your bike out with lower gears, then to maintain a reasonable top gear you end up with more significant jumps in the number of teeth on each of your rear cogs, which results in less efficient cycling overall.

IIRC the difference in cadence if I switch gears with my MTB style gearing (larger jumps between gears compared to a close range road cassette) is less than 10rpm. Please provide a reference that demonstrates your claim that such a small difference results in decreased efficiency.

A more closely spaced cassette if used without skipping gears means that you'll be switching gears more often if you want to argue that small differences in cadence improve efficiency (which I don't buy), every gear shift results in a momentary loss in efficiency, more gear shifts, less efficient.

FYI a Deore setup with the stock 11-32 cassette with the 26/36/48 chainring option offers 22 - 116 gear inches. 116" is comparable to the highest gear you'd get with a standard road double, whilst 22" comfortably allows spinning up the steepest inclines whilst remaining seated. The jumps between the gears are typical MTB style jumps, nothing extreme.

If you fit a third chainring on the front, but maintain a close ratio block on the rear, then you get a lower first gear but now you lose several of your front-back combinations (with a triple chainring you shouldn't use the outer-most front ring with the inner-most two cogs at the rear, due to increased chain tension, and similarly the inner-most front ring with the outer-most two rear cogs, etc.). Thus, you effectively lose a few gears (which you may or may not be able to replicate with other front-rear combinations), which results in less efficient cycling overall.

Fit a triple instead of a double and you'll gain as many gear combinations (not gears) as there are cogs on your cassette, minus 2 when you avoid the extreme combinations. But this really isn't relevant in this context.

Btw, the argument not to use smallest - smallest and largest - largest has nothing to do with chain tension, but with a crooked chain line (a crooked chain line causes extra friction in the chain).

It is all about compromise, you just select those things you are willing to compromise on, be it your lowest gear, your highest gear, extra hardware for extra gears, etc. It is not enough to focus on just a single climb as a measure of cycling efficiency as you have to cycle to and from that climb too and selecting a gear setup for maximum efficiency on a climb will often sacrifice efficiency on the other portions of your ride.

If you have a first gear which you can't comfortably push while in the saddle, then the most efficient way to push it is out of the saddle.

It would be very difficult to determine overall efficiency over the course of a ride one way or the other. The challenge came about as a result from a claim made by others that a fit rider on a standard could outperform me with my low gearing on a single climb (both riders seated).

Choose what works for you. I shaved 7 minutes off the time of my staple 4 hour/90km ride when I changed from climbing whilst standing with a ~50rpm cadence to staying seated using a ~80rpm cadence. I used to struggle after ~55km, now that moment occurs after ~75km.

Anaerobic activity is activity in the absence of oxygen i.e. where your body cannot supply sufficient oxygen to meet the demands of your efforts. It is high intensity and lactic acid is a by-product. You cannot stay in the anaerobic zone for long ('cos it hurts and your muscles will start to cramp). VO2Max is the maximum volume of air that your lungs can take in and use.

I overstated how long you can maintain activity in the anaerobic zone, but it can be sustained much longer than activity in the VO2Max zone with VO2Max activity resulting in longer lasting damage. Time trials are typically run in anaerobic zone.

doozerie

Membrane wrote: »

IIRC the difference in cadence if I switch gears with my MTB style gearing (larger jumps between gears compared to a close range road cassette) is less than 10rpm. Please provide a reference that demonstrates your claim that such a small difference results in decreased efficiency.

A more closely spaced cassette if used without skipping gears means that you'll be switching gears more often if you want to argue that small differences in cadence improve efficiency (which I don't buy), every gear shift results in a momentary loss in efficiency, more gear shifts, less efficient.

A change in cadence requires that your body adjust to the new cadence. The greater the sudden change in cadence the greater the adjustment required. Anyone who has ever found themselves changing from one gear to the neighbouring gear, only to find that new gear is either too high or too low to comfortably adjust to, could tell you that a smaller jump is better. If you find yourself changing multiple gears in one jump, due to a change of gradient, it is usually a sign that you are either tired, and therefore not adjusting to the gradient as gradually as you should, or just not an experienced rider (with the exception of cases such as cresting a hill into a sudden descent, or off-road riding where the terrain frequently changes suddenly).

...so my reference is you, me, and everyone else who cycles a bike and struggles to find that "right" gear every now and again and wishes they had an intermediary gear that their legs+heart+lungs could comfortably cope with.

