Bike - How to know if its for hills or flat?

yop

Lads
Sorry for the noob question but I changed bike there 2 months ago.

I had a Giant Defy 4, sound bike, had it for a year + and it was grand.

I changed to a carbon bike there then and what I have noticed is that going up the hills I now seem to be "looking" for gears. I see the other lads, not on granny wheels, spinning up the hills.

Any idea if I would know if mine is suited more to flats? Its just murdering me on the hills when I am out on the group sessions where we take in a lot of hills.

I have started "pulling up" on the pedals as I wasn't doing this, but the bike/me is grinding to a halt on occassion on the big long climbs.

Maybe I just need to "harden up"

seamus

Yep, just HTFU.

Chances are your gear ratios have changed, so you have less gears available on the new bike than your original one. Probably changed from a triple on the defy (3 chainrings at the front) to a compact double (two chainrings on the front) on the new bike.

If that's not the case, then your cassette has changed, say from 26 to 23.

What's the new bike?

The benefit of a double over a triple is that you can realistically have a bigger top gear (i.e. more speed), plus they're lighter and tend to suffer less from your chain popping off. But a triple makes climbing much easier.

Chips Lovell

+1 to what Seamus said. I suspect its more an issue with your gearing than the frame.

TheBlaaMan

yop wrote: »

Maybe I just need to "harden up"

Perhaps, but that only part of the equation. There is no route over about 10k (IMO) in this country that doesnt include hills, so you just have to get used to it and deal with them tactically - do go into the red to early, for starters. The carbon bike should be lighter and thus 'better' for climbing, but is probably only about 10% of the weight you are trying to haul up the hill...

Tell us more about the groupset on the bike (compact, triple or standard chainrings; cassette details), your weight, your average speed on say a 40k spin including a mix of hills/flat sections.

Raam

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

There is no route over about 10k (IMO) in this country that doesnt include hills

What are you on about?

ednwireland

Raam wrote: »

What are you on about?

ok raam find us a 10km pan flat section of road

Raam

ednwireland wrote: »

ok raam find us a 10km pan flat section of road

He didn't say pan flat.

ThisRegard

I'm in the same boat but for me I think it's a case of getting stronger on the bike. At at times I do wish I had more gears and said many times I've cursed to myself that I'm going to change my cassette the next day.

I'm on a compact now with with apparently a 26t for my max sprocket, 12t for the minimum. Does it make me a wuss ? On my triple I rarely wished for more.

Beasty

Clearly it depends on how you define a "hill", but using my commute as an example, I can go the "long" way home, over 35km with total climbing of less than 150m, and maximum incline of around 4%

ednwireland

Raam wrote: »

He didn't say pan flat.

picky

Raam

http://bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=259840

Click the summary link. It gets up to the dizzy height of about 12 meters, but if you bring your oxygen, you will be OK.

TheBlaaMan

Jaysus, will ye all put away your handbags and get back on topic. :rolleyes:

seamus

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm on a compact now with with apparently a 26t for my max sprocket, 12t for the minimum. Does it make me a wuss ?

A little bit

The largest sprocket you'll easily get for a road bike will be 27 or 28, which is practically no different to the 26 for all intents and purposes.

A standard triple has a 30T minimum chainring, a standard compact is 34. The difference is actually quite small, however the 34 represents a 14% jump, so if you were using the 30/26 combination to just about get up some climbs, then you will definitely find the 34/26 combo noticeably more difficult.

One eternal truth about climbing is that when you hit the hills, you will use the lowest gear that you have. I have yet to find a hill that defeats me in my 34 (and I'm not a strong climber), but I know for a fact that if I had a triple, I'd be climbing those same hills in the lowest gear and saving myself that 14% effort at the expense of speed.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I started riding I always found that it was either my legs that failed me in the climbs, or my lungs/fitness, but rarely both. So I found that by sitting down while climbing, my legs could practically go forever or until my heart wanted to explode. If I stand up for anything more than a second or two to stretch my legs, I'm finished. In the early days I would take a brief stop (like 120 seconds) before a serious climb to take a drink and let my HR drop. Now I just bull on, deep slow breathing, keep the legs moving, focus on the immediate road ahead rather than looking upwards on the climb. Stopping mid-climb is not an option, it's impossible to get going again.

