I’ve been riding for long enough to know that what “feels” good and and what “is” good in terms of technique are two independent sets with a small intersection; it’s very important to put a lot of thought and research into what you’re doing to make sure it offers a benefit. Research takes “work” and “time”, so I’m not very fond of that approach. Instead, I like to do a lot of “thinking”, leveraging both my inadequate expertise in mechanics and my unusually high degree of confidence in my ability to reason in order to jump to conclusions that benefit my initial assumptions.
For example, I believe there is an advantage to riding sur la plaque, or in the big ring, as opposed to riding in the same size gear on the small ring. I generally find that when I’m strong enough to stay on top of my gear, climbing in the big ring feels less cumbersome than when I climb in the small ring at the same speed. The downside is that it is like playing a game of chicken with your legs; it works very well if you are able to keep the gear turning over smoothly, but should you fall behind the gear, and your speed evaporates as you fall into a spiral of downshifting and decreasing speeds (not to mention morale).
All this can be explained away by having good legs or not (un jour sans), but I think there is a mechanical advantage as well.
First, there is the duration of the effort. As they say, it never gets easier, you just go faster, but I firmly believe faster is easier, provided you are strong and fit enough to support the effort. The faster you climb, the less changes in gradient and road surface impact your speed. Not to mention that while all athletes perform the same amount of work when they cross over the same climb regardless of the duration of their effort, athletes doing so in less time suffer for a shorter period of time than do those who go slower. Marco Pantani claimed that despite knowing the suffering that was just around the corner before his attacks, he was motivated to go as fast as possible in order to make the suffering end sooner.
Second, there seems to be a mechanical advantage of riding in the big ring. I’m a little bit hazy on the physics here, but it seems to me that the crank arm is in effect a second-class lever and, while maintaining the same length crank arm (lever) and fulcrum (bottom bracket), by moving into the big ring, you are moving load farther out on the lever, providing a mechanical advantage over the small ring.
WikiPedia defines leverage as:
load arm x load force = effort arm x effort force
In our case, since the speed is constant, that means that the load force (to turn the pedals) is also constant. And, since the load arm (crank) is a fixed length and the effort arm length is increased when moving the chain to the large chainring, the effort force is reduced in order to maintain a balanced equation, meaning that it doesn’t just feel good to ride sur la plaque, it actually is good.
All that said, this theory completely ignores the energy loss of bending the chain as you start to move the chain from straight at the center of the cassette towards the edge of your cassette, in particular when riding in the big ring and crossing to bigger cogs. Q-Factor has an impact on how much your chain is bending as you ride in bigger and bigger cogs, but I think there’s a measurable loss if you are crossing your chain completely (big ring to biggest cog); and I suspect is is entirely possible that the big ring’s mechanical advantages are outweighed by losses in chain friction.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
You know, you can get 52t rings for compact cranksets. So you can have a 52/11, with a 36 or 34 and a 21, 23 or 25 out back for your low gear, depending on how many hills you ride.
In Wellington, compacts make sense. I've never run out of a top gear with a 50/11. And even this guy ran compact when he lived here, and he could tear all of you a new one just by looking at you.
@frank
If you insist http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=433745&id=661440205&l=8cddb188be
I'll ride for a while and then might buy an 11-25 then I'll have a bigger ratio than the 53-12 I have on my other bikes, and I've never been dropped for anything other than being worse than the others.
I've also realised that the No Compact Rule should be extended to be No Compacts or Triples. It's all the same, all it does it make you slower. How does that fit into Rule #5. Human nature about not wanting to suffer more than is necessary: if you have a lower gear, you will use it.
I have requirements for a certain level of fitness, any hill/mountain (not sure we have mountains in the UK) that i can't get up in 39x25, I don't go up until I'm fit enough. This does mean that on my return to cycling I will be riding up and down the only flat road in the area for months.
I raced on a compact once - I was on a borrowed bike - horribly unfit and still ran out gears
@Rob
agree a 39 is girlie if you're only three weeks from peaking. When I'm fit*, I'll ditch the 39 in favour of a 42, I get a better climbing rhythm on a 42.
@john
my wife isn't hard-as-nails, but she is a Velomihottie.
@Nathan Edwards
Why are you riding up steep hills when on training rides of 80%HR? Or do you not have a choice? If the latter surely the logic works that if you stick with the 39, you will get fit enough to get up the hill at 80%HR, whereas getting a compact just stalls your fitness at it's current level
*can't see this happening any year soon
@Jarvis
Got no choice really... probably just my style. Don't worry I still know how to suffer and when it's not a sub 80% ride some of these climbs are done at 50rpm or less in a 39-25. I can rule 5 but I'd rather not destroy my knees doing it.
And yes, we have no mountains in the UK, but we do have some steep stuff... just doesn't go on as long as the Zoncolan.
@Nathan Edwards
So where are you? I was recently trying to class some of the climbs around these parts. The longest climb I can come up with is about 10km and it's on my doorstep.
@Jarvis
Durham (University)
Longest round here is a bit shorter than that I think, at least one that has any gradient. I think theres one that goes for many km at about 5%, only ridden that one in thick fog/mist, so I have no idea what it looks like.
Jarvis
Avoiding hills because you are too macho to ride a compact is the epitome of soft. While you're riding around on the flats, real men are climbing hills...
It's a bit like this...
New Rule: No compacts, triples and knees are not an excuse. HTFU
@brett
Here Here
@brett
That's fuckin hilariously good shit. Never heard of that guy in the states. Way funny.