Fifty Plus (50+) - Frank Berto's recommended low gearing for "wise old riders"

A couple of threads about gearing here today had me thinking about Frank Berto, who was Bicycling Magazine's technical editor "back in the day." He wrote clearly and frequently about gearing set-ups, and had a big influence on the way I set up my bikes. His book, "Upgrading Your Bike", is still a very good read if you want to understand your bike, and especially if you own a bike from the 60's through 80's you want to fiddle around with.

Frank is a proponent of low gears and spinning (vs. mashing). Since the topic often comes up here about low gears, I thought I would convey his recommendations on the low gears that one should have for various types of riders. Understanding his recommendations means that you have to understand the concept of Gear Inches (some background and a gear calculator here: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears).


Here are Frank Berto's recommendation for the low gear that "wise old riders" should have on their bikes. In most of the cases outlined below, he recommends that "Strong Young Riders" can make do with gearing that is 5 Gear Inches higher, so if you're feeling brave or strong you can go 5 inches higher (though he also used to say that "strong young riders" who wanted to keep their knees their whole lives would be well advised to move to "wise old rider" low gears when they were still young...that's what I did).

One of his frequent complaints was that most bikes intended for recreational use were set up by manufacturers with gearing that was more aimed at racers than "normal" use....IMHO this got a lot better during the mountain bike boom, especially with the growth of triples...but I still see people struggling with too-high gears and, of course, we see variations of these questions asked here on BF all the time.


Without further ado, Frank's "low gear" recommendations:


Kind of Riding / Recommended Low Gear (in gear inches)


Racing (level course) 55
Racing (hilly course) 45
Triathlon (level course) 55
Triathlon (hilly course) 40
Recreational riding (flat terrain) 40
Recreational riding (hilly terrain) 32
Recreational riding (steep hills) 27
Loaded touring (flat terrain) 24
Loaded touring (hilly terrain) 19

(note: for loaded touring in hilly terrain, he also says that even "strong young riders" should have a low gear of 19).

Of course, once you pick a low gear, you have to arrange the rest of your gearing to have a proper "high" gear...and his book has pages and pages of discussions on various ways to get there. Frank's book is almost always available (used) at Amazon for a few bucks, a great bargain:

http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Magazines-Complete-Guide-Upgrading/dp/0878577513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219004204&sr=8-1

Looks about right to me, at least the recreational categories. I've not done the others and couldn't say.

If I had a bike with a low gear of 55 gi, it wouldn't get ridden much. I almost never ride above 75 and my normal cruising gear is 60.

My bent's low gear is 17, but it never gets used.

Those numbers seem reasonable to me, except I would lower that "Recreational Rider - Steep Hills" from 27 down to 22 or 23. A typical hybrid is geared 48/38/28 and 11-32, or 48/36/26. That produces a 22-23 gi.

If I had a bike with a low gear of 55 gi, it wouldn't get ridden much.

But then, why would you own a road racing or triathlon bike in the first place?

Because it was there and to obey N+1.

I have used a 42/26 = 43.6 gear-inch bottom gear for many years. I save it for extremely steep (15%+) hills or for "bonking," using only my second (42/23 = 49.3) and higher gears for almost all of my riding. I do have a 24" low gear on my mountain bike, and I am not sure I could use anything lower without falling over.

Interesting. By chance, I have mine set up close to the Recreational-steep hills, which fits my riding area. I find I don't use the two or three super-grannies much at all, but they're there. I wasn't sure of my crank length, but found it didn't make much difference anyway.

I have a triple, but calculated the equivalent of a compact double gear inches would be with my cassette (I done this "unoffically" before). I try not to go easier than that. I guess I have just a little "macho" in me.

I read much of what Berto wrote back then and always kept it in mind when I set up a bike. Once I installed my first triple, I never went back.

I wonder what he's doing these days.

I wonder what he's doing these days.

http://www.thedancingchain.com/About%20Me.htm

http://www.roadbikerider.com/frankberto.htm

Thanks, T-Bomb.:beer:

Because it was there and to obey N+1.

There's another law that says if you buy it, you have to ride it.:p

... I wonder what he's doing these days.

