Touring - What is the optimal number of gears for touring?

I'm scratch-building a touring bike. I know what range of gear-inches I want to cover. What I'm debating is how many gears I want to use to cover the range. Currently, I have a 3x8 setup on my non-touring, do-everything bike. I often get pissed off, hopping up and down between two cogs because neither of them is quite what I wanted. I've calculated a 3x10 setup (and actually found the parts to make it) that would cover my desired range with much smaller gaps between gears. I plan on using either barcons mounted on Paul Thumbies or downtube shifters mounted on Kelly Take-Offs. I haven't decided which yet. So I'll have something with both index and friction modes either way.

My concern, however, is the touring aspect of this build. 10 cogs are all well and good if you can hit them reliably. With a barcon/DT shifter, is the system reliable enough for touring, or is 10-speed too fiddly for real touring?

The number of gears isn't nearly as important as the range of gearing on a bike. Depending on the set-up, you might be able to get that gearing with 2x5 or 3x7 or 3x10. It doesn't matter. My present bike is a 3x9 system and it works very well. Before that, I had a 3x7 system and I had no complaints.

As far as hopping up and down between two cogs, that's something I don't face, simply because I don't care enough about that aspect. Unless you've got huge steps between the gears, it's hard to notice the variations every time you shift. If you are concerned, you might want to make a chart of the gearings and where they are. On a 3x10 set-up, the next step up from the 2-3 position might not be 2-4. It might be 1-6 or 3-2.

As I said, I've worked out what gear range I want to cover. I have plotted it all out on charts.

My question really is wither the 10speed ends up being too fiddly and hard to keep in adjustment for touring.

It's not clear if you're hopping between two cogs on the cassette or two of the front chainrings. But if you're cadence preferences are that acute maybe you need a chainring that's two teeth larger/smaller? Can't speak to the functioning of the 10cog gear train from any experience but I'd be more inclined to stick with the 8spd for longevity sake and ease of finding chains. I've got two barcons on two bikes set on friction, one is an old Suntour that has no indexing and the other is a Shimano 9spd that I've set on non-index.

Between two cogs in the cassette. The gaps in the current 8-speed cassette are 13-16% right now and I just don't like it. Yes, I have a very narrow range of cadence and force that I'm comfortable in. Prior knee injuries have left me unable to exert much pressure on the pedals, so I have to spin everything basically at the max I can without starting to bounce.

My Shimano nine-speed cassette hasn't been fiddly and I've used it for close to 20,000 kilometres. The only fiddly part has been the triple chainrings in the front. That probably has more to do with indexed shifting than anything else.

This article (http://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjustin/2010/02/18/srams-new-road-group-apex/) is about SRAM's new Apex Goupo, however it has some good ideas about gearing that might be of some use.

Between two cogs in the cassette. The gaps in the current 8-speed cassette are 13-16% right now and I just don't like it. Yes, I have a very narrow range of cadence and force that I'm comfortable in. Prior knee injuries have left me unable to exert much pressure on the pedals, so I have to spin everything basically at the max I can without starting to bounce.

I wouldn't use 10 sp for touring as I prefer the more rugged 9 or 8 speed equipment. Also it sounds as if you are applying a racer's philosophy when it comes to cadence and effort. Get a range between 20" and 100" and choose your gearing so that you minimize gear duplication.

It is not a question of having lots and lots of gears, it is a question of having the right gears and being able to find them when you want them.

I use a triple (52/42/24) and eight speed SRAM (11/12/14/16/18/21/26/32) rear. To avoid premature wear, I don't use the smallest two rear sprockets with the smallest chainring, don't use the largest two rear sprockets with the largest chainring and don't use the innermost and outer most two rear sprockets with the middle chainring. That gives me a total of 18 gears that I actually use.

The 52 and 42 are one and a half step gearing, so when I want to shift from one gear to the next, it is easily predictable on how to get there, upshifting the front and down shifting the rear (or vice versa) is a frequent shift for me when the slope of the road changes a slight bit.

162142

In the important range of 60 to 90 gear inches where I spend the vast majority of my time, my gears are spaced pretty close to each other. The gears are spaced farther apart where I am on the shallow long downhills in my highest gears. They are also spaced farther apart on my granny (24t) chainring for climbing the steep hills. But, I spend very little time in the higher and lower gears, so I can live without more gear selection in those areas. And you can see I have no redundant gears where two or more gears are identical to each other.

