Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Phil W on 22 August, 2018, 01:33:20 pm
-
The only one I'm aware of at present for a standard 24mm HTII type spindle is the Sugino OX series which in the UK are rare than rocking horse droppings. Praxis have squeezed a 32 onto a 110BCD with a 30mm spindle (hence less choice/more cost of BB) but still not low enough for me to duplicate the range of my triple. FSA have dropped to a lower BCD to accommodate smaller rings but apparently only for the various pushfit standards, not for threaded frames.
If you start with a triple like a 4603 or 5703 you can just swap he middle ring for a 46t and ditch the larger one?
4603 is becoming hard to find. The replacement is a 4703, which in stock comes as a 53/39/30, it's 2am so I can't find enough info on 46t options that would replace the middle ring. But simply taking the big ring off wouldn't be ideal, as you'd have a 39/30. Better to get the M615 MTB 40/28 cranksets, and matching mech, which does work with a tiagra shifter, even tho Shimano claim otherwise. Dunno what would happen if you tried at a higher level tho. Also wouldn't work with di2, as you can't mix MTB and road mechs.
There's a reason my new bike is going to have the FSA SL-K modular cranksets in 46/30.
J
J
I run https://spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p2830/SPA-CYCLES-XD-2-Touring-Triple-Chainset-With-Stronglight-Zicral-Rings triple in 46/36/26; you can go down to 24 for the inner ring. It works fine with a Shimano 5703 STI front mech.
-
I've no idea about wattage. It sounds like you've simply calculated that it should be too hard, rather than actually experienced that it is.
Really? In the last 12 months I have cycled my bike in The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, and within the next month will add Denmark, Sweden and Norway to that list. I've done plenty of hills on these rides, and walked up a lot of them.
Yeah but how much are you spending on flights to get to these hills which as we know you live quite far away from...?
Where are these uber steep hills near amsterdam because I've never seen them!
So, lets start with this hill in Belgium:
(http://photos.quixotic.eu/misc/Baraque-Michel.png)
The ascent up to the highest point of Belgium, it's a long drawn out climb, the first time I did it I took well over 2 hours almost 3.
Then we can move on to two climbs I did on a 300km BRM back in April,
(http://photos.quixotic.eu/misc/CotedeSorolay.png)
This short, punchy climb was in the first 30km or so of the ride, I walked my bike up it, over taken by the whole field.
A few km further on I hit this climb:
(http://photos.quixotic.eu/misc/RueFondDeChainay.png)
I walked up it, grateful that the shade of the trees meant I had some protection from the 30°C heat.
A bit further on, after lunch, this utter bitch of a climb resulted in me walking:
(http://photos.quixotic.eu/misc/RueDuRyDeVesseClimb.png)
At the top there was a secret control, and one of the other riders asked me if I wanted to scratch with him. I said no, and continued on. I eventually completed the 305km in 21:06. 66 minutes over time. After a collision with a fly resulted in me losing my lunch, and not being able to eat. I did 150km on an empty stomach. I walked up hills, I rode on the aerobars on the flat, I had to raid a water tap on the side of a house for water at 2 in the morning. But I bloody well finished the distance.
So yes, there are climbs, and no I don't need to fly to get to them. A simple 2 hour train ride to Maastricht, and then a ride into Belgium is enough, tho there are plenty of climbs to be had in Limburg too, such as the Cauberg, which the first time I climbed it I had to walk a bit of it.
I haven't taken an airplane flight in over a decade.
Are there hills you have actually tried to get up and found it a struggle, or do you just like the idea of theoretically being able to get up anything that you hypothetically might encounter without exceeding your target wattage? Sounds like the latter.
Yes, I can give more examples if you want. Or are these enough for you to actually believe me when I say that I find it hard to pedal up hills even with my low 28/34 gear ?
If you want low gears go to SPA cycles
https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p2002/SPA-CYCLES-XD-2-Touring-Triple-Chainset-with-TA-chainrings (https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p2002/SPA-CYCLES-XD-2-Touring-Triple-Chainset-with-TA-chainrings)
I fitted one of these with a bar end for the front changer so I did not have index problems. Long cage cassette and a 12/30 cassette. But no matter how low the gears I still had to lift my fat arse up all the elevations.
Nice idea, I have one of those on my Brompton, except for the fact that now you're talking about moving away from the HTII bottom bracket that is likely to come with a stock bike, moving to JIS/Square taper, having to move away from STI, and having no chance if you want Di2. Sure some people will be ok doing that, but it ignores the basic premise that for a woman to be able to walk into a bike shop, buy a bike, and have it be low enough geared, the right size, on day 1. That isn't possible. Most men can walk into a bike shop, and find a bike that fits them and ride away with the bike. Most women can't.
So why is this an issue for an org like AUK? And why is it an issue for cycling in general.
Through twitter I discovered Emily Chappell's TCR attempt, she inspired me to go get a bike. So I toured a number of bike shops. In some I went in and they thought I'd walked into the wrong shop. Some I just got ignored, some they apologised they didn't have any bikes small enough, on the whole, I walked out with no bike, and felt particularly jaded. So I emailed Emily for advice, and she gave me lots of useful tips. The result is I built my own bike. It's a franken bike, mixing mtb parts, road parts, tri parts. If you ask Shimano the parts I am using will not work together. I've got 7000km on them so far, they work just fine, if you know what you're doing. As a result I can talk all day about compatibility, thread sizes, cable pull ratios, etc... It took me 3 months to get the parts together to assemble this bike. The only part I didn't do myself was build the wheels (these were built by Stephen Vis of red hook crit fame). The fact that I was able to roll out of Maastricht Youth Hostel on 26th of December, point my bike south and head off into the grey, and eventual rain and snow is because I ignored those saying I couldn't do it. I ignored those who seemed to not understand. I pushed my bike up the first climb listed above. I warmed myself up in a pub at the top, and then rode down the other side. I did 90km in horrible conditions on a bike I built myself. Because if I don't do it myself, no other fucker is. I am not your typical female cyclist.
When I tell people about my bike adventures the question I get is "who are you going with?" "noone" "but?" "noone else is crazy enough". Thing is I'd love to have some company on some of these trips. But the number of people willing to put up with the shit to get here is minimal, and finding them is even harder.
Until women can watch Marianna Vos win the TDF, all 21 stages of it, think "ooh, I wanna try that", walk into a bike shop on Monday morning, throw down 1000 of cycle to work money, and ride out with a bike that fits her, and she can get up the hills, even if it's grinding away at just fast enough to not fall over, until that is possible, the only women we're going to have in cycling are those who are so stubborn they will take no shit and ride despite others, not because of them, or those who have a partner who helps kick start them.
And this is why my rants about what women can buy is relevant to AUK. You can offer free entry to women, free massages at the end, and all you can eat chocolate cake at all the controls, but the result is that you won't get a noticeable increase in the number of women riding. Because it's so damn hard to buy a bike that fits, that can get up the hills, and is fun to ride.
I could rant about other aspects of cycling and audax that piss me off such as being asked by riders at Audax events if I'm there with my boyfriend... but I think they are just nit picks compared to the massive structural issues mentioned above.
And in all of this, the crazy thing is that once women find a way past all this shit that we have to put up with, we can meet the men on equal ground. Women like Sarah Hammond, and Lael Wilcox are absolutely brilliant. Sarah has twice now won the race so hard no man has ever won it, and Lael Wilcox's ride on TABR is the sort legends are made of. How many other Sarahs, and Laels are out there, but never get a chance to even try due to all the bloody gatekeeping?
J
-
in response to quixoticgeek it's not only women who struggle with finding low enough gears. i had to come up with a 45/30 chainset (combined with 11-36 cassette) myself to get me up the mountains and off-road tracks. i consider myself stronger than average rider and used the bottom gear a lot and even wished for lower sometimes. fwiw, even professional racers use 32x50 gear for climbing steep mountain tracks, there's no gear too low! equally, i've seen a group of four women finishing their first audax (the 300!) together in ~16h, all in good spirits and riding standard road bikes. there are just too many variables to generalise. things need to change for everyone, but until there is a critical mass of consumers nothing is going to happen. a bit of a chicken and egg.
-
I reckon the poor provisions for women in bikes and other cycling kit are – at least partly – down to the leadership of the companies supplying them.
If the companies are run by men*, and the products designed by men, then, surprise surprise, they're not going to be very good at catering to people who aren't men. As more women get into cycling, they might well realise that they can profit from offering women's lines, but they won't really hit the mark because the people making the decisions ultimately have no experience in what's needed.