If significant jumps of gear were not a problem, then we'd all still be riding, and racing on, 3-speed bikes - top gear for speed, lowest gear for climbs, middle gear for everything else. They'd be lighter, less complicated, and cheaper. Similarly we'd all be driving 3-gear cars.

Membrane wrote:

FYI a Deore setup with the stock 11-32 cassette with the 26/36/48 chainring option offers 22 - 116 gear inches. 116" is comparable to the highest gear you'd get with a standard road double, whilst 22" comfortably allows spinning up the steepest inclines whilst remaining seated. The jumps between the gears are typical MTB style jumps, nothing extreme.

You don't say how many cogs are on your cassette. Assuming that it is an 8-speed then you are averaging between 2 and 3 tooth jumps between gears. That _is_ extreme if you are using the bike only on the road. Even off-road I'd consider that extreme (I used to ride a 12-28 and while I was glad of the 28 at times, there were also many times where I would have happily swapped it for a closer ratio in the middle range).

Membrane wrote:

Fit a triple instead of a double and you'll gain as many gear combinations (not gears) as there are cogs on your cassette, minus 2 when you avoid the extreme combinations. But this really isn't relevant in this context.

Btw, the argument not to use smallest - smallest and largest - largest has nothing to do with chain tension, but with a crooked chain line (a crooked chain line causes extra friction in the chain).

A gear is a gear combination, which is why mountain bikes are sold as 24 or 27 gear rather than 8 or 9 gear. As regards the number of gears that you lose with a triple chainring, it is actually 6 if you really care about your bike being reliable (i.e. you don't want to split your chain while pedalling).

And there are more reasons than crooked chain line to avoid extreme crossings of the chain. One is the increased tension on the chain with the big-big combination, which can lead to greater risk of the chain splitting while pedaling (impressive when it happens). Another is that riding the extremes like that means that your rear mech now needs to handle the extremes (and may require you to use a mech with a longer cage) = more wear and tear on the mech and therefore shorter life and greater risk of it failing while riding (also impressive to see). And of course your chain will have to be long enough to handle the big-big extreme, which means that you have more slack to deal with when on the small-small extreme = greater risk of chain falling off.

Membrane wrote:

It would be very difficult to determine overall efficiency over the course of a ride one way or the other. The challenge came about as a result from a claim made by others that a fit rider on a standard could outperform me with my low gearing on a single climb (both riders seated).

If you want to put performance to the test, take part in the National Hill Climb Challenge, if that event is still held each year. You'll be up against riders ranging from the best in the country to average riders just doing it for fun. Plenty of scope there for comparison.

Membrane wrote:

Choose what works for you. I shaved 7 minutes off the time of my staple 4 hour/90km ride when I changed from climbing whilst standing with a ~50rpm cadence to staying seated using a ~80rpm cadence. I used to struggle after ~55km, now that moment occurs after ~75km.

If it works for you, then great. That doesn't prove the general case that it should work for everyone. You mentioned Floyd Landis in an earlier post as preferring to stay in the saddle. Some other notable riders are: Jan Ullrich liked to stay in the saddle but he was usually pushing a big gear; Lance Armstrong used high cadence and spent a lot of time in the saddle but was happy to get out of the saddle when necessary; Marco Pantani used high cadence and spent a lot of time out of the saddle. Different people, different styles, all very effective for them.

Membrane wrote:

I overstated how long you can maintain activity in the anaerobic zone, but it can be sustained much longer than activity in the VO2Max zone with VO2Max activity resulting in longer lasting damage. Time trials are typically run in anaerobic zone.

It is actually very difficult to reach your VO2Max, and you wouldn't want to unless you were training with a specific goal in mind.

Riding in your anaerobic zone is fine for training, but you don't want to have to go there in a race unless you absolutely have to. Sprints are well and truly in the anaerobic zone, time trials should not be unless you want an unintentionally short time trial - a skilled time trial rider will be aiming to keep close to, but under, the anaerobic threshold for as long as possible, and as soon as they go over that threshold they are entering a world of pain which can only be sustained relatively briefly and will be followed by a period of recovery and therefore degraded performance.

doozerie

Some useful info in here on tackling a hill climb (race):

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/power-climbing--1034

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

...so my reference is you, me, and everyone else who cycles a bike and struggles to find that "right" gear every now and again and wishes they had an intermediary gear that their legs+heart+lungs could comfortably cope with.

Fair enough if you prefer small changes, this personal preference does not form the basis for claiming greater efficiency as the lack of a reference demonstrates. And don't include me in your list, I prefer MTB style larger jumps and I never have a desire for an intermediate gear.

