I am wanting to do my 1st century in about 11 weeks, The Denver Century Ride if anyone else is going.
I would appreciate any tips to help me out, I know for a fact I will struggle with the climbing.
Also the most I have ever ridden before was 75 miles with about 4000ft of climbing. That was last summer and I think the last 10-15 miles were really rough. I stopped at gas stations to get grub. This will be 103 miles with about 6000+ft and probably some sort of support station every 25 miles or so.
How can I prepare and what are some things I should bring to help my endurance? I think I have heard of energy pastes or liquids you can drink, normally I just have a 5 hour energy and water with an apple or banana or some jerky when I go on longer rides. I would like to finish strong on this ride.
Should I switch my gearing from 53-39 to 50-34 to help me with the hills?
I plan to pick up my riding for the weeks leading up to it with 20+miles 3-4 times a week after work and 50-80's on the weekends and a short recovery ride on sundays. I will ramp up to this in the next few weeks and then back off around week 8-9, pick back up for week 10 and then rest with 10 mile rides the week before.
Any other tips are accepted, so yeah I'm a noob.
Why do people ride a 53-39 in the first place?
Do you spin out with your 50-11 gearing?
>>939855
>Why do people ride a 53-39 in the first place?
Because 13-25 is a tighter grouping than 11-23. Because there is insufficient overlap on a compact chainset, leading to too many front shifts in some terrain. Because 39t gives you more usable cassette range in most normal terrain, where many gears would be too light to use on a compact.
On the high end 50→5[3,2] is only a 5% increase in gearing, so that's quite obviously not the reason, anon.
You'll note that the new groupsets are gravitating away from 50/34 in favour of 50/36, or even 53/42. Compact everywhere for everyone was just a trend phase.
>>939858
>Because 13-25 is a tighter grouping than 11-23.
Enough reason alone. Altho 53-13 is lower then 50-11
>Because there is insufficient overlap on a compact chainset, leading to too many front shifts in some terrain.
Then you have your drivetrain set up incorrectly. More specifically, your small ring is too big.
>Because 39t gives you more usable cassette range in most normal terrain, where many gears would be too light to use on a compact.
By whose standard? If you use your small for more then 5% of your riding, or for anything else then climbing, then you failed at using a bike.
>>939860
>Then you have your drivetrain set up incorrectly. More specifically, your small ring is too big.
Exactly the point, durr. Compact means the small chainring is too small for most people. -.-
For my endurance rides I start run out of energy after a little more than two hours. Which means I have to eat something and give it time to digest before running out of energy. It takes about 45 minutes for anything I eat to fully kick in, so I usually start eating 1.5 hours in and then every hour after that.
It would be good to do a number of practice rides of at least 3 hours to get used to refueling. If you wait until you start running out of energy, you have about 45 minutes of misery to look forward to (legs feel like lead, no energy, sore everything), but you can work past that. Its not the worst thing to experience that a few times to motivate yourself to not be lax about nutrition.
A heart rate monitor is useful for pacing yourself. Find a heart rate you can sustain for hours and don't be a slave to your speedometer.
Don't take rest days just before the event. Take them several days before and give yourself a couple days before the event to do some easy rides. I'm always stiff with a higher heart rate coming off a break, and it takes a few days to get back into my pace.
>>939860
>>Because there is insufficient overlap on a compact chainset, leading to too many front shifts in some terrain.
>Then you have your drivetrain set up incorrectly. More specifically, your small ring is too big.
No. Big small chainring means _more_ overlap, meaning _less_ forced front shifts when you're straddling the middleground between the chainrings.
You have it completely backwards.
>>939863
No.
"too small" is a relative term. I use 11-21 cassette. 34 is plenty of big for that.
If you change front more then a handful of times then you have usable gears between the ranges of the chainrings. Either you are compensating for too tight cassette or badly chosen ring sizes.
Big ring, whatever size, is to be used for majority of riding. It has whole cassette to use and it should be used as such.
Small ring, whatever size, is to be used in difficult terrain or during climbing, nowhere else.
A rule of thumb - if you switch front more then a single digit amount of times per hour, there may be an issue with your gearing.
I did 115mi with 12000ft I think. I ran out of 4.5liter water after about 90 miles and 10000ft. I stopped and refilled and ate a hotdog (I think the salt in it really helped). It was difficult to get going again but felt much better 15 mins later.
I started with 3.5 liters of water, a liter of green tea, these jammin bars, and those orange pro bars.
