# Climbs: grind in a bigger gear, or spin in a smaller one?



## russman (Apr 18, 2005)

Last night, while climbing one of my local trails, I started wondering about what was more efficient, or what was faster...grinding in my middle chain ring, or spinning in my small chain ring. For the longest time, I'd guage my biking shape by wether or not I could do certain climbs without dropping into my small chainring. I felt faster, but just didn't know. What do you think?


----------



## eggraid101 (Mar 13, 2006)

I tend to think spinning burns less energy. Grinding it out in the middle chainring is probably faster, and that's fine, as long as you know you still have enough gas left for the rest of the ride.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

russman said:


> Last night, while climbing one of my local trails, I started wondering about what was more efficient, or what was faster...grinding in my middle chain ring, or spinning in my small chain ring. For the longest time, I'd guage my biking shape by wether or not I could do certain climbs without dropping into my small chainring. I felt faster, but just didn't know. What do you think?


Some riders are more efficient in bigger gears, others are more efficient spinning smaller gears. There's no right way or wrong way - whatever gets you to the top the quickest without leaving you feeling wiped is the way to go. The best way to figure out for yourself is to choose a climb to use as a benchmark and try it in a few different gears.

In any case, it's more a function of cadence (RPM at the pedals) than gear size anyhow so that yes, as you gain fitness you can turn the same cadence at the same effort level while using a progressively bigger gear, which means you are going to go faster obviously.

Learning to be comfortable with both low and high cadence can be very useful e.g. lower cadence in bigger gear to keep from spinning out on loose climbs, or being able to switch to a high spin and smaller gear to accelerate quickly for some extra momentum over uphill ledges and logs.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Climbing in a bigger gear is definitely more efficient, as far as power per distance covered is concerned. Spinning is not more efficient, but it may allow your muscles to work longer, depending on conditions.


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> Climbing in a bigger gear is definitely more efficient, as far as power per distance covered is concerned. Spinning is not more efficient, but it may allow your muscles to work longer, depending on conditions.


I agree with this.... at least since I've gotten strong enough to stay in the middle ring for most of my climbs. Now when I drop into the granny to conserve energy cause I'm going to be going longer... it feels less efficient and my leg muscles seem to tighten up faster.


----------



## Jisch (Jan 12, 2004)

*Agreed...*

Its nice to see the "either way is fine" post. Too often I see someone bragging about cranking a hill in middle ring. It really does depend on the individual.

I try to turn as big a gear as I can. If I'm underconfident about my ability to make a hill in the middle ring, I'll start off in granny and the middle of the cassette. That way I can easily drop down to a lower gear if I need it. I assume my bikes are like others, it can be difficult to drop into granny under duress in the middle of a hill.

John


----------



## Neen (Sep 27, 2004)

My s/o keeps telling me that I ride in too big of a gear most of the time and should spin more. I normally do climbs in the middle and grind up in a bigger gear than he does. Any thoughts? He's more of a break everything down into the physics of how it works kinda guy, and I'm more of a wing-it and see what works kinda girl.


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

I've got some friends that love to flex their ego's by riding in the big ring (one we knicknamed Big Ring as a joke). Sure they are fast, but riding in 44/34 isn't the best thing in the world. I still give them credit, for being able to push that gear up the steepest hills, but they'd do better cruising in 34/25-ish.

For me, I try to hold out and run a taller gear, it hurts, but I'll never get faster if I always spin along never pushing myself past that threshold.

BM


----------



## drumbum (Oct 8, 2004)

I'm pretty sure bike design plays a factor in the choice too. On my old hardtail, I tended to grind a huge gear while climbing. I then bought a Santa Cruz Blur, and I now spend alot of time spinning small gears. Just depends on the geometry.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

Neen said:


> My s/o keeps telling me that I ride in too big of a gear most of the time and should spin more. I normally do climbs in the middle and grind up in a bigger gear than he does. Any thoughts? He's more of a break everything down into the physics of how it works kinda guy, and I'm more of a wing-it and see what works kinda girl.


Like everyone else seems to be saying, do whatever works although spinning easier gears is considered more efficient from a energy-use stanpoint. It can also be better for your knees if you have problems with them.

One thing to consider (or ignore) is that pushing harder gears can make you develop big bulky thigh muscles while spinning easier gears makes long, lean muscles. I reminded my wife of this the other day during a road ride when I saw what a (IMO) ridiculously large gear she was pedaling in. As a short girl who's been a runner for years and years she's fairly concerned with keeping her thighs from getting too bulky even though it is all muscle.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

Neen said:


> My s/o keeps telling me that I ride in too big of a gear most of the time and should spin more. I normally do climbs in the middle and grind up in a bigger gear than he does. Any thoughts? He's more of a break everything down into the physics of how it works kinda guy, and I'm more of a wing-it and see what works kinda girl.


Well, grinding big gears can put a lot of stress on the knees over time. Maybe he wants to keep you undamaged.


----------



## Neen (Sep 27, 2004)

>>Well, grinding big gears can put a lot of stress on the knees over time. Maybe he >>wants to keep you undamaged. 
Well I never thought of that! Or possibly he doesn't want my thighs to be HUGE like someone else mentioned 
I just don't feel like I'm getting anywhere when I'm spinning a smaller gear!


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Do whatever works for you. When I lived near DC, I hadn't had a granny ring installed on my bike (hardtail) for about seven years. I still had a 32/34 for an easy gear and it's all I needed. 

Having finally bought into this full suspension fad AND moving to Oregon, I use the granny on almost every ride. I burn out too quickly if I try to stay in my middle ring on some of the longer climbs. If I know the trail and the climb coming up, I'll stick it out in the middle ring as much as possible. If I'm riding somewhere new, especially if it's in the Cascades, I won't hesitate to drop into the granny at the first sight of a climb.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Jisch said:


> Its nice to see the "either way is fine" post. Too often I see someone bragging about cranking a hill in middle ring. It really does depend on the individual.
> 
> I try to turn as big a gear as I can. If I'm underconfident about my ability to make a hill in the middle ring, I'll start off in granny and the middle of the cassette. That way I can easily drop down to a lower gear if I need it. I assume my bikes are like others, it can be difficult to drop into granny under duress in the middle of a hill.


I must admit I do get some entertainment value out of seeing someone choose the "death before granny" option. If someone is running the typical 44-32-22 with a max 32t in the back, then the granny plus anything from the 21t and smaller in the back is going to be a tougher gear ratio anyhow than 32 x 32 staying in the middle ring, but I guess they like the optics of it. I prefer having some range to go either way to adjust for pitches where the grade changes, to maintain my optimal cadence. I think we have some climbs around here that would be pretty difficult to do in the middle for anyone who isn't a superstar, but maybe I'm just a weakling? Others may ride in areas where the granny isn't required.

Anyhow, I still maintain it's useful to be able to go either way to adapt to conditions. Aside from the reasons I mentioned earlier, sometimes I find it to be an advantage to be in the middle ring on very technical climbs since I get a bit more pedal kickback from my FS while in the granny. Also for muddy conditions where chainsuck is less likely with the middle ring than the granny where the chain links have to rotate more to keep tracking the chainring teeth.