I would not mind having a few more evenly spaced gears in the 40 to 60 gear inch range for long shallow uphills, but it is not worth buying a lot of new equipment to obtain the additional gears. I have considered changing the front 52t to a 45t for half step gearing, that would give me one more gear in the 50 something range and I would loose the highest gear, I might still do that some day. Plot is attached.

162145

The upshift from the 24 to 42 is not a smooth shift but it eventually works, I use a friction front shifter (bar end).

The gear inch calculations are based on the actual diameter of my 700cX37mm tires.

If you are wondering if I actually spent the time to program a spreadsheet so I could calculate and plot gearing on a chart, yes I did because I wanted to make sure that I got the gearing that I wanted when I built up my 700c touring bike about six years ago. I was happy enough with this mix of components that I used the same mix again a few months ago when I built up an expedition touring bike with 26 inch wheels.

A few thoughts....

• I think you're being too fussy. I've used a variety of bikes with different gaps and combos -- including 1 x 8 -- and never got upset over hitting a precise cadence.
• If you really can't stand where the whole range of the cassette falls, why not try adjusting the chainrings?
• I don't think there is a big issue with using a 10 speed cassette, especially if you can do your own maintenance.
• Barcons are pretty robust.

I think a lot of the extra gears are just marketing hype - it would make a lot more sense to try to get as few gears as possible within a specific range with appropriate spacing. Instead, the manufacturers know that 'more is better' is what sells.

My opinion is that the sweet spot for touring is 3 x 9, with at least a 24-tooth granny (maybe 22?) and a wide range cassette. I have a 34-tooth big sprocket and I'm glad (the Cyclotouriste from Harris Cyclery.) I agree that a wide range is desirable. I'd also add that high gears are much less crucial than low when you're going to be carrying a big load up hills.

Between two cogs in the cassette. The gaps in the current 8-speed cassette are 13-16% right now and I just don't like it. Yes, I have a very narrow range of cadence and force that I'm comfortable in. Prior knee injuries have left me unable to exert much pressure on the pedals, so I have to spin everything basically at the max I can without starting to bounce.

This sounds like something you'll have to experiment with. Either you get a closer ratio 8spd cassette and get exactly the gear gaps you want with low and high gears compromised somewhat or you turn over the drive train to 10spd.

I do find your need to maintain a particular output and cadence that is so specific as to require such a closely spaced gear cluster(probably closer than racers in the 60's) in somewhat contradiction to the need to reduce aggravating knee injuries. Aggravating knee injuries are more likely to come from pushing to a particular max effort than dialing back that effort to meet the gear that's 69" instead of 72". In other words the terrain ends up varying more than the discrete number of gears and you'll end up having to shift out of the ideal 10speed cog because the wind went up 5% or the grade went up 1%. Simply reducing your effort to match your prefered cadence would do the same thing.

Is it that you want the closely spaced gears to occur with the same chainring so you don't have to hunt for the other combinations on the other chainring?

Check out a 13-26 8spd cassette with 22/32/44 crankset on 700x35 wheels. A 22-92 gear range of closely spaced gears. If you have knee problems you probably aren't putting out the hp. that can utilize 96"+ gears so you can enjoy a closer spaced mid range of gears.

All of my road bikes use 10-speed cassettes these days. Chains seem to wear out a bit quicker, but as far as I can tell they're just as reliable as anything else. My touring bike uses a 9-speed trekking crank (48/36/26) along with 10-speed FD, RD, chain, and cassette (12-27). One caveat: I use Shimano STI brake/shift levers rather than barcons or DT shifters, so I can't comment on shifting performance.

Currently, I have a 3x8 setup on my non-touring, do-everything bike. I often get pissed off, hopping up and down between two cogs because neither of them is quite what I wanted. I've calculated a 3x10 setup (and actually found the parts to make it) that would cover my desired range with much smaller gaps between gears.

My 3x9 set up is such that I can get intermediate gears by double shifting (eg, once upshifting the front and double downshifting the rear). Fortunately, it's set up that what needs to be done to find the in-between gears is easy to remember!

