Skimmed the replies and didn’t see this mentioned but wider tires, if your frame accepts them, would help marginally. It’s a bit easier to balance at very low speeds. Doesn’t affect the underlying physics as people have covered but it’d make riding at slow speeds a bit easier.
Here is why I’ve found “high momentum” training to be a great way to get ready for long climbs. Adding in some TR erg mode workouts to explain my reasoning on why I prefer training in sim mode using Zwift/RGT/etc.
Description
Grade
Torque / Pedal Force
Cadence
Power
Speed
Gearing
TR Galena SS 2nd set
Erg
22Nm
94rpm
221W
“22.3mph”
big ring
TR Mills 70-sec best
Erg
29Nm
95rpm
285W
“26.1mph”
big ring
Mosquito Ridge Climb
6%
30Nm
72rpm
226W
7mph
?34x34
Flat 1x60 training ride
0%
33Nm
69rpm
238W
20.7mph
50x???
Zwift London Climb
sim 4.7%
35Nm
83rpm
307W
11.9mph
???
Mt Fig Climb3
8%
34Nm
66rpm
221W
5.5mph
34x34
Prefumo Canyon Climb
9.5%
37Nm
69rpm
255W
5.5mph
35x33
See Canyon Climb
10.2%
39Nm
67rpm
273W
4.9mph
35x33
2022 32-min field test
0%
34Nm
79rpm
276W
21.2mph
mostly 48x13
Its all about that 3rd column - Torque / Pedal Force - and developing the muscular endurance to handle higher pedaling forces.
Following TR ‘keep cadence up’ on sweet spot intervals in Erg (on Kickr) results in about 16-22Nm of force, which is a little more than half the force of these higher % climbs.
Wow, that was useful and eye-opening. I decided to run the numbers myself to learn how, and to recheck my data. ridewithgps.com says these two hills are an average of 6% with some steeper bits, and 85% of my brand-new FTP is 150W, and then I went to triple-check my gearing.
And that was eye-opening too, though not in a good way.
It turns out my memory was wrong – and in the wrong direction to boot! Per my notes from when I bought the bike, I actually have 48/35 chainrings and a SRAM Red AXS 10-33 cassette. That’s a Miami bike and rider for you!
SRAM’s website says the Red cassette (XG-1290) only goes to 10-33, what I have. I can “downgrade” to Force (XG-1270) which is no big deal which gets me 10-36, but that $200 only adds 5 rpm to my cadence (56 rpm). Doesn’t seem worth it.
Switching to the 48/31 chainrings I thought I had would yield 4.3 mph @ 58 rpm, which isn’t much better but is probably cheaper. I’ll have to look into all this a little further as I work to improve my own performance… maybe there is a worthwhile hardware change to be made after all. Will see.
My bike came with 48/35 Rival crank and I’m now running a 46/33 Red crank and 10-33 Red cassette. Have a 10-36 cassette in case I do a really big climbing day.
My pedaling mechanics on climbs is virtually the same as riding flat roads - its part of why I’m able to do Erg like efforts outside. Always be powering around the circle.
My comment above about 90 rpm being too high is that riding at that cadence will put you well above FTP and you’ll blow up.
Slow your cadence down and see how it goes. Yes, lower cadence puts more stress on joints, but you’ll be riding at 150W, which isn’t that high a power - hence the torque you’ll be putting out may feel fine.
I live in Colorado. A friend who doesn’t cycle visited, and we went out for a ride on the fat bikes in the snow. He was riding too fast up the climbs and had to stop very frequently. I asked why he was riding so fast, and said he needed to ride that speed to balance. If he was able to ride slower, he likely could have made it up the climbs with out needing to rest.
And to add, yes, also worth changing your gearing through either of the options you indicate above. You can probably also fit on a bigger cassette, and use something like the wolf tooth road link to make it work.
For better or worse, road bikes are built (and geared) with slim, fit people in mind.
Your chainring options are going to be limited if you have a Red AXS power meter… which I am guessing is what you have. Unless I am wrong. The easiest thing would be to use a hanger extension and a 12-speed mountain bike cassette (I am assuming they are compatible).
That said, ~55 rpms at just 150 watts isn’t all that much torque (for someone who weighs 110 kg), so you should be fine as long as you develop the aerobic fitness to sustain the power.
No, I haven’t tried it. Would never have occurred to me, honestly. I started this thread precisely because trying to climb at even 75-80 rpm was asking a ton of power from me, and I was blowing up.
So now I know better. And I’ll do it the right way this Saturday!
I don’t know if they are…the SRAM road chains are the newer “flat top” style which is not used on the MTB stuff. I’ll defer to those more familiar with the MTB specs.
Just want to thank everyone on this post for the reminder to mix in muscle tension intervals. I live where it’s flat, and even my mtb trails are along river banks, so just quick sharp up and down roller coasters. I have a trip to the mountains this summer, and I’ve completely forgotten I need to be focusing on some slow grind work. I did some today and I definitely need to mix it in,
Interesting topic for me as I’ve been working on becoming a better climber for a while now. A couple things that I somehow didn’t hear previously and found helpful a quick recovery spin I just took…
Riding as slow as you can - I always figured I had to suffer when climbing but this alone changed my view. On hills I normally rode 6 or 7mph I cut it down to 4 or 5 which kept me under my FTP for all the climbs I encountered (12% max). Interesting to try it out on some steeper climbs as well. It also seems to distract you mentally and gives you an opportunity to work on those slow bike handling skills.