When the first edition of The Dancing Chain came out, I emailed Frank with a few typos and minor errors I had discovered. He always cordially responded, signing off with "Gears 2 U." I always enjoyed his objective tests of bicycle transmissions and his analytical approach to gearing.

There's another law that says if you buy it, you have to ride it.:p

Great point...I thought he was going to hang them on the living room wall as art.:p

I was looking for this information the other day and then remembered I had it in a post. Hooray for me -- I should put my to do list, shopping list, anniversary date, etc. in a post so I know where to find it.

Summary: Buy a compact double for your first bike when you come back to cycling in you 50's. After a year, if it's too much, get a triple. If you're doing fine with it after the first year, ride it another year, and consider a standard double if you're still getting stronger. This also presents the opportunity to buy multiple bikes. :thumb:

Just about everyone will be pretty happy most of the time with a compact double.

Just about everyone will be pretty happy most of the time with a compact double.

How does a compact double get a "wise old rider" down to 19 gear inches for loaded touring in hilly terrain?

How does a compact double get a "wise old rider" down to 19 gear inches for loaded touring in hilly terrain?

"Just about everyone will be pretty happy most of the time with a compact double."

Do you need more caveats, or are you just being cranky? (intentional pun)

Nice summary BengeBoy. Thanks

>(note: for loaded touring in hilly terrain, he also says that even "strong young riders" should have a low gear of 19).
A lot of the touring setups described at CGOAB ( http://crazyguyonabike.com ) have a granny gear under 20 gear inches. My current setup is 18 gear inches and I'm considering dropping to around 16.5

I've never been accused of being wise, and hooray! I guess I'm not old any more.

Except for winter, I've been riding around using a 45 inch gear as my low for a couple of years now. I typically ride in the 70s and 80s.

That said, two of my bikes are triples, but even then, their three-season low gears are 35, and I very rarely use the granny, staying in the middle for the 45 low gear. Only in the winter do I drop to a 30 inch and use the granny with any frequency.

As for compact doubles, the meat and potatoes of my power range is in the transition between the two rings. Between stoplights I'd have to shift rings, then shift back again so I'm not cross-chaining from the stop. Too much of a PITA. For my kind of riding, the middle ring on my triples or the small ring on my standard doubles gets the most use. In fact, I wore out the middle ring on the Portland and had to replace it recently.

Do you need more caveats, or are you just being cranky? (intentional pun)

I'm being cranky. Triple-cranky, at that.:thumb:

BTW, I would agree w/your point -- for most people a compact double ought to do it -- steep hills, long climbs, commuting or touring with heavy loads would seem to require gearing down below the level that compact doubles can reach. Even *that* is changing now, though, with the availability of groups like the SRAM Apex that work with a 32T rear cassette.

I was happy with my 34-26 low gear, that's about 34 gear inches. I just got a 13-29 Campagnolo cog set, a 30.7 gear inch low gear. It's not supposed to fit with a normal derailleur, but many riders have gotten it to work with no problems. I can just barely run the 34-13 cross chained combination with just enough tension on the derailleur.

It's nice to have on 7% or higher grades. To recover while on a long 7-8% grade, I can slow down to about 3-4 mph and keep the cranks turning over without tiring out my legs, then pick up the cadence when rested. I was surprised it made that much difference, since it's only 11% easier. With a 25 or 26 cog, I would be alternating standing up and sitting much of the way.

My Tarmac and I was running 31.5 and now down to 29.2 and about to go to 28.2. The Simoncini runs 35.7 but I don't do serious long climbs with it.

Two of my road bikes have 34/28 (32") for lowest gears. The other has been changed to 34/32 (28") for extreme steep hills expected late in long rides. What I like about the 34/32 is that I can ride in the 50/25 and stay in the large chainring more. That was an unexpected benefit. But for most rides that low gear is way overkill.

I live in flat country where the steepest climbs are overpasses, so I can easily get by with a 47-inch low (very rarely used) and a 95.4-inch high (also very rarely used). I currently have 47-41 chainrings and a 13-15-17-19-21-23 freewheel (Frank's "Crossover" pattern from his May 1978 Bicycling magazine article, "All About Twelve Speeds") on my Ciocc, which gives me seven usable nicely-spaced gears with NO double shifts. Shifting is very smooth/fast thanks to my old Campy Super Record derailleurs with downtube friction shifters.