While this is not as easy than having close steps between cogs, it isn't that hard and it is still useful to be able to get just the right gear. (Note that I do these "complicated" shifts on fast-ish group rides. I use brifters, which I think work better for fast group rides.)


It is not a question of having lots and lots of gears, it is a question of having the right gears and being able to find them when you want them.
Yup! (Read the rest of LHT in Madison's post!)

I don't think you're being too fussy at all. I'm at least that fussy and find that being fussy about your gears will make you more comfortable and less injury prone. I have the same approach that you have. I have one bike with 9 speed rear, triple in front, running non-indexed barcons. It's totally simple and I have no problems with it. It's just like playing a trombone. In a few rides, you'll know exactly where your gears are and how to hit them first try. With barcons, you can run both shifters at the same time and never take your hands off the bars. I like that and it's safer. You also save about a pound over STI. 10-speed isn't going to be noticeably different from 9-speed, except that you'll have that extra cog I wish I had. And you'll wear out your chains faster. Try Finish Line Ceramic lube.

In redoing my derailleur pulleys for that bike, I took the float out of both of them and that made the shifting too fussy, though it worked fine on my STI bikes. So don't do that.

I think a lot of the extra gears are just marketing hype
You aren't really saying anything useful here since you don't what "extra gears" means. More than 3? More than 20?


- it would make a lot more sense to try to get as few gears as possible within a specific range with appropriate spacing.
What is "appropriate spacing"? Since you don't say, no one can tell how many gears are required to obtain it.

Some people might think that close spacing is "appropriate" (and more sprockets makes that easier to obtain).


Instead, the manufacturers know that 'more is better' is what sells.
You don't really provide enough support for people to determine whether this claim of yours is reasonable or not.

I don't think you're being too fussy at all.
I don't think he's being fussy.


being fussy about your gears will make you more comfortable and less injury prone.
Having close gears can make things more comfortable but I haven't seen anything that less-than-close ratios is associated with an increase in injuries (we aren't talking about range). That is, I suspect that any reasonable thing that people would do with modern components have close-enough ratios to not have any "injury" issues.


I have the same approach that you have. I have one bike with 9 speed rear, triple in front, running non-indexed barcons. It's totally simple and I have no problems with it. It's just like playing a trombone. In a few rides, you'll know exactly where your gears are and how to hit them first try.
I don't know why people don't run gear charts instead. People with triples have even more reason to run gear charts.


With barcons, you can run both shifters at the same time and never take your hands off the bars.
You can shift both brifters and have your hands on the "controls" and have access to the brake all at the same time!

While you have to take your hand off of the bar, you can shift downtube shifters at the same time too (it is a bit harder).

(Barcon shifters are perfectly fine!)


In redoing my derailleur pulleys for that bike, I took the float out of both of them and that made the shifting too fussy, though it worked fine on my STI bikes. So don't do that.
The "float" is engineered in (that is, it's there for a reason). Don't second guess your derailler system manufacturer!

I don't think you're being too fussy at all. I'm at least that fussy....
OK, so you're both too fussy.

http://c0389161.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/dyn/str_strip/238436.full.gif

:D

I just find the idea that you utterly need to ride at a specific cadence to be comfortable to be a tad unlikely. Short of using a cadence meter I don't even see how you'd accurately detect a 5-10% difference in cadence.

As to injury, I am not aware of any research that indicates that a cadence of, say 80 vs 90 is actually going to reduce injury. We're not talking about climbing all day with a fixed-gear 52/19.


By the way, although I don't recommend it you could always look into the NuVinci hub. It's heavy but uses a constant variable planetary gearing system. Instead of having say 18 discrete gears, it uses a spherical set of gears so you can tweak it exactly as you like.

I just find the idea that you utterly need to ride at a specific cadence to be comfortable to be a tad unlikely.
No one is saying "utterly". No one is saying a "specific" cadence. Since some people tour on single speeds, you don't "utterly" need more than one gear!


Short of using a cadence meter I don't even see how you'd accurately detect a 5-10% difference in cadence.
The goal isn't to "accurately detect a 5-10% difference".

Anyway, I have a 52/42/30 with a 11-32 cluster. It's not that uncommon that I'll doubleshift to get a gear that is in between the ratios of a simple shift. I don't think I'm very special. Just because you can't detect the difference in feel doesn't mean other people can't! (I don't have a cadence meter but my normal cadence is fairly high.)