----------



## FoulMouthFool (Dec 29, 2005)

hmmmm, I didn't expect to see so many folks saying that spinning up hill was easier. I'm certainly not trying to brag on my big gear mashing abilities, I wish I could spin up hills better. There are many climbs that I have to stop and walk if I try to spin them, but I can sure grind up them (tired but I get there without hopping off).

maybe because I run platforms and not clipless I'm not as efficient while spinning as most? Maybe its from running BMX bikes up and down hills as a kid and teenager so thats what I do now? I don't really know


----------



## Jisch (Jan 12, 2004)

*Short but steep*



Circlip said:


> . I think we have some climbs around here that would be pretty difficult to do in the middle for anyone who isn't a superstar, .


Not sure where you're located, but we surely have climbs here in CT which require the use of the granny. As you say, maybe there's some superstar somewhere who can do them in middle ring, but I ain't one of them. None of these climbs are long, but steep beyond steep.

John


----------



## amorphous (Jul 7, 2006)

spinning is easier on the knees in the *very* long haul


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

I don't have much choice since I run a double up front with the inside ring having 29 teeth. Seems to get me by most times but there are some hills I wish I had a granny so I can make it a little easier.


----------



## Don Juan (May 28, 2006)

I'm a masher on the flats and a spinner in the mountains.

Either way, your're doing the same amount of work, moving so much mass up so much elevation over so much distance, so the energy expended will be the same. However, I've found it's safer for my puny muscles to spin up. Estimating the per-revolution output for a 4 hour mash is trickier, and if someone breaks, I'm going to come up short. Nothing like blowing up 3hr30 into a 4 hour ascent. Sucks.

On flats though, it's a big fckin gear, and a steady stroke, every time. I love it. Even when somebody attacks, responding in a huge gear is cool. woosh woosh WOOSH!


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

fsrxc said:


> Well, grinding big gears can put a lot of stress on the knees over time. Maybe he wants to keep you undamaged.


That's why i prefer to spin.:thumbsup:


----------



## Mellow Yellow (Sep 5, 2003)

*Spin*

I've done rides that have taken so much out of me during the climb, that the desent isn't fun because I'm spent. I just want to make it too the top and still have energy to enjoy the rest of the ride.


----------



## edoz (Jan 16, 2004)

*As Francesco Moser said....*

Spin a big gear!:thumbsup:


----------



## Cyclopod (Mar 14, 2006)

edoz said:


> Spin a big gear!:thumbsup:


That's funny!!


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

KRob said:


> I agree with this.... at least since I've gotten strong enough to stay in the middle ring for most of my climbs. Now when I drop into the granny to conserve energy cause I'm going to be going longer... it feels less efficient and my leg muscles seem to tighten up faster.


It's simple physics. The more times you have to move your (heavy) legs up and down to go a set distance, the more energy you use. Going slower also takes more energy per set distance because trail irregularities are harder to overcome when you are going slow. Spinning uses more energy than pushing bigger gears..... BUT

That does not mean that you will be able to go farther with bigger and bigger gears. There's a point where you hit diminishing returns. Pushing big gears uses slow twitch muscles. When they tire out.... you're done. Body type makes a big difference. The better shape that you're in, aerobically speaking, the more you can take advantage of spinning.

I usually try to find a happy medium. If my heart rate is too high, I'll shift to a bigger gear, Anerobic muscle use (as in pusing bigger gears at a slower RPM) uses less oxygen than aerobic spinning (in smaller gears). If my legs are getting tired.... I'll switch to a smaller gear.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> It's simple physics. The more times you have to move your (heavy) legs up and down to go a set distance, the more energy you use.


I'm a poor excuse for a physics guy but if you're going into this vein of thinking, doesn't the raised position of of the leg then have potential energy which is converted back to kinetic energy as you proceed to the downstroke with the weight of the raised leg then providing a benefit? I'm sure it's not a 100% efficient conversion, but I'd suspect the conversion is probably efficient enough that it's a very minor factor compared to the physiological effects on the individual of drawing on the resources of the aerobic and anaerobic systems respectively, which you described.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Circlip said:


> I'm a poor excuse for a physics guy but if you're going into this vein of thinking, doesn't the raised position of of the leg then have potential energy which is converted back to kinetic energy as you proceed to the downstroke with the weight of the raised leg then providing a benefit? I'm sure it's not a 100% efficient conversion, but I'd suspect the conversion is probably efficient enough that it's a very minor factor compared to the physiological effects on the individual of drawing on the resources of the aerobic and anaerobic systems respectively, which you described.


You make good points. I would think that the physiological factors definitely make a huge difference (larger than the physics). but if we're talking pure efficiency, I stand by my assumptions. Also, If you can go faster by pushing a bigger gear, then the momentum will also help efficiency since the effect of trail irregularities will be minimized (this effect will be larger with rougher trails).

You may not know physics, but you sure do know how to pedal a bike..... so I bow to your superior knowledge of physiology and your bike skills. I'm not being facetious, either. I'm dead serious. I still remember your Santa Cruz Death ride :yikes:


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Don Juan said:


> I'm a masher on the flats and a spinner in the mountains.
> 
> Either way, your're doing the same amount of work, moving so much mass up so much elevation over so much distance, so the energy expended will be the same. However, I've found it's safer for my puny muscles to spin up. Estimating the per-revolution output for a 4 hour mash is trickier, and if someone breaks, I'm going to come up short. Nothing like blowing up 3hr30 into a 4 hour ascent. Sucks.
> 
> On flats though, it's a big fckin gear, and a steady stroke, every time. I love it. Even when somebody attacks, responding in a huge gear is cool. woosh woosh WOOSH!


Its the same workload yes, but the body responds differently to spinning vs. mashing. Mashing is less efficient I think generally speaking because of the different response in muscle fatigue, but like has already been mentioned, each person has their ideal, efficient cadence. Coaches say you can train your body to be more efficient at spinning over the course of a season or so. Lance did this based on advice from Miguel Indurain. Lance spun so fast sometimes in TTs that it looked inefficient.

Don Juan is a freak because its natural to spin on the flats and then have the RPMs drop substantially on the climbs.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> You may not know physics, but you sure do know how to pedal a bike..... so I bow to your superior knowledge of physiology and your bike skills. I'm not being facetious, either. I'm dead serious. I still remember your Santa Cruz Death ride :yikes:


Ya, that was just about the ultimate granny ring adventure. I hadn't been riding a whole lot due to moving across the country that year and the thought of over 10,000' of climbing on an 8.5" travel VP Free was kind of daunting.  Anyhow, Weir used his granny for about 10 seconds just for fun before deciding he was disgusted with himself for even considering it, and resumed riding his middle ring for the rest of the ride. His buddy Kirk, who was the only other person out of our starting group to finish off the ride, rode a 38t single ring up front the entire way.  I can tell you that didn't look very efficient! Both tough guys for sure. They let me dangle off the back for the first 7 times up various routes at Soquel in CA, then I finally cracked like an egg on the 8th climb and watched them ride of up the trail, where they waited for me to drag my butt up to the top. Good times...


