# How much do you use your granny gear?



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

I've been using it a lot :madman: I've been dropping down to the granny and the second/third to the biggest cog on long climbs (1/2 to 3 miles) so I can spin to the top without having to rest. It also helps that I get a pseudo rest when the hill flattens out midway and recover. I've found that some of my riding mates who spin the middle ring will overtake me on the first 60-70% of the mountain, which is a bummer, but I catch up with them when they start grinding. I use to shift a bit climbing, but after I started using the granny, I use one gear and just keep going. 

On tech trails, it's easier to keep my balance spinning over rocks and the sudden 5 foot berm since I basically have no momentum in those instances. 

How often do use your granny gear?


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

i don't have one 

there are times I wish i did though.....


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

Double post.


----------



## Tim-H (Mar 20, 2010)

Sometimes I hit the thumb shifter by accident. That's about the only time in the past 2 months. I got into better shape, now I just push myself with the middle ring. The ratio is about the same in Middle Ring/3 as Small ring/1. Don't know the teeth # right now, I'm at work.

edit: thinking about going 1x9 now and just doing away with the FD all together.


----------



## djriddle (Oct 6, 2008)

It seems conter intuitive, but the Granny is actually less efficient than the middle ring on long climbs since your heart/breathing rate go up as your cadence does. This means that on climbs that are more than say ten or fifteen minutes you should find a gear that allows for a 40-60 cadence and save the fast twitch muscles for other stuff.

I ride single speeds for MTB, so no granny for me.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

djriddle said:


> It seems conter intuitive, but the Granny is actually less efficient than the middle ring on long climbs since your heart/breathing rate go up as your cadence does. This means that on climbs that are more than say ten or fifteen minutes you should find a gear that allows for a 40-60 cadence and save the fast twitch muscles for other stuff.
> 
> I ride single speeds for MTB, so no granny for me.


Other way around, 40-60 cadence is mashing and uses mostly those big ol' fast twitch muscles. Endurance and spinning uses mostly the slow twitch muscles.


----------



## heyman1977 (Sep 28, 2010)

i use it almost the same way you do. I depend on it for short steep climbs and on good days i try not to use it at all. I paid for it i might as well use it right?


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

I seldom use granny/granny....

When I do it is to rest on long uphill climbs...

Mostly I ride middle and granny going up all but the steepest hills...

I used granny and about 2 or 3 up on the back to clean the steepest hill I have ever made it up.

BTW that is 46 32 22 with 11/34, on 26 wheels and 2.1 rear tire.


----------



## djriddle (Oct 6, 2008)

marzjennings said:


> Other way around, 40-60 cadence is mashing and uses mostly those big ol' fast twitch muscles. Endurance and spinning uses mostly the slow twitch muscles.


Huh? How can slowing your cadence use fast twitch muscles and speeding it up use slow twitch muscles? Either you misunderstood what I said or your idea of 'spinning' is different from mine. A high cadence for me is over 90 and I peak out at about 130 (that's more than two full revolutions a second) so if 40-60 seems high to you then your post makes sense. A fit human riding a bicycle on level ground is most efficient at about 60-70 cadence (variations of physiology obviously allow for some deviation) and climbing is just a little slower. What's '_mashing_'? I don't remember that technical term being used at the Olympic center on the occasions that I visited it.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

marzjennings said:


> Other way around, 40-60 cadence is mashing and uses mostly those big ol' fast twitch muscles. Endurance and spinning uses mostly the slow twitch muscles.


ummm....wut?

fast and slow twitch muscles are primarily inherited - fast = sprint, slow = endurance...

the cadence #'s you posted are slow...which equates endurance...

spinning = fast...which in turn = sprint.

you got yourself all discombobulated....

then we get into HR zones and how the body uses fuel stores in sprinting and endurance....that's a whole 'nuther ball-O-wax....


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

djriddle said:


> It seems conter intuitive, but the Granny is actually less efficient than the middle ring on long climbs since your heart/breathing rate go up as your cadence does. This means that on climbs that are more than say ten or fifteen minutes you should find a gear that allows for a 40-60 cadence and save the fast twitch muscles for other stuff.
> 
> I ride single speeds for MTB, so no granny for me.


this is also completely dependent on your current fitness level.

many noobs legs will go limp-noodle prior to their lungs/HR explode....

and again...it also boils down to what type of muscle you inherited...more fast twitch..or more slow twitch....and how one tackles sustained climbs....


