Climbing

Carl Fogel wrote:

Not more than ten minutes into my morning commute, there's a short,
steep hill to climb (maybe 100 meters or so and up to 15%
grade). Â*It was usually fairly easy in low gear (40:28) on my road
bike (700Cx28) out of the saddle.

Later I started using 2nd gear (40:24), and eventually replaced the
14-28 freewheel with a 13-24. Â*

Â*I had forgotten to move the chain onto the small chainwheel at the
foot of the hill.

That's a good tale that many of us can relate to. But unless you're
using a 6-speed freewheel and are trying to avoid gaps, why limit
yourself to a 40:24 if you have to deal with grades up to 15%?

I guess we all tend to use the gears we have, and get a little
"lazy" at times if we have low gears. But I prefer that to
struggling when tired or when I encounter a new monster hill.

I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity between
humans and motor driven vehicles. As Long as the legs can turn the
pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed because that is
what work on a bicycle is in the absence of significant (wind) speed.

Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears. This
underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that counts.

My experience is the same for a local ride over Mt. Hamilton to
Livermore and back to the start with 7800 ft of climbing. Since a
gear enthusiast once told riders they needed especially low gears
for Mt. Hamilton, I ride the same 50-15t gear without shifting for
the entire route. The first time, gear-friend rode his motorcycle
up the main grade to the observatory, as I rode with some friends,
to see if I really used a corncob 5-speed cluster (13-14-15-16-17)
and was suitably rewarded. That was 30 years ago but it still
worked yesterday.

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm
http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/public/pictures/snowpics/
http://tinyurl.com/58yfbp

So why do the overwhelming majority of riders use low gears to
climb?

You must mean "most" and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons, but
one of these could be parallel in that:

"So why do the overwhelming majority of riders wear helmets?"

We read about sore knees here often and it is believed that high
cadence prevents that. We could have a large round of "helmet wars"
about that subject as well.

Because most riders have not been riding bicycles in mountains most of
their lives, they suffer knee problems that the US military belatedly
discovered from the "squat jump" exercise that required deep knee
bends (kneeling position) mainly on one leg at a time. That this
caused many 4F discharges lead them to no longer use the exercise. In
contrast, there were also soldiers who could do many squat jumps
without injury. These same folks would most likely not suffer from
riding larger gear than is currently popular.

For most people repeated loaded knee bends occur only when climbing
stairs, that have at best a 7" rise but often only 6". A bicycle
requires twice that bend. I am fortunate to not suffer knee damage
and can ride any gear I choose without problems other than having to
pull up on the other foot, something that is less efficient than only
pushing down.

Unlike the helmet zealots who shout "where's your helmet" or cadence
zealots "shift into a lower gear", I don't tell riders what gears to
ride or to wear or not wear a helmet.

Jobst Brandt

On Sep 14, 1:28*pm, wrote:
Carl Fogel wrote:
Not more than ten minutes into my morning commute, there's a short,
steep hill to climb (maybe 100 meters or so and up to 15%
grade). *It was usually fairly easy in low gear (40:28) on my road
bike (700Cx28) out of the saddle.
Later I started using 2nd gear (40:24), and eventually replaced the
14-28 freewheel with a 13-24. *
*I had forgotten to move the chain onto the small chainwheel at the
foot of the hill.
That's a good tale that many of us can relate to. *But unless you're
using a 6-speed freewheel and are trying to avoid gaps, why limit
yourself to a 40:24 if you have to deal with grades up to 15%?
I guess we all tend to use the gears we have, and get a little
"lazy" at times if we have low gears. *But I prefer that to
struggling when tired or when I encounter a new monster hill.
I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity between
humans and motor driven vehicles. *As Long as the legs can turn the
pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed because that is
what work on a bicycle is in the absence of significant (wind) speed.
Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears. *This
underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that counts.
My experience is the same for a local ride over Mt. Hamilton to
Livermore and back to the start with 7800 ft of climbing. *Since a
gear enthusiast once told riders they needed especially low gears
for Mt. Hamilton, I ride the same 50-15t gear without shifting for
the entire route. *The first time, gear-friend rode his motorcycle
up the main grade to the observatory, as I rode with some friends,
to see if I really used a corncob 5-speed cluster (13-14-15-16-17)
and was suitably rewarded. *That was 30 years ago but it still
worked yesterday.

*http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm
*http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/public/pictures/snowpics/
*http://tinyurl.com/58yfbp

So why do the overwhelming majority of riders use low gears to
climb?

You must mean "most" and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons, but
one of these could be parallel in that:

"So why do the overwhelming majority of riders wear helmets?"