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> It's simple physics. The more times you have to move your (heavy) legs up and down to go a set distance, the more energy you use. Going slower also takes more energy per set distance because trail irregularities are harder to overcome when you are going slow. Spinning uses more energy than pushing bigger gears..... BUT
> 
> That does not mean that you will be able to go farther with bigger and bigger gears. There's a point where you hit diminishing returns. Pushing big gears uses slow twitch muscles. When they tire out.... you're done. Body type makes a big difference. The better shape that you're in, aerobically speaking, the more you can take advantage of spinning.
> 
> I usually try to find a happy medium. If my heart rate is too high, I'll shift to a bigger gear, Anerobic muscle use (as in pusing bigger gears at a slower RPM) uses less oxygen than aerobic spinning (in smaller gears). If my legs are getting tired.... I'll switch to a smaller gear.


Any and every gear uses slow twitch muscles. It's up to the the heart&lungs to supply the oxygen. The higher your VO2 Max the bigger gear you can use to climb.

It's likely that when you feel tired you've approached your VO2 Max and have recruited fast twitch muscles for that peak effort. Fast twitch muscles are always anaerobic and tire quickly.

Switching to a smaller gear lowers the oxygen requirements of your slow twitch muscles so you can stay well below VO2 Max. If anyone is spinning up a long climb they are using slow twitch muscles.

Knee problems can arise from stress or overuse. Spinning is one way to get an overuse injury. Standing to crank up a hill replicates the natural walking position so it's a good way to take stress off the knees.


----------



## Jwind (Mar 1, 2006)

I have no frigin clue HOWEVER.... When I drop to the granny I almost inevitably pull up the rear. that should say something?


----------



## Guyechka (Jul 19, 2005)

*These are all good arguments...*

I tend to agree with the "spinning over trail irregularities is inefficient" mentality. I want to add that balance plays into the equation. Ever notice how much effort goes into holding a line while spinning, especially on rough terrain? It takes effort (body english) to constantly correct and hold a line at super slow speed. So how much energy does that take? Even though it isn't coming from your legs, necessarily, you are burning more energy (ah, the full body workout). Also, if you do start deviating from your line, the question becomes one of how much extra distance you are riding. Sure, you make deviate only a foot, but correct by another foot then add all the times you deviated while spinning and you come up with substantial extra distance. Then we come back to the trail irregularities, because you have to deviate from your line more often when spinning to avoid bigger obstacles than if you could maintain your momentum going over those obstacles by pushing a larger gear.

That said, I usually start spinning as soon as I see a steep climb. But the climb must be extra steep and long.


----------



## Mr. GT (Jan 17, 2004)

I fly on flat and push on hills...

which sucks for me since i'm in Wv


----------



## 9.8m/s/s (Sep 26, 2005)

I was riding with a pro racer from England a bunch of years ago and because we had gotten to know each other we had been teasing each other about everything we could think of for a solid two weeks. Finally one day I teased him about all the extra work he was doing in his granny gear, 95 rpm style while I was only riding 65 rpm on the same terrain. Within three clicks he had pulled ahead six or seven bike lenghts, as I tried to respond it was absolutely hopeless. 

I stopped wondering after that. I don't know which is faster, but I know what makes you a better rider.


----------



## EscourtU (Aug 15, 2006)

I go by rpm. Try to keep the same rpm's I ride on flat. If I start pedaling slower I will drop a gear. Etc. etc. If I do hit the lower ring I'm usually not there to long but I keep up with the rpm's. I just try to keep my legs used to a certain speed and use the gears for what they are made for. However if I am in the granny gear I kind of tease myself in my head about it. Then I find myself switching to the middle and adjusting the rear to make up for it.


----------



## M.J. (Feb 23, 2004)

you should go over to RBR and ask this question - you'd get a chorus of spin spin spin - but offroad is different...

spinning leaves room for extra bursts of power to clear obstacles - grinding means that there's nothing left in the tank if you need some more

really though it's down to the person, how they're feeling and the kind of trail


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

EscourtU said:


> I go by rpm. Try to keep the same rpm's I ride on flat. If I start pedaling slower I will drop a gear. Etc. etc. If I do hit the lower ring I'm usually not there to long but I keep up with the rpm's. I just try to keep my legs used to a certain speed and use the gears for what they are made for. However if I am in the granny gear I kind of tease myself in my head about it. Then I find myself switching to the middle and adjusting the rear to make up for it.


Turn over whatever gear you can with what power you can produce. It doesnt matter if youre getting that particular gear inch while on the middle ring or on the granny. Actually, the granny can be more efficient as usually the chainline is better, making for less drivetrain drag.

Its just natural to drop RPMs a bit while going uphill, dont fight it. Its just the way the legs naturally climb. If you were to graph someone's cadence throughout a ride, pretty much everybody (Magna and Huffy riders not included as Im pretty sure they stay in one gear, the biggest gear possible everywhere as they try to maintain their 10 RPMs) would show that the cadence automatically goes down (by 10-20 rpms) while going uphill and they increase while on the flats.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

I kinda have to disagree with that statement^ but I am newest of newbie.

When I am spinning a lower gear I find it harder to spin faster in the middle of a climb, but when I am in say middle front(32) and gear 1-3 in the back I find it much easier to accelerate and not to mention I was probably going faster already, clearing obstacles to me to me is easier in high a gear.

All yeah in true newb fashion this could be do to my nearly rigid MTB and riding on flats pedals.


----------



## endurowanker (Mar 22, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> Climbing in a bigger gear is definitely more efficient, as far as power per distance covered is concerned. Spinning is not more efficient, but it may allow your muscles to work longer, depending on conditions.


yeah good point.

from a mechanical standpoint spinning wastes more energy just moving your legs up and down. muscles do work better under lighter loads though.

in my experience technical climbs are often easier in a higher gear. it's harder to break traction, and easier to regain it. also it keeps your momentum up.

longer climbs though i have to spin.

one otehr thing to keep in mind is if you don't upshift, you won't go any faster.


----------



## 4212darren (Nov 15, 2005)

I was told that a high cadence taxes the non-skelatal muscles(heart, lungs)more but they are better equiped to handle it than are the skelatal muscles of the legs. Is this correct?


----------



## Damitletsride! (Feb 4, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> Climbing in a bigger gear is definitely more efficient, as far as power per distance covered is concerned. Spinning is not more efficient, but it may allow your muscles to work longer, depending on conditions.


Total BS. Depends on several factors. I was always told that "spinning" a fast cadence works your lungs more so your legs ar`nt doing as much work. When you "mash" in a big gear at a lower cadence, your legs muscles are under alot of pressure but your cardio system can take a break. Look at Lance Armstrong? He had a crazy fast cadence. This is what ive come up with.
1. The bike you are riding, if riding a long travel f.s. for example you may want to sit and spin rather the stand and mash.
2. How many years you have been riding, Over time and experience it is easier to spin your legs efficently up a climb, but it does`nt happen over night and takes patience and practice.
3. The terrain. Spinning, or at least finding a balance between that and mashing is nearly always better on loose uphill surfaces. 
4. Your weight. Alot of stronger riders i know like to pedal with a slower cadence and mash. 
5. How long you are riding for on a given day, i always find i can ride alot longer if i mix it up but spin the really long climbs.
6. Personal preferance.
7. Never mash the peddles in mud!


----------



## Damitletsride! (Feb 4, 2004)

*....*



Blue Shorts said:


> It's simple physics. The more times you have to move your (heavy) legs up and down to go a set distance, the more energy you use. Going slower also takes more energy per set distance because trail irregularities are harder to overcome when you are going slow. Spinning uses more energy than pushing bigger gears..... BUT
> 
> That does not mean that you will be able to go farther with bigger and bigger gears. There's a point where you hit diminishing returns. Pushing big gears uses slow twitch muscles. When they tire out.... you're done. Body type makes a big difference. The better shape that you're in, aerobically speaking, the more you can take advantage of spinning.
> 
> I usually try to find a happy medium. If my heart rate is too high, I'll shift to a bigger gear, Anerobic muscle use (as in pusing bigger gears at a slower RPM) uses less oxygen than aerobic spinning (in smaller gears). If my legs are getting tired.... I'll switch to a smaller gear.


But but but but but but......Physics and sports science are two completely different things.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

The faster you go up the hill the more energy you spend.

On the same hill, it can depend on many things one time a lower gear is better sometimes higher, approach speed, rain, snow, weight of equipment, obstacles.

On differerent hills, it can depend on length, incline, terrain, objective (long or short distance).

I try to be able to do both, and also identify which I want or need to do before the hill.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Damitletsride! said:


> Total BS. Depends on several factors. I was always told that "spinning" a fast cadence works your lungs more so your legs ar`nt doing as much work. When you "mash" in a big gear at a lower cadence, your legs muscles are under alot of pressure but your cardio system can take a break. Look at Lance Armstrong? He had a crazy fast cadence. This is what ive come up with.
> 1. The bike you are riding, if riding a long travel f.s. for example you may want to sit and spin rather the stand and mash.
> 2. How many years you have been riding, Over time and experience it is easier to spin your legs efficently up a climb, but it does`nt happen over night and takes patience and practice.
> 3. The terrain. Spinning, or at least finding a balance between that and mashing is nearly always better on loose uphill surfaces.
> ...


Mountain biking is far different than road biking though. With mountain biking, endurance is dependant on our ability to sprint up hills (operate anaerobically for a few seconds). With road biking, the object is to spin as long as possible, there will ocasionally be sprints, but as mountain bikers we need to be able to operate anerobically to just do our rides, up steep hills that we simply can't go up indefinitely. This means that mountain biking (at least for those of us that have trails that go up and down) is all about the anerobic efforts and the recoverys, and the better you can do that, the better you can survive a ride. It's not the spinning that will kill you, it's going past your limit for too long.

The bigger gear that you can push uphill, the stronger your legs and the better you are able to deal with the anerobic limit IMO.

Neither one is wrong of course, but I think there is too much emphasis sometimes on "spinning" and not enough on strength in our particular sport.


----------



## Damitletsride! (Feb 4, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Mountain biking is far different than road biking though. With mountain biking, endurance is dependant on our ability to sprint up hills (operate anaerobically for a few seconds). With road biking, the object is to spin as long as possible, there will ocasionally be sprints, but as mountain bikers we need to be able to operate anerobically to just do our rides, up steep hills that we simply can't go up indefinitely. This means that mountain biking (at least for those of us that have trails that go up and down) is all about the anerobic efforts and the recoverys, and the better you can do that, the better you can survive a ride. It's not the spinning that will kill you, it's going past your limit for too long.
> 
> The bigger gear that you can push uphill, the stronger your legs and the better you are able to deal with the anerobic limit IMO.
> 
> Neither one is wrong of course, but I think there is too much emphasis sometimes on "spinning" and not enough on strength in our particular sport.


I agree alot with what your saying, often in racing the one that can do the most short high anerobic efforts is the one that wins the race. Three key things in mtbing are:
"Speed skills" ability to spin the legs fast, like spinning.
. "Endurance",
"Power", strength to pedal a big gear when needed.

Speed skills and endurance are the first two phases of training for racing.

Leg speed is essential for tight technical sections. Some people like to power, but whoever reaches the top first/ gets to the finish first...... and how you feel the next day!!!!!,... that will tell you what way is better (spinning vs mashing) more than anything.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Damitletsride! said:


> Total BS.


Now, now.... be nice

We are apparently talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about physics. You're talking about physiology.

In physics, efficiency is related to the amounted of energy used to perform a particular amount of work. Spinning requires more energy to move the bike a set distance.

I'm not arguing that the human body may be capable of going farther while spinning than by pushing a bigger gear. I tend to agree with your physiology assessment about that.....but in pure physics terms, your assessment is pure BS


----------



## beagledadi (Jul 18, 2004)

*Get rid of it.....*

....the granny has got to go! You can't get calves like these by just sitting and spining  Grind it, grind it :thumbsup: ...ok, these are really Arnolds legs not mine


----------



## Jordansrealm (Jun 1, 2006)

The biggest problem I am having while climbing something steep in granny is keeping the front tire on the ground. Often I find myself climbing something rather steep and will get a good grind going and then as it gets steeper the front tire lifts off the ground and I end up walking the bike. Sometimes I can stand up and crank through it but often I cannot. Any help there? I have tried shifting my weight around but maybe I am in the wrong gear or doing something else wrong? How do you guys ride really steep stuff?


----------



## pixelninja (Jan 7, 2004)

russman - I too live in Denver, and I find that I can last much much longer if I take my time and spin up climbs. Take White Ranch for example. Late last summer I was feeling especially strong one day, so I ending up climbing most of the way to the top (Belcher > Shorthorn > Longhorn) in my middle ring. By the time I got to the top, my legs were so spent. I had nothing left. I just turned around and went back down. If I do the same climb in my granny gear, the only thing that makes me turn around and go home is the thought of my wife looking at the clock and wondering where the heck I am. Mashing may take you to the top faster, but spinning will allow you to ride much longer.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

pixelninja said:


> russman - I too live in Denver, and I find that I can last much much longer if I take my time and spin up climbs. Take White Ranch for example. Late last summer I was feeling especially strong one day, so I ending up climbing most of the way to the top (Belcher > Shorthorn > Longhorn) in my middle ring. By the time I got to the top, my legs were so spent. I had nothing left. I just turned around and went back down. If I do the same climb in my granny gear, the only thing that makes me turn around and go home is the thought of my wife looking at the clock and wondering where the heck I am. Mashing may take you to the top faster, but spinning will allow you to ride much longer.


Of course going faster will wear you out twice as fast. You burn more energy for one thing and you also build up lactic acid which will make you slow down.

I thought we were talking about going up a hill at the same rate of speed, but acheiving that by high RPMs or low RPMs (spinning or mashing).


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

There are some things I find when using the middle ring or big ring to climb. I'm not 100% sure if these coments make sense or are correct, I'm still a newbie to mountain biking and biking in general

1.) In a bigger ring one I notice I mash more than spin if going up a hill. 
2.) If you are in a bigger ring I think there is more torque output, and if the surface is loose or wet, I find the back tire slip and you loose speed/momentum and you are screwed
3.) When climbing in bigger rings (middle or big) I find it tends to lift teh front end more (hi torque?), it seems you have to be more careful on body position so that the front end doesn't lift up. 
4.) it's faster
5.) If the hill is super steep you have to get your butt off the saddle and rebalance your weight alot and generate enough force to spin the cranks

I started using mostly middle and big ring when I got challenged to do a ride in middle or big only. I noticed I was able to and have mainly been using a middle. I run a 32 middle and 44T with a 11-34 cassette. I almost always have the 34 gear left as a backup if I'm dying 1/2 way up the hill.

I also find if it's a long long climb I can't leave it in the middle as it's too much anerobic. Say a 10 min steep climb. I'd have to drop it to granny and spin. But if it's a quick 2 min or less climb, I can hammer it up hard and recover after ok.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Jordansrealm said:


> The biggest problem I am having while climbing something steep in granny is keeping the front tire on the ground. Often I find myself climbing something rather steep and will get a good grind going and then as it gets steeper the front tire lifts off the ground and I end up walking the bike. Sometimes I can stand up and crank through it but often I cannot. Any help there? I have tried shifting my weight around but maybe I am in the wrong gear or doing something else wrong? How do you guys ride really steep stuff?


Slide forward on the until you feel as if you are almost being poked in the butt by the nose of the saddle, or even hover off the front tip just a bit, and get your upper body down low enough to pretend like you are going to bite the top of your stem off. 

There's always a fine line though, as too much weight forward will often lead to a loss of traction at the rear tire since you won't have so much weight over it. If you keep you hands and elbows low, then pull back forcefully on the handlebar with your elbows as you drive forward with every pedal stroke, you might find that it will mitigate this effect somewhat. The whole sequence is something that will just come naturally with practice though, given a few of these basic suggestions. You might also try going one cog smaller in the rear to reduce the torque at the rear wheel a bit.


----------



## Jordansrealm (Jun 1, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Slide forward on the until you feel as if you are almost being poked in the butt by the nose of the saddle, or even hover off the front tip just a bit, and get your upper body down low enough to pretend like you are going to bite the top of your stem off.
> 
> There's always a fine line though, as too much weight forward will often lead to a loss of traction at the rear tire since you won't have so much weight over it. If you keep you hands and elbows low, then pull back forcefully on the handlebar with your elbows as you drive forward with every pedal stroke, you might find that it will mitigate this effect somewhat. The whole sequence is something that will just come naturally with practice though, given a few of these basic suggestions. You might also try going one cog smaller in the rear to reduce the torque at the rear wheel a bit.


Thanks! I started doing this a little bit after reading about it somewhere. Some of the steeper stuff though I am still struggling with, especially when the steepness is combined with rocks and loose gravel. Just practice practice practice...


----------



## pixelninja (Jan 7, 2004)

Cheers! said:


> I also find if it's a long long climb I can't leave it in the middle as it's too much anerobic. Say a 10 min steep climb. I'd have to drop it to granny and spin. But if it's a quick 2 min or less climb, I can hammer it up hard and recover after ok.


Just to give you an idea of what russman is riding, a lot of good trails around here have climbs of 45+ minutes of pure climbing.


----------



## Pooh Bear (May 25, 2006)

My usual technique (singlespeed inspired - rewritten for more gears)

Steep short climbs (up to 100m)
Attack at high speed middle ring middle cog (32/15) - spin in this gear until there is a feeling that this is getting just a wee bit harder then - immediately out ot saddle keeping up the rpm in a more natural/stronger position - make it to the top - don't stop! but keep pedaling for not building up too much acid.

longer climbs (100m+)
attack as said above. keep that out of saddle position - the rpm will go down after a while - keep that position - after a while this will get harder - shift, but don't sit down too early (best not at all) - if you start feeling that you cannot turn the cranks anymore it's too late, by then you should already have downshifted (maybe a gear or two) 
With this I managed various climbs about 8km without stopping. I know there are 45min climbs. But those minutes will lessen if you don't spin in your lowest gear. 

personal opinion: sitting and spinning is bad for the knees. they get bent too much. with standing up you can pull better with your legs.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

pixelninja said:


> Just to give you an idea of what russman is riding, a lot of good trails around here have climbs of 45+ minutes of pure climbing.


Yeah, here too. 45+ minutes of climbing, getting progressively steeper at the top (maybe throw in some roots and rocks for good measure), so I want to put off the lactic buildup as long as possible, knowing the top section will take every last bit of leg power, energy, body english, etc.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

Jordansrealm said:


> Thanks! I started doing this a little bit after reading about it somewhere. Some of the steeper stuff though I am still struggling with, especially when the steepness is combined with rocks and loose gravel. Just practice practice practice...


Usually on a steep climb you want to be as far forward as possible, but when it's loose I might move my head and/or upper body back when I feel the rear tire slip (rather than lightening up too much on the pedals and losing momentum), which can help you keep traction.

If the front wheel is lifting, drop your chest to the bars if you need to. If that helps, then maybe try changing the cockpit. Your bike may not be set up quite right for you. You can move your saddle forward a bit, and maybe change the stem length or lower it below the spacers, if you aren't able to keep the front tire down with the current cockpit setup.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Jordansrealm said:


> The biggest problem I am having while climbing something steep in granny is keeping the front tire on the ground. Often I find myself climbing something rather steep and will get a good grind going and then as it gets steeper the front tire lifts off the ground and I end up walking the bike. Sometimes I can stand up and crank through it but often I cannot. Any help there? I have tried shifting my weight around but maybe I am in the wrong gear or doing something else wrong? How do you guys ride really steep stuff?


This is the other *big* reason that I climb everything in the middle ring. There's a lot of nasty terrain, loose terrain, water bars, and other obstacles that I have to clean while riding UPHILL. When I try to attempt it in granny, I just spin out, I can't hold my line, it's much harder to balance, etc. When I do it in the middle ring I have enough momentum and speed to clear the obstacles, my rear wheel doesn't spin out, I can balance easier, and so on. There's some insanely steep hills around here, and it's just completely counter-intuitive to think that the way to climb them is in a bigger gear, but that's just the way that it works, and in granny gear I have not been able to clean all the things that I've been able to clean in the middle ring. I definitely know the "front wheel wander/off the ground" problem, as I ride a 36lb bike with a 6.69" travel front fork, but luckily it has the marzocchi ETA feature so I can lock it down to about 2" of travel, that basically means that my huge downhill type fork turns into a short XC type fork as far as it's length, and that really fixes the wander problem. When you have a tall front end, and you ride around in granny all the time uphill, then you get two problems that are complimenting each other IMO. You'll get frustrated and never really pick up much speed on uphills due to those two factors, and with a tall front end it's just pretty damn impossible to go up some steep hills.


