Well I'm glad I found that out before London to Brighton...
Discussion
Marks on my rant please:
I bought my first, and so far only roadbike a good few years ago, I think it was 2004, with little knowledge. A friend recommended me to try some for size and fit, and get one with 105 Groupsets for durability. (I still give this advice to people who are starting out, and think it's reasonably valid.)
In the last few years I've learnt a bit more about bikes, and am just waiting for a bit of spare cash to get myself a new one. I've always struggled a bit uphill. When I was a competitive rower, I put this down to the fact a few of the people were lightweights. (I'm 6'8" and have weighed between 95kgs when I was rowing and I'm an overweight 120kgs now.)
As I learnt more about bikes, I realised that the bike I have has a 53 tooth big ring, (never changed the crank since I bought it.) In the future I'll get a compact chainset, 50/34 would suit me so much better than 53/39, but I've made life a little easier for myself by replacing the cassettes with 12/25 or 12/27 sets to help me out on the uphill sections.
Imagine my surprise then when I gave the big a real good clean today, and saw "42" stamped into the small chainring. I checked by counting the teeth, and sure enough I'm the proud owner of a bike with 53/42 on the front.
What complete numpty of a company would put this on a road bike for general sale? It would only be really useful for flat time trailing surely. At least I've noticed before I embarrass myself up the big climb at the end of L2B. Bloody bike manufacturers. I've looked at a lot of bikes deciding what to get next and I've never ever seen bikes running 53/42. Grrr...
(I know I would get quicker by losing weight, and this would have more effect than a new bike. You don't need to lecture me. I'm already working on it. Also, don't lecture me on how often I clean my bike, it's printed really small and I'd just not noticed it.)
So, anyone else seen this ridiculous gearing offered for sale before?
I bought my first, and so far only roadbike a good few years ago, I think it was 2004, with little knowledge. A friend recommended me to try some for size and fit, and get one with 105 Groupsets for durability. (I still give this advice to people who are starting out, and think it's reasonably valid.)
In the last few years I've learnt a bit more about bikes, and am just waiting for a bit of spare cash to get myself a new one. I've always struggled a bit uphill. When I was a competitive rower, I put this down to the fact a few of the people were lightweights. (I'm 6'8" and have weighed between 95kgs when I was rowing and I'm an overweight 120kgs now.)
As I learnt more about bikes, I realised that the bike I have has a 53 tooth big ring, (never changed the crank since I bought it.) In the future I'll get a compact chainset, 50/34 would suit me so much better than 53/39, but I've made life a little easier for myself by replacing the cassettes with 12/25 or 12/27 sets to help me out on the uphill sections.
Imagine my surprise then when I gave the big a real good clean today, and saw "42" stamped into the small chainring. I checked by counting the teeth, and sure enough I'm the proud owner of a bike with 53/42 on the front.
What complete numpty of a company would put this on a road bike for general sale? It would only be really useful for flat time trailing surely. At least I've noticed before I embarrass myself up the big climb at the end of L2B. Bloody bike manufacturers. I've looked at a lot of bikes deciding what to get next and I've never ever seen bikes running 53/42. Grrr...
(I know I would get quicker by losing weight, and this would have more effect than a new bike. You don't need to lecture me. I'm already working on it. Also, don't lecture me on how often I clean my bike, it's printed really small and I'd just not noticed it.)
So, anyone else seen this ridiculous gearing offered for sale before?
52/42 used to be the standard prior to 53/39 and the bikes tended to be aimed more at club racers than leisure riders.
When I was a junior racer I asked one of the club 'elders' who owned my local bike shop if he could fit a lower 13-23 or 13-25 cassette on the back for an upcoming hill road race with a mile long 1:4 - 1:6 finish. He looked aghast and told me if I couldn't manage it on a 13-21 I may as well give up and walk!
It is a hell of a lot harder now I am a heavier 95kg so I do sympathise, a compact (or even a triple) with 12-29 would be a good investment and anyone who says such gears are wimpy has never tried to winch 120kg up a long steep hill!
Funnily enough I started rowing last year and am enjoying not being dropped on any hills by any whippet like mates and the lack of traffic.