So maybe my advice is to have 4 liters of water available, but also electrolytes like an emergent-C packet or salt if your food does't have it.
>>939874
>usable gears between the ranges of the chainrings
Is that your way of saying overlap?
>Either you are compensating for too tight cassette or badly chosen ring sizes.
Exactly. The way to use a tight cassette and not be forced into excessive front shifting is to use appropriate chainrings. Meaning as large an overlap as possible while still giving you as low a bottom gear as you need.
That's almost never a 50/34 setup unless you're doing categorized climbs. And how many people do that?
52/39 is plenty for the climbing the vast majority of cyclists ever do.
triple chainring masterrce
>>939877
>Is that your way of saying overlap?
You can say so.
>Exactly. The way to use a tight cassette and not be forced into excessive front shifting is to use appropriate chainrings. Meaning as large an overlap as possible while still giving you as low a bottom gear as you need.
Overlap is irrelevant - it is coincidental when selecting the big/small/cassette combo.
Of the two canonical sizes, the 50-34 is a mountain crank, coupled to a appropiate cassette it makes you switch front only on valleys/peaks. 53-39 is more of a flatish land gearing. The flatter it gets the more people could just ride 1x11.
>52/39 is plenty for the climbing the vast majority of cyclists ever do.
Arbiter of truth, tell me more.
Anyhow. I get what you are saying, but you are getting at it from the wrong end. If your prerogative is to use as tight of a cassette as possible ( go wild, use corn-knob one ;) ) the to compensate for the loss of low-end you need to choose appropiately bigger small ring.
If that small ring is fine for your climbing, all is OK. But still, overlap is coincidental.
However, we have 11 speed cassettes these days. 11-21 was a meme at 9 speed, on 11 it is a joke. Most popular "road" cassettes these days are 11-28 and 11-32. That is precisely because at 11 speed you can get away with using large spread.
All this talk about gears and shit is cool. But for real, just take a weekend and do two 80 milers back to back. One on Saturday and one on Sunday, you can do it, be tough. Don't take days off the bike, do 30-60 mins very easy cruising. If you do that then you'll be ready smash your century the weekend after.
>>939851
>with an apple or banana or some jerky when I go on longer rides
Don't bring that stuff. Bring energy gels and/or energy bars. Much better.
And LOTS of water.
>Should I switch my gearing from 53-39 to 50-34 to help me with the hills?
On a hilly ride yeah 50-34 will generally be better
Pace yourself, do some 50-80 mile rides between now and then.
100 miles is pretty easy if you're in decently good shape as long as you work up to it and pace yourself.
>>939855
53-59 is absolutely better than 50-34 on flat terrain (unless you're a casual -- and I don't mean that in a condescending way, nothing wrong with casuals).
>>939886
>53-59
*53-39
>>939885
my problem is trying to work the next day, I work construction and I am up and down ladders and stairs all day. I have some knee issues because of this and also some from atg squats wreaking my knees a bit... I'm getting a bit older and at 35 now my body doesnt recover like it did when I was 25ish. I will see if I can work up to 80 miles twice in a weekend...
on the plus side I just printed my ticket and it looks like they are allowing us bout 9.5 hours so even if I crawl along I should make it... I hit 50 last weekend with only 2 short stops and 3:30 for an overall time and 3:10 for ride time so I should make 7-8 hours if I was to force myself tomorrow.
>>939892
Well. I am 36 now, and I found out that I am no longer 22 as well. I think that you should just do some ego swallowing and get a 11-3x cassette along with medium/long cage mech for that event.
Precise gear choice becomes less relevant if you can't spin it, and higher cadence tends to be more friendly on the legs.
Also - if you can, do as much bike commuting as you can. It builds the base for longer rides.
And don't be too scared. I found out that your ass will be more of an issue then legs. I did 150 miler and it was really no different then a 50 mile ride. Just longer, with the exception of my behind hurting.
>>939897
yeah, I cant bike commute, orking construction and carrying 3-400 lbs of tools everywhere as well as all the safety gear and other bs like paper work wont let me do that... would be nice though the current job site is only 25 miles away, but ho knows if I will have to go run a service call somewhere and pack up and leave... strange how you might start your day really close to home and then end up with an 80 mile commute home.