----------



## EscourtU (Aug 15, 2006)

I recon asking this question is like asking what bike is the best. Everyone will have different answers for their own preference and their riding ability. Aluminum bikes can probably get away with the middle ring while steel bikes will need to use the lower ring on account of the weight difference. Even forks weigh different amounts which heavier ones will resist wanting to flip over backwards. Is it possible light bikes spin out easier than heavier steel on inclines? Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

EscourtU said:


> I recon asking this question is like asking what bike is the best. Everyone will have different answers for their own preference and their riding ability. Aluminum bikes can probably get away with the middle ring while steel bikes will need to use the lower ring on account of the weight difference. Even forks weigh different amounts which heavier ones will resist wanting to flip over backwards. Is it possible light bikes spin out easier than heavier steel on inclines? Thats my 2 cents.


Rider = 175 pounds
Bike = 25 pounds 
Total = 200 pounds to push up a hill

Difference between steel and aluminum frames = 1.5 pounds

1.5 lbs is .75% of the total weight going up a hill. Factor in the gradient, drag and wind resistance, and that pound and a half is much less than even a .75% loss going up a hill.

Going from a 22 tooth granny to a 32 tooth middle ring is a 45% difference.

So, my point is, the weight difference on an aluminum bike is not gonna even come close to making enough dif. to use a bigger gear.

Weight differences in forks can be countered by moving your body forward or backward two millimeters. Again, my point is, the bike's weight isnt doing much when you look at the entire package that has to be propelled up the hill.

Also, if this question is about technical climbs, I like pushing bigger gears. I think it gives more traction and you also go farther and faster with one quick pedal stroke when sometimes in tricky spots thats all you can manage to get in... And of course speed can definitely help get through tough spots.


----------



## pixelninja (Jan 7, 2004)

Jayem said:


> This is the other *big* reason that I climb everything in the middle ring. There's a lot of nasty terrain, loose terrain, water bars, and other obstacles that I have to clean while riding UPHILL. When I try to attempt it in granny, I just spin out, I can't hold my line, it's much harder to balance, etc. When I do it in the middle ring I have enough momentum and speed to clear the obstacles, my rear wheel doesn't spin out, I can balance easier, and so on.


Sounds like someone needs to work on their slow-speed technique 

I ride with a guy whom we call The Turtle. This guy is always in his granny gear and is usually the last guy to the top of the hill, but he cleans everything and can ride all day. Usually on longer rides (4-6 hours) he's no longer the last one to the top because he still has energy while other mashers no longer have the strength.


----------



## oscarc (Mar 23, 2006)

Given the same conditions and same speed, a cadence of 80 is more effiecient than a cadence of 70. However, a cadence of 100 is less efficient becuase your HR increases while maintaining the same speed. A climbing cadence of 80 is a good cadence where you get descent speed and efficiency for every crank. Exceptions are of course when the terrain dictates use of the small gear. but on long gradual climbs 80 is good. A 70 cadence means you would be pushing a larger gear which wears you muscles more. This will effect your performance over a long ride.



russman said:


> Last night, while climbing one of my local trails, I started wondering about what was more efficient, or what was faster...grinding in my middle chain ring, or spinning in my small chain ring. For the longest time, I'd guage my biking shape by wether or not I could do certain climbs without dropping into my small chainring. I felt faster, but just didn't know. What do you think?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

pixelninja said:


> Sounds like someone needs to work on their slow-speed technique
> 
> I ride with a guy whom we call The Turtle. This guy is always in his granny gear and is usually the last guy to the top of the hill, but he cleans everything and can ride all day. Usually on longer rides (4-6 hours) he's no longer the last one to the top because he still has energy while other mashers no longer have the strength.


See, IMO that's not endurance, because he can't negotiate the slopes at a decent speed. I think most people could stay out there plenty long with adaquate energy (food) and just go real slow. Of course if you're waiting all day long for people, wierd things are going to happen because you're not really riding at a speed that is going to test people. I'm not going to spend 6 hours on a ride that should take me 2 hours, and if I go for longer, I obviously have to "tone it down some" and focus on calorie intake and keeping bloodsugar up, at least if I want to be performing anywhere near my potential. Otherwise I could just go "real slow" in granny I suppose.

Also, when you say he "cleans" everything, are we talking about technical climbs with obstacles, say around a foot high for some of them, and lots of loose rocks and places where you could "stall"??


----------



## Don Juan (May 28, 2006)

Jayem said:


> See, IMO that's not endurance, because he can't negotiate the slopes at a decent speed. I think most people could stay out there plenty long with adaquate energy (food) and just go real slow. Of course if you're waiting all day long for people, wierd things are going to happen because you're not really riding at a speed that is going to test people. I'm not going to spend 6 hours on a ride that should take me 2 hours, and if I go for longer, I obviously have to "tone it down some" and focus on calorie intake and keeping bloodsugar up, at least if I want to be performing anywhere near my potential. Otherwise I could just go "real slow" in granny I suppose.
> 
> Also, when you say he "cleans" everything, are we talking about technical climbs with obstacles, say around a foot high for some of them, and lots of loose rocks and places where you could "stall"??


...jesus christ.


----------



## theeric (Mar 9, 2006)

for me, it's whatever's comfortable: I'm not racing, I'm just having fun and challenging myself. But I definately have more anaerobic than aerobic ability. Also it depends on the climb. If it's really loose, I like a higher gear so I don't spin out.

This is mountain biking: to each his/her own!


----------



## Moto'n'PushBiker (Sep 22, 2005)

oscarc said:


> Given the same conditions and same speed, a cadence of 80 is more effiecient than a cadence of 70. However, a cadence of 100 is less efficient becuase your HR increases while maintaining the same speed. A climbing cadence of 80 is a good cadence where you get descent speed and efficiency for every crank. Exceptions are of course when the terrain dictates use of the small gear. but on long gradual climbs 80 is good. A 70 cadence means you would be pushing a larger gear which wears you muscles more. This will effect your performance over a long ride.


Is there an explanation why at a higher cadence the heart and lungs are taxed more? Or is it just because you are more inefficient and need more oxygene to your muscles? Or is it the blood-pumping effect of your faster turning legs?

I experience this too, but can not think of an explanation...


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

I have a references: Bicycling Science MIT Press
Design Requirements for Man Generated Power Ergonomics
Man as a Source of Mechanical Power Ergonomics

These and others are summarize in a Handbook.

I quote:

In order to approach optimal efficiency... this condition occurs when the force exerted by the muscle is about one half of its maximum and the speed of the muscle movement one quarter of its maximum...data...for a given set of muscles are best measured in situ...optimal efficiency and maximum power output do not occur together.

Basically each person has an optimal speed for efficiency (this is trainable and seems best for most around 90 rpm). Max Power occurs at a different rpm. I can achieve my highest speed (max power) above 90 rpm but this might be because I dont have a high enough gear?


----------



## cq20 (Jun 1, 2005)

It doesn't matter whether you're on the middle or granny; what matters is what gear ratio you're using. I've dumped my 11-34 cassette and replaced it with a (roadie) 12-27. That gives me the ratios I want. I never used the middle/34 combination because of the chainline and the granny/34 combination is way too low for me – I could crawl quicker.