We read about sore knees here often and it is believed that high
cadence prevents that. *We could have a large round of "helmet wars"
about that subject as well. *

Because most riders have not been riding bicycles in mountains most of
their lives, they suffer knee problems that the US military belatedly
discovered from the "squat jump" exercise that required deep knee
bends (kneeling position) mainly on one leg at a time. *That this
caused many 4F discharges lead them to no longer use the exercise. *In
contrast, there were also soldiers who could do many squat jumps
without injury. *These same folks would most likely not suffer from
riding larger gear than is currently popular.

For most people repeated loaded knee bends occur only when climbing
stairs, that have at best a 7" rise but often only 6". *A bicycle
requires twice that bend. *I am fortunate to not suffer knee damage
and can ride any gear I choose without problems other than having to
pull up on the other foot, something that is less efficient than only
pushing down.

Unlike the helmet zealots who shout "where's your helmet" or cadence
zealots "shift into a lower gear", I don't tell riders what gears to
ride or to wear or not wear a helmet.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

You are an outlier when it comes to gears, Jobst. I have ridden and
raced over Mt. Hamilton -- and pretty standard olde tyme gear was
42/17 or 18 for strong climbers. That picture you have of Vierra,
McBride and Zanotti and some others (whose names now escape me -- was
Malone in there?) -- well, I bet none of those guys was doing the
climb in a 50/15 -- not the last 5 miles to the observatory. I used to
do HWY 9 with Mike Engleman -- who won Mt. Evans (among other things),
and I can guaranty you he was not turning those kinds of gears. He was
probably a tooth lower than me -- not four. I don't doubt you can do
it, but most people (including me) would find that it is uncomfortable
or impossible. -- Jay Beattie.

Carl Fogel wrote:

So why do the overwhelming majority of riders use low gears to climb?

In my observation, in my fair city, a growing number of frequent
riders are choosing to make do with a single gear ratio. This is not
an "overwhelming majority", but neither is it an insignificant
minority.

As for me, the overwhelming majority of my cycling miles in the last
couple of years have been on one-speed bikes. But I live in a gently-
sloped area of town and avoid unnecessary climbing when I can.

Chalo

On 14 Sep 2008 20:28:12 GMT, wrote:

Carl Fogel wrote:

Not more than ten minutes into my morning commute, there's a short,
steep hill to climb (maybe 100 meters or so and up to 15%
grade). *It was usually fairly easy in low gear (40:28) on my road
bike (700Cx28) out of the saddle.

Later I started using 2nd gear (40:24), and eventually replaced the
14-28 freewheel with a 13-24. *

*I had forgotten to move the chain onto the small chainwheel at the
foot of the hill.

That's a good tale that many of us can relate to. But unless you're
using a 6-speed freewheel and are trying to avoid gaps, why limit
yourself to a 40:24 if you have to deal with grades up to 15%?

I guess we all tend to use the gears we have, and get a little
"lazy" at times if we have low gears. But I prefer that to
struggling when tired or when I encounter a new monster hill.

I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity between
humans and motor driven vehicles. As Long as the legs can turn the
pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed because that is
what work on a bicycle is in the absence of significant (wind) speed.

Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears. This
underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that counts.

My experience is the same for a local ride over Mt. Hamilton to
Livermore and back to the start with 7800 ft of climbing. Since a
gear enthusiast once told riders they needed especially low gears
for Mt. Hamilton, I ride the same 50-15t gear without shifting for
the entire route. The first time, gear-friend rode his motorcycle
up the main grade to the observatory, as I rode with some friends,
to see if I really used a corncob 5-speed cluster (13-14-15-16-17)
and was suitably rewarded. That was 30 years ago but it still
worked yesterday.

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm
http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/public/pictures/snowpics/
http://tinyurl.com/58yfbp

So why do the overwhelming majority of riders use low gears to
climb?

You must mean "most" and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons, but
one of these could be parallel in that:

"So why do the overwhelming majority of riders wear helmets?"

We read about sore knees here often and it is believed that high
cadence prevents that. We could have a large round of "helmet wars"
about that subject as well.

Because most riders have not been riding bicycles in mountains most of
their lives, they suffer knee problems that the US military belatedly
discovered from the "squat jump" exercise that required deep knee
bends (kneeling position) mainly on one leg at a time. That this
caused many 4F discharges lead them to no longer use the exercise. In
contrast, there were also soldiers who could do many squat jumps
without injury. These same folks would most likely not suffer from
riding larger gear than is currently popular.

For most people repeated loaded knee bends occur only when climbing
stairs, that have at best a 7" rise but often only 6". A bicycle
requires twice that bend. I am fortunate to not suffer knee damage
and can ride any gear I choose without problems other than having to
pull up on the other foot, something that is less efficient than only
pushing down.

Unlike the helmet zealots who shout "where's your helmet" or cadence
zealots "shift into a lower gear", I don't tell riders what gears to
ride or to wear or not wear a helmet.

Jobst Brandt

[snip]

Dear Jobst,

No, I must mean the overwhelming majority, which is what I wrote. Why
try to change what was obvious to suit your position?

The overwhelming majority of riders do not climb Mt. Hamilton in
50/15, which is 3.33 to 1, roughly 39/11 (3.55) or 39/12 (3.25).

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

writes:

Carl Fogel wrote:

Not more than ten minutes into my morning commute, there's a short,
steep hill to climb (maybe 100 meters or so and up to 15%
grade). Â*It was usually fairly easy in low gear (40:28) on my road
bike (700Cx28) out of the saddle.

Later I started using 2nd gear (40:24), and eventually replaced the
14-28 freewheel with a 13-24. Â*

Â*I had forgotten to move the chain onto the small chainwheel at the
foot of the hill.

That's a good tale that many of us can relate to. But unless you're
using a 6-speed freewheel and are trying to avoid gaps, why limit
yourself to a 40:24 if you have to deal with grades up to 15%?

I guess we all tend to use the gears we have, and get a little
"lazy" at times if we have low gears. But I prefer that to
struggling when tired or when I encounter a new monster hill.

I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity between
humans and motor driven vehicles. As Long as the legs can turn the
pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed because that is
what work on a bicycle is in the absence of significant (wind) speed.

Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears. This
underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that counts.

My experience is the same for a local ride over Mt. Hamilton to
Livermore and back to the start with 7800 ft of climbing. Since a
gear enthusiast once told riders they needed especially low gears
for Mt. Hamilton, I ride the same 50-15t gear without shifting for
the entire route. The first time, gear-friend rode his motorcycle
up the main grade to the observatory, as I rode with some friends,
to see if I really used a corncob 5-speed cluster (13-14-15-16-17)
and was suitably rewarded. That was 30 years ago but it still
worked yesterday.

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm
http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/public/pictures/snowpics/
http://tinyurl.com/58yfbp

So why do the overwhelming majority of riders use low gears to
climb?

You must mean "most" and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons, but
one of these could be parallel in that:

"So why do the overwhelming majority of riders wear helmets?"

We read about sore knees here often and it is believed that high
cadence prevents that. We could have a large round of "helmet wars"
about that subject as well.

It could simply be its easy to keep going when your legs are moving
at pace rather than slowly.

Are you purposely trying to muddy the waters on what low gears mean to
the driving force?

Carl Fogel wrote:

Not more than ten minutes into my morning commute, there's a short,
steep hill to climb (maybe 100 meters or so and up to 15%
grade). Â*It was usually fairly easy in low gear (40:28) on my road
bike (700Cx28) out of the saddle.

Later I started using 2nd gear (40:24), and eventually replaced the
14-28 freewheel with a 13-24. Â*

Â*I had forgotten to move the chain onto the small chainwheel at the
foot of the hill.

That's a good tale that many of us can relate to. But unless you're
using a 6-speed freewheel and are trying to avoid gaps, why limit
yourself to a 40:24 if you have to deal with grades up to 15%?

I guess we all tend to use the gears we have, and get a little
"lazy" at times if we have low gears. But I prefer that to
struggling when tired or when I encounter a new monster hill.

I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity
between humans and motor driven vehicles. As Long as the legs
can turn the pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed
because that is what work on a bicycle is in the absence of
significant (wind) speed.

Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears.
This underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that
counts.

My experience is the same for a local ride over Mt. Hamilton to
Livermore and back to the start with 7800 ft of climbing. Since
a gear enthusiast once told riders they needed especially low
gears for Mt. Hamilton, I ride the same 50-15t gear without
shifting for the entire route. The first time, gear-friend rode
his motorcycle up the main grade to the observatory, as I rode
with some friends, to see if I really used a corncob 5-speed
cluster (13-14-15-16-17) and was suitably rewarded. That was 30
years ago but it still worked yesterday.

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm
http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/public/pictures/snowpics/
http://tinyurl.com/58yfbp

So why do the overwhelming majority of riders use low gears to
climb?

You must mean "most" and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons,
but one of these could be parallel in that:

"So why do the overwhelming majority of riders wear helmets?"

We read about sore knees here often and it is believed that high
cadence prevents that. We could have a large round of "helmet
wars" about that subject as well.

Because most riders have not been riding bicycles in mountains most
of their lives, they suffer knee problems that the US military
belatedly discovered from the "squat jump" exercise that required
deep knee bends (kneeling position) mainly on one leg at a time.
That this caused many 4F discharges lead them to no longer use the
exercise. In contrast, there were also soldiers who could do many
squat jumps without injury. These same folks would most likely not
suffer from riding larger gear than is currently popular.

