Bandera

He does for difficult Mountain Stages, other stages have appropriate gearing for the route.



Note the tight cassette & big rings for the Pave' stage in the '14 TdF.
Optimal gearing changes w/ the terrain. Having uselessly low gears on the flats is as bad as being over geared in the hills.
Since modern cassettes swap in 10 minutes and cost little why compromise?



53/46 Chainrings w/ 11-23 get it done on the flats of Paris Roubaix for the Pros.

-Bandera

dtrain

I wasn't sure which Alberto Contador he was talking about, so the TDF reference was a lifeline.

Cafe

When you say optimal were talking professional racing...people who need to maintain a specific cadence and power output over a given course. If you talk about needing tighter spacing then you must have a power meter / cadence sensor I'm guessing if you are that concerned with power efficiency, speed, and time. If were talking about this you must be racing.

I don't think most people are like that. And if you got 30 miles of flats before you get to the mountain...I don't think most people are going to take 10 minutes in the middle of their ride to swap cassettes.

It would be interesting to see however, if we could some how take two riders with identical body types, fitness level, and have them negotiate a flat course with the "tight spaced optimal gearing" cassette and a 50/34 compact with an 11-32 and see if there would be any huge gains. I wouldn't be surprised if there were no gains at all since the rider would simply adapt to whatever gearing he was using. Of course any gain in racing is important, but I'm not suggesting 11-32 as a good all around cassette for someone who is racing, but more towards the other 99% who are not racing.

If you are saying average joe is going to benefit from a tighter spaced cassette over average joe with an 11-32...that is nonsense.

Bandera

Isn't the title of your thread: "50/34 compact and 11-32 cassette 11-speed...how limited is this on flats?"

If a ride starts on the flats and ends on a mountain top one would install the proper cassette for the whole course, not part of it.
Climbing mountains isn't done on the flats, start a new thread on gearing for hills and mountains to pursue that line of inquiry.

No, most if not all experienced recreational riders select appropriate gearing for themselves. All racers do.
Racing or not has little bearing on how people pedal bicycles. All riders are efficient at pedaling a bicycle only in a narrow RPM range, typically 70-100 RPM. Having Optimal gearing for a course is to have the lowest gear necessary and the highest useable with as many steps in between to maintain that efficient RPM range while covering the terrain. As far as " the rider would simply adapt to whatever gearing he was using" the same can be said of riding a single gear on the road, but 99% of riders go for multiple gears instead for the efficiency they allow.

Toting useless low gears along compromises efficiency. It's very easy to not settle for that but some people don't care.
Why start this thread if you don't care and insist dogmatically that wide range mountain gearing is the way to ride on flat roads?

-Bandera

BoSoxYacht

well said.

An 11-32 cassette on the flats is unnecessary for most road cyclists. 12-25 11speed with a 50/34 crankset works very well because it gives a very useable range of closely spaced ratios for the flats/rollers, and when on the 34t chainring you have plenty of low ratios for climbing all but the steepest grades.

UnfilteredDregs

I ride 11-32. It sucks for the flats, and I'm quite used to it. It's not about being spoiled, it's about gearing for your terrain and being able to fine tune one's effort IMO. I don't need a 32 or a 28, and I hardly need an 11 (I'd miss it on descents but I think it's pragmatic to gear for your cruising speed range...). I certainly could use a 15, 17, 19 instead. How long were you averaging 26mph for? and do you have a vertical profile of that ride?

I'm no Contador. 26 mph on the flats for a significant amount of time is pro level, good for you...

BoSoxYacht

I have to correct you.

Hitting 26mph, and riding at 26mph on the flats are not the same thing. I've done a sub 59 minute 40k TT and I can assure you that an 11-32 cassette would have been a huge handicap.

Bandera

Spoiled? Don't you mean Useless? What mountains are in your riding range?
All it takes is $60 and few minutes of effort to dump the useless low and top end and install a 12-25.

12-25: 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25
You get a bonus 18T, a useful cog as well!

Save the mountain cassette for the mountains and proceed.