----------



## Damitletsride! (Feb 4, 2004)

*....*



Jayem said:


> See, IMO that's not endurance, because he can't negotiate the slopes at a decent speed. I think most people could stay out there plenty long with adaquate energy (food) and just go real slow. Of course if you're waiting all day long for people, wierd things are going to happen because you're not really riding at a speed that is going to test people. I'm not going to spend 6 hours on a ride that should take me 2 hours, and if I go for longer, I obviously have to "tone it down some" and focus on calorie intake and keeping bloodsugar up, at least if I want to be performing anywhere near my potential. Otherwise I could just go "real slow" in granny I suppose.
> 
> Also, when you say he "cleans" everything, are we talking about technical climbs with obstacles, say around a foot high for some of them, and lots of loose rocks and places where you could "stall"??


Ye i know what your saying, this spinning versus mashing arguement can only really be a reasonable one if were talking about set speeds that COULD be maintained by a person, given a set distence using either method. Using a higher cadence once over a set course and then trying a lower cadence. I don`t think endurance is endurance if your taking breaks every once in a while.

Spinning on climbs to me is usually 32 x 32 down to 16, or the big ring up front


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Of course going faster will wear you out twice as fast. You burn more energy for one thing and you also build up lactic acid which will make you slow down.
> 
> I thought we were talking about going up a hill at the same rate of speed, but acheiving that by high RPMs or low RPMs (spinning or mashing).


Yes, some folks were forgetting that.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

From what I've read about cycling technique, spinning is more efficient over a distance, and definitely nicer on a rider's knees. It doesn't really matter whether you are on a road or a trail. If you are riding regularly and trying to build strength and endurance, both spinning at a higher than normal cadence and mashing at a lower than normal cadence have their place

I find on long climbs I'm more of a spinner, but on short climbs I'll use a higher gear, maybe just not downshift, and just torque up or over. The more regularly I ride, the bigger a gear I can spin on a given climb.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

Same cadence, bigger gear. I decided to start riding in the big ring, and getting out of the saddle. And body weight almost entirely on my arms. It takes some of the leg work, and shifts it to the arms. 


It's not something one could do if they were riding on a steep, loose section. But I can ride a lot faster by doing this versus sitting and grinding away.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

Same cadence, bigger gear. I decided to start riding in the big ring, and getting out of the saddle. And body weight almost entirely on my arms. It takes some of the leg work, and shifts it to the arms. 


It's not something one could do if they were riding on a steep, loose section. But I can ride a lot faster by doing this versus sitting and grinding away.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Gregg K said:


> Same cadence, bigger gear. I decided to start riding in the big ring, and getting out of the saddle. And body weight almost entirely on my arms. It takes some of the leg work, and shifts it to the arms.
> 
> It's not something one could do if they were riding on a steep, loose section. But I can ride a lot faster by doing this versus sitting and grinding away.


That's kind of a roadie technique. You can see the pro's doing that on some of the climbs. On a short climb, you maintain your speed. On a longer climb, it is a way to get out of the saddle and use some different muscles, as well as put on a little speed.

And you are absolutely right that you can climb faster that way, at least for a time. I think the trick to using this technique on a climb is assessing how long you can sustain staying out of the saddle, then dropping back to an easier gear before you blow up. On a really long climb you can go back and forth multiple times.


----------



## amorphous (Jul 7, 2006)

here's an intresting blub...i know it's "road" but, whateva...

Riding style
Armstrong's riding style is also distinctive. He has an extremely high aerobic threshold and therefore can maintain a higher cadence (often 120 rpm) in a lower gear than his competitors, most noticeably in the time trials. This style is in direct contrast to previous champions (e.g. Jan Ullrich and Miguel Indurain) who used a high gear and brute strength to win time trials. It is believed that a high cadence results in less fatigue in the leg muscles than a lower cadence requiring more severe leg muscle contractions. Ultimately the cardiovascular system is worked to a greater extent with a high cadence than with a lower, more muscular cadence. Because the leg muscles are taxed less with a high cadence pedaling style, they recover faster and the efforts can be sustained for longer periods of time. Armstrong dedicated a significant portion of his training to developing and maintaining a very efficient high cadence style.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_armstrong


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I dunno, I used to be a masher only and would end up not making climbs because I was in too big a gear and would stall out or slip out 'cause it was too loose - Now I use whatever gear suits the climb I'm doing. If I can climb it in middle-1,2,3 then I will if it requires granny-1,2,3,4 then so be it. I guess I've finally learnd to spin so I can either push a big bear or spin a small gear, doesn't really matter to me once I actually get up the hill without getting off the bike. I also now spend more time climbing in granny on the loose stuff since I'm running a 25-12 road cassette, so my granny-1(22/25) is pretty much equivalent to middle-1(32/32)


----------



## pogie (Oct 24, 2004)

pacman said:


> Knee problems can arise from stress or overuse. Spinning is one way to get an overuse injury. Standing to crank up a hill replicates the natural walking position so it's a good way to take stress off the knees.


Sorry but that is wrong. I've got arthritis in one of my knees and spinning a low gear puts a lot less stress on the joint then mashing. As for standing up to climb that is incorrect as well. When you climb while standing you are supporting your body weight on every pedal stroke. Great for bursts of power but also put lots more stress on the joint. I've been told the above by many orthopedic docs and PTs and have found it true on the trail.
If you have bad knees, sit and spin.


----------



## Duncan! (Jan 15, 2004)

amorphous said:


> here's an intresting blub...i know it's "road" but, whateva...
> 
> Riding style
> Armstrong's riding style is also distinctive. He has an extremely high aerobic threshold and therefore can maintain a higher cadence (often 120 rpm) in a lower gear than his competitors, most noticeably in the time trials. This style is in direct contrast to previous champions (e.g. Jan Ullrich and Miguel Indurain) who used a high gear and brute strength to win time trials. It is believed that a high cadence results in less fatigue in the leg muscles than a lower cadence requiring more severe leg muscle contractions. Ultimately the cardiovascular system is worked to a greater extent with a high cadence than with a lower, more muscular cadence. Because the leg muscles are taxed less with a high cadence pedaling style, they recover faster and the efforts can be sustained for longer periods of time. Armstrong dedicated a significant portion of his training to developing and maintaining a very efficient high cadence style.
> ...


Supposedly, Lance developed his high-cadence technique from the infamous Dr. Ferrari, who noticed that the Kenyans, who dominate many middle and long-distance track events, run with quick, short steps. Conventional running wisdom enspouses long strides (I remember track coaches in High School constantly telling me I needed to work on "opening up my stride"). (The analogy here being the long, powerful stroke and the light, high-speed spin).

I used to mash, but now I spin, and I find it less taxing and more efficeint over long distances. For me, spinning required "muscle memory". I had to teach my legs to spin by consciously spinning at higher and higher speeds (I used a cadence meter too). D.


----------



## markiiu (Aug 10, 2006)

Well, I personally grind away all the climbs in a bigger gear, as I always ride in a middle gear on both ends, and every time my friends who downhill get on my bike, they yell at me for having it in a huge gear. I think it all depends on who you are, I have very large leg muscles (Did a lot of leg press/football/wrestling, need big legs) and I have some breathing problems when I exercise with muscles moving fast (Jogs, spinning, etc) for a long time, but grinding doesn't cause those problems, so I just pedal slow, and still outstrip my friends on climbs...
I don't get what the idea of the guys I see on the street with the seat all the way down, and in the lowest granny gear when they're 10 miles from the nearest trail, but I guess they're just trying to look cool...