If significant jumps of gear were not a problem, then we'd all still be riding, and racing on, 3-speed bikes - top gear for speed, lowest gear for climbs, middle gear for everything else. They'd be lighter, less complicated, and cheaper. Similarly we'd all be driving 3-gear cars.

Straw man argument.

You don't say how many cogs are on your cassette.

My bike has a 7 cog cassette. Deore uses 9 cog cassettes.

Assuming that it is an 8-speed then you are averaging between 2 and 3 tooth jumps between gears.

Not relevant, jumps are expressed as a percentage. The usual preference is to have the percentages as equal as possible when shifting between cogs on the cassette, and also between the chainrings when using a triple. To achieve even percentage jumps you need different "tooth jumps" depending on where you are on the cassette (high or low). The limitations of derailer gear systems mean that a certain variation in jump percentages is unavoidable.

That _is_ extreme if you are using the bike only on the road.

To you perhaps, but that doesn't make it a reasonable label in general. Extreme are the jumps that you get between certain cogs on mega range cassettes. Again: I much prefer MTB style gearing jumps (on the road) and I don't find them extreme in the slightest. If I had a road bike with a close ratio cassette I'd have to skip gears to get the gear change I want.

It is actually very difficult to reach your VO2Max

VO2Max zone, it is a training zone typically defined as 90% - 100% of your MHR.

Riding in your anaerobic zone is fine for training, but you don't want to have to go there in a race unless you absolutely have to. Sprints are well and truly in the anaerobic zone, time trials should not be unless you want an unintentionally short time trial - a skilled time trial rider will be aiming to keep close to, but under, the anaerobic threshold for as long as possible, and as soon as they go over that threshold they are entering a world of pain which can only be sustained relatively briefly and will be followed by a period of recovery and therefore degraded performance.

When climbing my HR is ~175bpm, just below my VO2Max zone which lies between 180bpm - 200bpm (my MHR). I am able to sustain that for the full duration of climbs like Slieve Maan and I have never experienced pain or cramp as a result.

doozerie

Membrane wrote:

Fair enough if you prefer small changes, this personal preference does not form the basis for claiming greater efficiency as the lack of a reference demonstrates. And don't include me in your list, I prefer MTB style larger jumps and I never have a desire for an intermediate gear.

For someone so fond of references you are very lacking in them to support your own claims. In any case, it makes no difference whatsoever whether you agree with me or not. You will continue to ride as your ride, which based on what you have said is presumably without every having tried a close ratio block, and I will continue to ride as I ride, which is on a relatively close ratio block having tried several variations in block ratio over the years. I will continue to believe that my choice is better, you presumably will continue to know that your choice is better.

By the way, should any doubt ever creep into your mind about your choice, take part in a bike race to find out whether your choice of gear ratio fares well against close ratio blocks.

Membrane wrote:

Not relevant, jumps are expressed as a percentage. The usual preference is to have the percentages as equal as possible when shifting between cogs on the cassette, and also between the chainrings when using a triple. To achieve even percentage jumps you need different "tooth jumps" depending on where you are on the cassette (high or low). The limitations of derailer gear systems mean that a certain variation in jump percentages is unavoidable.

Jumps expressed as number of teeth or as a percentage? You say tomato, I say tomato. Whaddya know, they are the very same thing.

Aiming to have the percentages as equal as possible when changing gear versus having a close ratio block. Whaddy know again, they are the very same thing.

Membrane wrote:

If I had a road bike with a close ratio cassette I'd have to skip gears to get the gear change I want.

If this is how you normally ride, then you are not adapting to the road conditions, you are reacting late to a change in the gradient by making a large gear change, or you are running out of steam because of pushing the wrong (previous) gear or because of pushing it for too long without changing. If you want to see it done properly, watch a professional bike race.

Membrane wrote:

When climbing my HR is ~175bpm, just below my VO2Max zone which lies between 180bpm - 200bpm (my MHR). I am able to sustain that for the full duration of climbs like Slieve Maan and I have never experienced pain or cramp as a result.

How have you calculated your maximum heart rate? The rule of thumb is to subtract your age from 220 - that doesn't work for everyone, but it is a good general guide. If you are 40 years of age, as you stated before, than a MHR of 200 would be unusual. The most accurate way to measure your MHR is to actually push your body until it reaches that maximum, anything else is just an estimate.