So this is all entangled with the institutional biases that exist in wider society. What we can hope for, though, is that greater representation in the sport will force the industry to take women more seriously. Like zigzag says, a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
* There are exceptions (https://www.velovixen.com/), of course :)
in response to quixoticgeek it's not only women who struggle with finding low enough gears. i had to come up with a 45/30 chainset (combined with 11-36 cassette) myself to get me up the mountains and off-road tracks. i consider myself stronger than average rider and used the bottom gear a lot and even wished for lower sometimes. fwiw, even professional racers use 32x50 gear for climbing steep mountain tracks, there's no gear too low! equally, i've seen a group of four women finishing their first audax (the 300!) together in ~16h, all in good spirits and riding standard road bikes. there are just too many variables to generalise. things need to change for everyone, but until there is a critical mass of consumers nothing is going to happen. a bit of a chicken and egg.
Likewise, I use a 50/34 chainset and 11-32 cassette, and often wish for lower gears. I note that James Hayden had the same problem on the TCR, so I wonder when the bike industry will get its act together!
-
I stay away for a few weeks while sorting out some Real Life stuff and this happens! That was a read and a half, blimey!!
I reckon the poor provisions for women in bikes and other cycling kit are – at least partly – down to the leadership of the companies supplying them.
If the companies are run by men*, and the products designed by men, then, surprise surprise, they're not going to be very good at catering to people who aren't men. As more women get into cycling, they might well realise that they can profit from offering women's lines, but they won't really hit the mark because the people making the decisions ultimately have no experience in what's needed.
So this is all entangled with the institutional biases that exist in wider society. What we can hope for, though, is that greater representation in the sport will force the industry to take women more seriously. Like zigzag says, a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
Bollocks*.
It's like this: Company A's product managers look at a range of products to launch each year, along with all the variants/sizes/etc. They put a cost/revenue/=profit equation against each product line and sub-section of that product line. The Sales/Marketing Director, in their limited** wisdom stacks all the profits in a spreadsheet and cherry picks the top ones down the list until they run out of the available development funds, as given by the Chief Finance Officer (or equivalent). Therefore they decide to proceed with whatever makes most money now, as that will continue to make money in the future, and so the status quo is maintained.
A forward-thinking S/MD would also consider shaping new markets and providing — at a relative "loss" (i.e. smaller profit) — those items in order to seed the market. That would include odd shapes, sizes and colours of things. The industry*** is lacking those forward-thinkers. I'm not going to say "it's because they're white" or "it's because they're men", because I think it's more to do with "that's how people are taught to make business decisions", as oft as not by their shareholders. I've experienced the same attitude from both genders.
Seeding markets is a long-term strategy that may not pay dividends directly to those doing it, as the whole industry eventually takes the benefit. And so it's quite a hard sell "upstairs". Me, I have argued against pure-profit strategies with board members in the past (in non-cycling industries, but the principle's the same) and been given lines like "well, it's going to cost us money — shall I take it out of YOUR salary, then?!", and that can make it hard for people "downstairs" to take up the fight.
What I can say is that the Cambridge events that I run with my partner, we spend a lot of time before each one debating elements of equality and representation. There's only so much we can do as mere organisers, but we do try to cater to a broad church. And we do try.
* IMHO, sorry ;)
** I've found, in my not that extensive experience, that Sales and Marketing Directors are pure-numbers people and are relatively inured to the Bigger Picture and the Greater Good.
*** Most industries?
-
That would include odd shapes, sizes and colours of things.
For example, both my wife and her sister wanted an entry-level bike (each). Both stipulated "NOT white" and "NOT pink". Both are XXS or XS, depending on the brand. That's a pretty tricky requirement, sub-£1000 — the fancier bikes come in carbon-like colours and look amazing ... and have a price tag to match. Most of the entry-end of the market is a mix of white/pink/lilac/etc, with not much else besides.
Liv — Giant-for-women? — occasionally has something on sale that suits the requirement, but usually out of stock in the required size, and over the budget when not on sale. Otherwise it's pretty tricky trying to find something appropriate from an on-spec walk-in, exactly as QG reported.
And the only reason I'm involved is because I'm the family's seasoned-cyclist and know when being sold something that's out-of-spec. I have on numerous occasions had to remind the sales-assistant that they're selling to the person I walked in with and not to me — almost exactly the mirror-image of what QG said, and just as uncomfortable ...
ps. FWIW, my current audax bike cost me under £500 in matte black and in my size in-store — I had no problem finding something for a six-foot male. It's the five-foot-two females in my life who are finding it unnecessarily frustrating.
-
And the only reason I'm involved is because I'm the family's seasoned-cyclist and know when being sold something that's out-of-spec. I have on numerous occasions had to remind the sales-assistant that they're selling to the person I walked in with and not to me — almost exactly the mirror-image of what QG said, and just as uncomfortable ...
I've stopped going into bike shops with men. I ask a question, they reply to the man. Every single time. Even if the man says "I'm not a cyclist, talk to her".
J
PS I've also had similar experiences in tool shops, outdoor equipment stores, model train shops, etc...
-
And the only reason I'm involved is because I'm the family's seasoned-cyclist and know when being sold something that's out-of-spec. I have on numerous occasions had to remind the sales-assistant that they're selling to the person I walked in with and not to me — almost exactly the mirror-image of what QG said, and just as uncomfortable ...
I've stopped going into bike shops with men. I ask a question, they reply to the man. Every single time. Even if the man says "I'm not a cyclist, talk to her".
J
PS I've also had similar experiences in tool shops, outdoor equipment stores, model train shops, etc...
Me too!
Ordering online is SO nice cos you don't have to tolerate this crap!
-
Just reposting this here, as it ended up on the "other side" of a thread-split:
I've stopped going into bike shops with men. I ask a question, they reply to the man. Every single time. Even if the man says "I'm not a cyclist, talk to her".
PS I've also had similar experiences in tool shops, outdoor equipment stores, model train shops, etc...
That's so bad that you've experienced that, but it seems common. I've taken to walking away to look at shoes/hats/gloves/anything while the spiel takes place to avoid that, "there, but not there" ...
-
Me too!
Ordering online is SO nice cos you don't have to tolerate this crap!
I wrote about this on my blog, back when GCN did a thing about is the local bike shop something to protect.
http://b.42q.eu/2018/02/23/local-bike-shops/
Why I do a 30km round trip to visit a bike shop, when I'm in the European capital of cycling...
J
-
That's something I cannot understand. It goes beyond sexism or other isms IMO. Why would you reply to a person other than the one who addressed you? Though that might not be the person the item is for. I've only very briefly worked in retail but a few decades ago I did a short stint in a menswear shop. Often couples would come in together and frequently it was the woman doing the shopping, taking their man round with them, getting him a new jacket or whatever. Which can lead to some odd conversations. "Do you think that's the right size? It looks a bit small but the arms are long." "He'll be better with a larger size. We can take the arms in a bit."
-
700C wheels being a defacto standard when you want a smaller road bike frame does not help. That leads to all sorts of issues including lack of space for water bottles and saddle bags etc. Something with 26" or 24" wheels would make for better options for smaller frames that did not have clearance issues due to oversize wheels.
-
700C wheels being a defacto standard when you want a smaller road bike frame does not help. That leads to all sorts of issues including lack of space for water bottles and saddle bags etc. Something with 26" or 24" wheels would make for better options for smaller frames that did not have clearance issues due to oversize wheels.
Yep, but the moment you move away from 700c the tyre choices diminish greatly. Continental GP4000s ii are the default goto road tyre, the benchmark everything else is compared to. It comes in 622 only, road offerings in 584 are hard to find. This is also an issue at pro level, if you have one rider on the team who's bike is so small she's riding 584 rims, then you need to make sure you have these on the team car, you need to make sure neutral service can cover that, etc... This is also an issue if you are doing Audax's or ultra races. You can get 622 road tyres pretty much everywhere, hell Ian Walker used a 6 quid cheapy road tyre after his side wall split on the North Cape 4000. But if you're on 584's you're gonna have issues finding spares along the way, so now you're adding a few hundred grams and some bulk to carry a spare outer... and so on and so forth. This is also one of the reasons that I don't want to drift too far away from standard shimano spec stuff. I'm aiming to do TCR no 7 next year, and my bike is built with the availability of parts in mind (Not to mention next months Road to Hell has 400km between bike shops...)
One of the female riders on this years TCR had a tripple crankset, the inner ring buckled and she had to visit a number of bike shops to find one that could help her.
And the small frame bottles thing is something I know only too well. I've given up with frame mounted bottles now. I have 2 alpkit stem cells on the handle bars, one for a 1l bottle, one for food. My frame is too small to fit bottles in sensibly. I'm experimenting with the waho no wobble rack thingy on my saddle, that will take 2 bottles. Tho I learned the hardway you need to loctite the screws else the thing shakes apart...
J
-
I know all about the tyre issue from my recumbent. Can I have fast, easily available, tubeless tyres for my recumbent? Not a chance unless I swap it for a high racer (aka 700c recumbent).
-
I know all about the tyre issue from my recumbent. Can I easily have fast, easily available, tubeless tyres for my recumbent? Not a chance unless I swap it for a high racer (aka 700c recumbent).
