Gearing for touring

[steck]

I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
trailer. Recently, I used this
setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.

It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
confess to walking some of them.
The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.

In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
Question: is it worthwhile to
put in a smaller ring, say 26T?

With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
gear-inches. The 34 cog would
take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.

My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?

-- Paul

[BCDrums]

On 4/26/10 6:49 PM, steck wrote:
> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> trailer. Recently, I used this
> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
> confess to walking some of them.
> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to
> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> gear-inches. The 34 cog would
> take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> -- Paul

Sorry can't tell: do you have a double or a triple chainring setup?

BC
triplet

[Tim McNamara]

In article
>,
steck > wrote:

> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> trailer. Recently, I used this setup to do a ride of the east coast
> of Tasmania: http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
> confess to walking some of them. The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T,
> and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> gear-inches. The 34 cog would take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring
> would make that 20.6.
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6 gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be
> useless?

Take less stuff.

http://www2.arnes.si/~ikovse/weight.htm

[thirty-six]

On 26 Apr, 23:49, steck > wrote:
> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. *When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> trailer. *Recently, I used this
> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> confess to walking some of them.
> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to
> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> gear-inches. *The 34 cog would
> take that down to 22.2. *A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> -- Paul

The difference doesn't sound great and I know users of 22" gears.
Thinking of it at the other end of gearing, if I was using and
struggling with a 56 x13 then a 52x 13 could (I think should) (sorry,
would have, I dont go near those gears today) make all the
difference. You may want to look at other ways to improve
efficiency. Cheapest, but messy is to grease your chain. Simplest is
a spray grease, best is to warm up the chain in a grease bath. The
other major energy sapper is poor tyres. Get large section supple
tyres. Bouncy saddles do you no favours either. And position,
correct leg extension is most important in maximising energy
utilisation, along with this goes a correctly sized paiir of cranks.
Riders of average or below leg length can be hindered by the
'standard' 170mm cranks (sometimes even longer being fitted to an
average size machine.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Apr 26, 6:49*pm, steck > wrote:
> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. *When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> trailer. *Recently, I used this
> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> confess to walking some of them.
> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to
> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> gear-inches. *The 34 cog would
> take that down to 22.2. *A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> -- Paul

Hi there.

How many teeth do your middle and outer front chain-rings have? You
may be able to get a lower gear by changing the inner front chain-ring
as long as your total no of teeth difference doesn't exceed the
capacity of your rear mech.

Cheers from Peter

[steck]

On Apr 27, 10:13*am, bcdrums > wrote:
> Sorry can't tell: do you have a double or a triple chainring setup?

The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.

I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. I almost
never use the
highest gears.

-- Paul

[landotter]

On Apr 26, 8:47*pm, Sir Ridesalot > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 6:49*pm, steck > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. *When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> > trailer. *Recently, I used this
> > setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> > It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> > confess to walking some of them.
> > The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> > In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> > Question: is it worthwhile to
> > put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> > With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> > gear-inches. *The 34 cog would
> > take that down to 22.2. *A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> > My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> > easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
> > gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> > -- Paul
>
> Hi there.
>
> How many teeth do your middle and outer front chain-rings have? You
> may be able to get a lower gear by changing the inner front chain-ring
> as long as your total no of teeth difference doesn't exceed the
> capacity of your rear mech.
>
That number doesn't really matter much. Nobody's going to be spinning
a 26-11, unless they're bonked out with heatstroke under the Tasmanian
sun, and at that point, chain sag is the least of ones worries.

[Mike Elliott[_2_]]

steck wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:13 am, bcdrums > wrote:
>> Sorry can't tell: do you have a double or a triple chainring setup?
>
> The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.
>
> I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. I almost
> never use the
> highest gears.

Being one of your lazier cyclists, I feel that the tallest gears are
suitable only for going downhill when gravity provides a nice assist
anyway, and are therefore useless. I spend 95% of the time on the middle
chainring. I confess that on my bikes, all with triples, I don't use the
largest chainring at all. I view it as a support for the middle ring. It
also performs the function of facade, making the bike appear to be owned
by someone who goes fast, since it would be clear to even the most
casual observer that I am a slug if the largest ring was my middle ring.
I could easily switch to a double, if I could find cheap doubles geared
like my present middle + inner, and inexpensive clicky thumbshifters
with two positions on the left and eight on the right.

[realizing that he's contributed nothing of interest or utility to the
thread he decides that he'd best be moving on now]

--
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel"
Bend, Oregon

[Dave Lehnen[_2_]]

steck wrote:
<snip>
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> -- Paul

20.6" gearing at a moderate 80 rpm will give you 4.9 mph (7.9 kph), a
very fast walk or very slow run. Balancing is still easy at this speed.
It's a low gear, but not useless for a loaded bike on steep hills.

Dave Lehnen

[Chalo]

steck wrote:
>
> The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.
>
> I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. *I almost
> never use the
> highest gears.

Once you've fitted a cassette with a 34t big end, I recommend changing
out only the inner ring for a 24t ring.

That will probably exceed the wrap capacity of your rear derailleur,
the vertical range of your front derailleur, or both. But if you have
the good sense to stay out of the small/small combinations, you'll be
fine.

Shimano now makes a 12-36 9-speed cassette, which would give you a
sightly more useful gear at both ends of the range.

Chalo

[BobT[_3_]]

"steck" > wrote in message
...
>I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> trailer. Recently, I used this
> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
> confess to walking some of them.
> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to
> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> gear-inches. The 34 cog would
> take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> -- Paul

My touring bike has a low gear of 20.8". It is useful to me. Sometimes I
ride it in the mountains loaded with grear. Lower gearing than this would
not be useful to me. When it is so steep or the load is so big or both that
a 20.8" gear is not low enough, I am moving so slowly it is difficult to
keep balanced.

BobT

[thirty-six]

On 27 Apr, 19:49, "BobT" >
wrote:
> "steck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. *When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> > trailer. *Recently, I used this
> > setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
> >http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> > It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> > confess to walking some of them.
> > The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> > In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> > Question: is it worthwhile to
> > put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> > With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> > gear-inches. *The 34 cog would
> > take that down to 22.2. *A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> > My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> > easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
> > gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> > -- Paul
>
> My touring bike has a low gear of 20.8". *It is useful to me. Sometimes I
> ride it in the mountains loaded with grear. *Lower gearing than this would
> not be useful to me. *When it is so steep or the load is so big or both that
> a 20.8" gear is not low enough, I am moving so slowly it is difficult to
> keep balanced.
>
> BobT

How about a tricycle? As long as you are not intending to travel
along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
between the rear wheels. You can go as slow as you like then.

[Joe Tindal]

On Apr 26, 6:49*pm, steck > wrote:
> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. *When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> trailer. *Recently, I used this
> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> confess to walking some of them.
> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to
> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> gear-inches. *The 34 cog would
> take that down to 22.2. *A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> -- Paul

I recommend a 26-36-48 triple with a 9 speed 11-34. I've done
mountains in new england with that gearing and it gets it done.
-Joe

[DennisTheBald]

On Apr 27, 12:56*pm, Chalo > wrote:
> steck wrote:
>
> > The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.
>
> > I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. *I almost
> > never use the
> > highest gears.
>
> Once you've fitted a cassette with a 34t big end, I recommend changing
> out only the inner ring for a 24t ring.
>
> That will probably exceed the wrap capacity of your rear derailleur,
> the vertical range of your front derailleur, or both. *But if you have
> the good sense to stay out of the small/small combinations, you'll be
> fine.
>
> Shimano now makes a 12-36 9-speed cassette, which would give you a
> sightly more useful gear at both ends of the range.
>
> Chalo

This sounds pretty reasonable.
There isn't any reason to change out the whole crank to get a lower
gear, just dropping down to 26/38/48 sounds viable.
Do you use the 48:11 much with the trailer? - Trying to out run it on
the down hills perhapsedly.
But you're still riding this bike even on days that you're not pulling
the load too?

