capeofstorms Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Hi, Has anyone made this move? Do you actually gain an extra gear and can you feel the difference on a hill. Currenlty using a standard crank 53/39 and I am not considering going compact.
bikemonster Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I went from a 12-25 to a 12-26. It's forced me to HTFU because now I refuse to use my easiest gear unless I am going up a "proper" climb. When on a proper climb, I can see my cadence is slightly higher than it used to be when running the 25, which is as you would hope. It doesn't really seem to have made me any faster up the steeps though. My advice would be to go for it - for most of us, running out of steam going uphill is more of a concern than running out of leg speed going downhill. And on top of that, I am a big believer in higher cadence rather than higher leg strength.
Guest coenie Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I could feel the change, but while you are at it why not go 11-27?
Lucky Luke. Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Spinning up the hills may be a better, more efficient way to climb, but only if you train for it by riding high cadence training rides and improving your pedal stroke efficiency. You cannot go from an average cadence of 70 to 90 and expect to automatically climb better. As is usually the case, riding better is about both the equipment and the training.
GuyP Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 And on top of that, I am a big believer in higher cadence rather than higher leg strength. They probably need to work in tandem for maximum effect though!!!
MTB_Roadie Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Spinning up the hills may be a better, more efficient way to climb, but only if you train for it by riding high cadence training rides and improving your pedal stroke efficiency. You cannot go from an average cadence of 70 to 90 and expect to automatically climb better. As is usually the case, riding better is about both the equipment and the training. Agree'd....I use to use a 12-25 with my compact crank, felt very easy climbing but had to spin more....so now I use a 11-23, was different to get used to but made me way stronger!
GuyP Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I switched to lower ratios on my long distance bikes (200km+) because the way you cycle is different over distance than over a 100Km race, and the variety of terrain also increases over the longer distances. So while my audax bikes have 11-25 to 11-28, my race bikes have 11-23. I suppose it all depends what you're up to. The old schoolers would be cringing at any mention of more than a 23 though! And while we're on that, nobody seems to be missing the good old 53/42 now that we've all gone soft and opted for 53/39's, or even compacts! At a point, I was thinking of changing my crank to a 53/42, but then changed my mind - cycling back then was somehow very different to how it is today, thankfully or otherwise
javadude Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Hi, Has anyone made this move? Do you actually gain an extra gear and can you feel the difference on a hill. Currenlty using a standard crank 53/39 and I am not considering going compact. Well you don't gain an extra gear but you can certainly noticed it going up a hill. Roughly, every tooth on the back is worth 4 on the front, so going up 2 teeth at the back is an easier gear than going for a 34/50 compact on the front. What you lose out on is the narrower spaced gears of the 12/25.
javadude Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I switched to lower ratios on my long distance bikes (200km+) because the way you cycle is different over distance than over a 100Km race, and the variety of terrain also increases over the longer distances. So while my audax bikes have 11-25 to 11-28, my race bikes have 11-23. I suppose it all depends what you're up to. The old schoolers would be cringing at any mention of more than a 23 though! And while we're on that, nobody seems to be missing the good old 53/42 now that we've all gone soft and opted for 53/39's, or even compacts! At a point, I was thinking of changing my crank to a 53/42, but then changed my mind - cycling back then was somehow very different to how it is today, thankfully or otherwise That is so true. I bought ex Argus winner Mark Pinder's old 80's bike. I think it was a 52/42 with a 13/19 at the back or something crazy like that.
GuyP Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 That is so true. I bought ex Argus winner Mark Pinder's old 80's bike. I think it was a 52/42 with a 13/19 at the back or something crazy like that. That made me smile - my first bike, a Peugeot Classique, had a 52/42 with a 6spd 12-21 or thereabouts. That was standard faire, plus you could go over anything with it, interestingly enough! Look at all the old bikes - monster gears! Tongue in cheek, maybe its easier these days to take tons of supplements, spend gazillions on a bike, than to actually get out there to do the work!
LeTurbo Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 That is so true. I bought ex Argus winner Mark Pinder's old 80's bike. I think it was a 52/42 with a 13/19 at the back or something crazy like that. Whoops, hi-jack time, sorry. That's what I ride and have always ridden. How are modern bikes different, apart from having more cogs? How do these new-fangled ratios make riding different? I've found myself wondering how other guys are spinning along looking relaxed while I'm sweating my +/-12kg machine around... could this be the "something crazy" you mean? Note to self: really must go test a modern bike sometime...
Zeps Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 MTB gears on a roadbike pffffftttt bunch of big girls panties
Lucky Luke. Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Whoops, hi-jack time, sorry. That's what I ride and have always ridden. How are modern bikes different, apart from having more cogs? How do these new-fangled ratios make riding different? I've found myself wondering how other guys are spinning along looking relaxed while I'm sweating my +/-12kg machine around... could this be the "something crazy" you mean? Note to self: really must go test a modern bike sometime... Ha ha I would say so mate. Although if you were to put in the hours on the hills with your current bike as a training bike, you'd get strong pretty quickly. Switcheroo to the comparatively paperweight racing machine on race day and hey presto! Anti-gravity hill climbing. There's an older guy from the UK in our club who used to train 200k rides with his panniers on full of tools. His mates used to call his bike 'The Shed'. He only comes out twice a week or so these days but he is still pretty strong on the hills.
1hill@aTime Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 MTB gears on a roadbike pffffftttt bunch of big girls panties lol have to agree, I'll stick to my 23 on "all" races
javadude Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Whoops, hi-jack time, sorry. That's what I ride and have always ridden. How are modern bikes different, apart from having more cogs? How do these new-fangled ratios make riding different? I've found myself wondering how other guys are spinning along looking relaxed while I'm sweating my +/-12kg machine around... could this be the "something crazy" you mean? Note to self: really must go test a modern bike sometime... Well, not really crazy, but if you've got the legs to get up Suikerbossie with a 42/19 or even a 21, then i'm actually very impressed.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now