Yeah, that makes it even harder. Ouch.
J
-
And the small frame bottles thing is something I know only too well. I've given up with frame mounted bottles now. I have 2 alpkit stem cells on the handle bars, one for a 1l bottle, one for food. My frame is too small to fit bottles in sensibly. I'm experimenting with the waho no wobble rack thingy on my saddle, that will take 2 bottles. Tho I learned the hardway you need to loctite the screws else the thing shakes apart...
Have you tried behind the saddle bottles? Or BTA since you're using tribars?
-
Recumbents are clearly the solution[1]. Not because they magically fit better, but because frankengearing, unconventional crank lenghts, DIY seat mods and unobtanium tyres are par for the course so everyone in the recumbent world - including manufacturers - knows all about dealing with those issues, regardless of your gender. It also means you don't have to deal with bike shops, because none of the ones within cycling distance will have what you need anyway. You just need a shed full of tools and google, or a huge wad of cash.
Incidentally, the only time I've ever been asked if I was with a boyfriend during a cycling event was at the HPV World Championships, by another female rider. She (who'd cycle-toured over as part of a mixed group of German recumbenteers, including her boyfriend) was really impressed, and explained that she had no other women near her ability level in her own country, so it was great to have some proper competition[2].
People do occasionally ask if my partner does my bike maintenance for me, thobut. With hilarious consequences.
[1] Ha ha only serious. Eliminating saddles would seem to do wonders for female cyclists, if they weren't so afraid of being *weird*.
[2] And that, kids, is how I ended up taking things too seriously out of general solidarity and ended up coming second in my category by a narrow margin.
-
I know all about the tyre issue from my recumbent. Can I have fast, easily available, tubeless tyres for my recumbent? Not a chance unless I swap it for a high racer (aka 700c recumbent).
Schwalbe Pro One is available in 28-406 and 28-559, as well as the usual 622. Rims left as an exercise for the reader.
-
The only one I'm aware of at present for a standard 24mm HTII type spindle is the Sugino OX series which in the UK are rare than rocking horse droppings. Praxis have squeezed a 32 onto a 110BCD with a 30mm spindle (hence less choice/more cost of BB) but still not low enough for me to duplicate the range of my triple. FSA have dropped to a lower BCD to accommodate smaller rings but apparently only for the various pushfit standards, not for threaded frames.
If you start with a triple like a 4603 or 5703 you can just swap he middle ring for a 46t and ditch the larger one?
Ahead of you there. See my December 2017 post here (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=106051.msg2234682#msg2234682)
The point is, why should I have, and others (of any gender) who prefer not to take it out of their legs every time the road goes up, have to go all bodgetastic to get gears they find comfortable? To get both the spread of gears and the gaps to adequately replace my triple on the 'best bike', which I'm vain enough not to fugli, I need an 11 speed 11-34 cassette (and hence the new R7000 / R8000 RDs) as well as a 46/30 chainset. That's my comfort zone, and I don't give a hoot that someone of same or different gender thinks it is un-necessary.
The bodge referenced above was done with 5700 series stuff and so on it's theoretical limit at 11-32 cassette so I went 44/28 at the front. It could possibly be pushed to use an 11-34 cassette but it is 10 speed so then the gaps start going out...
Will have to look closer at the FSA...
-
Incidentally, the only time I've ever been asked if I was with a boyfriend during a cycling event was at the HPV World Championships, by another female rider. She (who'd cycle-toured over as part of a mixed group of German recumbenteers, including her boyfriend) was really impressed, and explained that she had no other women near her ability level in her own country, so it was great to have some proper competition[2].
[2] And that, kids, is how I ended up taking things too seriously out of general solidarity and ended up coming second in my category by a narrow margin.[/sub]
So was she the one who beat you? Or did you beat her? Or were you in different categories? Or a combination of all of these and some other possibilities?
-
So was she the one who beat you? Or did you beat her? Or were you in different categories? Or a combination of all of these and some other possibilities?
I was much faster in the sprints, she had better tactics in the crits, and she was half a lap ahead of me for almost the entire endurance race. She beat me on points in Ladies Unfaired[1], with her coming first and me second. In Open[1] I came 65th and she came 66th (http://www.bhpc.org.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/events/events18/wc2018/tables18.html), which AIUI means I was faster than slightly more other-category riders than she was.
Veering back onto the wrong topic, you can infer from those results tables that HPV racing is about as demographically diverse as audax is.
[1] Categories are beyond the scope of this thread, but this page (http://www.bhpc.org.uk/how-to-race-with-bhpc.aspx) will give you some idea of how it works, with the disclaimer that the world championship doesn't use exactly same ones. Unlike all that UCI rubbish, HPV racing is as much about engineering as athleticism, and IMHO Open is the only one that really counts.
-
I know all about the tyre issue from my recumbent. Can I have fast, easily available, tubeless tyres for my recumbent? Not a chance unless I swap it for a high racer (aka 700c recumbent).
Schwalbe Pro One is available in 28-406 and 28-559, as well as the usual 622. Rims left as an exercise for the reader.
Yes it has more recently become available but you try getting hold of them and besides the pro one is not that robust a tyre. Again rims choices limited.
-
I know all about the tyre issue from my recumbent. Can I have fast, easily available, tubeless tyres for my recumbent? Not a chance unless I swap it for a high racer (aka 700c recumbent).
Schwalbe Pro One is available in 28-406 and 28-559, as well as the usual 622. Rims left as an exercise for the reader.
Yes it has more recently become available but you try getting hold of them and besides the pro one is not that robust a tyre. Again rims choices limited.
I have one of each. The 406 was easy enough. The 559 took some effort as it was so new and many of the suppliers claiming to have stock didn't, but it seems to have become more widely available[1] now.
You didn't mention robust. If you want robust tyres, there seems little point in running tubeless on a recumbent. (IMHO there seems little point in running tubeless on anything other than a mountain bike, but it's a relatively straightforward marginal gain for a racing 'bent.)
[1] For recumbent/tourer parts values of 'widely available'. Ie. Your LBS won't have them and I wouldn't rate your chances with the likes of Wiggle, but you can always suck it up and get them from SJS.
-
And the only reason I'm involved is because I'm the family's seasoned-cyclist and know when being sold something that's out-of-spec. I have on numerous occasions had to remind the sales-assistant that they're selling to the person I walked in with and not to me — almost exactly the mirror-image of what QG said, and just as uncomfortable ...
I've stopped going into bike shops with men. I ask a question, they reply to the man. Every single time. Even if the man says "I'm not a cyclist, talk to her".
J
PS I've also had similar experiences in tool shops, outdoor equipment stores, model train shops, etc...
I used to work for a company that was based at an office in a cardboard box factory; one of the requirements of the rental was that we would cover reception.
The MD of the box company was male; but their Finance manager was a woman.
In our office there was 4 guys; 2 engineers, a CAD jockey and me on the computers all with responsibility to answer the reception phone.
The majority of callers on hearing my voice when the wanted to speak to the MD would just launch into the details after saying Hi; sometimes I had been told the whole ordering plans before manging to convince the caller that I wasn't the MD.
Likewise when someone wanted put through to Finance they assumed the woman was the finance directors secretary...
::-)
-
I needed a new spoke key[1], so went into one of the few bike shops in Amsterdam that targets non-utility cycling. I was there at 1630 on a Sunday afternoon (they close at 1700). While in the shop including myself, and the female friend I dragged in with me (tho she's a cyclist that used to compete in crits etc... but we have fundamental disagreement these days on what constitutes a short ride...[2]), there was also 1 non-white male customer, and one female customer. I couldn't hear what he was buying, but she was dropping off her bike to have new tubeless tyres fitted.
Admittedly it's a very small sample of a very short period of time, but 4 people in the bike shop that are all minorities in the cycling community.
On a related note, and why I put this in the kit fork of the thread. I also had a nose at the complete selection of women's specific bikes they had. Which was: 3. Out of maybe 30ish bikes. These were: Specilized Dolce (in pink), Specilized Dolce (in not pink, size 54 frame), and a Specilized Diverge. I had a chat with the member of staff who was working, as it wasn't the really creepy guy that's in there most days. He said the company had had a conversation this week about their womens bike range, and were going to increase it, but they were waiting for the 2019 models to come out, which is promising.
J
[1] They seem to derive some of their properties from biros, as no matter how many I buy, they just disappear...
[2] 20km fine, 25km is long, 30km only acceptable if we stop for at a cafe half way...
-
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.
-
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.
-
.....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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :facepalm:
-
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 :facepalm:
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I suggest it's about 8kph, or a little less (assumptions may vary from various defaults in bikecalc).
-
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? ;D
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)? (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=2356546;topic=110679.0;last_msg=2356568)
:D
-
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.
-
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%!