When I was a junior racer I asked one of the club 'elders' who owned my local bike shop if he could fit a lower 13-23 or 13-25 cassette on the back for an upcoming hill road race with a mile long 1:4 - 1:6 finish. He looked aghast and told me if I couldn't manage it on a 13-21 I may as well give up and walk!
It is a hell of a lot harder now I am a heavier 95kg so I do sympathise, a compact (or even a triple) with 12-29 would be a good investment and anyone who says such gears are wimpy has never tried to winch 120kg up a long steep hill!
Funnily enough I started rowing last year and am enjoying not being dropped on any hills by any whippet like mates and the lack of traffic.
louiebaby said:
Roman said:
Funnily enough I started rowing last year and am enjoying not being dropped on any hills by any whippet like mates and the lack of traffic.
Which club do you row at? Are you doing the HORR this year, it was always my favourite event!Parrot of Doom said:
My older road bike has 52/42 on the front and 21/12 on the back. I could climb Rawson's Rake in Ramsbottom with those gear ratios.
Man up.
That's a good effort - though I bet you weren't 120kg like the louiebaby at the time!Man up.
A long time ago when I was a svelte 78kg I climbed Whinlatter pass (longer South side) on my low profile with a 54/18 bottom gear - not quickly granted and you could actually hear the headset creaking (or was it my knees?) as I wrestled the cow-horn bars all the way up!
I'm so rubbish at climbing these days it's quite demotivating!
Parrot of Doom said:
Well yes, I did weigh about 12 stone at the time (76kg), and about half the time I had to give up on the last 200 yards, but I didn't complain on the internet Oh wait, there wasn't an internet...
I've just realised what all the graffiti used to mean now. "POD woz ere" wasn't some miscreant tagging, but in fact a declaration of how far you'd got up the hill. Oh wait, there wasn't an internet...neilski said:
Saddle bum said:
neilski said:
A bottom gear of 42 x 21 is fine for the London to Brighton. It's Ditchling Beacon not Mont Ventoux FFS! 
Somewhat ambitious in my opinion.An example using a formula used for calculating required wattage (copied from weightweenies forum) for climbing:
Taking a 500m ascent over 25min a 75kg rider + 10kg of bike, clothing & eqpt will be producing 333 watts - pretty much the power output of a good club road racer.
A 95kg rider such as myself will need to produce a Chris Boardman beating 412 watts to climb at the same pace and a 120kg rider would need to produce a Miguel Indurain thrashing superhuman 510 watts.
Here is the formula:
Power in watts = 1.2 x W x H x 9.8 / T
W = total weight including you and the bike in kilograms
H = height of the hill in meters
T = time to climb the hill in seconds
Try adding enough weight to your bike to bring the total bike+rider weight up to 130kg & then set out for some climbs on a 42x21 and see how you get on!
Roman said:
neilski said:
Saddle bum said:
neilski said:
A bottom gear of 42 x 21 is fine for the London to Brighton. It's Ditchling Beacon not Mont Ventoux FFS!
Somewhat ambitious in my opinion.Roman said:
Try adding enough weight to your bike to bring the total bike+rider weight up to 130kg & then set out for some climbs on a 42x21 and see how you get on!
I'm not doubting that it'll be hard but a 65kg rider on a 65kg bike isn't really a fair comparison with a 120kg rider on a 10kg bike when a much higher proportion of that 120kg is going to be used to propel them up the hill!Shall we say 39 x 23 then?!
groomi said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Well yes, I did weigh about 12 stone at the time (76kg), and about half the time I had to give up on the last 200 yards, but I didn't complain on the internet Oh wait, there wasn't an internet...
I've just realised what all the graffiti used to mean now. "POD woz ere" wasn't some miscreant tagging, but in fact a declaration of how far you'd got up the hill. Oh wait, there wasn't an internet...
k IT" swerni said:
mchammer89 said:
Is this the bit where I boast about getting up Ditchling on 44/15 fixed?
I call custard.Didn't you bottle it last year with some lame arse excuse
neilski said:
I'm not doubting that it'll be hard but a 65kg rider on a 65kg bike isn't really a fair comparison with a 120kg rider on a 10kg bike when a much higher proportion of that 120kg is going to be used to propel them up the hill!
I understand what you're saying. You should see me on the downhill though. People think they're being overtaken by a silent motorbike...Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff