Suitable Kit was Diversity was : AUK CHAIRMAN ST

[rob]

Mrs Rob bought a road bike recently.   We did a bit of surfing but visited Halfords and the local Giant shop.  I was impressed with the range of women’s bikes in both shops, but the Liv range in the Giant shop was top quality.   I deliberately looked at other bikes while the negotiation was going on, staying within earshot, but the (both male) assistants in both shops were knowledgable, helpful and non condescending.

[CrinklyLion]

Yeah, my bike/bits buying experiences have all been good at all the LBSs I've used here. There is one member of staff at one shop that I choose not to deal with about servicing because he seriously talked down to me once, but his colleagues (who I'd been dealing with for several years when he pushed my buttons) have always been helpful and professional.

[Somnolent]

.....Will have to look closer at the FSA.

OK, so I rejected the FSA on the basis that it is a 30mm spindle and hence incompatible with my rather expensive Hope BB (for 24mm spindle)  - but someone at the reunion pointed me in the direction of the AbsoluteBLACK ovals (which permit a reduced toothcount down as far as 46/30) on a 110BCD.  Early impressions are favorable. 

[marylogic]

I rejected the FSA crankset on the basis that it didn’t seem to do a 165 crank when I was looking.

I ended up getting the absolute black chainrings and I really can’t sing their praises highly enough. They had their maiden outing on the Wildcat Grimpeur on my new Burls and they were fantastic for all the climbing. Burls is another recommendation for Women’s bikes as he listened to everything I was looking for and did no mansplaining at all (unlike several lbs I’ve been to). Being custom built he can fully accommodate small riders requirements and is very reasonably priced

[menthel]

My wife ended up at condor who made her a beautiful 650c Fratello disc bike as she is rather short but with long legs. There are companies and bike shops out there that will treat women correctly, they just don't seem all that common.

[inappropriate_bike]

I think off-the-shelf gearing is getting better again.

You see a lot of 11-34 casettes on off-the-shelf Ultegra and Tiagra equipped bikes these days. That gives 1:1 gearing (27").

If you need more, a medium cage derailleur will probably take an 11-36 no problem, although you might need to add a goatlink to get a, 11-40 or 11-42 in there. That's the kind of simple job any LBS should be able to do for a very small amount of money.

32:42 is a 22" gear and well into "so slow you'll fall off" territory.

And, there are more off-the-shelf gravel bikes with 650b wheels and low 1x gearing. Here's a whole page of ones advertising 24-26" bottom gears, and they are only a chainring swap away from a sub-20" gear.

https://road.cc/content/buyers-guide/237160-21-road-gravel-and-cyclocross-bikes-1x-gearing-can-one-chainring-do-it

Many male riders would also benefit from lower gears, but that wouldn't look as good on instagram 

[quixoticgeek]

I think off-the-shelf gearing is getting better again.

Better? or less worse?

You see a lot of 11-34 casettes on off-the-shelf Ultegra and Tiagra equipped bikes these days. That gives 1:1 gearing (27").

If you need more, a medium cage derailleur will probably take an 11-36 no problem, although you might need to add a goatlink to get a, 11-40 or 11-42 in there. That's the kind of simple job any LBS should be able to do for a very small amount of money.

GS cage on Tiagra, 105 and Ultegra will accept a 11-36, but you may need to wind the B screw out quite a way. If you use a road link, you can fit an 11-40 on a 105 and an Ultegra RX800 (These I know work), however you are over the officially listed capacity of the rear derailleur. If you stick with the listed capacities, 11-36 is your max.

You mention 1:1, a 70kg rider, with a 1:1 gear, on 622 wheels, would need to put out 98w on a 5%, and 185w on a 10% incline. That's over 2.5 per kilo for the 10% incline.

32:42 is a 22" gear and well into "so slow you'll fall off" territory.

And, there are more off-the-shelf gravel bikes with 650b wheels and low 1x gearing. Here's a whole page of ones advertising 24-26" bottom gears, and they are only a chainring swap away from a sub-20" gear.

https://road.cc/content/buyers-guide/237160-21-road-gravel-and-cyclocross-bikes-1x-gearing-can-one-chainring-do-it

Many male riders would also benefit from lower gears, but that wouldn't look as good on instagram 

See previous discussion for why 650b is note ideal yet, due to the availability of tyres when on the road.

My current build bike is going with Shimano XT DI 2. 28/38 front, and 11-40 rear. It's the only way I can get a low enough gear. Being Di2, I can still use road shifters, as long as I stick to all road, or all mtb for the derailleurs.