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

does cadence really have anyting to do with fast twitch muscles?? my understanding of fast twitch muscles is that they are the muscles that dump all of thier energy at once and burn out... much like what a weight lifter would do...
I can see that you would be working fast twitch muscles when you sprint on your bike or start up a climb but cadence isnt going to have anything to do with that. It really just how the muscle is putting out the energy
There is no doubt that the "whole 'nuther ball-0-wax" that Chum refered to comes in to play here. Im pretty sure that would be a arobic vs anarobic cardio discussion. I personally think that is going to be the bigger issue in how cyclist make power.

My 2c to the OP.... I am on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. I find that I only use the 44t front sprocket when riding. Once I get down to the easiest gear on the rear cog I figure if I can climb it with that Im gonna be walking. Take that for what its worth though cuz I live in west Texas. A 7 story parking garage is about the most epic climb on my radar, and I a noob at the whole biking thing so I might come to realize that I need all those gears as I ride longer.


----------



## space (May 25, 2004)

Simple, if there is a hill I use my granny gear, it's easier that way 

I prefer to save my legs for when I need them and spinning at 80-90 rpm in any easy gear doesn't wear my legs out very fast.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Kingsnake said:


> does cadence really have anyting to do with fast twitch muscles?? my understanding of fast twitch muscles is that they are the muscles that dump all of thier energy at once and burn out... much like what a weight lifter would do...
> I can see that you would be working fast twitch muscles when you sprint on your bike or start up a climb but cadence isnt going to have anything to do with that. It really just how the muscle is putting out the energy
> There is no doubt that the "whole 'nuther ball-0-wax" that Chum refered to comes in to play here. Im pretty sure that would be a arobic vs anarobic cardio discussion. I personally think that is going to be the bigger issue in how cyclist make power.
> 
> My 2c to the OP.... I am on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. I find that I only use the 44t front sprocket when riding. Once I get down to the easiest gear on the rear cog I figure if I can climb it with that Im gonna be walking. Take that for what its worth though cuz I live in west Texas. A 7 story parking garage is about the most epic climb on my radar, and I a noob at the whole biking thing so I might come to realize that I need all those gears as I ride longer.


Good point about type of terrain ridden......when looking up at a 2000 ft vertical climb with an average grade of 12% can make most people ache for a granny.

I also find that on flat terrain I ride the big gear as well mine is a 46 tooth.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I love my granny ring. I'm not ashamed to admit it, and I'll say it again. I love my granny ring.

I've found that a great shift pattern for demolishing other people on a climb is hang out in my granny and a largish cog, and then shift into the middle ring and get out of the saddle for brief steeper sections or a break. Seems like it's just about the right ratio change for the difference in cadence I like when I'm sitting vs. standing.

I think you guys are getting hung up on "fast" and "slow" twitch. For the sake of not arguing about terms, let's call them aerobic muscles and anaerobic muscles. Anaerobic fibers are also the ones you'd use pumping iron. In a peak effort, all of them get involved. But aerobic fibers typically recover better too. One of my favorite metaphors for anaerobic efforts is burning a match - riders start with a limited book, so you want to limit yourself to using your matches in useful places. Depending on your goal, sometimes a climb could be where you want to do it - nothing wrong with that.

Cadence doesn't have a direct relationship to using aerobic or anaerobic muscles. Some people, especially people who train on singlespeeds, can spend very long periods out of the saddle at low cadences. Either they're masochists (they are) or they've trained their muscles to do those low cadence standing efforts in the aerobic zone (that's true too, at least when it comes to the singlespeeders I know.) The rest of us could stand to learn something from that.

Most of us also have a power band in which we're most efficient, much like a car. Choose the gear that keeps you in your favorite cadence at the power output you can sustain in your aerobic zone and you can climb anything. Of course, sometimes the mountain doesn't cooperate - 22/34 may put you in a lower cadence than you like at a power output you do, or vice versa. Always a good thing to know how to climb out of the saddle efficiently in those situations. One of the climbs in my "things to do faster" list has a few pitches at the top where I find myself out of the saddle in my granny.

Choosing a good gear on a climb is hard. I think that power output changes faster relative to pedaling speed, so "good" is more sensitive to which ratio, exactly, the bike is in. Mountain bikers really need to have a widish power band, though, or they shift way too much for the amount of change in pitch on singletrack.

Anyway, I can't help thinking that a lot of single-ring or "no granny" people, at least if they live in hilly areas, are either lying or have crappy technique. But without seeing someone, of course I can't know. Everyone's different - maybe they're just a lot better than me at extended out-of-the-saddle efforts.


