RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Components


Archive Home >> Components(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 )


dura-ace(23 posts)

dura-acefabe
Sep 22, 2001 7:33 PM
I just bought a cannondale 3000si, dura-ace .
I was not able to climb a long steep climb that I used to do with my MTB.
I was wondering what would be the possibility ti change either the small chainring (dura-ace is 39 T)or a bigger rear 9th speed (dura -ace is 23)
Thanks
re: dura-aceBirddog
Sep 22, 2001 8:10 PM
Try a 12/27 cassette.
re: dura-aceRobert
Sep 23, 2001 1:32 AM
You can get Dura Ace clusters that go to 25 and 27. The best thing to do, though, is keep working at it. Unless it's a verticle wall, you should be able to eventually build up the strength to conquer itl. I have been able to climb >10% grades in a 42-21 for over 17 years, just did it today riding through the hills. Mountain bikes have such tiny little gears that they make climbing hard stuff too easy. While you do need those little gears in loose dirt, you don't on a real road (unless you arn't really interested in getting stonger and just ride for fun).
re: dura-acefabe
Sep 23, 2001 4:22 PM
Robert,
Keep working at it , keep working at it...
It s too steep, even standing up on the pedal, my polar goes 180...182...184.
I am far to be a pro of course, but man...I am not that bad
Well that s the reason I decided to buy a road bike after all
Thanks
Fabe
re: dura-acedavet
Sep 23, 2001 10:10 AM
Fabe: I too have a Dura Ace bike and couldn't climb some of the steeper hills I encountered on the longer rides (50-100 mile) that I like to do. While I realize that some people espouse the 'get stronger so you can climb' aspect of riding, at my age (59) that's difficult. What I did, and it works perfectly, is install a Shimano LX mtb rear der and a Shimano mtb cassette. The cassettes come in 11-32 & 12-34, one of which should be perfect for you. You should have a new chain too, or you can add links to get the correct length. With the above set-up you can have the versatility of a triple without the cost.
re: dura-acefabe
Sep 23, 2001 4:31 PM
Davet,
No offense, I am 29....and still am not able to climb that road.
BTW, it s a 2800 feet altitude difference climb, but I guess, the steepest in the Santa Monica mountains...and for me, poor belgian rider living now in LA, that is a Huuuuuge mountain.

Thanks
Fabe
And here I thought...Atombomber
Sep 23, 2001 4:30 PM
Dura Ace was for the elite level racers. Now they come out with a triple? My gawd, the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
It's another case . . .jaques
Sep 24, 2001 2:27 AM
of financial resources vastly exceeding athletic capability, coupled with the erroneous assumption that pro equipment confers pro speed and strength.
It's another case . . .davet
Sep 24, 2001 7:53 AM
Jaques: Your elitest answer to these posts really rubs me the wrong way. What I perceive you saying is that because someone isn't the best at what he is trying to do, that he shouldn't have the equipment that might help him be the best he can be. I'm 59 and intelligent enough to understand that Dura Ace equipment on my bike isn't going to give me the legs of a 20-year old. I bought my very first bike last year and got so turned on to biking that I now have a top drawer bike with Dura Ace. I chose my equipment not because I'm a poseur or a wanna-be, I chose it because I wanted the best I could afford that would get the job done. I have been turned on to long distance rides and have done four centuries this year, two of them back-to-back. I train hard, try hard and still need any help I can get. The fact that my "financial resources vastly exceeding athletic cabability" do NOT equate to "the erroneous assumption that pro equipment confers speed and strength". What you are saying is that I should be relagated to low-level equipment until somehow I prove myself worthy of having better. To me that sentiment denigrates the spirit of the sport, and diminishes the value of legitimate questions being asked on cycling message boards such as this one.
It's another case . . .jacques
Sep 24, 2001 9:06 AM
davet - no offense intended. Fabe's query generated a lot of helpful technical responses. I thought this was good time to relax a bit and pick up on Atombomber's nicely worded chagrin at the prospect of a Dura-Ace triple.

I think I'm not as serious about about all this as you are. The day I look at cycling at a job that needs to get done, I'll stop.
Dura Ace not always "The Best"Chris Zeller
Sep 25, 2001 10:21 AM
Sure the fittness part of this remark was elitest, but I think you missed an important point here. Dura Ace, or Record for that matter isn't always, "the best". Just because it is the top of the product line and the most expensive doesn't mean that it is the best for all applications.

I think that you should have the best equipment for your application that you can afford (even if my wife doesn't agree with this) :-) But you need to realize that the best is more complicated than simply Dura Ace or Record, or even whatever weighs the least.

I think for this application a mix of Dura Ace, (perhapse Ultegra) and XT/XTR would give you the best solution, but may not cost considerably less. I am a moderately fit spinner who almost never climbs out of the saddle, I couldn't do this with a standard Dura Ace setup, and I certainly couldn't tour like this. For me "the best" quality setup is an Ultegra triple with an XT 11-34 cassette and an XTR rear derailer. With this setup I can climb anything loaded or unloaded. When other guys with monster thighs stand out of the saddle in their 39x23 gear, I spin my way to the top with minimal effort in 30x34. I don't mind the big gear jumps, I don't often try to match cadence and I can alwqays find a good gear combo with the triple. This may be overkill for you but I would recommend going with a larger cassette in the rear, either 27 cog ultegra or a full long cage XTR with a 11x32 or 11x34 cassette. I hardly think you will notice the ~60 gram diffence--but you will notice the extra power on the hills.
It's another case . . .Leisure
Sep 26, 2001 1:50 AM
Davet, conservatively speaking, I am a good rider. And elitist attitudes bug me just as much as they bug you. I feel that riders in general need to mellow out and ride because they enjoy it, as opposed to having something to prove or more sadly, to need to put someone else down to bolster false self-esteem. Just as you say it "denigrates the spirit of the sport", I would guess this particular issue costs us more potential riders than anything else, and most certainly makes riding less enjoyable for all, even among those who are "winning" insofar as they define it. It's ironic the many ways in which we make ourselves miserable. It was nice that the posts following yours were more responsible.
I think Jacque was correct in stating that riders need to lighten up; this is true but it needs to happen inside, not just on our exterior. In my own little world, a truly lightened-up rider generally doesn't make remarks that are cynical or insulting to another because the remark itself isn't relevant enough to occur to rider in the first place. His sense of personal security and validation does not depend on how he or his class of riders, his equipment, or the associated image of it compares to that of others. His esteem is not in question, he need not think about it and therefore it does not enter the conversation in the ugly ways we tend to see. (The counter-example is of a person that does question himself, but actively keeps it to himself until a moment of "relaxed defensiveness". I don't mean to focus on the counter example or accuse anyone of it in any way, just use it to help more tightly define what I mean in the first place when I say "truly lightened-up".) At the same time, we all need to be less defensive i.e.-not let errant comments jerk at our own insecurities. But I should stop, because this psychobabble is giving me a headache.
If you're still reading this despite my long-winded dissertation on psychoanalytic trivia, I might mention something more in line with the original topic of conversation (which, I notice, is ironically relevant to the side-discussion). Maybe Fabe doesn't need to look to equipment for the answer after all. Some of the things we get away with (or don't notice) on mountainbikes become more pronounced deficiencies on road bikes, such as highly non-linear pedalling or energy-wasting body motions. Try smoothing-out your form, and actively slow down your pedalling. This may mean uncomfortably slow pedalling. When I was first riding I was in miserable shape; I struggled for months until realizing that when I was struggling, I could slow my cadence (sometimes to the point of seeming counter-productive) and recover my breath even though I was still pedaling. About the same time I figured this out I started to see phenomenal gains in my cardio. Sure, most of us have read it before, and it's obvious when we go from running to walking, but I think to apply it on two wheels you have to actively force yourself to do it before you fully realize how big a difference it makes. Years later it still feels remarkable to me when I do it on a road or trail. As a political aside this is one more reason that I think we should all learn to relax a bit; I think a lot of riders get so used to riding at 95% no matter what that it never occurs to them what might happen if they went at say, 40%. I could go through a lot of metabolic justification on the matter, but it's simpler to just say that fewer muscle strokes per minute equates to reduced oxygen consumption. In fact, if you understand the last part of that last sentence you don't need to remember the rest of this ridiculously verbose and overly-analytical post. I didn't intend to subject you to it when I started it, sorry.
It's another case . . .davet
Sep 26, 2001 9:01 PM
Leisure: Thanks to bringing a little perspective. Maybe, because of my age and relative newness to the sport, I don't always consider the 'effort' part of the equation as much as I should as opposed to spending my way out of the problem. However I have found that there is only so much a mis-used 59-year old body can do. I have become much more fit in the last year, better than I have ever been in my life! But sometimes those damned hills get the better of me. So, because of the limitations of the body, I buy the equipment that will allow me to ride where and how I want.
I then resent people implying, in my perception, that I'm not good enough to do it with what I have and therefore I shouldn't have the equipment. I'm strictly a recreational rider that became very turned on to cycling and have become a very strong advocate for two wheels. I belong to bicycle clubs and several advocacy groups and might be a little sensitive to the "Dura Ace issue". Thanks for your insight.
It's another case . . .Leisure
Sep 27, 2001 12:08 AM
I'm in healthcare, so I've seen plenty of people trying to function under similar physical constraints. It's pretty cool that you go at it regardless.
I actually would like whatever is said on these discussion sites to be more of a more beneficial nature than what it sometimes is. Call me blindly idealistic. Like I said I don't approve of statements with a lot of demeaning implications; but at the same time we all make them, usually without even realizing it. It goes to show there's really no end to personal growth. But the attitudes that put people down for what they can't reasonably accomplish (and therefore can't control) is something we can do without. IMHO, your feelings were very justified, and you expressed them very responsibly. Kudos to you, man; not everyone learns this. Happy trails!
Life is too short to ride cheap bikes.grzy
Sep 28, 2001 11:12 AM
If you can tell the difference and appreciate anything done well and can afford it then why not? We're not talking about using it for suburban grocery shopping! A nice bike is a pretty cheap and healthy "luxury" when one considers the alternatives that the rest of the population goes for (cars, houses, vacations, blow). If it gets you to ride more often or longer then it's worth it to some degree - it's not like you're tracking the Rate of Return on your "investment." Begrudging someone else for what they have or how they spend their money is pretty shallow.

The best things in life aren't things.
Life is too short to ride cheap bikes.davet
Sep 28, 2001 12:54 PM
Well said! Thanks.
It's another case . . .johnjohn
Oct 1, 2001 9:30 PM
Well said and great advice!!!!
It's another case . . .fabe
Sep 24, 2001 7:54 AM
I understand your frustration....so either start to win prize money....or change your job....or why don t you try the climb what I am talking about.
It's another case . . .jacques
Sep 24, 2001 11:21 AM
Ha ha, no frustration here, but I could certainly use a better job. I'd love to take a shot at climbing your mountain - do you know the average grade?

Where in Belgium are you from? I'm from the Rhine valley and train with my friend from Luxembourg. Our hero is Charly Gaul, naturellement.

Cheers,

J
re: dura-acepmf1
Sep 24, 2001 4:53 AM
A 12x27 cassette is worth getting. A 12x23 is pretty small for hill climbing. The Ultegra one (works with DA) is much cheaper and lasts longer, but weighs more.

You also might want to consider a 38 tooth small ring. I got one from Excel for $18 made by Sugino (Shimano doesn't make one). I use it on real hilly rides and tours. It works well. Every little bit helps.

Its no wonder you have trouble climbing up that hill. A mountain bike has vastly different gearing than a road bike.
re: dura-acefabe
Sep 24, 2001 7:46 AM
Thanks for your advice
re: dura-acepmf1
Sep 25, 2001 4:16 AM
Hopefully, its worth more than you paid for it.
re: dura-acemartijn
Sep 28, 2001 12:57 AM
Specialites TA (France) makes a 38 chainring also, which is probably lighter and more durable then one from Sugino.

bye, Martijn