Changer de Braquet
Some people are supremely good at it, reducing complex situations into matters of simple black and white. This isn’t my particular area of expertise; I enjoy wading through the pools of ambiguity a bit too much to go about bludgeoning this beautiful world into absolutes. In fact, I would venture that delighting in nuance is part of what distinguishes La Vie Velominatus from the simple act of riding a bicycle.
I’ve spent the summer wrapping myself in the Rules handed down by the Apostle Museeuw during Keepers Tour 2012, with particular emphasis on Rule #90. Climbing Sur la Plaque is a cruel business, rising upwards under the crushing weight of physics as you fight to maintain your rhythm and momentum. At first, it’s a struggle to maintain speed on the smaller climbs as you learn how to change your pedaling action to compensate for changes in gradient. You focus on loading the pedals and forcing them around; the moment you lose the rhythm, gravity sinks her claws into your tires and tries to drag you back down the hill. On the other hand, if you maintain your cadence and power through the ramps, what is usually an intimidating slope will disappear under your wheels, making molehills of mountains.
If the Big Ring is a hammer, then not every climb is a nail. (I realize too late that referring to the road as a nail is sure to bring the Puncture Apocalypse on today’s ride.) The guns get more massive from the practice of Rule #90, but it comes at a hefty price: souplesse withers like a delicate flower as one seeks to conquer the art of mashing a huge gear. Indeed, one of the great pleasures in Cycling is to sense a certain fluidity of your stroke which belies the feeling of strength in your muscles as you continue to heap coals on the fire.
This requires an art altogether different from moving Sur la Plaque; it relies on turning the pedals at a higher cadence and shifting gear whenever the gradient changes. Rhythm holds court over everything else and is maintained at all costs. As the gradient steepens, the chain is slipped into the next smaller gear; as the gradient eases, it is droped back down. Not every climb suits this style of riding; the rear cluster must be matched perfectly to accomodate the changes in pitch such that maximum speed is maintained and the legs allowed to continue their relentless churn. When synchronized perfectly, it is the gateway to La Volupté; when not: disaster.
Such is the nuance of shifting gear, such is the nature of Cycling.
Three weeks ago after a cyclocross race I was chatting with a guy as we loaded our bikes back onto our cars. He had a touring bike with downtube shifters!
I asked him about it (did he try to shift on the bumpy course with deep gravel sections or just pick one gear for the whole race?). He had heard about cyclocross a week before and wanted to try it out. The most appropriate bike he had was a touring bike with downtube shifters, so he bought some knobby tires and lined up for the race on Sunday morning!
And yes, he tried to shift during the race (but it wasn’t very easy!).
@G’rilla that’s what I’m talking about! I hate Di2, power meters, and all other gadgets….yet, this is me just being a crotchety douche, because I’ve never used any of them. I just think it’s all a stupid waste. Get up there on the bike you have/like/makes you happy and ride your heart out, like that dude.
@all: does it make me a hypocritical retrogrouch to be using Shimano STI, but refusing electronic shifting? I mean when STI were introduced, people probably truned their noses up at them as they preferred their downtube shifters. I mean to hear some people, everything will be electric in five years and this kills me….
@eightzero
Very true. But maintenance issues aside for the moment, there is the question of braking performance. Disks on a mountain bike make all kinds of sense to me. I’ve felt the difference, not that I especially like mtb’ing–maybe especially because I don’t especially like mtb’ing. But unless I were trying to squeeze an extra km/hr out of my sphincter muscle I *think* I’d have a hard time mustering a boner for disks on a road bike. But I’m open to persuasion.
As a pedalwan learner, I’d always equated the big ring as the “power” gear. You need to move your fat ass up the hill- Big Ring. Beat the hill into submission, lest it beat you and make you go into the small ring and slow down.Or walk. Or worst of all, stop. All of this was my thinking, and continues to be as if the Apostle had revealed his knowlege and grace to me through my purity of spirit. If the point of going out on the bike is going fast and getting somewhere fast, then why go to the small ring at all? Bikes are for riding, and riding fast is most fun. Riding in the small ring is for letting your hippie buddy riding his MTB/wife/child along side to keep up without repeatedly dropping them. Anything less than the Big Ring is for when you are completely spent, bonked out, unintentional singletrack adventures, limping back injured from a crash, or hung over and spinning out the poison as far as I have gathered in my (limited) studies.
In all, this article encompasses many Rules, not just Rule #90. Of course Rule #V. It’s a given. But Rules #6, #10, and # 55 reveal themselves as well, I’ve found. Also to be taken into account, Rule #85. As anyone who has ever pedaled up a hill (in the big ring, of course) the prize we find at the crest- The downhill ride. Bombs Away and Chapeau!
@DerHoggz
Love the colors, but I have to say I’m sort of getting over sloping TT geometry… on my next bike it’ll be straight unless there is a very compelling reason for it otherwise.
@frank If the big ring always gives the greatest leverage, why don’t track and single speed cyclocross bikes always use a 53 ring?
A common CX gear is 38×18, which is the same as 53×25. But people regularly go for the smaller chainring to get the same ratio.
Or maybe I should try it! It would be intimidating to line up next to someone with a 53 if you only have a 38!
@PeakInTwoYears
Piston or lever fillers?
@frank Great article. I’ve always been a big fan of short steep climbs I can smash out of the saddle in the big ring. But as I widen my scope of climbs to things more “epic” I eventually came to realize that for long steep efforts nothing beats a high cadence only afforded by the small ring and sometimes, ahem, 26-28 tooth cogs.
With regards to electronic shifting, I’m against it, I think it’s a waste of money for something unnecessary, and on top of that it adds weight. My shit works fine almost all the time.
As far as the Power meter bashing, I think the naysayers may be missing the point. It’s a tool to make your training time more efficient SO YOU CAN GO FASTER!!!!!! You know the V and shit.
@niksch
I only have piston fillers. I’m not as who should say a collector or cognoscento. But I get a little thrill at the thought of a good chancery cursive.
@G’rilla
Weight perhaps? To achieve the same ratios, you would have to increase the size of the rear cog in accordance to that of the front ring. A 38 would look totally stupid on the back.
And single speed CX; F’n hippies.
@mcsqueak
Yeah, not me. I love sloping Geo as that’s the only way I can get a reasonable amount of seatpost showing given my spectaculary stubby pins. To me, sloping just looks right.
As for the other bit; re Steel: I’m a bit of a retro grouch as well. Columbus SL? Been there, done that. I’m not sure that I would bother getting a steel bike again as I’m pretty impressed with carbon; how light it is and how it rides.
However, I would definitely have that beautiful blue thing above! Wow!
@G’rilla
I think the smaller chainrings for cx is mostly a ground clearance thing.
@mcsqueak
With the sloping TT he can get a lighter/stiffer frame, and get away with using thinner tubes. Or at least I think that is what he says.
@rauce
Are you fucking serious?
@DerHoggz my steel Baum – custom made almost 9 years ago – has a sloping TT. And I wasn’t given a choice in the matter… which may support your theory. And/or it may be that the framebuilder (Darren Baum) rightly kept my creative input to a minimum.
@Marcus
yes?
We really need a Keepers Tour of the Antipodes with Brett, Marcus, Mouse, Minion, Oli, and crew.
We could probably sell it to a TV network as a reality drama.
@mouse
now that’s just silly. fixie sscx, well, you may have a point except that the badassery required to be able to do a cx course competitively on a fixie is quite significant.
as far as regular ss cx, well, when u don’t have people washing your bike in the pit when the real mud comes, you begin to appreciate not shearing your ultegra rear derailleur or smashing your sti shifter. not that one can put a price on racing cx… I was going to race regular and ss this year, but the races are now 5 hours apart, a bit much for the fandamily to tolerate on a regular basis. Not to mention getting crushed in 2 different races in a day… so just doing geared.
@rauce weeeell, I think your bottom bracket height is going to have a helluva lot more influence on clearance than a relatively miniscule decrease to the diameter of your big cog…
@G’rilla
You are the only velominati I have ridden with G’rilla. And it was a very pleasant experience. Not sure I would be able to say the same of riding with Brett (whom I would strike for his besmirching of the honor of Stephanie Rice) and Minion (who I would just want to fight).
@eightzero
Correctomundo – I’d still be happy with non-indexed dt shifters – getting it right wasn’t so hard. My point about the auto tech was the gains would likely be marginal but a second over 40 kilometres makes all the the difference if there’s a few million at stake – and as cycling becomes ever more popular then more money becomes available to the winners.
There comes a point where the needs of racing and the needs of having a fantastic bike diverge and with electronic shifting and disc brakes (carbon ceramic coming soon?) we’re getting close.
@G’rilla
Come on down… we also have Bianchi Denti, rigid, G’Phant/Cap’n FuckAround, and a whole host of awesome lurkers right here in Welly and beyond…
And I really want to see the Marcus and minion Show live!
@brett
Now THAT would be worth not fucking around (too much) for.