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

Neither of my bikes have one.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Kingsnake said:


> does cadence really have anyting to do with fast twitch muscles?? my understanding of fast twitch muscles is that they are the muscles that dump all of thier energy at once and burn out... much like what a weight lifter would do...
> I can see that you would be working fast twitch muscles when you sprint on your bike or start up a climb but cadence isnt going to have anything to do with that. It really just how the muscle is putting out the energy
> There is no doubt that the "whole 'nuther ball-0-wax" that Chum refered to comes in to play here. Im pretty sure that would be a arobic vs anarobic cardio discussion. I personally think that is going to be the bigger issue in how cyclist make power.


You use both fast and slow-twitch muscles while riding. The harder it is to pedal, the more you use your fast-twitch muscles. The higher your cadence, the less you rely upon them.

Pedaling at a low cadence but with a lot of force is a good way to deplete the glycogen stores in your fast-twitch muscle fibers. It's much better to spin at 80 RPM than 50 RPM and go the same speed.

Additionally, slow-twitch muscle cells are more efficient at burning fat, which is another perk of employing a higher cadence.

Here's a great article discussing this issue:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0965.htm


----------



## djriddle (Oct 6, 2008)

CHUM said:


> this is also completely dependent on your current fitness level.
> 
> many noobs legs will go limp-noodle prior to their lungs/HR explode....
> 
> and again...it also boils down to what type of muscle you inherited...more fast twitch..or more slow twitch....and how one tackles sustained climbs....


I wish my legs would go limp. I'm at the point where I taste copper and I'm seeing blue spots long before my stupid legs hurt! Though 40-50 mile mountain bike rides do make going down stairs a little tricky the next day.

You are absolutely right about the inherited nature of slow and fast twitch muscles but all muscles can be trained so there is no reason why a dedicated cyclist can't have both endurance and a good sprint. Of course at a certain level of performance it starts coming back to what you were born with (sprinters vs climbers in the pro road races for example).


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

CHUM said:


> ummm....wut?
> 
> fast and slow twitch muscles are primarily inherited - fast = sprint, slow = endurance...
> 
> ...


Spinning isn't sprinting. Sprinting does use fast twitch muscles, massive amounts of power delivered over a short period of time. And sprinting does involve spinning the cranks very quickly, but it's not Spinning. Spinning is an attempt to spin the cranks as efficiently as possible somewhere in the 70-100rpm range, maxmizing endurance and those slow twitch muscles.

link for more info...

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/gearing.html


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> You use both fast and slow-twitch muscles while riding. The harder it is to pedal, the more you use your fast-twitch muscles. The higher your cadence, the less you rely upon them.
> 
> *Pedaling at a low cadence but with a lot of force is a good way to deplete the glycogen stores in your fast-twitch muscle fibers. It's much better to spin at 80 RPM than 50 RPM and go the same speed.*
> 
> ...


based on your quotes, and the article you linked i am blown away...and kinda skeptical...

I was under the impression that HR (specifically the zones you are in) dictate which fuel your body (mostly) uses to move your muscles. Meaning a high HR burns the easy-to-get glycogen and conversely the lower HR focused on burning fat stores...

to add....once your get up into the higher HR (for a brief period), and your body starts to burn primarily glycogen, it will continue to do so for a couple hours even if you drop back into the 'fat-burning' HR zone.

that's the way i trained and raced for ultra endurance events....if i redlined it for a several minutes i would have to fight thru a type of 'bonk' later for around 90 minutes until my body started using the right fuels again....

and that really, really sucked giant donkey pen0r...


----------



## djriddle (Oct 6, 2008)

jtmartino said:


> ...The harder it is to pedal, the more you use your fast-twitch muscles. The higher your cadence, the less you rely upon them...


I thought that the idea is that slow twitch muscles are used for slow motions such as low cadence and that as the cadence increases, the rider uses more fast twitch muscles. This is why there is a sweet spot at about 60 cadence for most people when both types of muscles are being used. You are the second person on here to say that moving slowly uses more fast twitch muscles so I'm starting to wonder if I've got it wrong. If I do, then the word usage is counter-intutive and it's contrary to the understanding that I have gathered from talking to coaches, doctors and pros over the years.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

marzjennings said:


> Spinning isn't sprinting. Sprinting does use fast twitch muscles, massive amounts of power delivered over a short period of time. And sprinting does involve spinning the cranks very quickly, but it's not Spinning. Spinning is an attempt to spin the cranks as efficiently as possible somewhere in the 70-100rpm range, maxmizing endurance and those slow twitch muscles.
> 
> link for more info...
> 
> http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/gearing.html


touche' 

but when does HR rates come into play on how the body uses it 2 main sources of fuel for power....glycogen and fat?

i was (am) under the impression that HR dictates what the body burns and when and for how long.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

djriddle said:


> Huh? How can slowing your cadence use fast twitch muscles and speeding it up use slow twitch muscles? Either you misunderstood what I said or your idea of 'spinning' is different from mine. A high cadence for me is over 90 and I peak out at about 130 (that's more than two full revolutions a second) so if 40-60 seems high to you then your post makes sense. A fit human riding a bicycle on level ground is most efficient at about 60-70 cadence (variations of physiology obviously allow for some deviation) and climbing is just a little slower. What's '_mashing_'? I don't remember that technical term being used at the Olympic center on the occasions that I visited it.


Because in general as you slow your cadence you require more pure leg strength to push the pedals around and more use of those large fast twitch muscles. Spinning does mean spinning the cranks quickly, but you use your slow twitch muscles to do so. Spinning is not sprinting.

40-60 is low for me, I average about 80-100rpm and max out at around 160.

Mashing is using those large fast twitching quads to slowly force the pedals to move around circles. And if you've not heard it before I'm guessing you're a newb.


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

djriddle said:


> I wish my legs would go limp. I'm at the point where I taste copper and I'm seeing blue spots long before my stupid legs hurt! Though 40-50 mile mountain bike rides do make going down stairs a little tricky the next day.


There have been quite a few Monday mornings after a big weekend on the bike or backpacking where I have been very, very thankful for the elevator at work.


----------



## djriddle (Oct 6, 2008)

marzjennings said:


> http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/gearing.html


That article is about drive train prefernces and has nothing to do with fast and slow twitch muscles. What are we doing here? Wikipedia lists slow twitch muscles as being for sustained effort and fast twitch for short bursts of power.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

CHUM said:


> based on your quotes, and the article you linked i am blown away...and kinda skeptical...
> 
> I was under the impression that HR (specifically the zones you are in) dictate which fuel your body (mostly) uses to move your muscles. Meaning a high HR burns the easy-to-get glycogen and conversely the lower HR focused on burning fat stores...
> 
> ...


It's not about HR - HR is a by-product of your body's intracellular oxygen requirement. Your HR increases because your muscles tell your brain that they need more oxygen. HR is a result of exercise, but it doesn't govern what fuel you should use.

If you sprint, or push big gears that you find difficult, you use fast twitch fibers. These are the anaerobic muscles that work without the presence of oxygen. These muscles have a finite amount of fuel that will burn up, causing you to "bonk" once it runs out. You could also have issues when you hit your lactate threshhold, which is a by-product of anaerobic exercise.

These are the reasons that interval training is important (to increase lactate threshhold and tell your body to increase glycogen stores in fast-twitch fibers.)


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

jtmartino said:


> You use both fast and slow-twitch muscles while riding. The harder it is to pedal, the more you use your fast-twitch muscles. The higher your cadence, the less you rely upon them.
> 
> Pedaling at a low cadence but with a lot of force is a good way to deplete the glycogen stores in your fast-twitch muscle fibers. It's much better to spin at 80 RPM than 50 RPM and go the same speed.
> 
> ...


Geat article explains alot

On most of our climbs I will push middle and granny around 75 rpm...any steep parts a stand and give it.....it takes about as long for the legs to snap back as the big effort takes...So I think I am probably just keeping the fast twitch fully fueled....

If efforts come to quickly, or I can't maintain the 75 RPM...I can feel myself losing power and basically dying...

To recovery I have to drop back to granny/granny and rest for about as long as I overworked...


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

djriddle said:


> I thought that the idea is that slow twitch muscles are used for slow motions such as low cadence and that as the cadence increases, the rider uses more fast twitch muscles. This is why there is a sweet spot at about 60 cadence for most people when both types of muscles are being used. You are the second person on here to say that moving slowly uses more fast twitch muscles so I'm starting to wonder if I've got it wrong. If I do, then the word usage is counter-intutive and it's contrary to the understanding that I have gathered from talking to coaches, doctors and pros over the years.


Slow-twitch doesn't mean slow movement. It means aerobic contraction through the breaking up of phosphates, Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP) or Creatine Phosphate. These phosphates require oxygen to break down and release energy, which is why slow-twitch is called aerobic (meaning in the presence of oxygen.) They work slower than the contraction of the fast-twitch muscles, but have little to do with the speed of limb movement.


