#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
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? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Climbing
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wheelset for climbing | Claus Assmann | Techniques | 9 | July 18th 07 10:45 PM |
climbing | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 7 | July 3rd 06 09:26 PM |
Climbing OTB | p e t e f a g e r l i n | Mountain Biking | 26 | May 9th 06 03:56 PM |
Level one and climbing... | EvanWilson | Unicycling | 3 | April 4th 06 11:45 AM |
Climbing tires? | Spider | Mountain Biking | 30 | November 7th 04 09:19 PM |