@G’phant And, yes, a day of self pity is enough – I am back to being G’phant. (Though you can call me Captain …)
@frank
Without wanting to seem more of a grumpy old bastard than absolutely necessary …
10 and 11 speed cassettes and compact cranks certainly mean that the idea of putting it in the big ring isn’t what it used to be. My 1977 Peugeot PX-10 came with a 45-52 and 5 speed 13-21. This cluster was of course just used for training. Everyone raced on a 13-17 (a beautiful Regina Oro version for me – probably the classiest thing on the bike). Some friends had 42 tooth inner rings, but I don’t think anyone had a 39.
It was relatively flat where I grew up, but windy enough that a large part of many races was in the small ring.
@Marcus
BB drop doesn’t vary that much, nearly all 700c bikes fall somewhere between 55 to 80mm. I didn’t necessarily mean strictly height from the ground either, a big ass chainring is more likely to get in the way in all directions and get bent or otherwise damaged over something smaller.
@snoov
That’s always got my noodle going. With how close the chain rings are on modern cranksets, I’m not sure its a significant difference between being in the 39×25 vs 53×23. But being in a bigger cog in the back is for sure more efficient by a considerable margin; consider turning the wheel by the axle vs turning it by the tire; the farther out the chain is, the better. Similarly, in the big ring, you’re creating better leverage by sitting in the 53.
But the matter is muddied considerably by friction of the chain entering the chainring, less friction by distributing the load over a larger surface and bending the links less, and the bend in the chain as it moves from chain ring to cog.
All delightfully nuanced and messy, per the subject of the article.
@graham d.m.
I don’t remember turning my nose up at STI; STI was a real solution to a real problem and while I’m sure there were some who resisted, I remember it being largely applauded.
The problem I have with disc brakes, electric brakes (fuck you, @eightzero) etc etc is that by and large, my problem with hitting the brakes on my road bike is not locking up a wheel. I don’t need better brakes. Disc brakes in the rain seems rather nice, though, but fuck, with a little practice and good brake pads, I’ve never not been able to stop in time.
(Queue accident on next ride.)
@G’rilla
Because I’m the only person on the planet who holds the belief that its better. Being Dutch, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest if no one else agrees; I still know I’m right!
Seriously, though, there might be something about flex in a bigger ring that offsets other gains, I hadn’t thought of that. I was riding a 53 on my CX bike and was having only a little bit of trouble on the steepest climbs in my 53×27. I honestly think that a lot of time people are just picking ratios they’re used to and not giving it a lot of thought. A good Cyclist is the perfect amount of dumb, mind you.
@mcsqueak
That is too compact for my tastes, but the smaller triangles of a compact are stiffer than the larger ones on standard geo; the longer seatpost then also gives a nice dampening effect. Its a very good design.
@mouse
I love the TSX, no question. But, given the choice between the steel, alu, or carbon – I pick the carbon every time. The steel did not make it onto the roads hardly at all this year; it is thus undergoing a new project to make it more compelling.
In the end, a good carbon bike has better road feel, stiffness, and comfort than anything else.
@Marcus
Why is that? Because you were asking him to build you one of these so you could finally look your competitors in the eye?
@Marcus
He meant the big ring, genius. The impact of the cog’s clearance is reduced somewhat by the FUCKING WHEEL.
@brett
Wow, no shit. It would be like a cock fight, but between two hens.
@MartinD
I think it was some time in the 80’s when the 39 was introduced after the modern spider was developed. Another good thing. Before that, 42 was as low as you could go.
Wow, a 13×17. Was it hard to see with all that hair on your chest?
great one Frank, I have thought about this one for sometime, along with alot of other cyclo-specifics as we do
Your dead on, its an art that we should possess, yet one that is continuously in need of honing. My buddy, rides with the souplesse, has a Peterbuilt diesel engine and just floats up hills in the big ring. It is intimidating, and I have patterned myself similarly, with good results, and having very few riders in the midwest, when we do get together for group rides, it does pay dividends. It is a running joke with buddy and i as we ride, the first hill, the sounds of everyones derailleurs running through the gears is amazing. And the timing is like you guys have mentioned, for most its the very appearance of the hill makes the novice plummet into a sinkhole of granny gears.
For the weathered cyclist however, to sit in the saddle and Roule through the hill with finesse is a thing of beauty
another buddy of mine, showed up to a ride with a fixie, (no hipster style here, just one gear), and I have been hooked and find it is a killer work out for off season. I know some consider this the ananthema of multi-cogestry, but I find it a great thing. And it too, when used correctly is both intimidating and contributes to a souplesse that jumpstarts your next season like nothing else. Its a kickass deal for descending skills. But agreed, no hipsters allowed, one must comply to the remainder of the Rules, and BTW, Eddy rode one too in early season riding for training for all you naysayers out there.