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

CHUM said:


> touche'
> 
> but when does HR rates come into play on how the body uses it 2 main sources of fuel for power....glycogen and fat?
> 
> i was (am) under the impression that HR dictates what the body burns and when and for how long.


 HR rates are going to be more of a cardio training issue than what type of muscle you are using issue...how a muscle is fueling shouldnt change the muscle type.
Isnt muscle type more of a genetic thing?


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> It's not about HR - HR is a by-product of your body's intracellular oxygen requirement. Your HR increases because your muscles tell your brain that they need more oxygen. HR is a result of exercise, but it doesn't govern what fuel you should use.
> 
> If you sprint, or push big gears that you find difficult, you use fast twitch fibers. These are the anaerobic muscles that work without the presence of oxygen. These muscles have a finite amount of fuel that will burn up, causing you to "bonk" once it runs out. You could also have issues when you hit your lactate threshhold, which is a by-product of anaerobic exercise.
> 
> These are the reasons that interval training is important (to increase lactate threshhold and tell your body to increase glycogen stores in fast-twitch fibers.)


STOP MAKING SENSE DAMN IT!!!!!!!

and intervals suck....they work...but they suck...


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Kingsnake said:


> HR rates are going to be more of a cardio training issue than what type of muscle you are using issue...how a muscle is fueling shouldnt change the muscle type.
> Isnt muscle type more of a genetic thing?


There's a lot of nomenclature redundancy here which may be confusing...

Heart rates are based upon your body's requirement for oxygen. The fitter you are, the lower your requirements for oxygen, and therefore your heart rate will be lower. Fitness is related to energy processing, number of red blood cells, amount of energy stored in the cells, and hormone levels.

Muscle type is less genetic and more what kind of training you do. If you want a ton of fast-twitch muscle fibers, go train to be a sprinter. If you prefer a physique consisting primarily of slow-twitch fibers, go train to be a marathon runner.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

I shift as much as I needed, I shift all the time to maintain smooth stroke, and momentum. I use small gear (1-1 to 1-4) on a long steep climb, or to recover on the climb. My goal is to wear out the shifter before I replace them, something that I've never able to do since Shimano 952.

I like to burn max calories when I ride without bonking, so I stay on low gears as much as I can to keep my HR up, I use high gear on tech climb as it's more efficient. If I'm invited to ride on a new trail I'd stick with high gear/lower cadence to conserve energy.

SS is best for this kind of training as well, it one of the best teaching aid for momentum conserving!

OP, why are you worry about what gear you are using, just ride whatever gear you feel most comfortable, and keep working on you fitness level. Who cares what gear you are ripping as long as you can keep up with the group. 

My bike is Hammerschmidt equipped so I'm permanently granny:thumbsup:


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Oh, and back on track to the OP...

I love my granny gear. I owned a Cannondale Scalpel that didn't have one, and I realized it wasn't suited for all of the climbing I did in So. Cal.


----------



## djriddle (Oct 6, 2008)

jtmartino said:


> Slow-twitch doesn't mean slow movement. It means aerobic contraction through the breaking up of phosphates, Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP) or Creatine Phosphate. These phosphates require oxygen to break down and release energy, which is why slow-twitch is called aerobic (meaning in the presence of oxygen.) They work slower than the contraction of the fast-twitch muscles, but have little to do with the speed of limb movement.


Oh geez, OK. I read that article you linked to and now I understand that I was wrong about it. Seems like they should change the names then or maybe alter our DNA or something so that it makes more sense... :skep:


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

I use my granny ring a lot, but it depends on the ride and how tired I am at the time.

I use a granny ring if:
1. It's ridiculously steep and not super chunky terrain. I shift into a harder gear and mash if it's really rocky stuff.
2. I'm tired, like at the end of a climb where my muscles don't have the juice to push a harder gear.
3. I know it's going to be a long climb and I need to grind it out. If I can power up something in a few minutes I'll push a harder gear.

It seems that pedaling a quick cadence over lots of rough terrain is more difficult. Also I find that pushing a harder gear over the loose stuff (usually also steep) is easier than using the granny. YMMV.