For most people repeated loaded knee bends occur only when climbing
stairs, that have at best a 7" rise but often only 6". A bicycle
requires twice that bend. I am fortunate to not suffer knee damage
and can ride any gear I choose without problems other than having
to pull up on the other foot, something that is less efficient than
only pushing down.

Unlike the helmet zealots who shout "where's your helmet" or
cadence zealots "shift into a lower gear", I don't tell riders what
gears to ride or to wear or not wear a helmet.

No, I must mean the overwhelming majority, which is what I wrote.
Why try to change what was obvious to suit your position?

I find it a clumsy phrase that tries to lend more weight to a simple
concept much like asking "How does that impact your riding?" instead
of "How does that affect your riding?" I don't see what is
overwhelming about the majority and why the phrase is not equivalent
to "most" other than that it uses four times as many characters to say
most.

The overwhelming majority of riders do not climb Mt. Hamilton in
50/15, which is 3.33 to 1, roughly 39/11 (3.55) or 39/12 (3.25).

I didn't say they did, but Years ago I sprinted for KOM with other
riders in that gear when reaching the top of the climb in that gear.

Jobst Brandt

On 2008-09-14, wrote:
Carl Fogel wrote:
[...]
No, I must mean the overwhelming majority, which is what I wrote.
Why try to change what was obvious to suit your position?

I find it a clumsy phrase that tries to lend more weight to a simple
concept much like asking "How does that impact your riding?" instead
of "How does that affect your riding?" I don't see what is
overwhelming about the majority and why the phrase is not equivalent
to "most" other than that it uses four times as many characters to say
most.

"A majority" or "most" just means more than half (if you're talking
about two groups).

"An overwhelming majority" means much more than just half-- it means
"almost all", "about 95%", etc.

Most people are women, but they are not an overwhelming majority.

Jobst Brandt wrote:
I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity between
humans and motor driven vehicles. *As Long as the legs can turn the
pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed because that is
what work on a bicycle is in the absence of significant (wind) speed.

Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears. *This
underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that counts.


Certainly the same amout of work is done when climbing a hill
regardless of the gear used. The same is true for hoisting a heavy
weight with a simple pulley or an arrangement of pulleys that provides
mechanical advantage. But other than bragging rights, I don't see any
advantage to straining in a big gear when a smaller gear will me up
the hill more comfortably even if the same amount of work and power
are required.

Art Harris





My experience is the same for a local ride over Mt. Hamilton to
Livermore and back to the start with 7800 ft of climbing. *Since a
gear enthusiast once told riders they needed especially low gears for
Mt. Hamilton, I ride the same 50-15t gear without shifting for the
entire route. *The first time, gear-friend rode his motorcycle up the
main grade to the observatory, as I rode with some friends, to see if
I really used a corncob 5-speed cluster (13-14-15-16-17) and was
suitably rewarded. *That was 30 years ago but it still worked
yesterday.

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookou...url.com/58yfbp

Jobst Brandt

Art Harris writes:

Jobst Brandt wrote:
I think there is a preoccupation with gears and similarity between
humans and motor driven vehicles. Â*As Long as the legs can turn the
pedals, it's the rate of climb that determines speed because that is
what work on a bicycle is in the absence of significant (wind) speed.

Local bicyclists have participated in a common hill-climb (on Old
La Honda Rd.) and achieved the same ET in 20% differing gears. Â*This
underscores that it is ft-lbs/sec elevation gain that counts.


Certainly the same amout of work is done when climbing a hill
regardless of the gear used. The same is true for hoisting a heavy
weight with a simple pulley or an arrangement of pulleys that provides
mechanical advantage. But other than bragging rights, I don't see any
advantage to straining in a big gear when a smaller gear will me up
the hill more comfortably even if the same amount of work and power
are required.

Art Harris

A lower gear will surely use a fair bit more energy?

Art Harris wrote:

Certainly the same amout of work is done when climbing a hill
regardless of the gear used. The same is true for hoisting a heavy
weight with a simple pulley or an arrangement of pulleys that provides
mechanical advantage. But other than bragging rights, I don't see any
advantage to straining in a big gear when a smaller gear will me up
the hill more comfortably even if the same amount of work and power
are required.

I don't presume to speak for Jobst, but only for myself:

When I come back from grocery shopping, I could take in a single bag
per trip; instead, I typically carry six or eight. It's more
efficient that way, because I am not just carrying groceries, I'm also
carrying my ponderous self back and forth.

It's much the same when I pedal. It's not just cranks and wheels I'm
turning; I also reciprocate legs that are each reasonably close to the
size of a pro climbing specialist in his entirety. Reversing their
movement rapidly wastes a lot of energy, when I could just use a
higher gear instead.

My bikes that have multiple gears mostly have low gears in the 30"
range, so I'm not shy about using what sport riders would consider low
gears. But when I use them, I don't usually pedal at a high cadence
unless it is for a very brief burst of power.

Chalo