Touring - Why do tourers have a smaller big chainring?

Why have a crank set like 24-34-44? Why not have something like 24-36-50? It gives you the low gears and the high gears. Nothing is gained by having a 44 big ring rather than a 50. You use low gears in the little rings and high gears in the big ring. So why this choice?

Some of them have 50/39/30. I have one.

Because some people don't like to go beyond the derailer's stated capacity.

probably because most experienced tourists realize that they're not going to go fast enough enough of the time to make use of the large ring/small cog very often if they use that large of a ring...and even then it would only be going downhill, when they would probably be better off resting and coasting.

How often do you go 25+mph on flat ground when your bike is loaded down with 50 pounds of gear?

Why do tourers have a smaller big chainring? So they can handle a variety of terrain with a heavily laden bicycle. A 50T on a loaded touring bicycle is next to useless.

Think gear inches. I never use anything much over 90 except down hill. I would rather have low gears than high. If you have ever gone 30 mph with 50 pounds of stuff strapped to your bike, you would probably avoid doing it twice.

Ok, so derailer issues.

And a 44 tooth is worthless too. Changing a 44T into a 50T adds more gears and doesn't get rid of any.

Why have a crank set like 24-34-44? Why not have something like 24-36-50? It gives you the low gears and the high gears. Nothing is gained by having a 44 big ring rather than a 50. You use low gears in the little rings and high gears in the big ring. So why this choice?

Let's say you are using a Shimano mtn RD;
Typically it has a maximum wrap of 45T.
And you are using an 11-34 9s cassette;
You just used up 23T on the rear.
That leaves 22T difference *maximum* between the large and small chainrings.
So if you want a 24T small ring, the large ring cannot exceed 46T.

Let's say you are using a Shimano mtn RD;
Typically it has a maximum wrap of 45T.
And you are using an 11-34 9s cassette;
You just used up 23T on the rear.
That leaves 22T difference *maximum* between the large and small chainrings.
So if you want a 24T small ring, the large ring cannot exceed 46T.
That's the stated capacity, but you can get more out of it. The capacity is listed for cyclists that might use the small/small combination. The chain will rub front derailer in this situation, but if you only use the bigger cogs in the rear with the smaller chainring, you can push the limit a bit farther. Also, by using a shorter chain and not using the big/big you can push the rear derailer capacity.

But you risk the chance of using the wrong combination and bad things can happen.

That's the stated capacity, but you can get more out of it. The capacity is listed for cyclists that might use the small/small combination. The chain will rub front derailer in this situation, but if you only use the bigger cogs in the rear with the smaller chainring, you can push the limit a bit farther. Also, by using a shorter chain and not using the big/big you can push the rear derailer capacity.

But you risk the chance of using the wrong combination and bad things can happen.

I know you *can* exceed that;
Here is my cyclo-touring bike with an 11-34 and 22/32/48: http://www.dim.com/~ryoder/SomaPhotos/IMGP0014.jpg
Note how close the lower chain is to the upper idler pulley; There is about 3/16" clearance with a *new* chain.
With some stretch, the chain rubs the pulley.

Why do tourers have a smaller big chainring? So they can handle a variety of terrain with a heavily laden bicycle. A 50T on a loaded touring bicycle is next to useless.I have to disagree with you Machka. If I am using an evenly stepped crankset, then I like the 48 tooth front ring. But on my Miyata, I have a 50 tooth big ring with half stepping and a granny gear and I love it. With half step gearing it is awesome at finding the right gear.

All of the above + My bike geared with 44/32/22 cranks and an 11-34 cassette spins out at 90 rpm and 26 MPH. There are not too many of us that can do that for any amount of time with a loaded bike even when being chased by a big dog!

10 Wheels commented in another thread about the challenge of keeping up (going uphill) with lower geared bikes on a cross country ride. I still don't understand why Cannondale geared their more expensive "touring" bike with 50/42/30 and an 11-32, while gearing their T2 with something more tour friendly, 48/36/26 and an 11-34. IMO that is still a little high for loaded touring in hilly country. My wife and I did our X-country ride with a 26 small rings and changed to a 22's soon after the trip. I also changed my wife's Cannondale T800 (similar to the T2) to a 44/32/22, which really made her happy on the Pacific Coast route last summer.

This is what happened to me when I was riding slower that I could walk! sustained +12% grade in NY.
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy112/Doug64_photos/toughhill.jpg

I know you *can* exceed that;
Here is my cyclo-touring bike with an 11-34 and 22/32/48: http://www.dim.com/~ryoder/SomaPhotos/IMGP0014.jpg
Note how close the lower chain is to the upper idler pulley; There is about 3/16" clearance with a *new* chain.
With some stretch, the chain rubs the pulley.Well yeah, you are using the small/small there. That's why I said if you don't cross chain and use a shorter chain, you can push the limits.