Frank's "Crossover" pattern from his May 1978 Bicycling magazine article, "All About Twelve Speeds"

I think it's an interesting tribute to Mr. Berto that you know the date of the article that cites this gearing pattern.

I think it's an interesting tribute to Mr. Berto that you know the date of the article that cites this gearing pattern.
Frank's wonderfully-written articles in Bicycling really got me thinking about gearing. I often meet cyclists who are clueless regarding their bike's shift sequence and essentially just shift until they find a gear that "feels good". I suppose if you have an eleven cog freewheel there's bound to be just the right gear in there somewhere, but how many shifts are you going to have to make to find it?

After reading Frank Berto’s articles I realized that my 1975 Fuji Dynamic 10 really only had 6 speeds since the others were actually just repeat gears. So I converted it to a triple and set it up with a “half step plus granny” an idea I got from Mr. Berto’s articles. His articles were a good part of the reason I used to subscribe to Bicycling Magazine and why I dropped the subscription after they dropped him.

I recently changed from 52/42, (12/27 10 sp) to a 48/39,, low is 38" , but more important to me is the 48 lets me keep the rpms easily in the 80's to mid 90's on most of my general flat rides...and makes it much better on the knees, and keeps the general good rpm range, in the close spaced part of the casette so its easier to keep the knees in good shape...Bud

Good timing for this article. After looking up and reading its making some sense of what i am riding. My Bianchi is a killer, 52/42, 13-18 cassette. Any kind of uphill length and it just killed me. Know i know why. My main bike now is a Trek 1400, 52/42 with 13-24 cassette. Low of 47 gear inches. Its OK for some hills and i am getting stronger but i want to go into the mountains. I have a 72 Schwinn Sports Tourer 54/36 with 14-34 cassette. This would give me 28.6 gear inches. I just need to find the right rear derailleur for it. I also have an Giant OCR3 that started as a triple but when i got it it only has the two big rings. Was thinking about a 30 however after reading some of the articles might go with 28 or 26. It has 9 cogs on the cassette. At least i have something to go on to make a decision on the small ring.

I've migrated to low gears over the years with a low of about 16" and highs of around 120". I use all these gears and pretty much never get out of the saddle. If you're wondering how I can get this range I have used various strategies including triples, the Schlumpf bottom bracket gears, and the SRAM dual drive. This gets me the range with reasonably small gaps between gears. With my current favorite bike, my Alex Moulton Dual Pylon, I combine an SRAM Dual Drive with 38 x 53 chain rings and an 11-32 cassette (20" wheels) to get the range. Anyway, I recognize that many will consider this an extreme approach but it works for me.

My current low is 35.7 for recreational flat terrain. 50/34 and 11/25. Close enough for now. I'll look into an 11-23 cassette next time.

Thanks for the reference. I've ordered Berto's book... it sounds like interesting reading. I've recently migrated to a Sugino touring crankset (48-36-26) with various cassettes according to need. The 36 middle ring works just great for me and, with granny on board, I fear no hill. (Well no known local hill anyway!)

Don't know exactly why this thread has been resurrected after 2 years, but it's timely for me.

After a lengthy illness I'm back riding again, but much weaker than before.

Right now I'm just riding flats, so my triple with 53-42-30 chainrings + 13-26 cassette is more than adequate.

For hills I'm in the process of ordering a new rear wheel built with a 12-32 cassette. That will give me about a 25 low gear, compared to 31 now, so that's almost a 20% drop in gear ratio. I'm hopeful that will allow me to resume hill riding.

Right now I'm just riding flats, so my triple with 53-42-30 chainrings + 13-26 cassette is more than adequate.

For hills I'm in the process of ordering a new rear wheel built with a 12-32 cassette. That will give me about a 25 low gear, compared to 31 now, so that's almost a 20% drop in gear ratio. I'm hopeful that will allow me to resume hill riding.

There must be more to this story. :)
Why a new wheel instead of putting a 12-32 cassette on your existing wheel?

Thanks to this thread I did the math and found out that my bike with the SRAM double compact is geared lower than my bike with the Shimano triple!

Not a lot of difference (about 1-1/2"), but still . . . I would have guessed the other way around.

Based on that I've decided to ride my SRAM bike (11-32 cassette) on the Grand Tour Double Century this weekend, esp. for the Potrero Climb that's mostly 12-14% but ramps up in a couple of places to 18-19%.

Probably won't need the 32t on the other big climbs (Grimes Canyon, Dennison Grade, Casidas Pass).

Low gears are good!

Rick / OCRR

Realizing that I have selective memory, I recall that Bicycling Magazine during Frank's time as technical editor was interesting. I thought Frank's articles were the sht! and I could not get enough of his gearing articles. What happened? Are there no more smart guys? I find the articles today so dumbed down that they are almost insulting.

This thread had me checking my gearing on all my bikes. I guess I lucked out with my vintage 10 speed Raleigh that has a 12-22 freewheel and a 46/34 crank giving me 7 distinct gear selections. When I restored the bike I wanted to keep it a 10 speed and not have race gearing so I purchased the new crankset. 40.6 is my easiest gear and 100.7 inches in the fastest gear, which is not bad since I only ride the bike on recovery and recreational rides.

I've been riding my Mountain Roadster with a compact. It makes sense to me.http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm11/monoborracho/Schwinn%20Paramount/100_1337.jpg

Realizing that I have selective memory, I recall that Bicycling Magazine during Frank's time as technical editor was interesting. I thought Frank's articles were the sht! and I could not get enough of his gearing articles. What happened? Are there no more smart guys? I find the articles today so dumbed down that they are almost insulting.

President Obama's recent address to the nation was written at a 10th grade level. It was criticized as being "over the head" of most people. Bicycling Magazine = lowest common denominator.

(Please, just using this reference for illustrative purposes. Not intended as any sort of political comment. Thanks!)

I think it's an interesting tribute to Mr. Berto that you know the date of the article that cites this gearing pattern.

Check out the slide show of his bike on his website. I think you'll understand. That bike is like a fly in amber from around that year. You vintage guys will love it. Pretty bike.

There must be more to this story. :)
Why a new wheel instead of putting a 12-32 cassette on your existing wheel?

Because I've been doing a lot of flat riding -- base training -- lately and I'm very happy with the ratios I have for the flats.
So I want to have another wheel for rides where I climb, instead of having to swap cassettes.

Old Bike World and Bicycling magazine articles may be viewed at this link:
http://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_itemId=30

Some great articles about gearing by Frank:
http://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13258
http://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13304
http://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13205
http://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_itemId=13206

Enjoy!

... I currently have 47-41 chainrings and a 13-15-17-19-21-23 freewheel ..., which gives me seven usable nicely-spaced gears with NO double shifts. Shifting is very smooth/fast thanks to my old Campy Super Record derailleurs with downtube friction shifters.

Great minds think similarly -- I run 47-38 / 13-15-17-19-21-23 on Capo #1. If I had a 46T outer ring, I would get a near-perfect 1.5-step pattern, similar to the 50-42 / 14-16-18-20-23-26 setup on my Bianchi.

Since I generally do not require a super-low granny and have no use whatsoever for super-high gears, I can cover the range I need with decent ratiometric progression with a 6- or 7-speed freewheel.

Berto changed my life, too. When I started riding in the '80s, after a post-college layoff, the standard gearing on road bikes was 52-42 rings with a big cog of 24 or so. Twenty-six was for sissies, and nobody had ever seen a 30. Some of that was due to the limitations of the derailleurs, which were fragile to begin with and tended to explode if you tried to push them. The Japanese started building better derailleurs (which made mountain bikes possible, by the way), Berto came along, people realized that suffering wasn't mandatory, and now here we are.

Had a few moments today and went over the combos that i have versus what i use most on rides. Found my sweet spot in gear inches, for me its 62 to 94. My low of 47( i need lower ones), and high of 108(52/13, not used very much yet). Now i can try to dial in my bikes for what i want to use them for. With out this article i would not have thought much about this. Now i have something to base a plan for what i have and my ability to ride.