[N8N]

On Apr 27, 3:31*pm, Joe Tindal > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 6:49*pm, steck > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. *When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> > trailer. *Recently, I used this
> > setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> > It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> > confess to walking some of them.
> > The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> > In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> > Question: is it worthwhile to
> > put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> > With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> > gear-inches. *The 34 cog would
> > take that down to 22.2. *A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> > My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> > easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
> > gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> > -- Paul
>
> I recommend a 26-36-48 triple with a 9 speed 11-34. *I've done
> mountains in new england with that gearing and it gets it done.
> -Joe-

what rear der are you using with that setup? I've thought about doing
the exact same on my bike for more utility but a) I barely use the 26
as it is and b) my long cage Ultegra rear der isn't rated for that
setup (although I'm sure it would work OK just as long as I didn't try
to use the top of the cassette in the big ring)

Right now I am running a 12-26? I think? would have to look (I would
have known for sure a year ago when I put it together, it's a SRAM
cassette)

nate

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Mike Elliott > wrote:

> steck wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 10:13 am, bcdrums > wrote:
> >> Sorry can't tell: do you have a double or a triple chainring
> >> setup?
> >
> > The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.
> >
> > I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. I
> > almost never use the highest gears.
>
> Being one of your lazier cyclists, I feel that the tallest gears are
> suitable only for going downhill when gravity provides a nice assist
> anyway, and are therefore useless. I spend 95% of the time on the
> middle chainring. I confess that on my bikes, all with triples, I
> don't use the largest chainring at all.

The bikes I ride most have either a 46 x 34 up front (700C wheels) or a
48 x 34 (26" wheels). On the back are a 12-28 cassette and a 12-27
freewheel, respectively.

Since I stopped racing on 2000, I just have no need for a 53 x 12 or 53
x 11- in fact, I didn't even have a use for them when I did race,
virtually every finish line around here being set up to minimize the
possibilities of an actual sprint happening.

[Tom Sherman °_°[_2_]]

On 4/27/2010 1:58 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
> On 27 Apr, 19:49, >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
>>> trailer. Recently, I used this
>>> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>>
>>> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
>>> confess to walking some of them.
>>> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>>
>>> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
>>> Question: is it worthwhile to
>>> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>>
>>> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
>>> gear-inches. The 34 cog would
>>> take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>>
>>> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
>>> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
>>> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>>
>>> -- Paul
>>
>> My touring bike has a low gear of 20.8". It is useful to me. Sometimes I
>> ride it in the mountains loaded with grear. Lower gearing than this would
>> not be useful to me. When it is so steep or the load is so big or both that
>> a 20.8" gear is not low enough, I am moving so slowly it is difficult to
>> keep balanced.
>>
>> BobT
>
> How about a tricycle? As long as you are not intending to travel
> along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
> between the rear wheels. You can go as slow as you like then.

Trevor is correct - a trike is excellent for loaded touring (or touring
in general). The main drawback is if you ever stay in a motel and your
room is not on the first floor, the trike is a pain in the ass to get to
your room.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[Ningi[_2_]]

On 27/04/2010 18:56, Chalo wrote:
> steck wrote:
>>
>> The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.
>>
>> I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. I almost
>> never use the
>> highest gears.
>
> Once you've fitted a cassette with a 34t big end, I recommend changing
> out only the inner ring for a 24t ring.
>
> That will probably exceed the wrap capacity of your rear derailleur,
> the vertical range of your front derailleur, or both. But if you have
> the good sense to stay out of the small/small combinations, you'll be
> fine.
>
> Shimano now makes a 12-36 9-speed cassette, which would give you a
> sightly more useful gear at both ends of the range.
>
> Chalo

My first tour, when heavily loaded and not that fit I had a lowest gear
of 22-34. With my wheels & tyres that gives about 17 gear inches. I
used it alot.