J

[grams]

I recently converted my touring bike to 33 speed using various hacked components - Tiagra 4703 triple left shifter, 24t small ring, hacked 105 5800 rear mech with Deore *long* cage. 24x32 is a very pleasant hill climbing gear, even on Swains 20%. It’ll take an 11-42 cassette with a road link  although that requires lengthening the chain beyond the mech capacity for keeping it tight in small-small, and I’m not sure it’s really necessary.

[mattc]

You mention 1:1, a 70kg rider, with a 1:1 gear, on 622 wheels, would need to put out 98w on a 5%, and 185w on a 10% incline. That's over 2.5 per kilo for the 10% incline.

Don't those power figures need to assume a specific avg speed?!?  [apologies if I missed something in your post! ]

Most of my big rides have used bottom gear ~around~ 1:1, and 10% climbs do tend to put me into the red; but I've never measured my power. I certainly like to have something lower than 1:1 for long/hilly rides.

[simonp]

I suggest it's about 8kph, or a little less (assumptions may vary from various defaults in bikecalc).

[Karla]

You mention 1:1, a 70kg rider, with a 1:1 gear, on 622 wheels, would need to put out 98w on a 5%, and 185w on a 10% incline. That's over 2.5 per kilo for the 10% incline.

Don't those power figures need to assume a specific avg speed?!?  [apologies if I missed something in your post! ]

Most of my big rides have used bottom gear ~around~ 1:1, and 10% climbs do tend to put me into the red; but I've never measured my power. I certainly like to have something lower than 1:1 for long/hilly rides.

Remind me what degree you did again? 

[Greenbank]

That kind of fits as a minimum climbing speed.

Looking back in Strava at various long rides it seems most of the steep climbs I end up bottoming out somewhere just below 8kph.

I can't find anything slower than that (which isn't walking), which means below that is probably too slow [for me] to stay upright easily.

(I doubt it is due to lack of low enough gears, I see various rides with that climbing speed on the carbon bike at ~45rpm, on the fixed at ~25rpm and on a bike with almost 1:1 gears at ~60rpm.)

[grams]

I recall from previous discussions QG has a particular minimum cadence in mind.

Although for climbing, there's essentially a linear relationship between speed, cadence and power in a given gear ratio, so you can cancel terms and come up with a minimum leg strength required to move the bike forward for a certain weight, gradient and gear ratio (independent of speed and power). I think on steeper climbs this can be the limiting factor as often as power is.

Is there a commonly used measure for instantaneous leg strength? I've never seen much beyond FTP and FTP-derived W/kg, which are fundamentally measures of stamina.

[Karla]

I work out a climbing speed of just under 10 kph for 185 W at 10%, but I used 70 kg as all-up weight so with a bike added in then 8 kph would be about right. 

Importantly, it has nothing to do with gearing: you'd need to put out the same power to climb at the same rate in any gear.  What will change with the gear is the force you need to apply to the pedals. 

Happily, gears these days are lower than ever: you can fit a 24 tooth little ring on an mtb chainset, and a dinner plate on the back, and in that gear you'll barely be able to balance the bike.  If you're an untrained rookie trying to ride up a brick wall with a full touring load when you're in a tired state, don't blame your gears when you have to get off and push.

[nextSibling]

If you use a road link, you can fit an 11-40 on a 105 and an Ultegra RX800 (These I know work), however you are over the officially listed capacity of the rear derailleur. If you stick with the listed capacities, 11-36 is your max.

FWIW, I've found an 11-40 with an RX800 rear derailleur works fine even without the need for a RoadLink despite what Shimano say. Their usual conservatism with its specifications, I suppose. There does seem to be a gradual trend towards the bigger brands finally acknowledging it's not just mountain bikes where lower gears are desirable. It's about time. I guess the fashion for "gravel" or "all-road" bikes, especially in the US, is probably driving that.

Anyhow, FWI also W, that's a gear low enough for me, but telling anyone else online what gearing they should want or need seems to make about as much sense as guessing their shoe size based on their hair color.

[Kim]

Although for climbing, there's essentially a linear relationship between speed, cadence and power in a given gear ratio, so you can cancel terms and come up with a minimum leg strength required to move the bike forward for a certain weight, gradient and gear ratio (independent of speed and power). I think on steeper climbs this can be the limiting factor as often as power is.

Is there a commonly used measure for instantaneous leg strength? I've never seen much beyond FTP and FTP-derived W/kg, which are fundamentally measures of stamina.

