Do you climb on your big ring?

[xena]

Circles , yawn.

[wingguy]

No kidding

But why do you stay in the big ring after you've blown up, fallen off the cadence and are faced with a slow, hard slog to the finish? None of your other justifications apply in that situation...

[tarmackev]

Xena
I'm guessing you're based in the UK?
I'm curious, you're obviously very strong, where do you ride?
Regards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattr]

Think he mentioned Tottenham in another thread.

[McGilli]

I was just curious to know if any other posters climb on their big ring . I climb very comfortably and pretty fast on my big ring. I have rode most of the famous French col's with no issues at all. I don't grind at all just spin comfortably. I have a 53 on the front and a 27 on the rear. I do ride the majority of my climbs out of the saddle more Bertie style rather than seated.
I really feel no benefit on the smaller ring. I know this go's against the normal advice but it works for me.
I personally feel its about the way my legs turn over [ round the cranks] if that makes sense. It's just a lot easier.
Anyone else find it easier? What's your views. Valverde earlier in the season smashed everyone climbing on his big ring.
Has the spinning era of Froome and Armstrong made us all think that spinning on a tiny gear is the way to go when for some it may not be the best option? Is the science behind spinning right for everyone or should we experiment for ourselves?

I started riding 3.5 years ago. And by cycling 'standards', age wise I'm over the hill and well past 'prime'

I'm lucky that I have multiple mountains close by (since I found out I love climbing). The 'Go To' mountain that everyone seems to base their climbing performance here is a Category 1 climb that's 10.5km long at 7% average. For the first 2 years I climbed strictly big ring 52 front. Got myself into the top 100 on Strava - then basically I just burned my knees out. Did that 2 years in a row.

Can't big ring climbs like that anymore - and had to go compact crank now. However, I'm at over 200,000m metres for this year alone, at over 19,000km distance (which is normal for me) - so I ride more than most people. However, no knee injuries this year since switching to small ring on big climbs.

Overall I've only lost about 3kmh on my average speed doing the climb - which to me is fine, but it's nowhere close to what I once was.

PS - one thing I never understood is how some people would get visibly upset when you blow by them on a climb like that in the big ring, and many times I'd hear them yell "Grinder!"... WTH!?

[HammerTime2]

It works for me. ... it worked for Pantani

No, EPO is what worked for Pantani. But, if you're hopped up on Amgen's finest, maybe it works for you, too.

[Alumen]

1 I can spin the big ring way easier on a climb than the small ring.
2 I can accelerate on climbs a lot quicker in the big ring
3 I have tried the smaller ring and from my own personal experience I find it more difficult
Those are my facts .

You are psychologically deluding yourself that there is a difference (between 53x24 and 36x16) when there is none.

They are 99.9% the exact same thing.

It's all in your head.

Mathematically seen 53x24 and 36x16 are the same indeed... So far so good.

But... and here fysics is kicking in... not every pedal stroke is constant, so with each pedal stroke you will have a dead moment (hence the oval chain rings). With your large chain ring you simply have more teeth in your chain, hence less dead moments, hence a more efficient pedal stroke AND more power distribution to your chain. So big does climb easier indeed.

Myth... busted..!

One caveat..., we have riders who are cycling more on power or on suppleness. I tend to say the power rider benefits more from riding big.

[sungod]

Mathematically seen 53x24 and 36x16 are the same indeed... So far so good.

But... and here fysics is kicking in... not every pedal stroke is constant, so with each pedal stroke you will have a dead moment (hence the oval chain rings). With your large chain ring you simply have more teeth in your chain, hence less dead moments, hence a more efficient pedal stroke AND more power distribution to your chain. So big does climb easier indeed.

Myth... busted..!

One caveat..., we have riders who are cycling more on power or on suppleness. I tend to say the power rider benefits more from riding big.

if you are claiming this for round chainrings i'm sure physicists around the world await your proof with interest

[wingguy]

With your large chain ring you simply have more teeth in your chain, hence less dead moments, hence a more efficient pedal stroke AND more power distribution to your chain. So big does climb easier indeed.

Myth... busted..!

Myth not busted. You can't just say 'hence' and make it be true. The big chainring has more teeth in the 'dead spot' but they're moving faster. The small ring has fewer teeth in the dead spot, but they're moving slower. Total time in the dead spot at the same cadence? Identical.

One caveat..., we have riders who are cycling more on power or on suppleness. I tend to say the power rider benefits more from riding big.

That's a very unhelpful misuse of the word 'power'. Two riders of the same weight, same CDA and going the same speed will be producing the same amount of power no matter what the other differences in how they ride. Everyone is a 'power rider'.

[cyclespeed]

1 I can spin the big ring way easier on a climb than the small ring.
2 I can accelerate on climbs a lot quicker in the big ring
3 I have tried the smaller ring and from my own personal experience I find it more difficult
Those are my facts .

You are psychologically deluding yourself that there is a difference (between 53x24 and 36x16) when there is none.

They are 99.9% the exact same thing.

It's all in your head.

Mathematically seen 53x24 and 36x16 are the same indeed... So far so good.

But... and here fysics is kicking in... not every pedal stroke is constant, so with each pedal stroke you will have a dead moment (hence the oval chain rings). With your large chain ring you simply have more teeth in your chain, hence less dead moments, hence a more efficient pedal stroke AND more power distribution to your chain. So big does climb easier indeed.

Myth... busted..!

One caveat..., we have riders who are cycling more on power or on suppleness. I tend to say the power rider benefits more from riding big.

I though I had left this thread for dead and buried, but this is wrong on so many levels, so....

I hope 'fysics' is just a typo by the way....

There is no 'dead spot' in the chainrings. They are round. They just go round and round. Like a circle. Big or small.

The dead spot comes from your leg. Your leg can push the crank hard at 3 o'clock, but it cannot at 12 o'clock. A perfect cycling machine can push the crank at 90' to the crank all the way round. Your body (legs) cannot.

The idea of Q-rings is to pass through the 12 o'clock position as quickly as possible to get to the 'better' 3 o'clock.

Shorter cranks can help reduce the impact of the dead spot.

The pedal stroke is NOT more efficient and sorry, but no, there is NOT more power to the chain.

[xena]

would anyone say that your leg is in a different positon when your at the top of a big ring and the top of a smaller ring . Is there not a different in size between these rings i.e. one is bigger than the other . So wouldn't the force needed to push down the big ring be different than the small ring because it is nearer to your body. So your legs and body are not doing the exact same movement are they. There is a difference there has to be because you are engaging a rings of different sizes .

If it was the same then everyone would be able to climb on their big ring.

[mattr]

FFS just give up will you.
Every post of yours makes less sense than they last. And that's starting to get difficult.

[wingguy]

would anyone say that your leg is in a different positon when your at the top of a big ring and the top of a smaller ring.

No. No one would say that.

Is there not a different in size between these rings i.e. one is bigger than the other.

Yes, but it doesn't matter if the gear ratio is the same, and the crank length is still the same.

So wouldn't the force needed to push down the big ring be different than the small ring because it is nearer to your body.

No.

So your legs and body are not doing the exact same movement are they.

Yes, they are. The exact same.

[xena]

"So your legs and body are not doing the exact same movement are they"

But you have to put the force down earlier i.e. because the bigger chainring is closer to your body , your leg is going to be a bit higher when you engage[ use force] the big ring i.e. the difference of the height of the rings.

What do you think ? It may not be a huge difference but surly there is a both physical and mechanical difference?

[sungod]

only if there's an aardvark in the month and the moon is made of gruyère