Dead Man Gear - Always used the biggest cog when things got tough (which were most climbs) but going slower allowed me to have that extra gear that I didn’t need. Again, looking forward to trying this on a steeper climb and see how it works when I do need it. Also will slow me down even more so interested in just how slow I can go (don’t say that often).
One thing I always see conflicting info on is cadence. Going higher does give your legs a bit of a break but again, going the slow route requires a lower cadence and I felt like the legs were fine there too so maybe me using a higher cadence previously for that “break” was just needed because of the high power.
Another thing I noticed, and was on a recent podcast, was focusing on pedaling efficiency. The going slower allowed this as my legs weren’t dead but when I focused on providing power around the whole rotation I picked up a solid 10% watt increase with no real increase in RPE. Might be something to try as well.
+1 on this. Unless the hills are on your route to/from your home, maybe skip the steep hills all together for now or just hit them periodically as a measuring stick. Human nature tells us that the best way to conquer those hills is to go ride the hills all the time and you will eventually be able to keep up with others. While there is some merit to that approach, the faster (and possibly less frustrating) path is to focus on your overall fitness.
As a beginner cyclist, you should see big benefits from any quality aerobic work. Slogging up steep hills periodically is fine if you enjoy it, but I’d recommend burning that energy on more productive structured training sessions or rides. If conquering those hills is your objective, the quickest way to get there almost certainly doesn’t include a bunch of steep hill repeats. There is a reason that TR (or any good coach) would not prescribe workouts to grind out high watts at crazy low cadence right now. While workouts like that do have a place, it’s not the best way to improve quickly as a beginner cyclist. If you focus on your aerobic engine, other things will fall into place. Muscular strength and endurance are real things that should eventually be trained, but your main limitation right now is your aerobic engine (not how hard you can push the pedals).
OK. I have not found a hard answer yet on that, but N/W is not what I see as the core issue. N/W just helps center and retain the chain for 1x setups. Using a MTB Eagle on a non-N/W will work fine for a typical road chainring.
But when using that MTB Eagle chain on a Road AXS chainring, the smaller chain rollers will sink further into and be less supported by the larger valleys of the ring. It will likely “work”, but may lead to premature wear of the ring at the least. I can also envision at least some potential for improper chain release from the teeth of the ring due to the larger valleys/teeth. It may be academic, but there is some difference hiding in there.
From the “official” charts, no 1x Eagle MTB seems to work with the Road 2x chainrings: (page 2)
Interestingly though, it does seem to overlap with the 1x setups. So I am fuzzy on all of this
on my gravel bike with AXS/Force shifters, I can run 2x with road gearing or 1x with Eagle MTB or road gearing. I never run 1x with road gearing because I think 1x w/ road gearing is silly in most situations. It takes less than 10 minutes to swap between the 1x MTB and 2x road.
Just for grins, I tried running 2X with the 10-52 eagle setup in the back. It does run OK in certain gears, but the chain wrap range is just too great and the chain angle doesn’t help either.
So, to answer your question, I don’t think there is any issue with the narrow-wide vs. 2x chainrings, but the 2X and Eagle MTB “super-mullet” gearing combo doesn’t work for other reasons. On a related note, I’ve run an eagle MTB chain on 2X road AXS with no obvious issues, but you can’t run the flat top AXS chain with an Eagle RD.
Yes, the Eagle RD is designed for 1x, but I think the challenge is a chain wrap range/capacity issue, not a clutch issue. The Eagle RD can only handle the wrap difference between a 10 and 52 tooth cog while the front ring doesn’t change. As soon as you add multiple front rings, you are asking the RD to account for wrap differences that are much longer. It would be like accounting for the wrap on a 10/62 rear cassette for a 1x setup. The RD on Eagle is already crazy long to account for all the chain wrap, I don’t think they could increase capacity much more without changing the fundamental design.
This was a game-changer for me too. I did my first group ride with a beginner group last year, and they took the climbs REALLY slow, slow enough to have a conversation and enjoy the scenery, and it was legitimately amazing. Real light bulb moment
Again, only if your bike has the gearing to let you keep your power low while you’re spinning. When my threshold was under 2 W/kg, trying to spin up a climb at 90rpm would have had me well over threshold in my easiest gear (which was 34-34 at the time). You just don’t have as many cadence options at earlier levels of fitness, which often gets lost in discussions about pedaling technique. Thankfully, that’s a temporary problem!
For sure, especially since I tell myself I ride for fun/mental health. I’m interested in trying it on a non-recovery ride. I’m guessing with the extra power I have at the end of the climb (compared to being drained) that any slowing on the climb will mostly be wiped out…especially the ones that don’t immediately turn into a descent.
Good point on the cadence as well…I used to slog up hills in a lower cadence but my old bike doesn’t have the gearing my new one does and I’ve also increased fitness a fair amount so it may be a combination of two…both the gearing and fitness allow me to do 90rpm up a climb.
For low cadence, standing up with help you. But if new to it, doing that for 15-30 minutes likely isn’t viable. However roads are rarely a fixed grade and there will be steeper sections and easier sections. Standing up for a few minutes on a steeper section , then sitting down again once it eases can help avoid straining legs too much.
If you are new to structured training and you keep at it consistently, you are likely to see some nice improvements in your power within a few weeks to few months.