I'm struggling to think of a situation where leg strength has been a limiting factor for me on a climb.  It's sometimes balance or traction (can't keep the bike moving and upright at an otherwise sustainable climbing speed due to surface/wind/traffic conditions), occasionally fatigue (legs turn to jelly and won't give enough power for a climb I could normally manage) and usually aerobic capacity (run out of oxygen, can't sustain the power level and drop below stall speed).  The closest I can think of is starting off on a recumbent in an excessively high gear, and that's as much about balance as force.

Actually, on an upright, isn't the force you can exert limited to body weight plus arm strength?  A fit rider should be able to exert more force using legs alone if they have a seat to push back against, but IME that's only actually useful on a multitrack cycle (ie. no stall speed issues) with good traction, and tends to cause drivetrain/knee issues if you make a habit of it.  And of course while it might be useful for a burst of acceleration or even a very short steep climb (ie. bridge) it doesn't gain you any sustained power.

[Cudzoziemiec]

For me I'd say the limit is sometimes leg strength, sometimes lungs, occasionally it might even be heart. Leg strength is more likely to be the limit when I'm heavily laden or haven't been riding much, suggesting that for me leg strength is gained and lost more than aerobic fitness.

[Greenbank]

I work out a climbing speed of just under 10 kph for 185 W at 10÷, but I used 70 kg as all-up weight so with a bike added in then 8 kph would be about right. 

Importantly, it has nothing to do with gearing: you'd need to put out the same power to climb at the same rate in any gear.  What will change with the gear is the force you need to apply to the pedals. 

Which eventually* comes down to the same action as a stair climber (without bracing yourself with your arms the limit of the force you can apply to the pedal is based on your full body weight standing on the pedal). You use your legs to raise your centre of gravity up so that you can stand on the higher pedal and put all of your weight on it until the other pedal rises to the top of the stroke, lather, rinse and repeat.

This means there's a finite amount of gravitational potential energy (rider mass * height change of CoG) available on each pedal stroke, and each pedal stroke will go a certain distance (due to the gearing).

From an energy conversation perspective; as a hill gets steeper more of this energy has to go in raising the rider+bike up the vertical height gained so less is available for forward motion.

(The "height change of CoG" item is a bit tricky to estimate, an initial rough estimate will be twice the crank length, but I'm not so sure whether that's entirely true for riding out of the saddle, I'd need to stare at some suitable footage.)

* Throw in pulling up on the pedals and using the bars (and arms) as leverage for added complications (not to even mention air or rolling resistances). [EDIT] Or, as Kim points out, recumbents.

[Kim]

For me I'd say the limit is sometimes leg strength, sometimes lungs, occasionally it might even be heart. Leg strength is more likely to be the limit when I'm heavily laden or haven't been riding much, suggesting that for me leg strength is gained and lost more than aerobic fitness.

Maybe it's one of those brick vs feather things?  Stands to reason that heavier riders (which I certainly qualify as) are going to be stronger, but without a corresponding increase in aerobic capacity.

[Cudzoziemiec]

For me I'd say the limit is sometimes leg strength, sometimes lungs, occasionally it might even be heart. Leg strength is more likely to be the limit when I'm heavily laden or haven't been riding much, suggesting that for me leg strength is gained and lost more than aerobic fitness.

Maybe it's one of those brick vs feather things?  Stands to reason that heavier riders (which I certainly qualify as) are going to be stronger, but without a corresponding increase in aerobic capacity.

Maybe it's different strokes for different folks (and scooby-dooby-doo)?
 

[Greenbank]

If you look at it in terms of pedal strokes (rather than time) then a rider is lugging themselves plus the bike up the hill one pedal stroke at a time.

So a 40kg rider on a 10kg bike will require proportionally more of the work they are generating to lug themselves AND THE BIKE up the hill than an 80kg rider on a 10kg bike. (That doesn't mean the 80kg rider is automatically faster, that comes down to individuals and phyisiology.)

As for the limits, it comes down to not being able to run a 10k at the same speed as you can run 800m. You can't sprint a marathon.

There are a whole host of physiological things going on.
* Aerobic vs anaerobic vs ATP
* Lactic thresholds
* Lactic tolerance
* O₂ supply and CO₂ exhaust

And then it could be one of these limits specific to one of the many organs involved (heart, lungs, leg muscles, etc).

But then having to stop because my heart rate is too high could be because my unfit leg muscles are inefficient at retrieving oxygen or glycogen from the blood, not because my heart can't beat fast enough.

[inappropriate_bike]

You mention 1:1, a 70kg rider, with a 1:1 gear, on 622 wheels, would need to put out 98w on a 5%, and 185w on a 10% incline. That's over 2.5 per kilo for the 10% incline.