-
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.
-
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? ;D
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
-
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 :facepalm: ]
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
-
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 :facepalm: ]
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.
4kph is about my standard walking speed. My cadence calculator doesn't go low enough to give me numbers, but it's below 50rpm, that's quite a grind.
I generally cross to walking at about 6kph. Largely because I don't have the strength to grind out lower than that.
J
-
4kph is about as slow as I can reliably maintain balance, especially if all hot and bothered. I'll keep riding down to that on recumbents because they're really unpleasant[1] to push uphill (and will select gearing with that in mind). With an upright I'll either have switched to the 24" gear before that, or opt for a stop-start anaerobic strategy to raise my moving speed to something more practical. Which I chose at a given time will depend on things like tyre vs shoe traction, whether I'll get my feet wet and what's currently hurting the most.
With three wheels, low gears and sufficient traction it just comes down to whether winching is easier than walking.
[1] DF bikes have a substantial ergonomic advantage in this respect, on account of a convenient structural element at a comfortable height for a standing human to reach, which just happens to have the brake controls attached to it.
-
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
I think Greenbank picked 40 and 80 mostly to make a point. Sure 70kg is more representative (but apparently the FAO uses 62kg as a "normal adult" weight) but 100kg is also common. The 70 and 100kg riders would both feel the 10kg bike to be rather different.
But the really strange thing here is that you've done a conversion into feetaninches! :o
-
Regarding the decision to walk up hills, Matt's made a good point; you might get up this one, but at the expense of energy/muscles/knees you're going to need later. Sometimes it's just better to walk even if you can ride (assuming not racing, obvs).
-
I think Greenbank picked 40 and 80 mostly to make a point. Sure 70kg is more representative (but apparently the FAO uses 62kg as a "normal adult" weight) but 100kg is also common. The 70 and 100kg riders would both feel the 10kg bike to be rather different.
But the really strange thing here is that you've done a conversion into feetaninches! :o
I think for most lifts and the like, 75kg is the assumed weight.
And yes, I did do a conversion on this one, so that lay readers who may not want to do the maths herself, would have an easy point of reference. Fear not, I won't make a habit of it.
Regarding the decision to walk up hills, Matt's made a good point; you might get up this one, but at the expense of energy/muscles/knees you're going to need later. Sometimes it's just better to walk even if you can ride (assuming not racing, obvs).
Yeah, this is one of the big points, esp for long distance riders. In the Cycling Podcast's Explore series, they interview the guy who broke the record for LEJOG, he mentioned that he was making sure not to go over 280w, on any climbs, so as to not over cook it for later.
J
-
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 :facepalm: ]
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.
You were stationary for 10 minutes on that Strava segment. Trackstanding just to make a point is cheating ;)
When you were climbing you were averaging about 4.7kph. I was slightly faster the previous evening until I got off and started pushing at just over 3kph.
-
I think Greenbank picked 40 and 80 mostly to make a point. Sure 70kg is more representative (but apparently the FAO uses 62kg as a "normal adult" weight) but 100kg is also common. The 70 and 100kg riders would both feel the 10kg bike to be rather different.
But the really strange thing here is that you've done a conversion into feetaninches! :o
I think for most lifts and the like, 75kg is the assumed weight.
It makes sense that lifts and footbridges and aircraft and so on assume a higher average. TBH I'd have thought 75kg was on the low side.
-
UK data from 2016:-
https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publication/m/0/hse2016-adult-trends.pdf
Page 12:
Male mean height: 175.6cm
Male mean weight: 84.6kg
Female mean height: 161.9cm
Female mean weight: 71.3kg
-
re gearing and steep hills.
i've climbed some steep climbs last summer when being knackered and was wishing for a lower gear than 30/36. i would happily use 30/40 or 26/36 for those situations. i've got a 42/26 mtb chainset which i'm thinking to install on a gravel bike (it currently has 45/30).
regarding climbing speed - i can crawl at 3-4kph without losing balance, even track stand if needs be. having low gears is great. equally i love big gears for going fast (building one bike with 58t chainring).
-
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...
If you ride up that regularly, you won't need tiny gears for long!
You'd have to be pretty ambitious to pick that as your first ride after buying a new bike ;D
-
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...
If you ride up that regularly, you won't need tiny gears for long!
You'd have to be pretty ambitious to pick that as your first ride after buying a new bike ;D
No, these aren't typical climbs for a newbie. But something like the Cauberg, or Box hill, or what ever local hill the local club go up are going to be enough to leave someone who's bought a new bike and joined the local club, walking up the hill. It doesn't take having to walk up many hills before you start to think "I'm never gonna be good enough for this", you start to make excuses rather than joining the club ride on a Sunday, and before you know it, the bike lays unused.
We aren't all Chris Froome, or Marianna Vos. Most of us will never used the 50/11? So why include it? For most people a 46/30, and an 11-36 is enough to get up most hills without causing any lasting damage. The 46/11 at 90rpm is still 48kph, How often do most people do 48 on the flat? Vs how often do people use their lowest gear on the hills?
J
-
I joined the local cricket club for the first time and couldn't hit a six, so didn't return to cricket.
I joined the local swimming club for the first time and came last in the races, so didn't return to swimming.
I joined the local football club for the first time but didn't score any goals ...
QG, cycling is a sport you start off being bad at and get better - just like all the others. You are talking about people going out as absolute beginners to do rides that are both long and hard, and you want then to be able to climb every hill without either going particularly slowly, having to pedal slowly or having to push hard. That is a false hope that technology won't solve. Drop it.
Why do manufacturers include high gears on bikes? Come down to my club 10 one night. You'll see plenty of people, including children, spinning out their 50 rings. Ditto the local track. Nobody in the first half of the field will even have a 50 ring - and this is all at gutter amateur level. That's why.
-
Some curious typos, Karla! But they don't obscure meaning, so let them be. To add to your point, QG is assuming all those newbies want to be (some version of) Chris Froome or Marianne Vos (including the version that comes last).
-
Some curious typos, Karla! But they don't obscure meaning, so let them be. To add to your point, QG is assuming all those newbies want to be (some version of) Chris Froome or Marianne Vos (including the version that comes last).
:facepalm: Now corrected.
I think if anyone really does want to be the next Chris Froome, they'll understand that the biggest hill you can climb is the one you can suffer up, not the one you can climb at a constant torque and cadence that are no different from your flat riding - and they'll also want those big gears.
-
Quite. And you can go out today and buy a bike that has a 48/11 top gear, even if you do want a double.
Here's an example picked at random -
https://www.evanscycles.com/pinnacle-arkose-d3-2019-women-s-adventure-road-bike-EV339955
They aren't going to stop selling bikes with other types of cranks if they remain popular. But there's pretty good choice and lots of economical after-market options.
-
I joined the local cricket club for the first time and couldn't hit a six, so didn't return to cricket.
I joined the local swimming club for the first time and came last in the races, so didn't return to swimming.
I joined the local football club for the first time but didn't score any goals ...
QG, cycling is a sport you start off being bad at and get better - just like all the others. You are talking about people going out as absolute beginners to do rides that are both long and hard, and you want then to be able to climb every hill without either going particularly slowly, having to pedal slowly or having to push hard. That is a false hope that technology won't solve. Drop it.
I went to a local club for their social Sunday morning ride, I'd already been riding for a few thousands of km. They advertised as a no drop social pace. I got dropped, and rode home alone. When I pointed this out to the organiser, his answer was to remove the no drop from the advert.
In cricket the people from the club aren't going to be stood at the top of the hill waiting for you to push your bike up the hill, or an equivalent. Ditto swimming or football. I think this is a false equivalence
Why do manufacturers include high gears on bikes? Come down to my club 10 one night. You'll see plenty of people, including children, spinning out their 50 rings. Ditto the local track. Nobody in the first half of the field will even have a 50 ring - and this is all at gutter amateur level. That's why.
Great. You've missed my point. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to buy a 53/11 chainset, or a 11-28 cassette. I'm suggesting that it would be better for everyone if they expanded their range to include lower gearing as well. So that a 46/30 is an option along side the 50/34. With the rise of the gravel bike as the middle ground between road and MTB, I'm not the only one who has felt that there is a need for gearing between the two. Esp given the designed in incompatibility between MTB and Road running gear. Even zigzag, an experienced rider, and TCR veteren, has sort out lower gears.
Saying that people can buy a stock bike and fit the FSA SL-K Modula 46/30 crankset if they want lower gears is hardly accessible for new riders. Surely it would be better if the experience cyclists were taking the stock chainrings off their bike, and putting bigger ones on if they want bigger gears, rather than the industry expecting those who want lower gears to be seeking out smaller manufacturers, to find parts to work in unapproved combinations, so they can get into cycling, so they can ride the rides they want to ride. My current bike has a Tiagra 4700 10 speed rear mech, and a Deore front mech. Both are controlled by Tiagra STI shifters. Officially according to every source I can find, these shifters, and this front mech will not work. The pull ratio is wrong. But I've got 11.8Mm of riding on this so far. The chainset is a 28/40. Coupled with an 11-34 cassette. I still walk up a lot of hills, fewer than I used to, but still more than I'd like. If I'd been stuck with a 1:1 gear, I'd probably not be venturing out of the flat lands very much, because of how demotivating it is to never be able to get up hills.
