Originally Posted by
Oso Polar
Have you actually tried climbing the well known (to you) hills or you are judging just by gearing difference alone?
Good point. I am judging
only by gearing difference (
inches gained per pedal revolution)-- I use the gear ratio calculator on sheldonbrown dot com.
Originally Posted by
Oso Polar
E.g. I went from Trek 3500 with its triple - lowest gear being 28x34 - and 26" wheels to Jamis Renegade Escapade with 29" wheels and double, lowest gear 34x32. In theory first bike should be much better in climbing, gearing is way lower, in practice, however, Jamis does a much, much better job - climbing is way easier on it. I've no idea why - geometry difference, lack of suspension fork or what...
It might have a lot to do with the roughly 10 lbs difference in weight between the two bikes. The trek 3500 at 31 lbs vs the Jamis at 21 lbs.
Which is why I am certain that losing another 15-20 lbs of fat will make a world of difference. I've lost 11lbs since march, (25lbs since 2017) and there is a very noticeable decrease in effort on the climbs that are a regular part of my weekly miles. Of course, some of that ease of effort is related to increased strength, but at least part of it has to do with the decrease in girth.
My GT 3x hardtail tops out between 31-32 lbs. And my Marin 29er is a tad under 30lbs with the hardcase tires.
With the a negligible difference in weight between the GT and the Marin, the GT with a 22x30
(18.7"/rev) provides modestly better relief on steeper climbs than the Marin with a 26x36.
(19.7" /rev). I think the lower psi on the GT 26x2" knobby tires adds to the sense of ease in climbing.