DoubleJ Posted February 16, 2016 Share some advice would be appreciated. I have a question regarding climbing vs the gear ratios you have on your bike. I currently have 40/28 chainrings up front (11/36 rear). I got this as I thought it would make rocket away from my mates with their little 38/24 chainrings. Now when it comes to straights it's neither here nor there, so i don't really see a difference, but when it comes to climbs I get dropped like a rock. I'm pretty sure that my 28 ring on my 36 at the back is just too difficult to compete with any of my mates (even the guys with 3 x 10). I see guys that are much newer to the sport than I am coming past me on climbs on their 24t rings probably in their 3rd biggest/easiest blade in the back. I have however ridden a mates bike with a 38/24 and I could really feel that the strength in my legs seriously increased and I am thinking/hoping this could be because of the bigger chainrings I have gotten used to on my bike. So my question is this - Do smaller chainrings in the front allow you to select harder gears (smaller rings) in the back and that in turn adds more speed with less effort? I'm thinking of going Kalbo 1 x 32f-oval/42r, but then I think to myself would a 24 chainring not help me get up the hill faster if it will allow me to select a harder gear in the back as apposed to having a 32 single infront? I really would like to try the Kalbo oval setup. Hope this all makes sense....ek moes kop hou ;-) The other explanation could also be that I am just plainkak and should HTFU! I thank u. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDan Posted February 16, 2016 Share I have an offensive, not-so-humble opinion in my approach to gearing (which may just be my naive ego talking). It doesn't matter what ratios you run. Pedal your damn bike and break dreams! At least that's how I see the single speed riders understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin PJ Posted February 16, 2016 Share Ultimately the watts come from you, as long as the gears are not too hard for the hills and too easy for the flats. It shouldn't make much difference. A 32 front 42 rear is the same ratio as 28 front and 36 back. There are many reasons to go 1 by 10, or 1 by 11. Lots of threads on the hub on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravity Posted February 16, 2016 Share ja....i did a similar thing on my 3x9 , i made the all the front rings bigger, coz im mos a strong boooi.....it was a k@k idea, now i go slow and my legs just hurt more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droo Posted February 16, 2016 Share Ride what you brought. 1x11 with a 32 will get you up most things if you drink enough cement. Unless you're riding 75km+ days, then a 2x will be better. Singlespeeders can tackle most stuff on a 32/18, so anything's possible. Does hurt though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleJ Posted February 16, 2016 Share ja....i did a similar thing on my 3x9 , i made the all the front rings bigger, coz im mos a strong boooi.....it was a k@k idea, now i go slow and my legs just hurt more. That's pretty much my experience....Now I understand that many people here feel that you must just "shutup and ride your bike", but I would really like to understand the effort needed between the pairing up of different front/rear rings. I am under the impression that your speed lies in your rear rings, the power you push through your front rings translate to speed in the rear?? Now if I could use a smaller ring in front that requires less effort and I push the same amount of power through the crank than I would have if it was larger rings...the bike will move faster as I am using smaller rings in the back (because of the fact that the smaller front ring requires less effort) Again...I hope this makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetplant Posted February 16, 2016 Share Short answer, No Gearing will give you more power. It just enables you to put down that power at a sensible cadence. Less teeth on your chainring will feel easier because you will be spinning at a higher cadence for a given speed. Long answer: reduction of teeth on the front gear combined with increased teeth on the back equals an "easier" ride uphill, this is because your crank revolves more times per rotation of your back wheel, you get to push down on the pedals more times per revolution of the back wheel, thus making it easier. Remember: You can't create power that isn't there, Power = Force x speed. So if you go for a gearing that feels easier(smaller chainring) you will have to sacrifice speed if your power has not increased. Rough rule of thumb: Flat rides = big chainrings with smaller cogs on cassette(11teeth for your "top gear")Hilly rides = Smaller Chainrings combined with larger cogs on casette Getting your FTP up is a sure-fire way to increase speed if that is your ultimate goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worriesnot Posted February 16, 2016 Share That's pretty much my experience....Now I understand