Caroline_ie

Undercover Elephant

Raam wrote: »

http://bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=259840

Click the summary link. It gets up to the dizzy height of about 12 meters, but if you bring your oxygen, you will be OK.

Is it just me, or does anyone else on that route get up to 12m (Portmarnock Strand?) and think "whee, look how high I am"?

No? Just me? Never mind.

kennyb3

Raam wrote: »

http://bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=259840

Click the summary link. It gets up to the dizzy height of about 12 meters, but if you bring your oxygen, you will be OK.

Stop mocking my hilly commute home

ThisRegard

seamus wrote: »

A little bit

The largest sprocket you'll easily get for a road bike will be 27 or 28, which is practically no different to the 26 for all intents and purposes.

A standard triple has a 30T minimum chainring, a standard compact is 34. The difference is actually quite small, however the 34 represents a 14% jump, so if you were using the 30/26 combination to just about get up some climbs, then you will definitely find the 34/26 combo noticeably more difficult.

One eternal truth about climbing is that when you hit the hills, you will use the lowest gear that you have. I have yet to find a hill that defeats me in my 34 (and I'm not a strong climber), but I know for a fact that if I had a triple, I'd be climbing those same hills in the lowest gear and saving myself that 14% effort at the expense of speed.

Mmm, I think I may have under sold myself there, the spec sheet I got those figures from are the min and max capacity for the groupset, not what's actually on the bike, on further investigation I'm on a 26t on the rear and 52-39T on the front, am I much harder now

Kav0777

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else on that route get up to 12m (Portmarnock Strand?) and think "whee, look how high I am"?

No? Just me? Never mind.

No, I think "thanks be to god that suffering is over.... now for the down hill"

yop

Hi
Sorry the Giant was a double with 8's on the back.

The Merida Theroma is the new bike, it also has a double, with 8's. I checked it there and the large on the back has 23 "teeth" so maybe the Defy was 26.

I am just over 14.5 stone myself. Avg speed last night on the clubs 40km leisure spin was 32kmph.

I would have good mileage in the legs, but was just really surprised at how much harder I found it over the same hills on the new bike

It is though as said much more rapid on the flats.

Raam

Be careful on the downhill. It's very steep.

Raam

seamus wrote: »

The benefit of a double over a triple is that you can realistically have a bigger top gear (i.e. more speed)

You can get triple chainsets with a 52 chainring, so it's not a massive difference. I dunno if you can put a 53 on there or if you can buy em that way.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

You can get triple chainsets with a 52 chainring, so it's not a massive difference. I dunno if you can put a 53 on there or if you can buy em that way.

Doesn't really matter anyway, since (a) 50-12 is big enough for almost anyone, and (b) the granny ring gives you bailout gears so you can choose a closer spaced cassette with an 11t sprocket.

I think pros used to run 52-13 when there were fewer sprockets on a cassette.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Doesn't really matter anyway, since (a) 50-12 is big enough for almost anyone, and (b) the granny ring gives you bailout gears so you can choose a closer spaced cassette with an 11t sprocket.

I think pros used to run 52-13 when there were fewer sprockets on a cassette.

Do people with granny rings care about running closer spaced cassettes?

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Do people with granny rings care about running closer spaced cassettes?

I did. I miss my triple.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

I did. I miss my triple.

I dont and Id wager that I weigh 1.5 Lumens easily. Have you suddenly put on tons of weight or are you lazy?

For most journeys I think the standard double is sufficient. I like pushing 53/15, it suits my appaulingy low cadence range. Meanwhile the 39/25 gets me up most climbs (say 6km at no more than 5% avg or 1km at 10% just about).

For courses with lots and lots of climbing I use the compact with minimum gearing of 34/27.