@ universio: where do you run a 54/44 21-11?? Kansas??, because if you run that gear in colorado or appalachia or the great NW, your PRO stud material as those gears don’t even find themselves in the peloton
@frank
Ah, that would make sense, thanks for the brief explanation (and to others who replied). I am woefully ignorant on the benefits of different frame geometries, just as I am with many things in life. I just like the look of a straight TT a bit more right now, ignoring any sort of performances changes.
I’ve always wondered about bikes that people say “aren’t stiff”. My current ride is mostly Alu AND compact, and it feels very stiff to me when firing the pale guns of the north. And it’s the only nice bike I’ve ridden, so I’ve not had experience with a frame that feels flexy. OR, maybe it has flex and I just don’t know? Who the fuck knows.
@frank
I’d like to float the idea that both Marcus and Minion are the same person, posting on different accounts. I don’t think they’ve ever been seen together, so it’s plausible.
@frank
I’ve noticed that some pros use larger jockey wheels to reduce the bending of the chain you mention and btw, another inspiring article. of course I want to ride up hills in the big ring, I’d just rather do it on the 19.
@snoov
Its funny the discussion is mostly centered on climbing in the big ring. I thought the article was about knowing when to get out of the big ring and the art of shifting to maintain souplesse – which to me implies climbing in the little ring.
That’s what I love about this community; the articles are really just a springboard into talking about whatever people feel like talking about.
I’ve notice the same but never realized that was what they were after. Its inspired!
@mcsqueak
Comparing my Al bike to my old steel one, same BSA bottom bracket shells, but I noticed especially when standing that there seems to be less flex going on at the BB. New bike does have external bearings though.
@mcsqueak I think there have been massive advancements in frame stiffness such that most current bikes are pretty stiff.
My 1997 LeMond was so floppy that the brakes would almost always rub against the rim when I stood on the pedals. It was probably partly the wheels and partly the frame, but the effect was the same. I didn’t know that there was anything better out there.
I don’t experience anything like that on my current bikes, no matter the frame material.
@frank
Fixed your fix.
@Ken Ho
Aside from a resized/new chain, would the crankset be the only thing I’d have to swap out? I’m sure there would be some derailleur adjustment required, but just curious if there would be more to swap/alter/adjust. It’s a 2005 Centaur UT gruppo. I’d prefer to get ride of the compact, as it’s the only bike I have with that set-up and it’s never felt quite right to me; I always feel as if I’m in the wrong gear.
@itburns
All this fixing! Yeah, I’d been at the LBS and some dudes were discussing the benefits of the small ring. Next ride it creeps into my mind & on a tiny goddamn roller I went to the small ring. Jammed chain, ripped off RD, gouged chainstay, had to call the broom wagon.
Thus, I hate that ring just a bit more.
You bitches go big ring some hills on these and get back to me. I’m training on these right now, and mashing is the only thing you can do on them.
@scaler911
I’d be having trouble getting used to the pedals being only 90 degrees apart (or 270 degrees, depending on your perspective).
To the article, I’ve been gearing down more on recent rides (in part due to a lack of fitness) for precisely what Frank is describing. I’m built to mash, but I have been deliberately working on trying to find a higher cadence. Not because I prefer it, but in order to be able to spin better. Finding that rhythm.
Also, too: Frank complained about my sprinting up hills: Wiggins talks about always being one minute from bonking, so all you have to do is ride one minute more (does anybody remember where he said that?). It’s a nice play on peaking in two months, which I always imagine as being a shifting target. My problem is that that minute before bonking doesn’t move. I have 60 seconds. Period. And it doesn’t seem to matter whether I’m going up in a big gear or a little gear: I’m going to be gassed in 60 seconds. So go up fast.
@frank I’m taking a class on composites right now. Learning about fiberglass, Carbon and other such materials. I have no doubt on Carbons ability. Can’t wait to start laying up some carbon on the schools dime.
@Steampunk
http://youtu.be/GuymdFETyTk
@scaler911 Wow that’s some weird wild stuff! Judging by the guns of the demo rider, I don’t think it would much matter what drivetrain bits he employed. He could still lay down plenty of the V.
@frank Can you explain the science behind this again, and why you’re 100% certain you’re right? I’m not trolling here, I genuinely want to understand.
As to cross-chaining, the greater the angle the chain is on relative to a given cog the greater the friction, hence less efficiency. It’s best avoided if possible, as is the fatigue to your legs, hence the reason double chainrings were invented.