It should be no real surprise that 10% climbs by bike require a good level of fitness (or an e-bike).

There aren't many sustained 10% climbs around here. There are lots of peak 10% climbs, but the overall average is usually much lower. Bar Hatch (a hill route planners send you up when they want you to suffer) is only 6% average. Even Hardknott is only an average of 13.3%!

[Cudzoziemiec]

So a 40kg rider on a 10kg bike will require proportionally more of the work they are generating to lug themselves AND THE BIKE up the hill than an 80kg rider on a 10kg bike. (That doesn't mean the 80kg rider is automatically faster, that comes down to individuals and phyisiology.)

Which is why small riders shouldn't pay much attention to big riders saying weight doesn't matter.

[quixoticgeek]

You mention 1:1, a 70kg rider, with a 1:1 gear, on 622 wheels, would need to put out 98w on a 5%, and 185w on a 10% incline. That's over 2.5 per kilo for the 10% incline.

Don't those power figures need to assume a specific avg speed?!?  [apologies if I missed something in your post! ]

Most of my big rides have used bottom gear ~around~ 1:1, and 10% climbs do tend to put me into the red; but I've never measured my power. I certainly like to have something lower than 1:1 for long/hilly rides.

Oh should have said, this is assuming a cadence of 60rpm which gives speed of 7.6kph.

Conversely a 30 front, 34 rear, would give 86w and 163w respectively, and a speed of 6.7kph.

I've calculated based on cadence, Sure you can grind out at 45-50rpm, in a higher gear, but it's gonna knacker your knees.

Remind me what degree you did again? 

Computer systems engineering...

That kind of fits as a minimum climbing speed.

Looking back in Strava at various long rides it seems most of the steep climbs I end up bottoming out somewhere just below 8kph.

I can't find anything slower than that (which isn't walking), which means below that is probably too slow [for me] to stay upright easily.

(I doubt it is due to lack of low enough gears, I see various rides with that climbing speed on the carbon bike at ~45rpm, on the fixed at ~25rpm and on a bike with almost 1:1 gears at ~60rpm.)

A lot of it comes down to what you are willing to accept as a nice cadence to ride at. 6.7kph is plenty fast enough to not be falling over, but it's a lot easier to do that speed at 90rpm, than at 60rpm, or even 45rpm.

I work out a climbing speed of just under 10 kph for 185 W at 10÷, but I used 70 kg as all-up weight so with a bike added in then 8 kph would be about right. 

Importantly, it has nothing to do with gearing: you'd need to put out the same power to climb at the same rate in any gear.  What will change with the gear is the force you need to apply to the pedals. 

And the cadence. Doing 10kph in one gear, you may have to do 90rpm, in another gear you have to do 45rpm. If you're sustaining it for a couple of hours on a really long climb, then 90rpm is gonna be a lot easier to deal with than 45rpm. My numbers have been based on a 70kg rider, and a 10kg bike. For anyone touring or ultra-racing, a 10kg all up bike weight is never gonna happen.

Which eventually* comes down to the same action as a stair climber (without bracing yourself with your arms the limit of the force you can apply to the pedal is based on your full body weight standing on the pedal). You use your legs to raise your centre of gravity up so that you can stand on the higher pedal and put all of your weight on it until the other pedal rises to the top of the stroke, lather, rinse and repeat.

This assumes climbing out of the saddle. Sure, fine for a short climb, or a steep ramp as part of a longer climb, but on a longer climb, that's gonna hurt (see the recent GCN video of the Contador 20 minute out the saddle climb challenge).

Realistically for most of us climbing is about grinding away on the gears trying to keep the pedals turning.

The position you have on the bike will also dictate which muscles you can deploy to get you up the hill. Aerobars / triathlon position will generally use slightly different muscles to the classic hoods, or drops position. My regular slogs into the wind on the aero bars, mean these muscles are stronger than those used on the hoods, this means I'm occasionally seen slogging up a hill on the aero bars, it looks bloody stupid, but it works.

Maybe it's one of those brick vs feather things?  Stands to reason that heavier riders (which I certainly qualify as) are going to be stronger, but without a corresponding increase in aerobic capacity.

Not necessarily. If you have 2 people with the same height, and the same fat percentage, but different weights, then it's fair to say the heavier rider will be stronger (assuming muscles have been built for cycling rather than say dead lifting). But, if both riders are the same height, and different weights, it's more likely that the heavier rider has a surplus of Kummerspek, rather than an abundance of muscle. All other things being equal, and assuming your typical population.

I'm 92kg, I'm 1.7m tall. I've put on a little bit of muscle, but I'm pretty certain I'm lugging around a good 25-30kg of kummerspek, rather than muscle. It's part of why I struggle so much on the hills.

As for the limits, it comes down to not being able to run a 10k at the same speed as you can run 800m. You can't sprint a marathon.

There are a whole host of physiological things going on.
* Aerobic vs anaerobic vs ATP
* Lactic thresholds
* Lactic tolerance
* O₂ supply and CO₂ exhaust

And then it could be one of these limits specific to one of the many organs involved (heart, lungs, leg muscles, etc).

But then having to stop because my heart rate is too high could be because my unfit leg muscles are inefficient at retrieving oxygen or glycogen from the blood, not because my heart can't beat fast enough.

This is why the hearts of pro cyclists tend to be bigger, so they are pumping a larger volume of oxygenated blood for each beat. But purely building aerobic fitness at the expense of your muscles, isn't going to help. Sure you're pumping plenty of oxygen to the muscles, but the fibres need the strength to convert that into output. Hence needing a balanced training regime.

I know that if I really cane it I can get about 184bpm out of my heart, tho not for a long period. I know I can sustain 150bpm+ for hours on end (at least 13 of them at a time). What I don't have data for is how much oxygen I can pump round with that... Still wish I could put a bit more power out tho.

It should be no real surprise that 10% climbs by bike require a good level of fitness (or an e-bike).

There aren't many sustained 10% climbs around here. There are lots of peak 10% climbs, but the overall average is usually much lower. Bar Hatch (a hill route planners send you up when they want you to suffer) is only 6% average. Even Hardknott is only an average of 13.3%!

Where is here for you? Sure there may not be many 10% climbs where you are, but in Limburg, sure quite a few. Ditto the alps. There's a lovely climb in Liechtenstein to the Village of Malbune, from Skeg, that averages 10%.

On the Otzäl SR route in Süd Tyrol the climb over the Timmelsjock pass is 5.3% average for 11.29km on the direction the SR route takes. But if you do the climb in the opposite direction, is 8.3% average, with 11% peak, over 7.4km. With the same 70kg rider, 10kg, at 60rpm, on a 1:1 gear, you're looking at 156w, sustained, for over an hour. On a 30:34, at 60 rpm for the same rider is 137w. For a slightly longer period. That still represents 2w/kg.

Incidentally, for the same rider to climb the Timmelsjock at the 10kph average needed to complete an SR, you're looking at 138w, and that only gets you about 600m of the >10000m, in the full 600km...

So a 40kg rider on a 10kg bike will require proportionally more of the work they are generating to lug themselves AND THE BIKE up the hill than an 80kg rider on a 10kg bike. (That doesn't mean the 80kg rider is automatically faster, that comes down to individuals and phyisiology.)

Which is why small riders shouldn't pay much attention to big riders saying weight doesn't matter.

Except a 40kg rider is very light. A 40kg rider with a healthy BMI would be about 1.4m tall (4'7" in old money). That's very short. <1.47m is enough to be considered a dwarf by the medical profession... A 1.47m tall person would need to be 43kg to have a BMI that is considered "healthy"...

This is why I picked 70kg for my numbers in this thread. (I've also calculated the numbers for a 60kg rider), it feels more realistic as a representative weight for a human.

J

[mattc]

I looked at one of my very few Strava-fied rides and found I can climb a lot slower than 7kph!

https://www.strava.com/activities/1617347507/segments/40497153727*

Bwlch-y-Groes from the SSW: 4.1kph average for 2.5km.

Took me 38mins, so it must have been a speed I could maintain "consistently" [in reality I was blowing out of my **** for 30mins of that. I was out of the saddle and pulling on the bars quite hard. I would certainly have been quicker over the day if I had saved some matches by walking up this little bugger. I really had nothing in my legs on any subsequent climb  ]

Perhaps interestingly, there were 2-or-3 riders stalking me on the climb on foot. I don't have data for them, but it seemed like I wasn't moving very much faster than they were walking! So, very roughly, the riding/walking crossover point is:

4kph, 12% gradient

I had a heavier bike/kit than average, but only by a few kg. I have no idea how this affects the data  ! I've never looked into this sort of data before, so this thread has been an inspiration.

*This was ~6am on day 2 of TINAT, in case anyone cares.
**** insert every orifice used by cyclists to describe this situation ever.

EDIT: as was kindly pointed out, I did in fact stop for de-layering near the start of this segment. And I stopped at the summit junction, which turns out to be a few metres before the end of this segment. So I'll try this one: https://www.strava.com/activities/1617347507/segments/40497153603