I have often spun out on 50/12, but to be fair I was going to tuck anyway - so not sure how much faster I would have been with 53/11 before I would have had to tuck anyway.

I used a triple for a few years. I needed it due to fat. It got me up many a clim, which kept me on the bike. However I dont miss it. Still have it in the shed just in case I ever get stupid enough to attempt that crazy sportif in Carrick or do something more monumentally stupid (like Marmotte, Etape, Maratona Dolomites).

TheBlaaMan

yop wrote: »

Hi
Sorry the Giant was a double with 8's on the back.

The Merida Theroma is the new bike, it also has a double, with 8's. I checked it there and the large on the back has 23 "teeth" so maybe the Defy was 26.

I am just over 14.5 stone myself. Avg speed last night on the clubs 40km leisure spin was 32kmph.

I would have good mileage in the legs, but was just really surprised at how much harder I found it over the same hills on the new bike

It is though as said much more rapid on the flats.

You're going to really notice a difference between a 23 tooth and a 26 tooth sprocket on the cassette. That, and the fairly high average speed on the spin (28/29kmph would be more the 'norm' for intermediate/sportif riders) probably account for the difference you're feeling. In addition, if your smallest front chainring is a 39 and perhaps you previously had a compact (smallest = 34) you could be near doubling the effort to keep up the same pace on climbs.

yop

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

You're going to really notice a difference between a 23 tooth and a 26 tooth sprocket on the cassette. That, and the fairly high average speed on the spin (28/29kmph would be more the 'norm' for intermediate/sportif riders) probably account for the difference you're feeling. In addition, if your smallest front chainring is a 39 and perhaps you previously had a compact (smallest = 34) you could be near doubling the effort to keep up the same pace on climbs.

I did a quick count on the smallest, I think its a 38 or 39.

Ok so the lesson here is work harder

Another daft question, but once I "master" the climbs on this bike, will it be of any benefit or am I just going to be fighting the whole time.

The bike so is more suited to flats.

Lumen

yop wrote: »

I did a quick count on the smallest, I think its a 38 or 39.

Ok so the lesson here is work harder

Another daft question, but once I "master" the climbs on this bike, will it be of any benefit or am I just going to be fighting the whole time.

The bike so is more suited to flats.

39-23 is a bitch of a gear. Buy a new cassette, e.g. 12-27.

yop

Lumen wrote: »

39-23 is a bitch of a gear. Buy a new cassette, e.g. 12-27.

A 12-27? Meaning that it has 12 teeth on the big and 27 on the small?

That would make a difference on the hills would it? But would be slower on the road?

cdaly_

Raam wrote: »

Do people with granny rings care about running closer spaced cassettes?

Yep.

yop wrote: »

I did a quick count on the smallest, I think its a 38 or 39.

Ok so the lesson here is work harder

Sneak a granny ring on there, nobody'll notice...

Beasty

yop wrote: »

A 12-27? Meaning that it has 12 teeth on the big and 27 on the small?

No it means the cassette at the back has a range of 12 cogs (highest gear) to 27 (lowest)

yop

Beasty wrote: »

No it means the cassette at the back has a range of 12 cogs (highest gear) to 27 (lowest)

Ah. Thanks I get you now. I might have to do that as there is no point in me burning the legs off myself on a number of hills in the middle of a 70km spin when I am hanging then for 5 or 10 mins after each hill section.

Ryath

yop wrote: »

Ok so the lesson here is work harder

Another daft question, but once I "master" the climbs on this bike, will it be of any benefit or am I just going to be fighting the whole time.

Yep

It will get easier to push the gears you have and you probably won't be looking for lower gears anymore . You'll still fight though maybe not as much over short climbs but over longer ones you just go up them faster.

yop wrote: »

The bike so is more suited to flats.