Doug, I agree with you. I like real low gearing. I am a spinner, usually around 110 rpm cadence. So, I like using smaller gears and spinning faster than a lot of people. There is no way I would want a 30 small ring and a 26 is not the best for me.

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/pics/docs/00/00/17/13/small/drivetrainv2.jpg

I run 22, 36, and 48 tooth chainrings in the front and a custom 13-34 9-speed cluster in the back. Out of the 27 possible gear combinations, I get 22 usable, evenly spaced gears with a range from 17.6 to 100.3 gear inches.

Below 17 gear inches, I'm moving too slow to stay upright. If I spin out at 100 gear inches when loaded, it means I'm either going downhill or I have a huge tailwind. Either way, I'll coast and enjoy the ride.

My gear spacing (in gear inches):

22x34 = 17.6
22x30 = 19.9
22x27 = 22.1
22x24 = 24.9
36x34 = 28.8
36x30 = 32.6
36x27 = 36.2
48x34 = 38.4
36x24 = 40.8
48x30 = 43.5
36x21 = 46.6
48x27 = 48.3
36x19 = 51.5
48x24 = 54.3
36x17 = 57.5
48x21 = 62.1
36x15 = 65.2
48x19 = 68.6
36x13 = 75.2
48x17 = 76.7
48x15 = 86.9
48x13 = 100.3

Moving up to a 50-tooth chainring gets me a couple more gear inches on the tall end (104.5) where I really don't need them at the expense of screwing up the gear spacing where I do care with more duplicated ratios.

Well yeah, you are using the small/small there. That's why I said if you don't cross chain and use a shorter chain, you can push the limits.

I set the chain as short as possible on the big-big combo.
I have no interest in running a chain short enough that things break if you accidentally shift into that.
In general, I avoid the small-ring + 2 smallest cogs, and big-ring + 2 largest cogs.

I set the chain as short as possible on the big-big combo.
I have no interest in running a chain short enough that things break if you accidentally shift into that.
In general, I avoid the small-ring + 2 smallest cogs, and big-ring + 2 largest cogs.
Oh, I agree with you. I wouldn't do it either, it isn't worth it to me. I'm just saying it is possible.

Why have a crank set like 24-34-44? Why not have something like 24-36-50? It gives you the low gears and the high gears. Nothing is gained by having a 44 big ring rather than a 50. You use low gears in the little rings and high gears in the big ring. So why this choice?

The question should be "why do most cyclist have such large rings". Most road bikes are seriously over geared for the average rider. They have the same gearing as professional cyclists and, let's be honest, not many weekend cyclists can average 27mph. If you want to do 60mph plus on downhills, or a 50mph sprint, then there is an argument for big rings, but most non competition cyclists would do well to adopt the gearing used by tourists. As an example I run 42/26 rings with an 11/34 cassette giving me 21" to 103" gearing. I can climb anything in the 21" gear and 103" lets me sustain 24.5mph at 80rpm.

Also when designing gearing it's important to minimize replication of gear ratios and to get suitable step sizes. Of course rear and front derailleur capacity limitations must also be met (within reason), hence my use of 42/26 instead of 42/24 to stay within the 16t range of a compact FD.

http://wheelsofchance.org/2009/08/28/if-the-answer-is-42-whats-the-question/

Surprisingly, a lot of cyclists coast down hills and don't need the big gears. I don't get it myself. I almost always pedal down hills. I like to keep spinning, and it also helps me burn more calories. I've got 53-39 chain rings on 3 of my road bikes, and I often use the 12-53 combination going down hills where I ride. Of course, if there aren't many hills where you ride, there's not much need for big gears either. My commuter bike has a 50-34 compact crank, and I often spin out going down hills, but I can live with the smaller big ring because the compact crank is great for cycling with more gear.

The question should be "why do most cyclist have such large rings". Most road bikes are seriously over geared for the average rider.

+1

I don't like to go fast down hills.

I once had a blowout on the front tire at 17 mph on a flat road.

Thought the bike would crash before it finally stopped.

Surprisingly, a lot of cyclists coast down hills and don't need the big gears. I don't get it myself. I almost always pedal down hills. I like to keep spinning, and it also helps me burn more calories. I've got 53-39 big rings on 3 of my road bikes, and I often use the 12-53 combination going down hills where I ride. Of course, if there any many hills where you ride, there's not much need for big gears either. My commuter bike has a 50-34 compact crank, and I often spin out going down hills, but I can live with the smaller big ring because the compact crank is great for cycling with more gear.

