terrymorse 

True, indeed.

There's another part of cadence/power curve that doesn't get talked about much: it's the low cadence/-ow power end.

When I'm climbing with slower riders on social rides, I'll let my cadence drop very low. It's easy to do, gets me out of the saddle often, and makes the slow easy climb less tedious.

big john

There is also the macho factor. Back before there were compact doubles and we were on 6 or 7 speed clusters most club riders and racers wouldn't be seen with a triple. I had one on my touring bike but my road bikes had 42x28 7 speeds until 1993 when I started using a 39 in front.
I got my first road triple in 2002 with an Ultegra 9 speed group and a second one in 2006 with an Ultegra 10 speed group.
The Ultegra triple group shifts fine. It's too bad they don't make it anymore but the compact double covers the range I need for most rides.

big john

The steepest street in L.A. is Fargo st, supposed to be 33% for a couple blocks. There is an event there each year and years ago a friend climbed it on a 42x23.
Now people climb it on mountain bikes or funny bikes built for the event. I went there a few years back with a friend who mentors juniors at the velodrome and one of the juniors climbed it easily on a 39x25 4 or 5 times.
I've never attempted it, not into public humiliation.

Ryan_M

Hey sorry to take so long to get back to this thread. Definitely some great point made and the discussion is very helpful so thanks every one! There's way too much here (that's a good thing) to respond to everyone's points individually so I thought I'd make some general points and let the convo run with it.

- I think I left out some critical info... Yeah I have a 28/42 bail out that I do use on occasion, but that's on the trails/newb offroad stuff I ride.... the kinda hills where you have to be careful if you sit normally in the saddle you'll roll over backwards but if you move your weight too far forward you lose rear traction, not a chance theres a paved road where I would be riding a road bike that's that steep. Realistically I could lose my one maybe two largest cogs on my current bike if I'm sticking to only roads around the GF's place.

- BTW I'm not riding 'to' the GF's place. It's a longish distance relationship so if I'm riding there, the ride is all around there. I looked it up as best I could and theres a nearly 2km long hill that's 6% and a couple that are a bit under 1km around 8%, and some very short stints aproaching 12%. I know not what you mountain guys deal with but for me it definitely takes some work though doable.

- In the last couple days I ditched the mediocre/crappy shock fork my bike came with for a rigid carbon one, along with a carbon handle bar and seat post. Real life measured #'s it shaved 1.8kg (or nearly 4lbs) off the bike. Holy hell what a difference! I rode a familiar route and felt like I was flying. The data off the garmin said I was only ~9% faster but wow it felt better than that. Anyway, point to that is I'm very optimistic how much more efficient a proper road bike is going to be.

- I made the comment before I crunched some numbers, so yeah I'm not really going to get a close ratio cassette. I haven't put it into any calculators yet but anything beyond the 11-32 does look a bit awkward with the steps. I think based on what's been said and the significant gain I've had on my bike by dropping a bit of baggage I'll go with the 50/34 rings and 11-32 cassette.

I do have a question though and it might be a bigger deal here. With the Deore XT drivetrain I have now the front chainrings shift easily as smooth as jumping a cog in the back. I shift the rings often more so just to keep a straighter chain line since it's so smooth. It's nitpicky but I hate any noise from the drivetrain, if I can hear it - it's too loud. The shifters also have a great feature that they'll drop two cogs in the back and drop from the big to small chain ring, it's great for getting set up for climbing because it approximately maintains the ratio I'm riding in but now I'm in the small chainring. The shift is so seamless I've had to look down between my legs to make sure it actually happened in case I didn't hear it. It sounds from the discussion some avoid shifting rings, do road rings not shift as smooth?

Racing Dan

If you are 175 lbs on a 20 lbs bike you are pushing ~245W if you are doing 70 RPM in the 34/34 on a 10% climb. A not so fit rider will get in trouble if the climb is sustained, thus requiring lower gears to go slower and push less power at a reasonable cadence.

Racing Dan

Well, no. Road rings are (mostly) much further apart, 34/50 = 16t jump. That's why many prefer to not shift the rings more than needed. Im betting the 10t jump on XT is MUCH smoother. Im also betting a modern triple road crank Could be Much better than what was available in years past. However development stopped a decade or more ago. In my mind 3x10 or 3x9 makes a lot more sense than 2x12 and dinner plate size cogs, if you need very low gears.

ZHVelo

And it is good practice to get out of the saddle, no?