So yes, change the inner chainring and enjoy the lower gear. I always
found slow cycling less effort than pushing the bike.

Pete

[Dan O]

On Apr 27, 7:42 am, Mike Elliott >
wrote:
> steck wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 10:13 am, bcdrums > wrote:
> >> Sorry can't tell: do you have a double or a triple chainring setup?
>
> > The current setup is 48/38/28 in front.
>
> > I might want to swap out the whole set for, say, 46/36/26. I almost
> > never use the
> > highest gears.
>
> Being one of your lazier cyclists, I feel that the tallest gears are
> suitable only for going downhill when gravity provides a nice assist
> anyway, and are therefore useless. I spend 95% of the time on the middle
> chainring.

I actually dropped to the middle ring for a few hills yesterday
afternoon. I left work at 2:00, rode directly into gnarly epic
headwinds around 3:30, and got home around 4:15:

Time Wind (mph)
4:13 13G44
3:13 26G40
2:13 13G27

<snip>

[BobT[_3_]]

"thirty-six" > wrote in message
...
On 27 Apr, 19:49, "BobT" >
wrote:
> "steck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> > trailer. Recently, I used this
> > setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
> >http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> > It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
> > confess to walking some of them.
> > The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> > In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> > Question: is it worthwhile to
> > put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> > With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> > gear-inches. The 34 cog would
> > take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> > My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> > easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
> > gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> > -- Paul
>
> My touring bike has a low gear of 20.8". It is useful to me. Sometimes I
> ride it in the mountains loaded with grear. Lower gearing than this would
> not be useful to me. When it is so steep or the load is so big or both
> that
> a 20.8" gear is not low enough, I am moving so slowly it is difficult to
> keep balanced.
>
> BobT

>How about a tricycle? As long as you are not intending to travel
>along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
>between the rear wheels. You can go as slow as you like then,

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Please keep your OT posting out of here.
The is rec.BIcycling.tech!
Just kidding. But on a more serious note:

Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? I remember a few
years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
same problem. They might be useful for someone with a physical condition
that prevents riding a bicycle. I have seen adult tricycles used for
that application. I do not think I would like to try one careening down
a winding mountain road at 45 m.p.h.

BobT

[Tom Sherman °_°[_2_]]

On 4/27/2010 11:46 PM, BobT wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On 27 Apr, 19:49, >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
>>> trailer. Recently, I used this
>>> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>>
>>> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
>>> confess to walking some of them.
>>> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>>
>>> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
>>> Question: is it worthwhile to
>>> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>>
>>> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
>>> gear-inches. The 34 cog would
>>> take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>>
>>> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
>>> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
>>> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>>
>>> -- Paul
>>
>> My touring bike has a low gear of 20.8". It is useful to me. Sometimes I
>> ride it in the mountains loaded with grear. Lower gearing than this would
>> not be useful to me. When it is so steep or the load is so big or both
>> that
>> a 20.8" gear is not low enough, I am moving so slowly it is difficult to
>> keep balanced.
>>
>> BobT
>
>> How about a tricycle? As long as you are not intending to travel
>> along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
>> between the rear wheels. You can go as slow as you like then,
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Please keep your OT posting out of here.
> The is rec.BIcycling.tech!
> Just kidding. But on a more serious note:
>
> Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? I remember a few
> years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
> found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
> that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
> same problem. They might be useful for someone with a physical condition
> that prevents riding a bicycle. I have seen adult tricycles used for
> that application. I do not think I would like to try one careening down
> a winding mountain road at 45 m.p.h.
>
My trike would be perfectly fine on a fast descent:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619269233805/>. A
trike with a high seat (some recumbents, all uprights) would be unsafe
to use on high speed descents.