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

bing! said:


> I've been using it a lot :madman: I've been dropping down to the granny and the second/third to the biggest cog on long climbs (1/2 to 3 miles) so I can spin to the top without having to rest. It also helps that I get a pseudo rest when the hill flattens out midway and recover. I've found that some of my riding mates who spin the middle ring will overtake me on the first 60-70% of the mountain, which is a bummer, but I catch up with them when they start grinding. I use to shift a bit climbing, but after I started using the granny, I use one gear and just keep going.
> 
> On tech trails, it's easier to keep my balance spinning over rocks and the sudden 5 foot berm since I basically have no momentum in those instances.
> 
> How often do use your granny gear?


The terrain I ride does not have steep 3 mile climbs. As a result, I don't use the small chainring too often. Sometimes I use it for really steep climbs, or when I have been riding for a long time, and my legs are getting tired.

In most cases though, I am more likely to climb out of the saddle in the middle ring than shift to the small ring.

I once debated taking the small chainring off. It seemed like a fine idea for XC races, and shorter rides, but for more epic rides, I need to have a bailout option.


----------



## jtyler05si (Sep 12, 2010)

I have never been in my granny gear while out on the trails. I always stay mid up front and all over the place in the rear. Tomorrow when I go out I will try out the granny.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

bing! said:


> How often do use your granny gear?


It really depends where you ride. I use my granny ring quite a lot. It can be an advantage if you're able to keep a good rhythm in a comfortable gear without going too far into the red on longer climbs.

You have to be careful not to lose momentum by shifting down onto the granny ring at the wrong moment though. Sometimes it's better to stay in a higher gear and force the pedals round instead, especially on shorter climbs. If you make the wrong choice you can lose a lot of ground on other riders very quickly as you sit there twiddling too low a gear.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

mimi1885 said:


> OP, why are you worry about what gear you are using, just ride whatever gear you feel most comfortable, and keep working on you fitness level. Who cares what gear you are ripping as long as you can keep up with the group.


Not worried. Seeking knowledge and experience from others. I am in Socal. From another poster from the same area, I guess pushing the granny is quite the norm.


----------



## jeeper006 (May 8, 2009)

i recently made the switch to 1x9 and actually like it alot more. Its not as hard as it seems not having the lower gears, i carry more momentum up hills so the trade off is pretty even


----------



## Kona_CT (Apr 25, 2010)

I have a 2x8 wide ratio gearset. I never use the granny gear up front. Most of my riding will have lots of ups and downs versus long ups. Plus, I prefer to stand up and mash than sit and spin.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

bing! said:


> I've been using it a lot :madman:


No. Big. Deal. I hate all this macho angst over that gear. Just use it. Why not. You paid for it.

Somewhere around here I have a 30-tooth, 104bcd ring. I could pop that onto my bike along with a Deore 12-36 cassette. Then I could give up the granny, but it'd be silly of me to do that.

I use the granny whenever I darn well feel like it. Exclamation point!


----------



## Sid Nitzerglobin (Sep 17, 2010)

I try to maintain >80rpm <110rpm while pedaling. Whatever gear the current terrain requires to maintain that is the one I try be in. I might be a freak, but mashing a higher gear at slow cadence actually produces a good deal (~10bpm) higher HR than sit'n'spin in a lower gear to clear the same terrain for me. Mashing for long periods of time also winds up killing my knees. This is pretty consistent with what I've experienced on the road bike. 

I usually only stand in a climb if I need to clear an obstacle or get more weight on the front wheel or if I'm feeling the burn and need to shift muscle groups. Trying to stand through an entire climb of any decent length and grade usually results in me blowing up before I complete it.

Around here I'm usually only hitting the 22T ring on 2-3 bigger climbs per ride. The majority of the time I'm on the 32T. Going 9 speed and adding the 34T cog seems to have made a lot more of the terrain around here passable using the middle ring. The only time I've used/needed the 44T is on roads/pavement/gravel. If I were going to build a 100% trail bike with a beefy budget I think I would probably try to set it up 2x10 w/ 24/36T and an 11-36T cassette.


----------



## 2apples (Sep 28, 2010)

I live on top a mtn pass its all down hill or granny gear


----------



## valleyscum (Aug 29, 2010)

so let me try to understand this, the 3rd gearfront(largest cog),which requires more effort to push makes it easier to get up a hill, I have been using the smallest cog for that. and if you think my question is so dumb or you think you read it wrong, you didnt. I'm just new.

Valleyscum


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think that people's "good" cadence changes as they learn how to pedal. Articulating a foot through a circle 90 times per minute is not easy when you're just starting out. Notice that people on this thread have a lot of different ideas about how fast to pedal - personal preference plays into it too.