-Markiiu


----------



## Don Juan (May 28, 2006)

I do all my climbing on one of these:

http://page3.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/c130322421


----------



## titleist990dci (Jun 16, 2006)

If I go too easy with the gear then i don't seem to get good traction with the rear tire..so I keep it in the second ring 95% of the time. Also, if I am spinning too fast..I tend to get a little excited and my heart rate gets too high...so personally, I need to find that in between spot that gives me the right cadence..which is usually the second ring..granny ring only on the toughest steepest climbs...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*It depends*

on the knds of muscle you have and the cadence you prefer. Mitigating torque is a function of how much power you have and how you can control it. Use what works.


----------



## RiftZone (Apr 14, 2004)

I usually try to find a happy medium. If my heart rate is too high said:


> This makes sense, after all these years of climbing hills I noticed the above to be true, that and what body type a person has. I look for something in between when I want to conserve energy but get me there quicker.
> 
> Now about this Testosterone theory...


----------



## fsrftc (May 23, 2006)

FoulMouthFool said:


> hmmmm, I didn't expect to see so many folks saying that spinning up hill was easier. I'm certainly not trying to brag on my big gear mashing abilities, I wish I could spin up hills better. There are many climbs that I have to stop and walk if I try to spin them, but I can sure grind up them (tired but I get there without hopping off).
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I think its normal, I shift to a higher gear when going over technical objects cause I don't have to move my pedals as far to get over them.
> ...


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

I think most everything that can be said has been said already, but one other perspective, I think in general people should train overall with a high base cadence, and then do certain rides where you purposefully try to clear things in middle ring that would drop you from, say 80 or 90 rpm to 60 or 50 or whatever, to develop power. In a given course you will have to do both, so they should both be trained. So occasionally I do rides where the whole point is to push a really hard gear. 

If you want the best time for a given ride, even power/heart rate will produce the best time so, for mtn biking, say spinning at 85 or 90 for almost everything will ultimately produce the best time. This is a known truth in road biking, and I think it is true for Mtn biking, but there is certainly debate. And people like Tinker Juarez who do almost everything in Big Ring, even La Ruta. 

Well, and how many of us are trying to get a best time on a route versus riding for the best general fitness and ability to do various rides? Some of us certainly. That is part of the thing, we have to ask what our goals are before answering the question.

Oh - and one other thing. If you hit your anaerobic threshold too many times (ie., you pedal at 90, but go down to 60 and 'mash' 15 times for 120 - 240 seconds over 3 hrs) you may find you hit a wall at that point. If the anaerobic threshold time is over, can't remember if it was 8 seconds or so - then there is a finite number of times you can do that before your legs will give out. If you had maintained a more even power output, you would not hit a wall. So are you doing a 4 - 6 hr ride? Or a 3 hr ride for a best time?

But certainly in training it will take doing a ton of both to be a great biker. While I have recently converted about 3 years ago from being a 60 rpm biker to 90 (and that also has to do with rigid vs 5.5 inches of suspension  - rigid usually means lower cadence), and now that I have a Garmin and can review rpm after rides, even after being able to do 80/90 much of the time there are many technical super-steep places where you will spin at 30 or 40 in easiest gear and that is just the way it is. 

We have to be good at all of it! 

(But for most mountain bikers who aren't racing I'd say do 3 rides where you try to average 85 RPM (but I wouldn't increase RPM by more than 5 each 2 weeks to someone who is used to 60 or 50 - your knee muscles aren't ready) and then do a ride where you intentionally use a much harder gear and lower RPM, then repeat. So 3:1 or so.)


----------



## DaltonManning (Mar 13, 2010)

I think it depends also. Spinning seems to be more of a cardio thing while grinding on will wear out your muscles and get you nice and sore the next day. The tricky part would be to know which one would best conserve your energy (To know thyself...). I just try to find a good balance between the two depending on how I am feeling. And who I'm riding with...


----------



## Mule Ears (Apr 5, 2008)

*Cardio redline*

Problem I have with spinning is that I don't seem to be able to sense when I'm approaching my lactate (anaerobic) threshold. I'll be going along fine, then suddenly, without warning, breathing and pulse are off the charts like at the end of a sprint.

On standing climbs, I can tell if I'm going to redline, and by staying just short of that level of effort I've found a particular pace that I can keep going all day. I have a convenient test hill that rises 2000 feet in 4.7 miles that I use for practice; I can climb it in well under an hour standing. Sitting/spinning takes an hour or more.

I'm a hiker/peak bagger, and the interesting thing is that my climb rate (2000+ feet/hour) is about the same on or off the bike.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

For me - grinding. Not sure about efficiency, but I just don't have enough brain cells to control the bike on a climb and make my legs move at high rpm at the same time. I haven't used the 22t chainring and 2 big cogs for years - and I live in a pretty hilly area. On familiar climbs I turn (mentally, that is) my bike into a single speed - choose the gear I am going to ascend in and and don't let myself shift down. Takes some effort, but makes any climb kind of hard earned fun.


----------



## Blksocks (Dec 22, 2009)

Gregg K said:


> Same cadence, bigger gear. I decided to start riding in the big ring, and getting out of the saddle. And body weight almost entirely on my arms. It takes some of the leg work, and shifts it to the arms.
> 
> It's not something one could do if they were riding on a steep, loose section. But I can ride a lot faster by doing this versus sitting and grinding away.


I do the same. :thumbsup:


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

So, yeah, lets be clear about some things. It takes quite a bit of skill to put out 300+ watts at 90 or 100 RPM. I couldn't do it for a year - it is different muscles in the legs. You can't just say "Oh, I'll try that today and do it" and then compare the results to doing what you'e done pretty successfully for 5 years .

I had to train indoors in a road-bike spinning environment (Expresso or Trac-Star bike) to develop the ability to put out high watts at high RPMs, and like I said, it was about a year before I could really get high watts at 100 RPM.


----------



## Turn (Sep 16, 2008)

For me it depends a lot on the trail I'm riding, if you have to slog it out on a 30 min climb, then you find a low revolution low gear, oh wait, I'm just talking about Switzerland, that stuff is steep but exhilarating. But generally I prefer a higher gear and slow spinning, until you hit the proper technical stuff.
Just get out and ride, it really doesn't matter how


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

i am all about the 32t ring but i dont have to climb anything too steep or long on my local trails.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

mix it up.....you'll use different muscle groups and not fatigue as fast during long ascents..

IMHO.....


----------



## slowrider (May 15, 2004)

*Spin*

I tried mashing for the last few years and gained quite a bit of strength, so much strength that I started grinding out long climbs on my ss until my back started cramping and staying that wy for weeks. I'm going to miss challenging myself on long climbs on my SS but I'd rather ride slower without pain than faster until my back stops me all together.


----------



## JEM2 (Feb 25, 2010)

I like to work the gears and ride in middle ring.. you never know when you need to jump up and mash to get over something or sky off of something!!
JEM


----------