>>939897
op again, I just counted up my cassette, its a 13-27 10 speed and running 53-39 up front... It all came with the bike I have only been riding road bikes for 2 years.. if I were to bump to a 13-29 that would ease the hills up just a little bit for me without sacrificing too much of the flats wouldnt it. And I might not even have to change the chain length or mess with readjusting everything.. (dont tell anyone but I would probably jut let the lbs do it for me because I am lazy)
>>939883
>the to compensate for the loss of low-end you need to choose appropiately bigger small ring.
That doesn't even make sense. A larger small ring gives you a HIGHER lowest gear.
>But still, overlap is coincidental.
No, it's not. The overlap defines the change in terrain you can accommodate before you have front shift. If you have a four gear overlap instead of three, you can downshift one more gear on the big ring before you're forced to shift to the small ring. And conversely, if you've reached a temporary plateu in the climb you can upshift one more gear while still remaining on the small ring.
This is critical if you cycle through varied terrain with lots of small, steep hills and not just the hypothetical one vertical wall.
>11-21 was a meme at 9 speed, on 11 it is a joke.
It's impossible to build such a cassette. You literaly have no idea what you're talking about.
>>939902
Your derailleur might not accept a 29, even if you could find one. 27/28 is often the max - though SRAM WiFli can go to 32.
You might be able to hack it with an extra long B-screw.
>>939902
13-27 suggests campy, so you are kind of in a hot water here, as campy does not offer, afair, anything more then 13-29. That is too small difference really. It is an edge, but not much.
Next sensible step is 32 cog.
If you are on shimano, then go full 11-36. This will give you plenty of range to go down and plenty of range to go up.
>>939908
Then you could get a Sora ninespeed derailleur and use an 11-32 cassette, but that will suck balls on the flats. Your best option if you're worried about the steepest climbs is probably a compact chainset - but that's quite a bit more money than a cassette.
39/27 is already a very low gear. It's about 13km/h at a cadence of 70.
>>939904
>That doesn't even make sense. A larger small ring gives you a HIGHER lowest gear.
By choosing a tight cassette (say 11-23) you limit your lower range on the BIG ring, so to compensate and keep some overlap (because you need some) then you need to make your SMALL ring bigger.
>The overlap defines the change in terrain you can accommodate before you have front shift.
No. By this logic a perfect overlap of 100% would be preferred. In such case you never need to shift.
A _chainring_ is a commitment to a certain range. A cassette is a wiggle room you have on that range.
You need some overlap for the flexibility of commitment. Essentially you need to shift if you forsee usage of range available on the other ring. If there is too little overlap, this will happen more often. If there is too much overlap, then you are wasting range.
>It's impossible to build such a cassette.
11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21
Seems to be 11 of them.
>>939910
what about doing something like a 52-36 up front? would the derailleur allow for that much of a change? or am I just kind of stuck with what I got unless I spend a bunch of cash on a bike that probably isnt orth putting money into?
>>939908
10 or 11 speed. I think 10, but make sure. So you are golden.
get: any shimano 9 speed mtb deraileur. Non-shadow are best for this purpose ( they offer lightest shifting ).
get: any 10 speed 11-36 cassette
goto LBS, get things changed. 10 speed MTB cassettes have fairly usable middle range, no more then 2 tooth differences from 11 to 21.
In mountain riding precise cadence is not that crucial. You either bomb down at mach2, or slog up at lower gears. So for your needs such cheap change will work perfectly. Especially if you don't have the conditioning to grind at higher gears.
>>939912
and also, It looks like I could just bolt on a much smaller sprocket up front and still have space. Is a 53-36 setup sacrilege?
>>939912
Cassettes and mechs are cheaper then chainsets - if your rings are 53/39, then you most likely ride 130mm bcd - so no smaller rings are possible, thus new chainset time.
Just a hint.
For a single event it would be cheaper to just change what is on the ass end.
>>939911
>If there is too little overlap, this will happen more often.
Finaly you see it. Why did you start with a 'no'?
>If there is too much overlap, then you are wasting range.
That's assuming you can make other use of it. A 25t cassette on a compact equals about a 32/34t(!) cassette on standard. Anyone suggesting that range would be laughed out the door.
That's been the entire premise - compact sacrifices overlap to gain range that no normal cyclist ever needs. It's a climbing specialty. And you ask why anyone would ever use anything but a compact?
>>939915
ok, yeah 130, I think I am just boned and gonna have to hit the hills kinda hard for the next few weeks to get better at them. Its one of the rare times I am jealous of the smaller guys out there.
