The "is low gearing better?" challenge

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.