Tarwheel... If your running an 50/11 you have taller gearing than your 53/12. Are you running a 12?

probably because most experienced tourists realize that they're not going to go fast enough enough of the time to make use of the large ring/small cog very often if they use that large of a ring...and even then it would only be going downhill, when they would probably be better off resting and coasting.

How often do you go 25+mph on flat ground when your bike is loaded down with 50 pounds of gear?

Occasionally you can get up to 25+ on the flats. I've ridden several really good tailwinds at that speed...or better:thumb:

But it's the downhill that really need that kind of gearing. You ain't lived until you've hit 50 mph on the west side of Trail Ridge Road on a loaded bike. Of course the bike started a death wobble at that speed but that's just part of the thrill:D

The question should be "why do most cyclist have such large rings"
++

I recently changed out my road triple for a mountain bike triple (not just for touring) because the 50 was way too much for me. I like to ride at 90-100rpm which means I won't need anything more than a 44/12 until I can ride >48kph/30mph on a regular basis. I also find the harder I'm working the higher my cadence, I often ride at >110 if I'm working really hard so I really don't think I'll ever need more than a 44.

Why have a crank set like 24-34-44? Why not have something like 24-36-50? It gives you the low gears and the high gears. Nothing is gained by having a 44 big ring rather than a 50. You use low gears in the little rings and high gears in the big ring. So why this choice?

Or why not 24-36-46?
because the high gears aren't needed when the average speed of a touring cyclist is slower than the average speed of a road rider/racer. There isn't much use having a 50/11-13 when the speeds at which you can utilize that gear with the power output used in touring is no different than getting into an aerodynamic tuck and coasting.

This is a time worn issue for bike shops when beginning cyclists would come in asking "I need a bigger gear, I'm pedaling down hill and can't pedal any faster" and that was with a 52/14, 100" top gear. The facts were the same then with a 100" gear as now with a 122" gear. The hp required to ride at 24mph with the windage of touring gear on the flats is totally outside of normal strength, obviously it'll be used on descents but the same argument holds that the hp required to utilize a speed increase at 24mph downhill is still outside the steady aerobic hp used in touring.

Why do tourers have a smaller big chainring? So they can handle a variety of terrain with a heavily laden bicycle. A 50T on a loaded touring bicycle is next to useless.

machka, most of your posts are pretty much spot on and well worth reading, but i'm going to disagree with you on this one.

i've got a 52 - 38 up front, which is what i've been touring with (self-supported) for coming on 37 years now, with no problems. no granny gear up front and a 5 speed freewheel (normally 13-28, but for big tours i put on a 14(?)- 32 or 34.

it seems like most people on this board focus solely on being able to climb mountains. i'm pretty sure we've all been on interminably long, steep slogs against the wind, wishing we had even lower gears. but to read what people write about here, i might guess that few have ever been on a long level road with the wind at your back. even fully loaded, the only times i'm not on my big chain ring is when i'm actually in the mountains or in stop & go traffic in the cities. I'd be loath to go down even to a 50 up front.

machka, most of your posts are pretty much spot on and well worth reading, but i'm going to disagree with you on this one.

i've got a 52 - 38 up front, which is what i've been touring with (self-supported) for coming on 37 years now, with no problems. no granny gear up front and a 5 speed freewheel (normally 13-28, but for big tours i put on a 14(?)- 32 or 34.

it seems like most people on this board focus solely on being able to climb mountains. i'm pretty sure we've all been on interminably long, steep slogs against the wind, wishing we had even lower gears. but to read what people write about here, i might guess that few have ever been on a long level road with the wind at your back. even fully loaded, the only times i'm not on my big chain ring is when i'm actually in the mountains or in stop & go traffic in the cities. I'd be loath to go down even to a 50 up front.

Gearing is a very personal thing and what's appropriate for you depends of your load, route, fitness, cycling style and just what you like. So even on flat roads with the
wind at my back I find my 42/11 gear to be more than enough as I'll be doing 25mph at 80 rpm. However, even with a tail wind, I find that hard to maintain so my gearing is designed around speeds more like 16,17 and 18 mph. I have a straight chain line in 42/17 gearing (67") and cruise along at 80rpm all day on the flats. As I tend to do 50ish mile days I often stop for the day by lunchtime leaving me lots of time to be pedestrian tourist.

I'd be loath to go down even to a 50 up front.

except that most modern bikes sold with 9 cog cassettes are using 11 tooth cogs for the high gear which with a 44t chainring is the same 108" gear as your 52/13 high gear combo. Which IMHO is an unnecessarily high gear for touring. I've got a couple bikes set up with 8 or 9 spd cassettes and single front chainring that have a 30"-93" gear range that is the same as the ten spd set up my first touring bike had but with better spacing.

44/11 essentially equals 50/12, and nobody rides 50/11

Tarwheel... If your running an 50/11 you have taller gearing than your 53/12. Are you running a 12?

I'm running a 12-27 cassette with 50-34 chainring. I don't really need an 11 cog because I don't need the 12 that often.

Another factor to consider is whether you just tour on your bike or use it for other purposes, such as commuting or recreational riding. I use my touring bike for commuting 99% of the time, so a smaller chainring would be unnecessary most of the time.

It's interesting that so many people think that touring bikes are only used for loaded touring!

I do have to admit that I don't think I've ever used the highest (and, maybe, the penultimate) gear on my road-triple-equipped tourer.


Why have a crank set like 24-34-44? Why not have something like 24-36-50? It gives you the low gears and the high gears. Nothing is gained by having a 44 big ring rather than a 50. You use low gears in the little rings and high gears in the big ring. So why this choice?
A few reasons. Front deraillers shift better (smoother) with smalller tooth differences. Larger differences require longer chains and rear derailers with longer cages (easier to damage). (Of course, larger differences require a longer cage for the front derailer too.)

===============


I still don't understand why Cannondale geared their more expensive "touring" bike with 50/42/30 and an 11-32
Marketing, I think. People who want "better" (more expensive) components are looking for particular brands.

I'm currently riding a 42x11-27 communting and there is no way you can't go fast enough on the flats. I've hit 36mph when spinning out and 27mph is comfortable rpm. if you're touring there is no need to ever pedal down hill, just tuck and use the weight to pull you.

...but to read what people write about here, i might guess that few have ever been on a long level road with the wind at your back...
Does such a thing actually exists?

I'm running a 12-27 cassette with 50-34 chainring. I don't really need an 11 cog because I don't need the 12 that often.

Another factor to consider is whether you just tour on your bike or use it for other purposes, such as commuting or recreational riding. I use my touring bike for commuting 99% of the time, so a smaller chainring would be unnecessary most of the time.

My 42/11 is the same as your 50/12, so I'm only giving up a single high gear and I end up with gearing that's more comfortable for my style of riding. For me a neutral chainline at say 50/15 (90") would be a bit high for all day cruising, I like to pedal at 80 rpm so I have my neutral chain line set at 42/17 (67"). I ride 67" on my single speed tourer and I designed my gearing around that ratio so I can smell the flowers a bit and take many gradients without even changing gears.

I'm currently riding a 42x11-27 communting and there is no way you can't go fast enough on the flats. I've hit 36mph when spinning out and 27mph is comfortable rpm. if you're touring there is no need to ever pedal down hill, just tuck and use the weight to pull you.

42/11 at 80 RPM on 700c wheels is 24 MPH.
42/11 at 90 RPM on 700c wheels is 27 MPH.
42/11 at 120 RPM on 700c wheels is 36 MPH.

(Many people don't use cadences at even 80 RPM.)

It's interesting that so many people think that touring bikes are only used for loaded touring!

I doubt I'm in the majority, but I know I'm not alone in the fact that my touring bike is only used for loaded touring. I have other bikes more suitable for commuting/groceries and sport/fitness riding close to home. Each of my bikes are geared appropriately for their intended use.

Wow - Cannondale Touring bikes really changed in the last few years eh? I have a 1993 T700 with the largest crank ring being a 42.

When i started touring some 4 years ago i set out with mountain gearing upfront (44-32-22) and an old school mtn cassette (11-30) in the rear. The combo was great for the hills with super low gearing, but on the flats i found myself constantly changing between middle and big rings to be in the sweet spot in my cadence. This wasn't an ideal situation. For one, front derailleurs don't shift that well (not compared to the rear anyways) so i was loosing efficiency with every front shift and it was just a pain in the ass. The second problem with a mountain set up is low top speed. My buddy would just race down the hills and i was stuck spinning my legs, and having to play catch up on the flats - (I'm in my 20's so i enjoy speeding down hills - some may not find this fun).
Today I ride road gearing (50-42-30) up front and an 11 - 34 cassette in the rear. I love it. I basically stay in the middle ring and use the whole cassette for most of my riding. This really minimizes front shifting. I only use the granny for the steepest of the steeps and the big ring for the long downhills or really tailwindy days. It makes sense, a front chainwheel for each type of grade. BTW I ride a LHT with ultegra sti's and mix of XT and ultegra drivetrain weighing in loaded at 75lbs.
I guess it really depends on your personal needs and fitness level. If you have a high level of fitness and want to put in the miles get a road crank. If you want to take it easy, coast hills, and have a good time - get a mountain crank. In my opinion road gearing allows you to do both milage days and enjoyment days. And who is to say a milage day cannot be enjoyed. Maybe because i'm young i have a different touring "style" than most.

I doubt I'm in the majority, but I know I'm not alone in the fact that my touring bike is only used for loaded touring. I have other bikes more suitable for commuting/groceries and sport/fitness riding close to home. Each of my bikes are geared appropriately for their intended use.
It's just interesting that some many people think that the multiple-bike thing is the "normal" situation. I use my touring bike for everything on the road (I do have a mountain bike).

It's just interesting that some many people think that the multiple-bike thing is the "normal" situation. I use my touring bike for everything on the road (I do have a mountain bike).

Well for most BF members it is a "normal" scenario. :)

I run a 52/39/26 crank with an 11-34 cassette. I use the 52 all the time, going down hills. It's fun to go fast, even while touring.

Does such a thing actually exists?

Outside Onawa, Iowa heading south on the Lewis and Clark trail. Scooted along at over 30 mph with a huricane at my back.

Out of Hood River, Oregon at about 25 mph with a very rare wind blowing down river.

Out of Fort William on the A82 along Loch Linnhe headed towards Oban (Scotland).

It happens:thumb: Of course you usually pay somewhere else. Like pedaling downhill in a low range gear off of the top of the Spittal of Glenshee. Now that sucked:notamused:

"And a 44 tooth is worthless too. Changing a 44T into a 50T adds more gears and doesn't get rid of any."

You are always trading something. You trade the narrow spacing that might well allow you to average a higher daily mileage notwithstanding that you lost a few hero points along the way.

The thing with threads like this is they always bring out a lot of folks who probably live for their odd fast run. It's like Golf you get the people who only remember a few long tee shots they made, and you get the people who did all the boring stuff required to hold a low handicap. Very few golfers maintain a handicap, and of those, less than 10 % shoot level par. Level par requires drives in the fairway of an average distance of 240 yards. I've known lots of guys who could never break 90 who could hit the ball, somewhere, 325yds. It's always a more subtle mater to figure out how to get the best results overall.

More realistically you want to compare the action in this thread to the threads about average MPH which often seems to be around 10 mph, with some folks managing higher numbers to be sure.

That said, presumably the real answer has something to do with MTBs, since that is where we get out gear.

I do it for more usable gears with finer differences between them; I am not interested in a wide as possible low to high range. When loaded with gear I find you often need a slight change in gear ratios to have just the right combination to still have a little acceleration. I also use a lot of fine gear changes with little steps between to slowly accelerate too my cruising speed winding out each small ratio change slowly. It sucks to spin out one gear then shift and find out the next gear step is too high to continue accelerating in. Think of a truck with 18 speeds; they are tiny steps between and do not use all of the gears to have a max speed of 120 mph. You need all of those fine steps when the engine power (me) is small compared to the weight you are trying to move. I use practically all of teh gears in between at one time or another depending on the hill and headwind combination.

I run a 52/39/26 crank with an 11-34 cassette. I use the 52 all the time, going down hills. It's fun to go fast, even while touring.

What crank and FD are you using? I assume some the crank is a 110/74 triple

What crank and FD are you using? I assume some the crank is a 110/74 triple

It's a 105 (130/74 I believe) 9 speed crank with Deore FD.

There is a compromise solution. I've got a Sugino crank with 48/36/24 rings. With the right cassette (or freewheel, in my case), it covers the bases pretty well.

There is a compromise solution. I've got a Sugino crank with 48/36/24 rings. With the right cassette (or freewheel, in my case), it covers the bases pretty well.

That combo certainly gives you range, but I found that it puts my preferred gear of 70ish inches at the
extremes of the 48t and 36t chain ring gear ranges. IMHO if you have the time and inclination it's best to design your gearing so that you have a straight chain line in the gear that you use most, 67" is nice for cruising along at 16mph at 80rpm, and I can mash up many hills in it too. In fact I toured single speed in 67" from London to Yorkshire last year and only changed down to 39" for the steep hills of the North Yorkshire Moors.

http://wheelsofchance.org/england-2009/

After many years of riding, I came to realization that I spend a lot more time going up hills than I do coming down them! I think it is called wisdom :)

After many years of riding, I came to realization that I spend a lot more time going up hills than I do coming down them! I think it is called wisdom :)

Nay. It called poor planning;) Stuart's #1 rule of most excellent bicycle riding: Always end on a downhill.