Gearing for touring

"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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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