-Bandera

Cafe

If a ride starts on the flats and ends on a mountain top one would install the proper cassette for the whole course, not part of it.
Climbing mountains isn't done on the flats, start a new thread on gearing for hills and mountains to pursue that line of inquiry.






No, most if not all experienced recreational riders select appropriate gearing for themselves. All racers do.
Racing or not has little bearing on how people pedal bicycles. All riders are efficient at pedaling a bicycle only in a narrow RPM range, typically 70-100 RPM. Having Optimal gearing for a course is to have the lowest gear necessary and the highest useable with as many steps in between to maintain that efficient RPM range while covering the terrain. As far as " the rider would simply adapt to whatever gearing he was using" the same can be said of riding a single gear on the road, but 99% of riders go for multiple gears instead for the efficiency they allow.


Toting useless low gears along compromises efficiency. It's very easy to not settle for that but some people don't care.
Why start this thread if you don't care and insist dogmatically that wide range mountain gearing is the way to ride on flat roads?


-Bandera[/QUOTE]


I don't think I'm insisting that wide range mountain gearing is the way to go on the flats...at least that was not my intent. I simply question your idea that a recreational cyclist would be more efficient on a cassette with tighter spacing over an 11-32 wider spaced cassette.


Especially since most recreation riders probably ride hybrids which use mountain gearing anyways.


It think in the real world...not racing...the difference between a 11-32 or 12-25 has to do more with preference than performance or efficiency when were talking about the majority. And how far do most recreational cyclists travel? 20 miles or so if that I would imagine. Any efficiency from cassette spacing for such a short distance would be negligible if not non-existent.


Riding position affects efficiency and speed more than the 'tight spacing' on your cassette for the flats imo.


Of course if were talking a 10 stage pro race where they will ride 80-120 miles a day, ok, I'm in total agreement, you have to run the most appropriate gearing for that route possible to maximize efficiency. But these are people that rain with power meters and cadence sensors that can take advantage of 'tight spacing.' I don't think most cyclists use power meters or cadence sensors.

Cafe

It was not for a significant amount of time at all, but it wasn't a sprint for me either. I just pushed myself a little bit harder for only 1/4 mile if that. I could never maintain 26mph lol.I can stay around 18-20 on the flats but that's trying for me and on the hoods as well. I achieved 26mph for a short duration in the drops...I cannot maintain a drop position for a long duration as I am simply not too comfortable in the drops.

UnfilteredDregs

Lol...I think you missed what I was saying..I'm with you, yup, useless!...I'm going either 12-28 or 13-29. Hills are a fact where I ride.

UnfilteredDregs

We sound familiar, I can easily sustain about 18mph on a flat, in a rotation I push a bit more, drops imo are about fit, I like the drops and stretching into them...What's your ruling grade/hill?

I bet I'm going to enjoy a tighter cassette, I bet you would as well...and I'm not talking corncobs...

Bandera

Not my idea, it's the history of the sport from club riders to the present pros for over a century. No big revelation.
Having the lowest gearing necessary just for your terrain and the highest one can push with the closest steps between has the model for efficiency.

Any recreational cyclist on reasonably flat to rolling terrain would not benefit from mountain gearing despite 10 miles less or more traveled. In fact they would be less efficient than having the range needed for the terrain they ride in with nice tight steps. That's just how bicycling works.

This is just too remedial for further conversation.

-Bandera: Done

stephtu

I think some of you are way overselling the efficiency gains of having 1 tooth steps. Say someone prefers to pedal at 85 rpm. How much are you claiming they are losing by having to pedal at 90 rpm or 80 rpm instead caused by having 2 tooth gaps in the middle? 25 years ago we had 6- speed and 7-speed freewheels/cassettes, 12-23 or 13-25 or so, similar spacing to 11 speed 11-32 without the extra low/high gears, people managed fine, not everyone felt compelled to go out and get corncobs. How hard is it to pedal 5 rpm faster in a lower gear at same power output?