Nope you are
You'll get used to it. The giant you had would have had 50/34 compact. and the 23 vs 26 cassete together would be a signifigant differance in the lowest gearing available to you. If you're really struggling change the cassete even going to a 25 would help or even a 27/28 at the expense of it being gappy especially with an 8speed
Went from using a 50/39/30 triple last year to a 53/39 standard double on the new bike. Had thought about getting it with a 50/34 compact and was wishing I had on one hill just after getting it. Now I can get up this hill it without even coming of the big chain ring.

yop

Ryath wrote: »

Yep

It will get easier to push the gears you have and you probably won't be looking for lower gears anymore . You'll still fight though maybe not as much over short climbs but over longer ones you just go up them faster.


Nope you are
You'll get used to it. The giant you had would have had 50/34 compact. and the 23 vs 26 cassete together would be a signifigant differance in the lowest gearing available to you. If you're really struggling change the cassete even going to a 25 would help or even a 27/28 at the expense of it being gappy especially with an 8speed
Went from using a 50/39/30 triple last year to a 53/39 standard double on the new bike. Had thought about getting it with a 50/34 compact and was wishing I had on one hill just after getting it. Now I can get up this hill it without even coming of the big chain ring.

If its short term pain for long term gain I don't mind. If it makes me a stronger cyclist on the hills and gives me more power on the flats then I don't mind the pain wont bit

Sr. Assumpta

ROK ON wrote: »

I dont and Id wager that I weigh 1.5 Lumens easily...

Is this a new unit of measurement? Are there nano-Lumens, micro-Lumens etc. for even 'lighter' individuals?

Lemag

Ryath wrote: »

Now I can get up this hill it without even coming of the big chain ring.

I don't know whqat hill you're talking about but you're probably putting undue stress on your chain.

Sr. Assumpta wrote: »

Is this a new unit of measurement? Are there nano-Lumens, micro-Lumens etc. for even 'lighter' individuals?

It sure is but in a different context. It's a measurement of the power of light (you may have already known this).

funkyjebus

Lumen wrote: »

39-23 is a bitch of a gear. Buy a new cassette, e.g. 12-27.

+1
Definitely get a new cassette. I rocked 39-23 over sally gap and it damn near killed me, changed to a 27 and its far easier now (but still a b1tch).

You could also change your chainrings to a compact (50-34), but thats far more expensive than a new cassette. But if you still have problems after a new cassette, its either change the chainrings or man up:p

dowtcha

ROK ON wrote: »

I dont and Id wager that I weigh 1.5 Lumens easily. Have you suddenly put on tons of weight or are you lazy?

For most journeys I think the standard double is sufficient. I like pushing 53/15, it suits my appaulingy low cadence range. Meanwhile the 39/25 gets me up most climbs (say 6km at no more than 5% avg or 1km at 10% just about).

For courses with lots and lots of climbing I use the compact with minimum gearing of 34/27.

I have often spun out on 50/12, but to be fair I was going to tuck anyway - so not sure how much faster I would have been with 53/11 before I would have had to tuck anyway.

I used a triple for a few years. I needed it due to fat. It got me up many a clim, which kept me on the bike. However I dont miss it. Still have it in the shed just in case I ever get stupid enough to attempt that crazy sportif in Carrick or do something more monumentally stupid (like Marmotte, Etape, Maratona Dolomites).

I did the crazy sportif in a standard 52/39 with a 28/14 cassette, I hope to be back for more next year, is this a cause for concern?

joe1982

For that spin last night I don't think it was the gears that was wrong, I'm running a compact with 12/27 and I don't get near the easy gears, I find it's more the mental speed some of them slopes are attacked at, my legs at times are ready to fall off at times but it's just pure determination to hold on, but those gears are far to low for some of the hills around here, ie the maum!!!!

seamus

joe1982 wrote: »

For that spin last night I don't think it was the gears that was wrong, I'm running a compact with 12/27 and I don't get near the easy gears, I find it's more the mental speed some of them slopes are attacked at, my legs at times are ready to fall off at times but it's just pure determination to hold on, but those gears are far to low for some of the hills around here, ie the maum!!!!

Riding with people who are stronger than you will yield improvements much faster than riding alone or with a weak group. Stick with it