It's worth practicing in lower gear ratios than you'd use for the terrain on your way to or from the trailhead, though. It can help raise your comfortable cadence, or at least expand your range of comfortable cadences, so you get more efficient.


----------



## schwiiz (May 11, 2010)

It really depends on the terrain. I ride almost completely in the mountains and use granny almost exclusively while climbing over 10% grade, especially on technical stuff. 

Assuming generic 3 X 9 speed, anyone that is grinding the first ~4-5 cogs with middle ring is actually still in granny range (that is also assuming you don't use the two smallest cogs with the granny ring).


----------



## qreeek (Sep 22, 2010)

I use all my gears, granny included. I rarely use my rear granny (32T), but I use the front one often.

I'm a noob and not ashamed of it. I have been biking for 25+ years, but mostly as means of transport and not serious MTB'ing. So my technique on the trail is lacking.

When climbing long non-techy climbs I do not use the granny, but I find it very useful for the steep techy climbs.
Using the front granny for steep techy climbs I can reduce the speed to a point where I can better control the bike and focus on my climbing technique. Correct position on saddle, body position, pedal cycles, steerer gripping, etc. And running an easier gear also helps make sure I do not stall halfway up and tip over.

As time goes by, I can feel that I can do the same climbs in higher and higher gears. So I can see how the better trained riders can say they never use it.
With the right technique you can do climbs in a high gear that a noob could not even dream of in a double-granny.
Climbing is not all about pedaling strength.


----------



## graphics1988 (Jun 21, 2010)

WOW....you guys are 'deeeeep" - i just ride and pass the guy (or girl) thats in my way! End of MY theory! lol....


----------



## jeeper006 (May 8, 2009)

graphics1988 said:


> WOW....you guys are 'deeeeep" - i just ride and pass the guy (or girl) thats in my way! End of MY theory! lol....


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: 
im ny case im usually the one getting passed.hahaha:madman: :madman:


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

valleyscum said:


> so let me try to understand this, the 3rd gearfront(largest cog),which requires more effort to push makes it easier to get up a hill, I have been using the smallest cog for that. and if you think my question is so dumb or you think you read it wrong, you didnt. I'm just new.
> 
> Valleyscum


 Yes... I think you got it.
Im new too and the more I read on this is seems like 6 of on 1/2 dozen of the other. The bigger gears are harder to push but you cover more ground. the small gears are easy to push but you are going to be rev'ed to the moon.
I think this comes down to where you ride and personal preferance. Me personally I would rather push harder with a slower cadence than have to pedal my ass off to get through. I seem to recover faster and have more control on technical climbs. That just me.
Just try it next time you come up on a good climb. Do it once in an easy gear, then fully recover and try in a hard gear. I have done this several times in the parking garages I ride alot..(Ps that is really good prep for trail climbs) I like the big gears better.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

Kingsnake said:


> Yes... I think you got it.
> Im new too and the more I read on this is seems like 6 of on 1/2 dozen of the other. The bigger gears are harder to push but you cover more ground. the small gears are easy to push but you are going to be rev'ed to the moon.
> I think this comes down to where you ride and personal preferance. Me personally I would rather push harder with a slower cadence than have to pedal my ass off to get through. I seem to recover faster and have more control on technical climbs. That just me.
> Just try it next time you come up on a good climb. Do it once in an easy gear, then fully recover and try in a hard gear. I have done this several times in the parking garages I ride alot..(Ps that is really good prep for trail climbs) I like the big gears better.


 I found the granny gear when I was practicing to ride with a cadence of 85 rpm on flat land. This was highly recommended in a few books and articles on riding. When the hills came, there was no way I was climbing on the middle ring at the same cadence. When I dropped to the granny, what I found was that i got thru the climb with more energy left. It took me some practice to find the right gear to rev up without actually freespinning. But when I found it, climbing speed also improved.

I'm still trying to improve, and maybe in the future I won't have to drop down to a granny.


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

Kingsnake said:


> Yes... I think you got it.
> Im new too and the more I read on this is seems like 6 of on 1/2 dozen of the other. The bigger gears are harder to push but you cover more ground. the small gears are easy to push but you are going to be rev'ed to the moon.
> I think this comes down to where you ride and personal preferance. Me personally I would rather push harder with a slower cadence than have to pedal my ass off to get through. I seem to recover faster and have more control on technical climbs. That just me.
> Just try it next time you come up on a good climb. Do it once in an easy gear, then fully recover and try in a hard gear. I have done this several times in the parking garages I ride alot..(Ps that is really good prep for trail climbs) I like the big gears better.


