h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A579396

I've writen a little piece on the correct use of bike gears. Intelligent use of the gears can gain you seconds in a hilly race.

I'm a "roadie" but it can be equally applied to MTBs.

Correction.

"I've written ..."

I hope the article has fewer typos. than my posting here.

Awu.

Interesting article.

A couple of points though. Firstly I think the flow would be improved if you put the stuff in brackets about europeans using circumferance rather than diameter, and the conversion thereof, into a footnote.
Secondly, you come straight in talking about a rider doing 30km/h on 42:13 without telling us what 42:13 means. OK you go on to talk about gear ratios later but perhaps in the bit about gear inches you can mention that the ratio is normally expressed as X:Y, and that the front wheel comes first.

I'm off to count my sprockets and work out my perfect gear change sequence.

Will do. I could mention for people who don't know about "mechanical advantage" that it's the ratio of the front to back and that the lower numbers are "easier".

It's done. I still need to add some sub-headings through.

I don't practise what I preach. I got "dropped" by the pack last night about 25K into a 50K ride. Just because I got caught in too high a gear in the dip between two hills. I rode on my own for the rest of the night.

A good entry and topically for me, I've recently started using gears better (a raised my saddle) and knocked 1 minute of my 7.2 mile excerscise route, beating 30 mins for the first time this week.

However, I know what cadence means but does everyone? I seem to remember that sound use of gears means your cadence stays them same all the time, if this is correct this should be mentioned as well as defined.

Tactics also could do with being discussed for hill climbing, I now know which ones to shift to a smaller front cog before the climb starts.

ChawkE

Hi ChawkE,

Thanks for the suggestions. It's hard to know where to stop. I'll explain cadence and the typical range we normally ride in. I could draw an analogy with a car engine and keeping the rpm in an efficient range. But then you get into slow and fast twitch fibres and the different types of riders. Don't really want to go there.
(Lance Armstrong changed his style and "twiddled" more at a high cadence rather than "pushing" a high gear and it seemed to pay off. You should read his training regime. Hours of seated hill climbs at 80 rpm!)

Is your training course an out and back? It's amazing what a professional racer is capable of. 40 km/hr (25 mph) for hours on end. You're doing 23 km/hr. I'm 20 years your senior (based on what I read on your home space) and can average 30 km/hr for a couple of hours. A three hour 100 Km is a nice magic number for a young person to aim for. I don't suppose I'll ever do that again.

What I call my excercise route, which I know isn't long enough and I am planning to add a few miles to it, is a first mile up a long slog of a hill , about 2 sort of flat (no where is flat in Devon) followed by another 2ish on a converted railway line, basically hard dirt with some stony bit) with the remainder being road, with the last 1/2 mile down a short steep hill (same elevation as initial slow slog) where I touch 40 mph.

I plan to add another 1-2 miles on soon, but I really am out of condition. I can usually keep 18-20 mph on flat ground, it's the hills that do me in. REcently did a 1000 foot off road climb in Turkey and almost died. Coming down was a blast.

But back to the subject, I don't think you need to go overboard, just define the terms which some readers may not be familar with and outline simple reasons why a steady rate is best.

If it stops some riders I see riding through town at ridiculous rates doing a speed I can do with half the rate it will be worth it.


ChawkE

I was thinkg pure road bike for those speeds. A mountain bike on hard dirt is another story. That's quite respectable.

I'll make a few changes to the article soon.

That's a pet peeve of mine too. A mountain biker, riding down town, doing 120 rpm.

I competed in my first "dirt duathlon". Run / Mountain Bike / Run. I could have almost run the whole thing as fast. I was really impressed with the mountain bikers' bike handling skills on the descents. That's where I lost the time.

I see you've been to Bodrum. (A group of us chartered a sail boat and sailed in that area.) Is that where you did the 1000' climb?

The 1000 foot climb was near Gündogan, the more recent set of photos are from there.

The bike is a urban bike - British Eagal and the track is quite good going.

I'll read the revised article when not at work

ChawkE

The entry: Great! I always wondered, but never took the time to think about it deeply. Finally I know.

Typo you may want to correct or leave for the SubEds:

"...you see >an an< otherwise competent rider..."

- should be just one 'an'

Thank you for this entry,

HELL

Thanks! It's done.

I never realised how complicated this gear thing was...mind you my last bike was a 3 gear job about 20 years ago...

I like the entry and am going to recommend it for editing. No promises but keep your fingers crossed

Linus

Well as you know, I beat Linus to it, and it has been recommended.

This thread will now vanish from here and attach to the article.

A sub will then correct all the grammer and translate it to english (sorry Scouts joke)

Well you know the drill.

ChawkE

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they have not been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

Small point on health. using too hard a gear for too long, going too far, can seriously damage your knees. A slightly easier gear with the right cadence you can keep up almost indefinately (200 miles over 79 hours with breaks, averaging 11 mph), and you can also rack up long distances (1000+ miles per year). All with no damage.

Yes - that's true. It's all relative though. There is a trend towards higher cadences for road racers. I know people who compete in time trials and don't have a gear higher than 52:13. When I go down on the aero bars I sometimes feel I need to change to something higher than that.
An old friend says he used to ride all winter with one low gear. He was convinced that a few months of "twiddling" was good off season training.
With due respect - 1000 miles per year is not very much. I'm sure that's less than two week's worth for even an amateur racer.

small point. ??:?? is a gear ratio. the cadence is the pedal rpm.
1000 miles per year is what a typical club cyclist who also does club time-trials will cover if they also do a couple of training rides a week. this includes most of your audience. doing it in a couple of weeks is more the realms of your semi-professional racer. for the entry to be targeted at them, it needs significantly more work, or a major re-write, along with mentioning things like circuit training, training to your heart rate, and a number of other related subjects.
For the club level user, the article is about right, as it is for the enthusiastic amateur who just rides a lot. it is for that audience that I framed the previous comment, as that is the audience that the review is written for. your club rider will do perhaps a 20 mile "sunday ride", a 10 mile time-trial once a week, and possibly a couple more training rides for the ten mile ride. this takes you to 50 miles per week. if you add a few for aroud town and going to work, you approach the 1000+ pre year figure that I gave previously.
Your average school kid who thinks that he cycles a lot will often refuse to go on a journey over three miles each way.

Yes - I realize that nn:nn is the ratio. But a high ratio generally corresponds to a low cadence.

I didn't target the article at any particular audience. I hope it explains, for the un-initiated, what "gear inches" means and how to use gears, etc.

Like I said - everything is relative. I ride with some people who don't belong to a club and never race, but they'll ride 30-40 miles in a two to three hour ride several evenings a week. And they'll ride a 100 miles on a Sunday morning. Other friends - keen amateurs, might rack up a lot more.

But I too know school kids who won't ride more than a few miles

Hope I didn't offend you with my remark. At first glance 1000 per year seemed very low when compared to my immediate colleagues.
an acquaintances.

no offense taken, but I live in boston lincolnshire, which has some of the slowest cyclists in the country. Even the club 25m time trial doesn't usually rack up better than 1h 20m for most of the entrants, and the sunday ride is only 25m as won't start till 9+ and have to be back for 12:30 for lunch. Strange. Having said that, I have in the past cycled from boston on the east coast over to telford, shropshire which is just east of wales, in one continuous trip.
I also used to cycle to work (4 nights a week) 16 miles away, put in a twelve hour shift, and cycle back, and still have time to sleep.
My usual weekly distance before my balance went was about 80 miles, but that varied by +/- 30 most weeks.