If you flip a low tadpole trike, you probably would have crashed trying
the same maneuver on a bicycle.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

[thirty-six]

On 28 Apr, 07:46, Tom Sherman °_° >
wrote:
> On 4/27/2010 11:46 PM, BobT wrote:
>
> > > *wrote in message
> ....
> > On 27 Apr, 19:49, >
> > wrote:
> >> > *wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >>> I have a 2007 Bianchi Volpe. When touring, I pull a Burley Nomad
> >>> trailer. Recently, I used this
> >>> setup to do a ride of the east coast of Tasmania:
> >>>http://picasaweb.google.com/stecksoft/Tasmania2010.
>
> >>> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
> >>> confess to walking some of them.
> >>> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> >>> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> >>> Question: is it worthwhile to
> >>> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> >>> With the current setup, the small ring and the big cog gives me 23.6
> >>> gear-inches. The 34 cog would
> >>> take that down to 22.2. A 26T ring would make that 20.6.
>
> >>> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> >>> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6
> >>> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> >>> -- Paul
>
> >> My touring bike has a low gear of 20.8". It is useful to me. Sometimes I
> >> ride it in the mountains loaded with grear. Lower gearing than this would
> >> not be useful to me. When it is so steep or the load is so big or both
> >> that
> >> a 20.8" gear is not low enough, I am moving so slowly it is difficult to
> >> keep balanced.
>
> >> BobT
>
> >> How about a tricycle? *As long as you are not intending to travel
> >> along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
> >> between the rear wheels. *You can go as slow as you like then,
>
> > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > Please keep your OT posting out of here.
> > The is rec.BIcycling.tech!
> > Just kidding. But on a more serious note:
>
> > Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? *I remember a few
> > years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
> > found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
> > that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
> > same problem. They might be useful for someone with a physical condition
> > that prevents riding a bicycle. I have seen adult tricycles used for
> > that application. *I do not think I would like to try one careening down
> > a winding mountain road at 45 m.p.h.
>
> My trike would be perfectly fine on a fast descent:
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619269233805/>. A
> trike with a high seat (some recumbents, all uprights) would be unsafe
> to use on high speed descents.
>
> If you flip a low tadpole trike, you probably would have crashed trying
> the same maneuver on a bicycle.

How do you get a larger luggage capacity than a bicycle without using
a trailer? Low and long seems an ideal recipe to encourage conflict
with other road users.

[Bernhard Agthe]

Hi,

having had basically the same problem...

steck wrote:
> It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. I
> confess to walking some of them.
> The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> Question: is it worthwhile to
> put in a smaller ring, say 26T?

Before the last longer bike tour through the Bavarian Alps, my dealer
told me that a 26 chain ring combined with a 11-32 cassette (instead of
a 11-30 cassette) is sufficient. He also told me that it would be very
troublesome to mount a 11-34, as my mech had a problem with that.

Come the next tour, I found myself on a hill, where I had to sprint
until I ran out of breath, stop and get my breath back, sprint again -
and so on. Once my cadence (pedalling speed) dropped to low, I had to
stop. As my bike was loaded with gear and tent, I could only cycle
seated - and the lowest gear (26-32) was not good enough.

> My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> easier than 23.6? Will 20.6

Yes.

> gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?

Nope. Just wait for the next hill.

By now I have a "granny gear" - that is a 22 tooth front ring. I ordered
it right after that tour and mounted it after some minor modification to
the ring. The lowest gear is now 22-32, which is really low. Let me
wait, when I hit a mountain that is too steep for this setup, but I'm
sure I'll meet that mountain rather sooner than later.

Until then I'll keep using even my extreme low gears, either when
pulling my trailer or when going up a short ramp and wanting to overtake
some first-time-mountain-bikers on their shiny new bikes, mashing their
middle gear trying to get up, while I can sit back, spin it in my low
gear and just basically out-accelerate them uphill easily.



Another thought for you, have you considered good pannier bags? My bike
is equipped with lowriders (front luggage racks) and in full touring
setup I'll have front bags (two beside the front wheel and one above),
rear bags (two beside the rear rack) and the tent and sleep pads on top
of the rear rack. That gives me capacity for everything I need (even
carrying all the heavy spare parts and tools), while I don't have to lug
around the extra 15kg for the trailer. Also the full pannier setup is a
bit more aerodynamic (at least it feels like that) and - what's best -
as my bike is a "travelling geometry" frame, it actually handles MUCH
better fully loaded (with the weight distributed evenly).

So my advice would be to mount the 11-34 you ordered, do some test
riding and if you find it not enough, to consider (a) the smaller front
chain ring and (b) travelling without the trailer but the baggage on the
bike itself.

Have fun!

[Tom Sherman °_°[_2_]]

On 4/28/2010 4:00 AM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
> On 28 Apr, 07:46, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> How about a tricycle? As long as you are not intending to travel
>>>> along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
>>>> between the rear wheels. You can go as slow as you like then,
>>
>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>> Please keep your OT posting out of here.
>>> The is rec.BIcycling.tech!
>>> Just kidding. But on a more serious note:
>>
>>> Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? I remember a few
>>> years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
>>> found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
>>> that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
>>> same problem. They might be useful for someone with a physical condition
>>> that prevents riding a bicycle. I have seen adult tricycles used for
>>> that application. I do not think I would like to try one careening down
>>> a winding mountain road at 45 m.p.h.
>>
>> My trike would be perfectly fine on a fast descent:
>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619269233805/>. A
>> trike with a high seat (some recumbents, all uprights) would be unsafe
>> to use on high speed descents.
>>
>> If you flip a low tadpole trike, you probably would have crashed trying
>> the same maneuver on a bicycle.
>
> How do you get a larger luggage capacity than a bicycle without using
> a trailer? Low and long seems an ideal recipe to encourage conflict
> with other road users.

It is enough:
<http://oldtrailmaster.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/death-valley-trike.jpg>.

The trike has a high "WTF" factor that generally causes motorists to
give it a wide berth - maybe they think the rider is handicapped?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
¡EL PUEBLO UNIDO JAMÁS SERÁ VENCIDO!

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Apr 28, 12:46*am, "BobT" >
wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? *I remember a few
> years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
> found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
> that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
> same problem.

It depends where you put the wheels.

I understand that overturning a trike (including a motorized one)
almost always occurs with the "delta" configuration (classic design,
one front and two rear wheels) as opposed to the opposite "tadpole"
configuration. The flip comes when the rider enters a curve too fast,
then grabs the brake. This throws weight (so to speak) forward and
outside, where there is no wheel to prevent the flip.

Sunday I was at a rest stop on an invitational ride. Two people
zoomed in to a parking lot on low tadpole trikes something like
Tom's. They made quite a show of whipping sideways and almost
skidding to a stop. Nimble doesn't describe them - their handling
made a sports car look like a semi-trailer rig.

OTOH, I think it would be a major project hanging camping gear on such
a beast. They were obviously designed for zero-load sport cruising.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tad McClellan]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]

* Still Just Me * > wrote:

> There's actually a new motorized tadpole trike out... wish I could
> recall the brand. There was a little TV tidbit about it on some gear
> head show I was almost watching.


Was it the Can-Am Spyder?

http://spyder.brp.com/en-US/


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[AMuzi]

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> On 4/28/2010 4:00 AM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
>> On 28 Apr, 07:46, Tom Sherman >
>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> How about a tricycle? As long as you are not intending to travel
>>>>> along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
>>>>> between the rear wheels. You can go as slow as you like then,
>>>
>>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> Please keep your OT posting out of here.
>>>> The is rec.BIcycling.tech!
>>>> Just kidding. But on a more serious note:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? I remember a few
>>>> years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
>>>> found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
>>>> that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
>>>> same problem. They might be useful for someone with a physical
>>>> condition
>>>> that prevents riding a bicycle. I have seen adult tricycles used for
>>>> that application. I do not think I would like to try one careening
>>>> down
>>>> a winding mountain road at 45 m.p.h.
>>>
>>> My trike would be perfectly fine on a fast descent:
>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619269233805/>. A
>>> trike with a high seat (some recumbents, all uprights) would be unsafe
>>> to use on high speed descents.
>>>
>>> If you flip a low tadpole trike, you probably would have crashed trying
>>> the same maneuver on a bicycle.
>>
>> How do you get a larger luggage capacity than a bicycle without using
>> a trailer? Low and long seems an ideal recipe to encourage conflict
>> with other road users.
>
> It is enough:
> <http://oldtrailmaster.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/death-valley-trike.jpg>.
>
> The trike has a high "WTF" factor that generally causes motorists to
> give it a wide berth - maybe they think the rider is handicapped?
>

Well, duh.
Of course; just look at that vehicle!

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[thirty-six]

On 28 Apr, 12:08, Tom Sherman °_° >
wrote:
> On 4/28/2010 4:00 AM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Apr, 07:46, Tom Sherman >
> > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> How about a tricycle? *As long as you are not intending to travel
> >>>> along pony trails along hillsides, you have loads of luggage space
> >>>> between the rear wheels. *You can go as slow as you like then,
>
> >>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>> Please keep your OT posting out of here.
> >>> The is rec.BIcycling.tech!
> >>> Just kidding. But on a more serious note:
>
> >>> Wouldn't a tricycle be prone to flipping over? *I remember a few
> >>> years ago, some companies made 3-wheel ATV's that many people
> >>> found dangerous. I don't think these things are made anymore for
> >>> that same reason. I would think a human powered tricycle might have the
> >>> same problem. They might be useful for someone with a physical condition
> >>> that prevents riding a bicycle. I have seen adult tricycles used for
> >>> that application. *I do not think I would like to try one careening down
> >>> a winding mountain road at 45 m.p.h.
>
> >> My trike would be perfectly fine on a fast descent:
> >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/sets/72157619269233805/>. A
> >> trike with a high seat (some recumbents, all uprights) would be unsafe
> >> to use on high speed descents.
>
> >> If you flip a low tadpole trike, you probably would have crashed trying
> >> the same maneuver on a bicycle.
>
> > How do you get a larger luggage capacity than a bicycle without using
> > a trailer? *Low and long seems an ideal recipe to encourage conflict
> > with other road users.
>
> It is enough:
> <http://oldtrailmaster.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/death-valley-trike.jpg>.
>
> The trike has a high "WTF" factor that generally causes motorists to
> give it a wide berth - maybe they think the rider is handicapped?
>

You speak of careering down steep hills, doesn't a decent burden of
luggage make the tail wag a bit too much when cornering?

[Petey]

On Apr 28, 6:52*am, Bernhard Agthe > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having had basically the same problem...
>
> steck wrote:
> > It was a bit tough getting up some of those Tasmanian hills. *I
> > confess to walking some of them.
> > The Volpe's smallest ring is 28T, and the cassette is 11-32.
>
> > In anticipation of my next tour, I've ordered a new 11-34 cassette.
> > Question: is it worthwhile to
> > put in a smaller ring, say 26T?
>
> Before the last longer bike tour through the Bavarian Alps, my dealer
> told me that a 26 chain ring combined with a 11-32 cassette (instead of
> a 11-30 cassette) is sufficient. He also told me that it would be very
> troublesome to mount a 11-34, as my mech had a problem with that.
>
> Come the next tour, I found myself on a hill, where I had to sprint
> until I ran out of breath, stop and get my breath back, sprint again -
> and so on. Once my cadence (pedalling speed) dropped to low, I had to
> stop. As my bike was loaded with gear and tent, I could only cycle
> seated - and the lowest gear (26-32) was not good enough.
>
> > My question, differently phrased: Will 22.2 gear-inches be noticeably
> > easier than 23.6? *Will 20.6
>
> Yes.
>
> > gear-inches be so absurdly low as to be useless?
>
> Nope. Just wait for the next hill.
>
> By now I have a "granny gear" - that is a 22 tooth front ring. I ordered
> it right after that tour and mounted it after some minor modification to
> the ring. The lowest gear is now 22-32, which is really low. Let me
> wait, when I hit a mountain that is too steep for this setup, but I'm
> sure I'll meet that mountain rather sooner than later.
>
> Until then I'll keep using even my extreme low gears, either when
> pulling my trailer or when going up a short ramp and wanting to overtake
> some first-time-mountain-bikers on their shiny new bikes, mashing their
> middle gear trying to get up, while I can sit back, spin it in my low
> gear and just basically out-accelerate them uphill easily.
>
> Another thought for you, have you considered good pannier bags? My bike
> is equipped with lowriders (front luggage racks) and in full touring
> setup I'll have front bags (two beside the front wheel and one above),
> rear bags (two beside the rear rack) and the tent and sleep pads on top
> of the rear rack. That gives me capacity for everything I need (even
> carrying all the heavy spare parts and tools), while I don't have to lug
> around the extra 15kg for the trailer. Also the full pannier setup is a
> bit more aerodynamic (at least it feels like that) and - what's best -
> as my bike is a "travelling geometry" frame, it actually handles MUCH
> better fully loaded (with the weight distributed evenly).
>
> So my advice would be to mount the 11-34 you ordered, do some test
> riding and if you find it not enough, to consider (a) the smaller front
> chain ring and (b) travelling without the trailer but the baggage on the
> bike itself.
>
> Have fun!

Sorry, but I think you guys are just carrying too much stuff. I've
toured in central Germany with a 34/32 (=28.7") low gear carrying a
tent, sleeping pad, sleeping bag and cooking gear. No big mountains,
but plenty of hills. The sleeping pad was a full-length, 1"-thick
deluxe model and the sleeping bag was rated to -13 degrees Celsius.
All the gear was loaded in the rear so it was possible to ride
standing up--that's how I did it. No matter how low your gearing is,
you will always be able to find a hill that can't ridden up except by
gritting your teeth and gutting it out. That's how you get fit.
Nevertheless, I thought I was carrying way too much gear. The gear
was weighed at the airport--the bike was 14.5 kg or so, and the
luggage was over 16 kg--no water, no food and no fuel. But except for
the Therma-rest pad, my gear is all pretty low-tech since I don't have
much money.

I did another tour in Germany with no camping gear. At that time I
used a 42/32 (=35.4") low gear. If you are not camping, you should be
able to fit all your gear in two small panniers. I've also tried a
"credit card" tour with nothing but a rear "wedge-pack" and handlebar
bag though I found this less effective than the two rear (40 litres
total) panniers--the handlebar bag badly upset the handling.

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Apr 30, 8:12*pm, Petey > wrote:
> *No matter how low your gearing is,
> you will always be able to find a hill that can't ridden up except by
> gritting your teeth and gutting it out. *That's how you get fit.

My strategy has always been to have nice low granny gears on my bike
but not to use them for any unloaded riding.

My touring bike is the bike I ride for most of my fun rides (as
opposed to utility & computing), and it's set up with half step plus
granny chainrings, 48-44-26. Largest rear cog is a 32 (IIRC). The only
time I shift to the small chainring is if I'm carrying a touring
load. I figure this way, I'm building muscle in my normal rides.

But when I'm on tour, I don't want to be getting fit. I want to enjoy
the fitness I've already gained, and I want to treat myself gently so
the tour remains fun. That's what the granny is for.

- Frank Krygowski