Assuming you are doing trail riding with some hilly terrain...using the big ring (up front) for climbs is taking things to the extreme. If you ALWAYS have used the granny for all hills, you may want to experiment with going to the middle ring instead of just going to the granny out of habit.

Personally, I only use granny if I absolutely need it...like a very steep technical climb. I find that middle ring with the lowest gear on the rear is best for anything else. On a very long climb, I will occasionally go to granny just because my legs are telling me to. Over time, I have learned that middle ring is best for moderate climbs in technical terrain - the added speed helps you roll thru the terrain more efficiently. If your legs can take it, it's usually easier to defer to the bigger gear.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

I hardly use my granny but will never get rid of it.


----------



## the.rebot (Jun 8, 2010)

Don't use it anymore!

Classic user error: shifting under load...


----------



## graphics1988 (Jun 21, 2010)

yikes! note to self.....


----------



## the.rebot (Jun 8, 2010)

graphics1988 said:


> yikes! note to self.....


INDEED

Experience = learning (I hope!)


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

pretty much always in it except when i know im on a longer decent with minimal climbs or a flatish fire road. like the op i find i can ride tech stuff better in the granny.


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

sturge said:


> Assuming you are doing trail riding with some hilly terrain...using the big ring (up front) for climbs is taking things to the extreme. If you ALWAYS have used the granny for all hills, you may want to experiment with going to the middle ring instead of just going to the granny out of habit.


 What?? look at a final drive ratio chart....http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/
Plug in your set up and you will see that most of your gears are redundant.... i.e. 44f-34r=22f-17r (I screwed this up earlier.. this is the gear selection I meant)

So what chain ring you are using is really irrealevant.

Basically if you were to remove the small chain ring on the front you would actually only be losing you 2 easiest gears.(This is if your running a 24sp set up) the other speed provided by that chain ring can be covered closely by the 22 and 44t ring.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Kingsnake said:


> What?? look at a final drive ratio chart....http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/
> Plug in your set up and you will see that most of your gears are redundant.... i.e. 22f-11r=44f-34r
> So what chain ring you are using is really irrealevant.
> 
> Basically if you were to remove the small chain ring on the front you would actually only be losing you 2 easiest gears.(This is if your running a 24sp set up) the other speed provided by that chain ring can be covered closely by the 22 and 44t ring.


22/11= 2.0

44/34=1.29

What are you talking about that is a massive gearing difference....

There are close ratio's in any set-up those are used to set a proper cadence on consistant grades.....

So when you remove chainrings you lose the either high or low end....or both.....and you lose the ability to have close ratio's in the middle for consistant grades.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

If jeffscott decides he doesn't need a granny ring, he'll swap his 11-34 for an 11-23 instead of giving it up.

There are some pretty big ratio changes on a standard MTB cassette.


----------



## Sid Nitzerglobin (Sep 17, 2010)

Even w/ the combos that wind up redundant there still seem to be driveline advantages/disadvantage to using different rings and cogs to achieve the same effective ratio.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

after reading all this....and posting in this thread...i can safely say i do not miss gears...

doing math while riding is just not right.....not right at all.....

pushing 1 is much, much easier....and less stressful...


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

jeffscott said:


> 22/11= 2.0
> 
> 44/34=1.29
> 
> ...


 Sorry I screwed that up what I mean was 44-34=22-17.
Either way if you look at the chart you can clearly see the over lap


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

Sid Nitzerglobin said:


> Even w/ the combos that wind up redundant there still seem to be driveline advantages/disadvantage to using different rings and cogs to achieve the same effective ratio.


 can you elaborate on that? If the final drive is the same why would it make a differance as far as pedaling?


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Kingsnake said:


> Sorry I screwed that up what I mean was 44-34=22-17.
> Either way if you look at the chart you can clearly see the over lap


Those are two very cross chained combos.....

While I use 44/34 I never use 22/17....

The close ratio's are usefull around 44/17=2.59 and 32/13=2.46

Has far as doing math on the trail if you want an ratio between one up and one down on the rear.....It is on the other chain ring.....


----------



## Sid Nitzerglobin (Sep 17, 2010)

Kingsnake said:


> can you elaborate on that? If the final drive is the same why would it make a differance as far as pedaling?


Because you are cross chaining to varying degrees to achieve many of those combos which is in and of itself less efficient even if you have no chain clearance issues.

Add in rubbing of the chain on the cage and it makes it much more desirable to me to run combos that will keep my chain in as straight of a line as possible.


----------