At your local club 10, and your local track the top half of the field won't have a 50t chain ring. Great. James Hayden won the TCR with a 46t front chain ring. If I get a place for TCRno7, I'll be riding it with a 28/38 chainset.
J
-
That bike* - a 2019 model - is part of the recent swing BACK towards bikes that will actually go places, rather than for impersonating Froome. And thus - admirably - it has more sensible gears. :thumbsup:
( Rewind 5 years and there was very little available off-the-shelf. Remember when a 34T inner ring was considered a new thing, and to be scoffed at by "proper" cyclists?!? Real men climb on a 42t ! )
*EDIT: the pinnacle "adventure" bike.
-
I've been riding a Pinnacle Pyrolite for the last 5 years and it is easily the best (and cheapest) bike I've ever owned (admittedly I changed the gearing) - and I have had some exotica in my time.
I think Greenbank picked 40 and 80 mostly to make a point. Sure 70kg is more representative (but apparently the FAO uses 62kg as a "normal adult" weight) but 100kg is also common. The 70 and 100kg riders would both feel the 10kg bike to be rather different.
A 100kg rider would invalidate the guarantee on many lightweight bikes currently sold.
-
( Rewind 5 years and there was very little available off-the-shelf. Remember when a 34T inner ring was considered a new thing, and to be scoffed at by "proper" cyclists?!? Real men climb on a 42t ! )
This is something that *REALLY* pisses me off. The Gatekeeping. Real cyclists climb on a 42t inner ring. Real cyclists wear their glasses outside their helmet straps, real cyclists wear the correct length of socks, real cyclists slam their stems, real cyclists...
You know what makes a real cyclist? Someone who doesn't give a fuck about any of that, a real cyclist welcomes anyone on a pedal powered vehicle, no matter of ability of enthusiasm. Real cyclists help those starting out or of lower abilities to rise, of to just ride. Real cyclists aren't arseholes.
Fucking gatekeepers.
J
PS I appreciate that isn't you Mattc, it's just something that really pisses me off.
-
You know what makes a real cyclist? Someone who doesn't give a fuck about any of that, a real cyclist welcomes anyone on a pedal powered vehicle, no matter of ability of enthusiasm. Real cyclists help those starting out or of lower abilities to rise, of to just ride. Real cyclists aren't arseholes.
Word!
-
I joined the local cricket club for the first time and couldn't hit a six, so didn't return to cricket.
I joined the local swimming club for the first time and came last in the races, so didn't return to swimming.
I joined the local football club for the first time but didn't score any goals ...
QG, cycling is a sport you start off being bad at and get better - just like all the others. You are talking about people going out as absolute beginners to do rides that are both long and hard, and you want then to be able to climb every hill without either going particularly slowly, having to pedal slowly or having to push hard. That is a false hope that technology won't solve. Drop it.
I went to a local club for their social Sunday morning ride, I'd already been riding for a few thousands of km. They advertised as a no drop social pace. I got dropped, and rode home alone. When I pointed this out to the organiser, his answer was to remove the no drop from the advert.
In cricket the people from the club aren't going to be stood at the top of the hill waiting for you to push your bike up the hill, or an equivalent. Ditto swimming or football. I think this is a false equivalence
Sounds to me like the club misdescribed their ride. Or possibly they thought it really was a social ride and that they were happy to ride at the pace of the slowest (which I wouldn't interpret as everyone always *riding* at the same speed, but the faster riders take it easy and wait for however long it takes – usually seems a lot longer when you're the one riding up the hill than waiting – for the slower ones in the group) because they were all of a similar speed and attitude. Then you came along and they realized they weren't. In which case you've done that club a good deed as well as others who might have ridden with them and yourself. Find a friendlier club!
But Karla's cricket comparison has relevance. Cricket is a sport, cycling doesn't have to be but if you (that's you not a club you might ride with) choose to treat it as one, then that entails winners and losers, competition, improvement and decline. Sport doesn't have to be serious, it can be a laugh where no one really cares who wins but that's for you to choose. Choose competition, choose having a laugh with your mates, choose riding to work, choose riding for cake. Choose a club. Choose a club that's competing for Prins van Oranje fietsrace, choose a club that sneers at those who wear their glasses at the wrong angle. Or don't. I didn't and neither did I enter the Transcontinental.
-
...
The Gatekeeping.
...
PS I appreciate that isn't you Mattc
Nevertheless, I am definitely going to change my online handle to "The Gate Keeper" :thumbsup:
(and t henI'll make a short film, title: "The Gatekeeping - beginners beware!" )
-
I have a slightly disturbing image of Matt in gold braid uniform at the entrance to a posh hotel, maybe the Ritz or Savoy.
-
I have a slightly disturbing image of Matt in gold braid uniform at the entrance to a posh hotel, maybe the Ritz or Savoy.
Could be worse, I'm thinking Sigourney Weaver in Ghostbusters...
-
OK I THINK THIS HAS RUN ITS COURSE NOW :hand:
-
UK data from 2016:-
https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publication/m/0/hse2016-adult-trends.pdf
Page 12:
Male mean height: 175.6cm
Male mean weight: 84.6kg
Female mean height: 161.9cm
Female mean weight: 71.3kg
Quite a bit more than 62kg then!
-
Yes but the mean weight of the general population doesn't tell us much about the mode weight of cyclists (even new cyclists).
-
Great. You've missed my point. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to buy a 53/11 chainset, or a 11-28 cassette. I'm suggesting that it would be better for everyone if they expanded their range to include lower gearing as well. So that a 46/30 is an option along side the 50/34. With the rise of the gravel bike as the middle ground between road and MTB, I'm not the only one who has felt that there is a need for gearing between the two. Esp given the designed in incompatibility between MTB and Road running gear. Even zigzag, an experienced rider, and TCR veteren, has sort out lower gears.
Incompatibility between mtb and road gear? Don't tell that to the MTB double on my touring bike please, or it might fall off.
Saying that people can buy a stock bike and fit the FSA SL-K Modula 46/30 crankset if they want lower gears is hardly accessible for new riders. Surely it would be better if the experience cyclists were taking the stock chainrings off their bike, and putting bigger ones on if they want bigger gears
Oh they are doing that. Go from my evening 10 to any grass-roots open TT (a market segment that is far bigger than the TCR) and you'll find many (and most in the first half, and all at the sharp end) rocking chainrings bigger than 53
rather than the industry expecting those who want lower gears to be seeking out smaller manufacturers, to find parts to work in unapproved combinations, so they can get into cycling, so they can ride the rides they want to ride.
You do have a choice. If you want a bike that looks like a race bike but has low gears, ask your bike shop at sale time to swap your chainset and/or cassette for you, they'll be happy to oblige and may not even charge if they have one in stock they can use our think they can re-use the one off your bike. Or if you buy from something like Trek Project One, you can name your spec to suit. If you're too awkward to talk to your shop about modifying your bike, that's your problem not theirs.
My current bike has a Tiagra 4700 10 speed rear mech, and a Deore front mech. Both are controlled by Tiagra STI shifters. Officially according to every source I can find, these shifters, and this front mech will not work.
Shimano specs are well known within the industry for being overly conservative. You only encountered this because you decided to build your own bike - any competent shop mechanic could have told you the same.
At your local club 10, and your local track the top half of the field won't have a 50t chain ring. Great. James Hayden won the TCR with a 46t front chain ring. If I get a place for TCRno7, I'll be riding it with a 28/38 chainset.
Your accusations of industrial sexism/slowism/whateverism would carry a lot more weight if you didn't make such inane comparisons as this one. The two have practically nothing to do with each other. Learn why they don't.
-
James Hayden certainly doesn't need small chainrings most of the time. He only needs it on his custom, free, hyper specialised bike designed to win a specific race.
His TCR racing kit is definitely not suited for the average person. For a start, you'd need a 28" waist or less. His nickname is skinny!
-
Saying that people can buy a stock bike and fit the FSA SL-K Modula 46/30 crankset if they want lower gears is hardly accessible for new riders.
You do have a choice. If you want a bike that looks like a race bike but has low gears, ask your bike shop at sale time....
This is about accessibility (or it was)
I suggest that most people who buy of the peg bikes - particularly at the cheaper end - will often not know what they want or need, and bike salespeeps are often fecking useless unaware that their choices may not represent the best ones for others. (not unlike interweb experts :P)
My personal experience was (guesses slightly) 18 years ago, when I went to buy a bike as a newbie and came away with something with a 39/52, and I'm guessing a 25 rear. I couldn't get up the Devon hills, gave up and gave the bike to my other half.