Sure, if one lives in a flat area, a tighter cassette is nice to have and not too expensive, but I don't think it's really going to have noticeable efficiency gains, doubt it would make most people any faster. No way would I compare it to being undergeared for hills; undergeared you walk, not having tight spacing you just have to move your legs slightly faster or slower?

hueyhoolihan

i'm pretty much with you here. maybe it would make a difference for an elite cyclist that was attempting some sort of record, but people that could make use of it don't frequent forums to get or give advice.

BoSoxYacht

You and stephtu are both incorrect, but are welcome to believe whatever you want.

Cafe

What you said is what I argue. Any efficiency advantage imo will be negligible to non-existent for the average cyclist. A road bike is a lot more efficient / faster than a mountain bike because of the rider position, not because it has tighter cassette spacing. Tire pressure, frame alignment, wheel trueness and wheel weight will have a far greater impact on performance than how tight your cassette spacing is.

I think there is more of a mental edge to tighter spacing, and unless you are using a power meter and cadence sensor(which most cyclists don't use) then is there a real efficiency/performance advantage from 12/25 to 11/32 that an average cyclist can account for on the flats? Seems doubtful.

BoSoxYacht

most experienced cyclists don't need a power meter or cadence sensor to know when they are riding efficiently, and the absolutely don't need one to benefit from a closely spaced cassette on flat-rolling terrain.

Sometimes trying to explain simple truths is like trying to talk a hole into sidewalk.

momo15

I agree to an extent. I don't mind the compact on my TT bike, but I do keep a 12-25 on it, whereas my road bike has a compact with a 11-28. I live in a place where i can do a 75 mile loop with 0 elevation gain, but I like to have the access without having to change my setup all the time. I don't mind the bumps on a 10sp rear set-up on the road bike, but I like the tighter spacing on the TT. I'll never push an 11-50 unless I'm going downhill (which I usually shy away on), so any bigger on the TT isn't really an issue presently.

hueyhoolihan

so true. it can be even more difficult if the simple truth is arguable. and i suspect the frustration stems from the inability to convince, not explain.

BTW, as a dedicated single speeder, i agree that there is an RPM "sweet spot" regardless of terrain. but i've found it to be a spot spanned by, on a neutral flat at least, more than a few teeth on the rear cog.

Long Tom

11-32 rocks my world, but I love me some climbing. Hangs right with a triple for steep climbs. It has to be gettin' steep before I go Full Granny so I'd say, if you don't do steep, get a tighter-range cassette.

BoSoxYacht

Nearly everything is arguable, but that doesn't make the fact less true.

BTW, there's no frustration on my part. I'm simply pointing out that some people here refuse to believe the truth, even when the facts have been explained many times.

stephtu

If it's such a simple truth, then why are you unable to explain it? All you have done is declare it to be more efficient, not describe the physiological reasons why. Please, I'd like to know, why is spinning a 50x17 at 90 rpm significantly less efficient than spinning a 50x16 at 85 rpm? Or vice versa if you think a higher cadence is more efficient? And what is the magnitude of this inefficiency?

If you can't easily explain this, then maybe the truth is not as simple as you think. Simply implying that people who disagree with you are stupid without being able to explain why they are stupid is not a convincing way to win an argument.

BoSoxYacht

it has been explained as well as it needs to be. If you don't understand it or believe it at this point, that's your problem.

There are people that believe Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon, even though it's the truth.

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach"

krobinson103

I'd agree that a close spaced cassette is useful if you care about:

a) Riding in a paceline
b) Holding a fixed cadence.

I care nought about either. I have experienced the large gap thing in a paceline and it is annoying. However, my choice is usually to tour or brevet alone so it makes no difference. I hold 75-90rpm depending on a lot of a factors. Sometimes more, though I find 100-110 to unsustainable for any more than 20 minutes or so. So yes, many people liked fixed cadences and close spaced gears. I don't. It doesn't stop me climbing 3000m+ in one ride or covering 20,000km a year. Would I win a race? Probably not. Do I care if I win? Not at all. Horses for courses....