PeteHski

That was exactly my point for recommending a compact 50/34 and 11-34 cassette. The OP is heavier than me and I would guess less bike fit and so would certainly not be spinning out on a 34/34 gear like some other poster was suggesting. Only reason I didn’t suggest a triple was because they are pretty much extinct and probably not necessary unless touring.

PeteHski

Just get the 11-34. You won’t notice the gaps unless you are racing and you’ll be thankful for the 34 whenever the road gets steep.

Racing Dan

Maybe not really, depending what part of the cassette getting the most use. The 11-32 has a few tightly spaced very high gears, but the 11-34 has more midrange gears to pick from. Imho, its even better in the low-mid range than the 11-30 as well.

Bicycle Gear Calculator

Im running a 10s 11-34 and im very happy with it.

terrymorse 

Yes. At the very least, getting off the saddle saves your butt. It also gives your muscles a break. especially lower back muscles.

genejockey 

(I don't race and I notice the gaps. Though to be fair, they're nowhere near as noticeable as the gaps in the 6-speed 13-32 cassette on a 1980s sport/touring bike I just finished rebuilding)

Kimmo 

I really hope triples come back... a 53/39/30 shifted by Di2 would be glorious. I'd also like to see Shimano ditch the stupid restrictions in E-tube and let you plug in any ratios and shift pattern.

CAT7RDR

I just accept gaps and momentary completion of shifts into the 34-30 and 34-34 on the 11-34 Ultegra 6800 is unique and really NBD because I am climbing steeper grades and not too concerned about cadence and speed but just completing the climbs. Glad to have the range in gear inches.

I remember my first "big climb" on a Schwinn Le Tour circa 1987 with a 42-21 combo. Mashing took on a whole new meaning.

tomato coupe

It would be great if there was a way to reduce your cadence, instead of walking.

Lazyass

I predict in the next 10 years all road groups except for low end ones will be 1x and by then we'll probably have 13-14 cogs. Wider freehubs so they can sell everyone new wheels to fit them. And the pro peloton will be forced into them like disc brakes so that everyone will want to ride it.

*edit* Oh, and they'll pay the magazine companies to come up with some scientific experiments to try and convince everyone it's better and more efficient so that when there's fights on Bike Forums about it someone can post a google link and win the argument

big john

I had a Schwinn Tempo with 7 speed 105, I think it was from 1987. You could switch cogs easily so I put a 28 on there. Climbed everything in 42x28 while friends had 42x25 or even 23.

genejockey 

On the C&V bikes I've been getting, I've given them at least a 26 and in one case a smaller small ring as well. 43x23 is just too much for me on anything beyond 'rolling'.

big john

I had 4 bikes over several years which were Shimano 7 speeds with 52x42 double. I put the 28 tooth cog on all of them and in 1995, or so, I put a 39 front ring on the last of those bikes. The next 2 bikes I got were triples. Still have 1 of them.

genejockey 

Yep. I swapped out the 43t small ring on Mrs. Peel for a 40. And on the Circuit, I made the 13-24 into a 13-26, which doesn't seem like that big a deal, but it works a lot better. I can't go lower than 42 on the chainring, though, because as far as I can tell, 42 is the smallest Biopace chainring that fits a 130mm BCD crank.

For any real climbing, I use my more modern bikes with even wider gears.

PeteHski

What? Are you trying to tell me things might be different in the future and not as good as they were in the past?

Lazyass

Why, yes. Yes I am.

Kimmo 

It's a physical limitation of the derailer drivetrain that any given jump in the number of teeth between cogs gets bigger as the cogs get smaller, and once you're down to one tooth jumps the gap gets bigger as you faster - which is the exact opposite of desirable, as evidenced by gaps that go 4,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,1,1 or whatever.

The only ways to mitigate this are either shorter chain pitch, bigger rings and cogs, and/or more chainrings. The 38/50/52 combo I identified makes such a nice ratio curve I guarantee it'll be a thing if civilisation persists long enough. It changes the line from an upwards curve once you hit the one tooth jumps to a straight line. And it could be retrofitted to existing cranks as a slightly offset small ring and a double big ring, which I suspect could be made to shift quite smoothly with modern tooth profiling techniques, with the shifting taken care of by electronic syncro.

PeteHski

I’m guessing this applies to all technology right? Or is it only bikes that are getting worse over time?

Lazyass

I stopped posting in the road section for probably a couple of years because I was tired of snobbish toxic BS like your replies to me. Been giving it another chance, I thought it might be better since hardly anyone posts here now but see ya....