>>939912
If you buy a compact you save it for the next time you go climbing. Doesn't have to be with the same bike. You can't think in terms of what the bike 'is worth,' because it's not the bike going cycling. You are. What's your trip worth?
But like I said, a cassette and chain is a third/fourth of the money for a chainset.
>>939918
alright I am still gonna stick with what I have for now and take all this into consideration for some time in the future. hank you for your time and patience
>>939916
Top - 50/34 with 11-25, bottom - 53-39 with 11-28. Equivalent range.
> Finaly you see it. Why did you start with a 'no'?
Because you get 50% range overlap in compact chainset, and too much overlap either wastes range or wastes gear selection precision.
So basically: you get range, precision or "overlap" - choose two.
>That's assuming you can make other use of it.
Considering the market is moving towards 11-28 and 11-32. I guess that the answer is "yes" more often then not.
>That's been the entire premise - compact sacrifices overlap to gain range that no normal cyclist ever needs.
Do you need more then 50% overlap? Also, arbiter of truth, tell me more.
>It's a climbing specialty. And you ask why anyone would ever use anything but a compact?
No. I ask, why would anyone present 53-39 as the best, ever, always.
>>939926
Correction to image - I dun goofd with cog progression. And the cassettes are 11-25 for compact and 12-28 for regular
>>939926
>Considering the market is moving towards 11-28 and 11-32. I guess that the answer is "yes" more often then not.
No. That coincides with the move away from 50/34 to 52/36 as the standard option, and even offering 52/42. The industry is moving to move overlap mainly, not more range. That's just, as you say, incidental.
See also 1x roadbikes. That's exactly what you tried to parody:
>By this logic a perfect overlap of 100% would be preferred. In such case you never need to shift.
Did you buy a familypack of whitespace somewhere?
>>939851
Hey, I might do that ride too. Another vote here for low gears in the hills. Also, have you any interest in the mt. evans hill climb? I think it's the next weekend.
>>939851
>I am wanting to do my 1st century in about 11 weeks
>Also the most I have ever ridden before was 75 miles with about 4000ft of climbing. That was last summer
If you can't do at least that right now without dying, then you may not be ready even in 11 weeks for a full 100 miler.
>11 weeks
All you can do is ride progressively more miles every week for the next 10 weeks (not ELEVEN weeks, TEN weeks) with 1 day out of 5 or 6 (not 7: you need at least one day off the bike per week) longer than all the rest, and that day progressively longer each week, too. Since you're not doing anything like Tempo or Threshold work, just basic endurance, you don't necessarily need to take 'recovery' weeks; take them every 3rd or 4th week if you feel the need. On the week-of the century ride reduce your overall training volume to slightly below what Week 1 was like, and the day before the century ride, you stay off the bike completely.
Diet: Eat at maintenance or slightly above. Cut calories at your own risk; it'll just limit your energy and recovery. Take in 100 to 200 calories per hour on the bike, but only for rides that are MORE THAN 1.5 hours.
During the century itself, 100 to 200 calories per hour every hour.
In all cases 20 to 24 ounces of water per hour, preferably with electrolytes added.
Get lots of sleep (7-9 hours a night). No drinking alcohol. No excessive caffeine usage.
If you're going to the gym, no heavy leg exercises while you're training for this. Focus on core (meaning: abdominals, back) with some upper body (mainly shoulders, and some triceps).
>>939851
>Should I switch my gearing from 53-39 to 50-34 to help me with the hills?
YES
I would run a compact crank for the hills, high cadence is a more efficient way to roll.
Also, bring a half dozen or more of those little gels with you, you will need raw sugar to keep your glycogen stores up. Lots of water also.
If you ever did a 75 and you ride 20+ mile rides often, you will do great on a century.
DO NOT OVER TRAIN the week of the century.
and also, bring butt cream, pic related, bring a few.
>>939935
I do have an interest in it but I know my body and legs probably cant do it without stopping every few miles. I am in decent shape but since I focus on lifting most of the year I am a little big to be a good climber.
>>939943
I thought the same thing until I threw a 32t rear cassette on my bike, now I just sit and spin, not trying to win any races or anything. Have you done lookout or deer creek yet? They're good if you want to get into climbing.
>>939944
I did lookout today for the 1st time in like 4-5 months, I climb faster than most people up there, rarely ever get passed, but I always have to stop at the little turn off for a few minutes to recover. My fun ride is thornton up to lookout then to the top of genesse mt. and back. Thats about 65-70 miles. Today, and often other times, I started in wheatridge knowning I was out of cycling shape.
>>939851
>Denver Century Ride
That climb at 27mi looks like fun.
Since it's a supported ride, it'll have frequent stops with food and water, and some kind of electrolyte powder, so you really don't need to take anything. Although given the bullshit level of support I've seen on some "supported" centuries, I always take my own flat repair stuff.
Energy pastes/liquids are expensive bullshit. For your own longer rides, make your own food bars with a recipe that balances calories, carbs, fats, and sugars. Like this: http://simmerandboil.cookinglight.com/2015/03/19/homemade-energy-bar-for-cyclists/
And spike your water with a little orange juice for potassium and magnesium.
For training, mix in days of HILL REPZ with the longer rides.
As for gearing, I dunno. I ride 53/39 11-25 and get on fine on long climbs, and even when hitting 14% grades, if only for a short while. There are a couple of climbs around here where I really wish I had a 27 or 29 in the back or a mid-compact chainset, but I dunno if I'd enjoy them as much if I didn't have to really grind them out from time to time.
>>939851
Join the mid-compact master race.
>>939932
>That coincides with the move away from 50/34 to 52/36 as the standard option, and even offering 52/42.
52/36 has the sameish overlap as 50/34.
52/42 was always offered for people who wanted it.
1x road relies on wide range 11-32 or even 11-36 cassettes. Only in severe flat lands you can get away with 1x and 11-25 cassette.
Wtf is your point?
>>939932
Show me where 52/42 is anywhere near standard and it isn't the 80's.
>>939983
I don't understand the point of mid-compact. Do you just ride mostly in 36?
>>940006
With 11sp cassettes, you get a very versatile range without having to have many or any 3t+ jumps in your cluster. I think it's best paired with Campy 11-27 (11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27) or Shimano 11-28 (11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28).
It would be neat to see OEM 11sp cassettes that start at 13t or 14t, so you could have something like 13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27-29-32 with a mid-compact, although I guess it still wouldn't have a low enough gear for people who like fully-loaded touring on vertical surfaces.
>>940010
You didn't answer the question at all. In fact you post had nothing to do with mid-compacts.
>It would be neat to see OEM 11sp cassettes that start at 13t or 14t, so you could have something like 13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-27-29-32 with a mid-compact, although I guess it still wouldn't have a low enough gear for people who like fully-loaded touring on vertical surfaces.
That's stupid. 50/34 with 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25-28-32 would have have more range, a range of 6 1t cogs instead of 4 and more logical spacing. There is nothing inherently wrong with 3t jumps as long as they happen on the big end of the cassette.
You've just shown why mid compacts are awful.
op here and after all this gear talk I started to look into this a little more and maybe confused a bit.
I have a 105 rd-5701 rear derailleur, all the specs I have seen says it will take a cassette that takes up to 30t.
the info I am going off of.
http://vid.artscyclery.com/pdf/Shimano%20105%205700%20Rear%20Derailleur%20Installation%20Manual.pdf
So is which info is correct? the stuff I got from anon or what I got from the spec sheet? I can provide pictures if necessary.
And also since I am here which energy gels do you guys recommend?
> be me
> plan a 50km ride
> get lost
> accidentally century
>>939941
> pulls down pants on a sprint and squeeze some butt cream onto my ass
you've already done 75, whats so hard about another 25?
>>939916
>normal cyclist ever needs
What's a normal cyclist? Where I live the climbs just outside of suburbia are the most popular places to ride.
Compact chainset with a 28 to 32 big cog on the cassette is perfect for most of the terrain. . There are some popular climbs so steep that people still end up grinding with that gearing. Although the steepest climbs are relatively short so it's not worth putting a 36t cassette on but some people have bothered to do it.
>>942081
The point of this thread was to help me finish strong instead of feeling completely destroyed and still having a bunch of miles to go..
>>939910
>39/27 is already a very low gear. It's about 13km/h at a cadence of 70.
Maybe compared to old shit but with 34/36 compacts and 32+ wide range cassettes it's distinctly average, if not high. Most road bikes I see these days come with a semi-compact 52/36.
That said 13 km/h at 70 rpm means you're starting to grind on 7-8% slopes for an average 70kg rider putting out 250 W. I can attest to this with a 53/39 11-28 bike grades of 10% get even harder than they should because it's such a grind.