And just because your heart rate is high does not necessarily mean that you are in the anaerobic zone. The more aerobically fit you are the more you can push your body without hitting your anaerobic threshold, but there are also other factors that vary from person to person. If you are able to comfortably maintain your effort, then you are not in the anaerobic zone, by definition.

tunney

Reference one:

http://www.howtobefit.com/five-heart-rate-zones.htm

Doesn't actually mention VO2max. Doesn't mention lactate. Works off MHR. My granny knows more about sports science than is on this page.

Reference two:

http://www.fitness-concepts.com/voxmax.htm

Not an article on training zones. Offers a service to measure AT, AeT and Vo2max, happens to list them in that order.

Reference three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Exercise_zones.png

An image on a Wiki, calls a training zone the "Hardcore" training zone. Zones couldn't be more wrong if they tried. Mistakenly links MHR and VO2Max. You cannot exceed MHR, you *CAN* exceed VO2Max.

Reference four:

http://walking.about.com/cs/fitnesswalking/a/hearttraining_2.htm

Again define zones based on Vo2max or LTHR. Works off MHR. In fact this article links VO2 and AeT. Its a fecking racewalkers site. Come on.

As much I'd like to trust a wiki to guide my training and it would be much simpler if those generic "How to be fit sites" were applicable I prefer to guide my cycling training by the sports scientists at the cutting edge of cycling training

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp


Finally pursuits may be anerobic efforts, time trials are done at, or just under lactate threshold.

Johnny Jukebox

doozerie wrote: »

By the way, should any doubt ever creep into your mind about your choice, take part in a bike race to find out whether your choice of gear ratio fares well against close ratio blocks.

For sure. Racing is the one true way to see if your beliefs about fitness/ratios/blah blah blah actually hold true.

Membrane

doozerie wrote: »

For someone so fond of references you are very lacking in them to support your own claims.

In my OP I posed a question, it does not claim a fact, if it did then there would be no need for the test would there. It is presented as a question accompanied with what I believe to be the answer. The challenge is there to test the question and my belief. Look at my OP and you'll see that I've linked to a few of the articles that I used to form my opinion.

You on the other hand are claiming a fact, but then you fail to provide any substantiation for it.

You will continue to ride as your ride, which based on what you have said is presumably without every having tried a close ratio block, and I will continue to ride as I ride, which is on a relatively close ratio block having tried several variations in block ratio over the years. I will continue to believe that my choice is better, you presumably will continue to know that your choice is better.

I'm not the one making claims about close or wider ratio cassettes being better, you are. I expressed a preference, and I respected your's.

By the way, should any doubt ever creep into your mind about your choice, take part in a bike race to find out whether your choice of gear ratio fares well against close ratio blocks.

That would involve a lot more variables than close or wider cassette ratios, and would therefore be pointless. You know this, and yet you suggest it. I'm getting to the end of considering it worthwhile to respond to this sort of thing.

If this is how you normally ride, then you are not adapting to the road conditions, you are reacting late to a change in the gradient by making a large gear change, or you are running out of steam because of pushing the wrong (previous) gear or because of pushing it for too long without changing.

Strawman argument again.

How have you calculated your maximum heart rate? The rule of thumb is to subtract your age from 220 - that doesn't work for everyone, but it is a good general guide. If you are 40 years of age, as you stated before, than a MHR of 200 would be unusual. The most accurate way to measure your MHR is to actually push your body until it reaches that maximum, anything else is just an estimate.

The 220 - age = MHR formula is deeply flawed, even when taking into account the up to 10% margin of error that it is believed to suffer from. The same applies to the variations of that formula that attempt to correct for some of it's flaws.

I'm 46YO and my HR reaches 190bpm during sustained climbing whilst standing on the pedals. I can only maintain that effort and HR for a few minutes. I've been advised that adding 5% to the highest HR figure reached during strenuous riding will give a good aproximation of MHR. Not as precise as a real MHR test, but much better than that formula. My results demonstrate how flawed the formula is and in my discussions with others quite a few other people have reported similar strong deviations from that rule.

I've not done a MHR test since that involves going hell for leather and is not without risk. A MHR test should preferably be done under controlled circumstances with medical backup (including defibrilator facilities).

This is my last comment on this. I should have learned from the previous occasion that discussions with you are rather pointless.

doozerie

Membrane wrote:

I should have learned from the previous occasion that discussions with you are rather pointless.

I guess I'll have to learn to cope with the rejection.

simplybikes

Jaysus lads I'm starting to loose the will to live or rather the will to ride and race me bike. Whoo hoo the first one to Larragh buys the coffee.