6 years later I tried again and bought a hybrid with a triple, and have cycled pretty much every day since
The Gatekeeping.
(The divergence between Shimano road and MTB rear mech standards for 10/11 speed is a right PITA, but at least there are options)
-
Gears do two things. They multiply torque to lower the stall speed on hills, and they match speed to the rpm which gives maximum power.
Having big rings on a TT bike means that the rear sprockets are bigger, and that means that the %age increments between ratios are smaller. The jump from 16 to 15 is less than from 12 to 11, so the match of speed to power is better. Wear is also less on bigger cogs.
I prefer to have a 30/40/50 triple, with an 8 speed cassette from 13 to 30. Ideally I'd have a 14 to 30 cassette, but that's hard to achieve without mixing various cassettes. It's a bit of a waste to be hauling granny gears around for a few exceptional hills, but I generally use Look cleats, so don't want to walk.
Edit. There is a firm offering custom 11 speed cassettes for £70. I suppose they might also sell you individual sprockets to replace worn ones. https://thecycleclinic.co.uk/products/miche-11-speed-primato-custom-cassettes-for-shimano-sram
A review seems pretty sensible to me.
Excellent custom option
Will on Jun 19, 2018
Emailed Malcolm with my custom idea, he replied promptly with his recommendation. I considered his advice but went with my original knowing if there were any problems I'd easily be able to swap a few sprockets around. Love the idea of being able to swap out sprockets when they wear.
I went for 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-22-25-29-34 combined with 48/36 for my Audax bike. Works fine and suits me perfectly giving a good use of the whole cassette. I like hilly routes but the close steps high up give me crisp options on the flatter sections. Thanks
-
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 :facepalm: ]
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.
4kph is about my standard walking speed. My cadence calculator doesn't go low enough to give me numbers, but it's below 50rpm, that's quite a grind.
I generally cross to walking at about 6kph. Largely because I don't have the strength to grind out lower than that.
J
In march 1977 when I was a student at Aberystwyth I went from Aber to Liverpool and back on the 65" fixed that I had been training with and on the way out I walked up Bwlch y Groes. 45mins. The road was still bearing the encouragements from the Milk Race the summer before (when a certain number of the field also walked it, it being near impossible to restart once the riders in front had come to a grinding halt. I was there to see Bill Nickson and Joe Waugh make the break that won the race).
In the beginning of the 20th century Dr Ruffier came to the conclusion that it was better to walk when the speed dropped below 6km/h. He reckoned he walked at about that pace. He was on a contrived 2sp fixed wheel and rougher roads but the Alps are not generally as steep as the Bwlch. His view was that he was fresher and so took in a lot more of the scenery than by grinding up on a 4m developement. He learnt this by riding with a companion equipped with an Eades IGH on which the lower gear was harder to push than the higher one due to the mechanical losses (said companion got up the cols faster and in better shape walking than Ruffier riding!). Nothing new in cycling!
-
In march 1977 when I was a student at Aberystwyth I went from Aber to Liverpool and back on the 65" fixed that I had been training with and on the way out I walked up Bwlch y Groes. 45mins. The road was still bearing the encouragements from the Milk Race the summer before (when a certain number of the field also walked it, it being near impossible to restart once the riders in front had come to a grinding halt. I was there to see Bill Nickson and Joe Waugh make the break that won the race).
I went round to see Bill Nickson on Friday. He wasn't impressed by the old Hewitt I was riding, but approved of the 50/40/30 chainset and 13/30 8 speed cassette.
We got onto the subject of PBP, he couldn't think of anything much worse. But he also couldn't imagine why anyone would ride a sportive when Audaxes were available.
-
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.
Best German word ever. ;D
-
Edit. There is a firm offering custom 11 speed cassettes for £70. I suppose they might also sell you individual sprockets to replace worn ones. https://thecycleclinic.co.uk/products/miche-11-speed-primato-custom-cassettes-for-shimano-sram
Unfortunately, no longer. I emailed Malcolm and he replied "No custom cassettes from now on. Every request, is for a cassette that will result in so so shifting due to its profile."
Which feels rather patronizing to be honest.
-
Don't worry - real men don't need 11sp cassettes.
-
Edit. There is a firm offering custom 11 speed cassettes for £70. I suppose they might also sell you individual sprockets to replace worn ones. https://thecycleclinic.co.uk/products/miche-11-speed-primato-custom-cassettes-for-shimano-sram
Unfortunately, no longer. I emailed Malcolm and he replied "No custom cassettes from now on. Every request, is for a cassette that will result in so so shifting due to its profile."
Which feels rather patronizing to be honest.
I think he was fed up with complaints about poor shifting due to customers disregarding his advice about the cassette profile.
-
The main way to avoid high ratios is to go for junior cassettes. 14/30 10 speed cassettes are available.
https://kidsracing.co.uk/collections/cassettes-chains-british-cycling-triathlon-gearing-rollout-limits
-
Even 11-42, but that's 11-speed.
-
I have doubts about using a 1x setup for a PBP season. Using a small single chainwheel, and a wide ratio cassette, doesn't spread the wear. Chains stretch due to progressive 'hooking' of frequently used sprockets.
The smaller the sprockets, the faster the wear. The larger gaps between ratios with small sprockets means that only a few sprockets are generally in use. Large chainwheels and larger sprockets last longer, and are kinder on chains.
-
Surely a 1x system gives you no choice but to use the whole cassette? With a double/triple you can use the same sprocket as high and low by changing the front mech. So if anything I’d expect more concentrated cassette wear on a multi-chainring system.
-
Most of the time is spent in a favourite ratio, or one close to it. Cassettes start to jump because all the wear is concentrated on one or two cogs. A multi-chainwheel setup gives ratios that are closer together, so the wear is spread.
A 50 tooth chainwheel has more teeth than a 34, and is driving bigger sprockets. If the cassette is 8 speed, the sprockets are wider, as is the chain.
-
larger chainrings (50t+) feel smoother through the pedals, wear less, but weigh more. 1x works v.well for cx and mtb where the changes of terrain and inclines are sudden, so bigger gaps are desirable to quickly find the right gear, plus there's no front mech to clog up with mud. 1x for the road is suboptimal, unless for a very specialised course/discipline e.g. flat(ish) tt, commuting.
-
Incompatibility between mtb and road gear? Don't tell that to the MTB double on my touring bike please, or it might fall off.
Yes. While the chain pitch, and tooth sizes mean that a Shimano MTB cassette, chainset, chain, and even derailure, will work with the road kit, and visa versa. That doesn't follow once you start moving to the indexed shifters. The pull ratio of the shifters for MTB and Road are different, as are the pull ratios between 8ps, 9sp, 10sp, and 11sp. This means that a Shimano Ultegra right shifter, will not shift a MTB rear derailure properly. And visa versa. There are a few exceptions that do kinda work if you bodge it, or may not perform as efficiently as you might expect. I have a Tiagra 4700 front shifter, working with an XT front mech. It took a lot of work to setup, but once setup, it has worked. But according to Shimano, SJS Cycles, and the Dutch importer of shimano, this will not work.
Oh they are doing that. Go from my evening 10 to any grass-roots open TT (a market segment that is far bigger than the TCR) and you'll find many (and most in the first half, and all at the sharp end) rocking chainrings bigger than 53
Right, so one end of the market takes the ring off and puts something bigger on. The other end of the market want to remove the one there and put something smaller in, but can't.
Having stuff between the 50/34 compact that is smallest in the road range, and the 28/38 that is the largest of the MTB range, would fill a gap in the market. 46/30 is a nice middle ground between the two. It would be great if more of these were available, and compatible with the rest of what we're riding. The BCD decision that Shimano made on road, has kinda locked them in.
You do have a choice. If you want a bike that looks like a race bike but has low gears, ask your bike shop at sale time to swap your chainset and/or cassette for you, they'll be happy to oblige and may not even charge if they have one in stock they can use our think they can re-use the one off your bike. Or if you buy from something like Trek Project One, you can name your spec to suit. If you're too awkward to talk to your shop about modifying your bike, that's your problem not theirs.
Please send me a list of 46/30 chainsets I can ask my bike shop to swap onto the new bike. Please send a list of larger cassettes that will work with the RX805 rear mech, when run with a chainset with a 16 tooth gap.
At your local club 10, and your local track the top half of the field won't have a 50t chain ring. Great. James Hayden won the TCR with a 46t front chain ring. If I get a place for TCRno7, I'll be riding it with a 28/38 chainset.
Your accusations of industrial sexism/slowism/whateverism would carry a lot more weight if you didn't make such inane comparisons as this one. The two have practically nothing to do with each other. Learn why they don't.
