bike question

Amprodude

I have two bikes, a cheap one Trek 1.1 and the other is an expensive one a Felt AR4. There is this hill that i often climb on my cycles and in fairness its torture its very steep for about 1km. I sometimes take out the Trek which is about 2.3kgs heavier than my Felt AR4. However, I find it easier to climb this hill with the Trek more so than the Felt. I dont understand, it shouldnt be the case but it is.

I know the felt is an aero design but would that have any effect uphills with climbing? I havent got fitted professionally on the bikes, the LBS fitted me but its not a pro job. I am planning to get it done though soon.

The Felt is alot easier to cycle everywhere else and brillant on the road but up steep hills it struggles to go up them even more so than my Trek. This is what i think but again people here might say im imagining this?

Opinions or feedback?

Beasty

Are you climbing faster with the Trek or does it simply feel easier?

Is the gearing identical on the 2 bikes?

hueylewis

I'd follow Beasty's line of thinking and guess that there's a step or two of lower gearing on the Trek. That would explain why you get the benefits of the more efficient bike in every other scenario, because the only time you're gonna notice the difference between the low gears is on tough climbs.

Wishbone Ash

The Felt is probably a 53/39 on a 25/11 whereas the Trek is probably a 50/34 compact on a 27/12.

Amprodude

Beasty wrote: »

Are you climbing faster with the Trek or does it simply feel easier?

Is the gearing identical on the 2 bikes?

It just feels easier with the Trek and it doesnt feel as bad. The climbing seems tougher with the Felt.

Amprodude

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The Felt is probably a 53/39 on a 25/11 whereas the Trek is probably a 50/34 compact on a 27/12.

I need to check this as i can't remember exactly what both bikes are. When I get hold of the bikes again, I will check it.

happytramp

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The Felt is probably a 53/39 on a 25/11 whereas the Trek is probably a 50/34 compact on a 27/12.

I'd be truly amazed if it isn't something of this nature. However there's always the slim possibility that the trek is magic.

detones

Could be a fitting issue like your thinking too, maybe the Trek is just bang on for you and feels better climbing. I think you should stick with the Trek and off load that crappy Felt. I for one would be willing to take it off you ( for a very small fee) as a favour to you.

Amprodude

Ok. Trek is a 50/34 on a 13/26 cassette. Shimano 2300 gearing.

Felt is a 52/36 on a 11/25 cassette. Ultegra 6700 gearing.

I assume that explains why the Trek seems easier to climb on the hills?

mcgratheoin

Amprodude wrote: »

Ok. Trek is a 50/34 on a 13/26 cassette. Shimano 2300 gearing.

Felt is a 52/36 on a 11/25 cassette. Uletegra 6700 gearing.

I assume that explains why the Trek seems easier to climb on the hills?

Absolutely - The simple solution is to swap your 11-25 for an 11-28 or a 12-27

Amprodude

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Absolutely - The simple solution is to swap your 11-25 for an 11-28 or a 12-27

When swapping over to a 11-28 from a 11-25, the advantage is i would climb up steep hills better with less effort, Is that correct?

What would be the disadvantages of switching over if any?

cython

Amprodude wrote: »

When swapping over to a 11-28 from a 11-25, the advantage is i would climb up steep hills better with less effort, Is that correct?

What would be the disadvantages of switching over if any?

Somewhat gappier shifting, due to having to cover a broader range with the same number of gears.

Amprodude

cython wrote: »

Somewhat gappier shifting, due to having to cover a broader range with the same number of gears.

What would be the best choice if i swap over or is it better i keep the same cassette?

Beasty

It will be easier if you get fitter - you get fitter by practising

Unless it's unbearable I would stick with the cassette. If you want an easy ride just climb aboard the Trek, if you want to push yourself use the Felt.

Amprodude

Beasty wrote: »

It will be easier if you get fitter - you get fitter by practising

Unless it's unbearable I would stick with the cassette. If you want an easy ride just climb aboard the Trek, if you want to push yourself use the Felt.

Who said i wasnt fit? . Im cycling 3 times a week doing around 50km each cycle. I was only wondering why i found the Trek a bit easier to climb than Felt. I can still climb fine with both bikes but wondering of the benefits if a 11-28 on the Felt.

Alek

Amprodude wrote: »

Who said i wasnt fit?

Rule #5 did.

diomed

Smallest gear ratios you have
Front smallest cog 36(?); rear biggest cassette 25 ---> ratio 36/25 = 1.44
Front smallest cog 39(?); rear biggest cassette 25 ---> ratio 39/25 = 1.56
Front smallest cog 34; rear biggest cassette 26 ---> ratio 34/26 = 1.31

The difference between a 1.56 and 1.31 ratio: 1.56/1.31 ... about 19%

(My guess is the front small ring is a 39, not 36 as you said.)

My smallest ratio on my Ultegra triple is 30/30 = 1.00 which is much easier

Beasty

Amprodude wrote: »

Who said i wasnt fit?

I didn't - I used a relative term

... and if you're fit you shouldn't need to change anything;)

feck sake lads

how did you manage to fit a 36 on that chainset i reckon its a 39:)
seems you need to fit a compact on the felt, if your not racing this makes sense.:cool:

Cee-Jay-Cee

feck sake lads wrote: »

how did you manage to fit a 36 on that chainset i reckon its a 39:)
seems you need to fit a compact on the felt, if your not racing this makes sense.:cool:

The Felt AR4 and F4 have an FSA semi compact crankset with 52/36 chain wheels.

feck sake lads

jeez you learn something new every day. never new there was such a thing

Amprodude

feck sake lads wrote: »

jeez you learn something new every day. never new there was such a thing

Yeah it is. I can upload a picture to confirm.

Amprodude

Beasty wrote: »

I didn't - I used a relative term

... and if you're fit you shouldn't need to change anything;)

I was only joking with you. You are dead right though. Il keep the cassette on. Im getting better each time i go up with the Felt anyway. Went up it this evening and didnt think it was too bad compared to the other day.

Wishbone Ash

Amprodude wrote: »

Went up it this evening and didnt think it was too bad compared to the other day.

Going by you location is it this one?

http://app.strava.com/segments/916161

Amprodude

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Going by you location is it this one?

http://app.strava.com/segments/916161

No thank god. I used to cycle up there with a mountain bike that weighed a tonne about 10 years ago. It was torture but i had the youth back then.

easygoing39

Maybe the trek has more EPO/blood transfusion's flowing thru its frame,just like lance's???

Wishbone Ash

Amprodude wrote: »

I have two bikes, a cheap one Trek 1.1 and the other is an expensive one a Felt AR4

It's just occurred to me to ask why, regardless of gearing ratios, are you going out on a cheap Trek when you have an expensive Felt?

Hunterbiker

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's just occurred to me to ask why, regardless of gearing ratios, are you going out on a cheap Trek when you have an expensive Felt?

Because its an expensive Felt

Amprodude

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's just occurred to me to ask why, regardless of gearing ratios, are you going out on a cheap Trek when you have an expensive Felt?

The Trek is my touring bike and my Felt is my cruising bike.

I dont take the Felt out on dirty or bad roads or routes. Thats where the Trek comes in. Its takes more abuse and i dont really care if something happens it. I use Felt always on my club spins and smooth roads. I am a bit of a freak when it comes to looking after it. But its used way more than the Trek all the same, i.e. 90% of the time.

The Trek is good for training also as its heavier so sometimes i would take it out for that reason.