Gearing for touring

On 4/26/2010 8:20 PM, Mark J. UseNet wrote:
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?

If you've got the balance to stay upright while spinning the 20.6, it's
not too low. I'd guess most experienced touring cyclists would. How
steady do you feel with the 23.6?
[...]

I find a 15-inch low gear useful on a LWB 'bent (which bicycle is not
the ideal choice for low speed balancing).

The ~14% reduction will be significant on a difficult hill when you are
tired.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

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

Per Tom Sherman °_°:
I find a 15-inch low gear useful on a LWB 'bent (which bicycle is not
the ideal choice for low speed balancing).

FWIW, my winter gearing goes from 14.5 to 76.3 and my summer
gearing goes from 17.2 to 90.6.

I'm spun out around 21 mph with the 76 - and there's no way in
the world I can hold 21 for any length of time.

26" wheels, old guy riding.... and I find 14.5 tb just the
ticket at times... no balance issues, just gotta be attentive to
keeping the front wheel on the ground when using 14.5 seated.
--
PeteCresswell

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

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

"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

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

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.

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!

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!