that many people here feel that you must just "shutup and ride your bike", but I would really like to understand the effort needed between the pairing up of different front/rear rings. I am under the impression that your speed lies in your rear rings, the power you push through your front rings translate to speed in the rear?? Now if I could use a smaller ring in front that requires less effort and I push the same amount of power through the crank than I would have if it was larger rings...the bike will move faster as I am using smaller rings in the back (because of the fact that the smaller front ring requires less effort) Again...I hope this makes sense. so in your mind, irrespective of final ratio, the rider with the smaller ring in the front will climb better / easier?Of het ek die kat aan die gat beet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingScot Posted February 16, 2016 Share Sounds to me you might have a bike setup issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleJ Posted February 16, 2016 Share so in your mind, irrespective of final ratio, the rider with the smaller ring in the front will climb better / easier?Of het ek die kat aan die gat beet? I would imagine to some degree yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firozfx Posted February 16, 2016 Share Or accept that some up us don't have them climbing genes and climb like sprinters. I just pace myself up the climbs and try to catch up on the flats and downhills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleJ Posted February 16, 2016 Share Sounds to me you might have a bike setup issue... Aish, I was scared someone would bring this up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin PJ Posted February 16, 2016 Share That's pretty much my experience....Now I understand that many people here feel that you must just "shutup and ride your bike", but I would really like to understand the effort needed between the pairing up of different front/rear rings. I am under the impression that your speed lies in your rear rings, the power you push through your front rings translate to speed in the rear?? Now if I could use a smaller ring in front that requires less effort and I push the same amount of power through the crank than I would have if it was larger rings...the bike will move faster as I am using smaller rings in the back (because of the fact that the smaller front ring requires less effort) Again...I hope this makes sense. No, once a hill gets over a certain gradient you ascend at the same rate, independent of gradient. This is called VAM in some coaches language (vertical ascended meters). TDF contenders can climb at 1750 VAMS per hour, basically a climb of height difference 1750 m in one hour irrespective of how long it is. This VAM can be traced directly to your power to weight ratio, which for Froome and the boys is about 6 W per kg. For us mortals it is abut 3/4 W per kg. Less watts and more kgs make for slow climbing. On the flats Watts make you go fast, weight doesn't really matter. As I said, as long as you are not spinning out or pedalling squares, the gears are not going to make much difference. What matters with chainrings and cassettes is the ratio between front and back, not the number of teeth on the gears. So 30 in front and 30 at the back will feel exactly the same as 20 in front and 20 at the back, or 40 front and 40 back. It is just a gear box with ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetplant Posted February 16, 2016 Share " Less watts and more kgs make for slow climbing." "On the flats Watts make you go fast, weight doesn't really matter. As I said, as long as you are not spinning out or pedalling squares, the gears are not going to make much difference." "What matters with chainrings and cassettes is the ratio between front and back, not the number of teeth on the gears. So 30 in front and 30 at the back will feel exactly the same as 20 in front and 20 at the back, or 40 front and 40 back. It is just a gear box with ratios." Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worriesnot Posted February 16, 2016 Share I would imagine to some degree yes? not really.the overall ratio in the end is what matters - how you get there,in cycling at least, is irrelevant.we can start talking about mechanical losses, centripetal forces etc. but those are really negligible in the end (for cycling I need to add).again; the overall ratio is what counts...the engine (i.e. you) is still the same no matter how you get to the 1:5 ratio, or whatever you are working with. just in general: cycling is a W/kg game - the only way to get faster / stronger is to up your power or loose weight. by doing that you'll be able to climb with them "lighties" flying up the hills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted February 16, 2016 Share AgreedRemember that the there is another ratio that you guys are not taking into account. The ration between the PCD of the chainring and the length of your crankarm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.