I was pointing out that that people at your TT club want one set of kit, and someone else riding a different style of cycling wants something else. It's not a comparison, that's my point. I feel that there is a gap in the market between the 28/38 of the MTB line, and the 50/34 of the Road line, that due to conscious design choices making the two ranges incompatible, it is not easy to have a bike using a mix of both ranges, which makes it very hard to build a bike with lower gears. The fact that many of those who would like for there to be lower gears as an option are from minorities, merely reinforces the need. We can either try to be more inclusive, design for more people (esp when it's not a massive amount of redesign needed), or we can continue to be the unwelcoming world that cycling is currently.
James Hayden certainly doesn't need small chainrings most of the time. He only needs it on his custom, free, hyper specialised bike designed to win a specific race.
His TCR racing kit is definitely not suited for the average person. For a start, you'd need a 28" waist or less. His nickname is skinny!
I'm not sure that waist size really impacts the rest of the bike, with perhaps the exception of the saddle choice. Yes his bike is designed with a single goal in mind. Guess what. So is mine. And the new bike I am building is also being built with a very specific goal in mind. That goal is to get from the Black Sea, to the Atlantic, in 15 days or fewer. But that same bike will be riden around Noord Holland, and Limburg, Over the Ardennes, to Paris and back from Brussels, and maybe, just maybe, on a Dutch group ride made up entirely of awesome women.
This is about accessibility (or it was)
I suggest that most people who buy of the peg bikes - particularly at the cheaper end - will often not know what they want or need, and bike salespeeps are often fecking useless unaware that their choices may not represent the best ones for others. (not unlike interweb experts :P)
Exactly, these days as I've had to study it, I can take on pretty much any local mechanic for knowledge of compatibility within the Shimano range, as well as options for lower gears (which is basically the FSA SL/K Modula 46/30, or the praxis works 46/32). But when I started out, I wouldn't have known any of this. If I hadn't taken a respected cyclists advice to build my own bike I would have gone to the bike shop, got some carbon thing, and found it distinctly Not Fun™.
I'm not the only one. I met a local cyclist who said (slightly paraphrased):
"I got a bike, but I wasn't enjoying it. I then met my boyfriend, he looked at my bike and laughed, He helped me get a better bike and it's been amazing."
Her new bike was mostly stock, it just had better gears than you might get out the factory.
My personal experience was (guesses slightly) 18 years ago, when I went to buy a bike as a newbie and came away with something with a 39/52, and I'm guessing a 25 rear. I couldn't get up the Devon hills, gave up and gave the bike to my other half.
6 years later I tried again and bought a hybrid with a triple, and have cycled pretty much every day since
This story is reflected in garages and sheds across the country. How many people have watched Vos or Froome, thought "I wanna try that" got missold a bike, tried it, found it way too hard, and the bike sites there doing nothing?
(The divergence between Shimano road and MTB rear mech standards for 10/11 speed is a right PITA, but at least there are options)
Yeah. It gets even more complicated if you add in Di2.
The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from...
kummerspek
Best German word ever. ;D
Agreed, tho I was surprised to find that not all Germans know it. Other useful words to borrow from German: Gemütlichkeit, Schadenfreude.
The Flemish word of the year 2018 is also a great loan word, but it's a sod to pronounce, even for someone who can speak basic Dutch moordstrookjes.
Don't worry - real men don't need 11sp cassettes.
Troll.. :p
The main way to avoid high ratios is to go for junior cassettes. 14/30 10 speed cassettes are available.
https://kidsracing.co.uk/collections/cassettes-chains-british-cycling-triathlon-gearing-rollout-limits
The problem there is they tend to not go big enough at the big cog. Sure, 14-30 and 14-28 exist, but they are suboptimal for the use case I suggest.
What you can do tho, is take your ultregra 11-34, or XT 11-40, and your Junior 14-28. Take the smallest 3 cogs off the Junior set, and put them on the adult set, This gives you 14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25,27,30,34, or 14,15,16,17,19,21,24,27,31,35,40. Which is a nice idea, however, it does limit your top speed. At 90rpm on with a 50t chain ring, you're at 40.9kph, and on the 38t, it's 31kph. The main reason to do this would be to get extra out of the limited capacity of your rear mech. An RX805 has a capacity of 39t. With a 16t difference at the front, you would be looking at maximum range at the rear of 23t. 36-14 = 22, vs 34-11 = 23t or 36-11=25t. There's not much point in doing it with the XT cassette, but on the Ultegra, there is some sense in it.
I have doubts about using a 1x setup for a PBP season. Using a small single chainwheel, and a wide ratio cassette, doesn't spread the wear. Chains stretch due to progressive 'hooking' of frequently used sprockets.
The smaller the sprockets, the faster the wear. The larger gaps between ratios with small sprockets means that only a few sprockets are generally in use. Large chainwheels and larger sprockets last longer, and are kinder on chains.
Agreed. For most mortals, a 1x road setup just doesn't offer you the range unless you mostly ride in .nl or the fens. I've been pondering a winter fat bike with a 1x setup, purely on reliability grounds, But there I'm not so fussed about the lack of top end.
Doesn't do anything about the issue with increased wear.
I've come to accept that I need a new chain every ~4500km, and a new cassette every ~13000km, and a new chainset about every 30000km. It's not exactly cheap, but it's affordable, and given I basically eat, sleep, work, ride, repeat, I'm ok spending that money. Some may feel it poor value. But that is for each of us to make her mind up on.
larger chainrings (50t+) feel smoother through the pedals, wear less, but weigh more. 1x works v.well for cx and mtb where the changes of terrain and inclines are sudden, so bigger gaps are desirable to quickly find the right gear, plus there's no front mech to clog up with mud. 1x for the road is suboptimal, unless for a very specialised course/discipline e.g. flat(ish) tt, commuting.
Exactly.
J
-
Please send me a list of 46/30 chainsets I can ask my bike shop to swap onto the new bike. Please send a list of larger cassettes that will work with the RX805 rear mech, when run with a chainset with a 16 tooth gap.
https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p3383/SPA-CYCLES-Super-Compact-Chainset-with-Zicral-Rings
I'm using this in 46/30 with a Sora front mech (I think it's 9-speed 2016 Sora). You'll have to lower the mech a little and probably remove the outer plate. Available in 2 colours and 3 crank lengths.
-
Please send me a list of 46/30 chainsets I can ask my bike shop to swap onto the new bike. Please send a list of larger cassettes that will work with the RX805 rear mech, when run with a chainset with a 16 tooth gap.
https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s109p3383/SPA-CYCLES-Super-Compact-Chainset-with-Zicral-Rings
I'm using this in 46/30 with a Sora front mech (I think it's 9-speed 2016 Sora). You'll have to lower the mech a little and probably remove the outer plate. Available in 2 colours and 3 crank lengths.
Square taper only. Does that work with an 11 speed chain and 11 speed front mech?
J
-
Isn't the internal width of 11-speed chain the same? If so, I don't see why it wouldn't work, but ask the shop. As for bottom bracket, you don't say what you've got but as long as it's BSA threaded, you can replace it with square taper. Or use a Sugino OX901D if you want an HT2. It's expensive though.
https://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/review-sugino-ox901d-compact-plus-crankset-need-low-gears/
-
Isn't the internal width of 11-speed chain the same? If so, I don't see why it wouldn't work, but ask the shop. As for bottom bracket, you don't say what you've got but as long as it's BSA threaded, you can replace it with square taper. Or use a Sugino OX901D if you want an HT2. It's expensive though.
https://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/review-sugino-ox901d-compact-plus-crankset-need-low-gears/
The Sugino is discontinued.
J
-
In stock at Hubjub if you're willing to pay £300.
Ed: For that price, you could buy the Spa item (or any triple and remove the outer), a square taper BB, a couple of cassettes and probably still have at least £100 change. But it is pretty!
-
HK's Kinesis Tripster AT uses SunXCD cranks and 46-30 rings with 11sp.
https://www.veloduo.co.uk/products/sun-tour-sunxcd-crank-arms-50-4-bcd-110-bcd-stronglight-49d-ta-cyclotouriste
Square taper but neither of us like the limited service life of external bearing BBs. 7000km in 3 months, no dramas.
-
FSA do some, such as this:
https://shop.fullspeedahead.com/en/type/cranksets/omega-crankset-4570
-
https://store.interlocracing.com/irddewicorod.html
IRD Defiant Wide Compact Road Double Crank Set (46-30T)
4 lengths
This is a 46-30t crankset, something that many touring and randonneuring cyclists have played with, but very few maker have mass produced them.
This double combo gives you almost as much gearing as a triple, but with less weight and less shifting.
If you have a 11-32t in the back, you can spend almost all your time in the big ring and only shift to the 30t on extended climbs.
- 94BCD / 46-30t 7075 aluminum chainrings
- 6061 cold forged aluminum arms
- High polished anodized finish throughout
- JIS square taper BB required (118mm)
- Q-factor: 143mm
Grand Cru 50.4 BCD Crankset
https://velo-orange.com/collections/cranks/products/grand-cru-50-4bcd-crankset-mkii
-
30-46 seems like a quite a jump (to me). Obviously it works, though.
110 BCD does allow 33/46, 34/46, 34/44 etc. - with a 11-34 this covers the range of my triples.
Unladen, 1:1 low gear is OK for me. For now ;D
The 10 speed shimano CX chainsets (36/46) swapping in a 34 were a mainstream option - I think the 11 speed CX chainsets are 36-48. :-\
-
30-46 seems like a quite a jump (to me). Obviously it works, though.
Well 34-50 is hugely popular, and not much smaller a jump! But then I think these wide gap doubles are absurd when triples are tried-n-tested technology ...
-
... and available in a Tiagra road-spaced groupset too!
Karla (who has never been a member of a "TT club")
-
... and available in a Tiagra road-spaced groupset too!
Karla (who has never been a member of a "TT club")
There's a whole world between the extremes of TT and AA!
-
So of all of those suggested, only the FSA seem to be a 'Modern' style with integrated spindle, for external bearing bottom brackets, and even then only their own BB. No easy drop in replacement for a Shimano chainset.
As for the triple:
a) Not available with electronic shifting
b) only available to Tiagra level.
c) looked down upon by many a gatekeeping wanker.
I noticed this article (linked below a review of some pedals I was reading).
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/videos/cycling-tech/compact-chainset-dead
It dates from last april, and seems to imply that replacing an 11-25 cassette that's paired with a 50/34 crankset, with a 52/36, and an 11-28 cassette. I read it and just want to scream. Some of the men seem to be thinking that the 50/34 doesn't have much use if you have a wider cassette. It seems to ignore that there are many of us screaming out for a 46/30 to bridge the gap between the MTB and the Road setups.
I'm not saying every bike only needs a 46/30, but I wish it was more of a choice off the peg, and with mainstream manufacturers without having to massively change the rest of the bike (triples).
I wonder what design advantage there is from having a spider that only goes down to 34t, vs one that could go down to 30t...
J
-
So faced with a choice between AbsoluteBlack, FSA, Sugino or Praxis, you've found problems with each one. Well done, you've discovered how kit choice works. Shimano will probably follow the trend in a couple of years but until then you'll have to stop being sniffy about Tiagra, triples, square taper BBs and/or mechanical shifting.
(While we're at it, I'd love it if manufacturers still made 8 speed brifters. You know what though? I realise I'm in a minority.)
-
So of all of those suggested, only the FSA seem to be a 'Modern' style with integrated spindle, for external bearing bottom brackets, and even then only their own BB. No easy drop in replacement for a Shimano chainset
J
The Sugino fits straight into a Shimano, Hope or Sugino 24mm bottom bracket. I've got one and used all 3.
I don't see why you can't use electronic gears with it.
-
So of all of those suggested, only the FSA seem to be a 'Modern' style with integrated spindle, for external bearing bottom brackets, and even then only their own BB. No easy drop in replacement for a Shimano chainset
J
The Sugino fits straight into a Shimano, Hope or Sugino 24mm bottom bracket. I've got one and used all 3.
I don't see why you can't use electronic gears with it.
But it's discontinued, so unless you can track down stock in the few places still with it, and pay the 300 quid for it. Not really practical.
Would be a great option otherwise.
J
-
How about Absolute Black chainrings to fit a Shimano four arm crankset?
To be honest, at the moment it's specialist, short production run components that we want to fit another manufacturers products. It's gonna be pricey.
-
How about Absolute Black chainrings to fit a Shimano four arm crankset?
To be honest, at the moment it's specialist, short production run components that we want to fit another manufacturers products. It's gonna be pricey.
Not too pricey compared with other options.
I got AbsoluteBlack 46/30 rings & new R7000 chainset for sub£200 - and still hoping to get a bit back on the redundant 50/34 rings.
I did find the 46 ring a bit trying in yesterday's wind, but would probably have been slower overall if I'd had the usual 38 ring of my triple to relax into.
-
How about Absolute Black chainrings to fit a Shimano four arm crankset?
To be honest, at the moment it's specialist, short production run components that we want to fit another manufacturers products. It's gonna be pricey.
Not too pricey compared with other options.
I got AbsoluteBlack 46/30 rings & new R7000 chainset for sub£200 - and still hoping to get a bit back on the redundant 50/34 rings.
I did find the 46 ring a bit trying in yesterday's wind, but would probably have been slower overall if I'd had the usual 38 ring of my triple to relax into.
One person's £200 is cheap, another person's expensive.
That is a good option, but I never got on with the Shimano crankset, too flexible and too much chainrub for me. Also, looks awful when the black finish rubs off. Didn't want to throw the cost of the Absolute Black chainrings at it, so got the Sugino.
-
One person's £200 is cheap, another person's expensive.
I agree - I balked at the £300 cost of the Sugino,
-
I've been curious about these Doval cheapo sub-compact chainrings (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/46T-30T-BCD110-DOVAL-MicroGT-Chainring-for-4-arm-Shimano-Etc/254073770809?hash=item3b27fa1339:g:NLEAAOSw8a9cMLZM:rk:1:pf:0) for a while - no idea of the quality but one of these days I might take a punt and order some. They're certainly much cheaper than the Absolute Black offerings.
-
One person's £200 is cheap, another person's expensive.
I agree - I balked at the £300 cost of the Sugino,
It does look pretty, but...
I wonder how many they've ever sold?
-
So faced with a choice between AbsoluteBlack, FSA, Sugino or Praxis, you've found problems with each one. Well done, you've discovered how kit choice works. Shimano will probably follow the trend in a couple of years but until then you'll have to stop being sniffy about Tiagra, triples, square taper BBs and/or mechanical shifting.
AbsoluteBlack - Oval rings, still not sure about them, but most plausible option out there
FSA - Only works with their own BB, but it's external bearing, offers two price options. Plausible
Sugino - Discontinued, available in a few places, but 300 quid a go, and not sure about replacement parts, because it's discontinued
Praxis - Unless I'm missing something, I can't find anything smaller than 32/48. That's not 30/46...
I'd like Di2 shifting so I can have shifters in multiple places, (see other threads for more discussion about this). I currently run Tiagra 2x10 (With a MTB front mech and chainset, that shimano says doesn't work).
But of all the options listed, only the AbsoluteBlack oval rings provide an easy drop in replacement for the chainrings on an off the peg bike. I've yet to get my head round the pros and cons of oval chain rings. it's also worth noting that the Absolute Black rings are not compatible with most crank based power meters, they are updating the design to be compatible with the Dura Ace Shimano Power meter, but that's the only crank based option, according to AbsoluteBlack themselves.
(While we're at it, I'd love it if manufacturers still made 8 speed brifters. You know what though? I realise I'm in a minority.)
I know I'm in a minority, but I also know that this minority isn't as small as some may think (look at the number of gravel bike riders who ask for sub compact chainsets.
When I finish building my Di2 bike, I'm wondering if I can somehow set it up to log which gear I'm in at any given time on a ride so I can get an idea on how much I'm using each gear...
J
-
When I finish building my Di2 bike, I'm wondering if I can somehow set it up to log which gear I'm in at any given time on a ride so I can get an idea on how much I'm using each gear...
You're logging speed and cadence, right?
-
Yes Garmin units can record di2 gearing....see https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/12/5108101000-dynamics-segments.html
-
When I finish building my Di2 bike, I'm wondering if I can somehow set it up to log which gear I'm in at any given time on a ride so I can get an idea on how much I'm using each gear...
You're logging speed and cadence, right?
GPS derived speed is not accurate enough, might be better with a wheel sensor (I think mine has run out of battery). Here's a plot from a recent ride (700x25c tyres). See if you can work out even a sensible guess of the gearing from it:-
(http://www.greenbank.org/misc/speed_cadence.png)
-
@quixoticgeek, I might have missed it above but Velo Orange have a 2x10 46/30 crankset in 50.4 BCD https://velo-orange.com/collections/cranks/products/grand-cru-50-4bcd-crankset-mkii , I had this on my audax bike for a few years (Ultega Shifters & FD, Deore XT RD, 11-36 cassette), worked well although the FD wasn't perfect but ok, would have investigated options if I had kept this setup. In the end I went to 3x9 (just like my tourer) as it gave me an additional high gear and 2-3 lower gears but most importantly allowed me to just stay on the middle ring (36, cassette 12-36) much of the day if I was being lazy rather than frequently going up and down on the double.
-
I have recently swapped to absolute black oval sub compact. Paired with a Stages PM. Works. Eautifully.
The oval rings seem to smooooth the rhythm of cycling rather than anything more obvious.
Easy swap