Props to you on that Fredrico, Mt Wilson is a very long climb.Fredrico said:I made it up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5000 ft. in 22 miles, with 5 miles of pretty steep switchbacks at the top, on a 22 pound bike, me weighing around 160 pounds. I was using a 44 tooth inner ring with a 22 tooth largest rear sprocket. :shocked: Did it again the following week and noticed a distinct strength increase.
Eddy, le Merckx, was said to be "fond" of a 44 tooth chainring for going up the mountains! :biggrin5: Back 20 years ago, when I did this climb, I just wanted to find out what they were talking about. The 6 mile climb to the observatory up in the Hollywood hills I imagine is more like the Alps. Did that too a couple of times.SystemShock said:...Also doesn't sound like the kind of climb the average rider would want to tackle in a 44/22, n'cest pas?
You rock.Fredrico said:If your bike weighs less than 25 pounds, and you weigh less than 175 pounds, you'd make it fine up a mountain in compact crank, 50-34 up front, and a 27 in the back. No need for a third chain ring.
I made it up Mt. Wilson, CA, 5000 ft. in 22 miles, with 5 miles of pretty steep switchbacks at the top, on a 22 pound bike, me weighing around 160 pounds. I was using a 44 tooth inner ring with a 22 tooth largest rear sprocket. :shocked: Did it again the following week and noticed a distinct strength increase.
Since then, with typical gearing of 42 or 43 chain rings, and 23, 26, or 28 in back, I've been able to power up all climbs encountered, never slowing below 6 mph. Others have said, climbing in a smaller third chain ring with a 27 in back, say 30-27, have been unable to keep up a solid 60-70 rpm, and slow to 4 mph! I'd fall off my bike at 4 mph. Mountain grades are seldom steep enough to slow me down to 6 mph. Being a 67 year old man, I don't think I'm alone with that. Anybody, with a little grit, would have no problems climbing a mountain pass in 39-27 even.
Since you have absolutely no idea what the OP's power output is, how can you make this statement? Climbing is all about watts/kg, not just kg. Since the OP gave zero information about what kind of power he can deliver, there is no way to offer any advice about what gearing he needs. At this point, his original question is equivalent to "How long is a piece of string?"Fredrico said:If your bike weighs less than 25 pounds, and you weigh less than 175 pounds, you'd make it fine up a mountain in compact crank, 50-34 up front, and a 27 in the back. No need for a third chain ring.
My belief, from personal experience and those of other riders, is that it takes more wattage to move a heavy load up a hill than a lighter load. Therefore, if the rider is lighter in weight, he can climb at the same speeds with less wattage output, or faster with the same wattage output. Marco Pantani illustrated that. Good climbers have all been lightweight throughout the history of cycling! (Except maybe Miguel Indurain!)Kerry Irons said:Since you have absolutely no idea what the OP's power output is, how can you make this statement? Climbing is all about watts/kg, not just kg. Since the OP gave zero information about what kind of power he can deliver, there is no way to offer any advice about what gearing he needs. At this point, his original question is equivalent to "How long is a piece of string?"
So you're advocating gearing you can no longer push? Hmm. :idea:Fredrico said:Eddy, le Merckx, was said to be "fond" of a 44 tooth chainring for going up the mountains! :biggrin5: Back 20 years ago, when I did this climb, I just wanted to find out what they were talking about. The 6 mile climb to the observatory up in the Hollywood hills I imagine is more like the Alps. Did that too a couple of times.
That 44 will probably never again see the light of day! :shocked:
How fast do you wanna go up the hill? The club rides I rode in during the 90s, were hammerfests that the young kids would whack up in 39-17! I'd pass them at the top, cranking a bit faster in my old fashioned 42-23.SystemShock said:So you're advocating gearing you can no longer push? Hmm. :idea:
Not trying to bust your balls, 'rico, but it's not the '80s anymore. The gearing's gotten wider. Ppl don't have to climb the mountain in a 42/21 these days... not unless they really wanna.
And I have zero prob with them wanting to- it's just nice to have a Plan B in case that doesn't work out for ya.
.
I'd like to say, "You're on!" but alas, there are no mountains around DC to train on! :biggrin5:SystemShock said:.
See above.![]()
.
All fine and good, but what does any of this have to do with answering the OP's question about "going to ride in the alps soon - just wondering what gears would be best?" This is not at all about what someone's potential is, it is about what gearing they need now. Since the OP never stated his current capabilities, your advice is meaningless. Thus, my point.Fredrico said:My belief, from personal experience and those of other riders, is that it takes more wattage to move a heavy load up a hill than a lighter load. Therefore, if the rider is lighter in weight, he can climb at the same speeds with less wattage output, or faster with the same wattage output. Marco Pantani illustrated that. Good climbers have all been lightweight throughout the history of cycling! (Except maybe Miguel Indurain!)
It follows that a rider of reasonable weight can train his cardio system and muscles to lift his weight up the hill in slightly higher gears than a heavier rider, who must train to deliver a higher wattage to power his heaver mass up the same hill in the same gears.
Of course power to weight ratio is relative to muscle size, genetics, skeletal structure. But losing weight always increases this strength to weight ratio favorably for climbing. Above all, power can be increased by training. No pain no gain, would you not agree? :biggrin5:
Maybe some, but I very much doubt all. And as a California boy, I know we have some climbs in the High Sierras that would ruin you in a 44-22.Fredrico said:I have heard that the Rockies are rather gentle slopes.
Here ya go. It's all in metric, so you'll have to convert... looks like around 3750 feet of elevation gain in about 9 1/2 miles, which works out to around 8% on average (steeper in the switchbacks, a'course), i.e. double Mt. Wilson.BTW, Checked out Alpe D'Huez. It's 8 miles up 3350 feet, slightly more than a third the distance and 3/5ths the elevation of Mt.Wilson, 22 miles up 5000 feet?
'Rico on the Alpe d'Huez? Sounds like a fun trip. Good luck, mon ami. And post pics!Maybe I'll have to get that 44 tooth chain ring out of the dust bin and try it out this Fall! :shocked: