Gearing for touring

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!

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

["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.

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

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?

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.

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