Note that, for "normal" touring, you have the option to reduce your speed along with the gearing to the cadence you feel comfortable.


As to injury, I am not aware of any research that indicates that a cadence of, say 80 vs 90 is actually going to reduce injury. We're not talking about climbing all day with a fixed-gear 52/19.
Yes. Anyway, people prefer different cadences. Also, people vary their cadence a lot.

Imho .. 14 ... Rohloff Hub . it solves the double shifting of all derailleur schemes by having an equal difference between gears and turning the grip pull pull 2 cable shifter, one follows the other..

and you can shift down even when stopped. so very useful when you need to grab a lower gear in the middle of a hill..
or go thru them all till you get to the 2 foot gear, and have a nice walk.

external gear ratio 1:2.4, hub cogs are 13 for small wheel bikes ,

and, 15,16, 17 for 26 & 700c wheel bikes so 36, 38, 41t chain-rings or larger.

Before I got my Rohloff bike I traveled widely with a 6 speed: 14,17,20,24,28,34 on the wheel,
and a 24,38,50 on the cranks 622-40 wheels.

Friction /ratchet bar cons, 80's Campag MTB derailleurs

yep,

14

:)

Oh and as the 10 speed stuff is for road racers, [yup too fussy] no friction mode as they made bar end shifters for Triathlon racers ,
and time trial stages of multi day races, on the end of aero bars.. not tourists.

I don't think they accept a granny gear on the crank below the stock 30 .. 30/ 29 is just above 1:1 x your wheel diameter .

Grinding up mountain passes with the camping gear aboard will make you want a few reduction ratios less than the unicycle gear.

Gear Calculator for IG hubs : http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/internal.html

1) Both the 10-speed barcons and the 10-speed dt shifters have index and friction modes
2) With the transmission I've worked out, I'll cover ~20 gear inches to ~105 gear inches with either a 9 or 10 cassette. So I've got granny and cruising covered, it's just a question of spacing.

OK, for the OP's benefit, I'm just gonna say that 10 speed is perfectly fine for touring.

If I had 10sp and was going somewhere ridiculously remote, I'd consider bringing an extra chain. All other parts I can think of will be just as easy or hard to get for 9sp as 10sp.

If you're considering barcons vs downtube, I'd go for barcons -- especially if you're going to tweak your gearing constantly. Much easier to use than DT.

Neither the barcons nor the DTs would be going where they usually go. They'll both be up on the bars near the hoods one way or the other.

Thats on the chart , right,? what if the crank parts wont allow what you seek on the chart?

but you may want a MTB drivetrain to get that granny gear, threat of '30 speed' MTB group on the way , next year..
to add a Much higher price to cost of all parts, and spares of each ..

FWIW, shortest bicycle around the world trip was recently set ,rider on a Gates Belt drive Rohloff hub bike.
there is a book, of course:

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product-Transworld-Transworld--The-Man-Who-Cycled-the-World--By-Mark-Beaumont-21682.htm

Right, it's a mountain triple up front and a road 10-speed in the back.

You aren't really saying anything useful here since you don't what "extra gears" means. More than 3? More than 20?

What is "appropriate spacing"? Since you don't say, no one can tell how many gears are required to obtain it.

Some people might think that close spacing is "appropriate" (and more sprockets makes that easier to obtain).


You don't really provide enough support for people to determine whether this claim of yours is reasonable or not.
Do I really need to explain this?

For a cassette with 11 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 34 and a chainring with 26 36 48 (standard configuration on a Surly LHT - I'm assuming it's for a 700 wheel and 170 mm cranks), you get the following gain ratios (listed in order of 11 to 34):

26 small chain ring
4.8
4.1
3.5
3.1
2.6
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.6

36 middle chain ring
6.6
5.6
4.9
4.3
3.7
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.2

48 large chain ring
8.9
7.5
6.5
5.7
4.9
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.9

Every gain ratio on the middle chainring has a exact or close match (within .1) to either the small or large chainring. The 2.8 would arguably be the most useful because it would let the rider avoid the harshest angle for the chain with the chain on the large chainring and large cog on the cassette.

You can argue all you want about how close is close enough, but by looking the distance between gain ratios for each chainring, even at the most extreme case going from 30 to 34 on the small chainring, the gain ratio goes from 1.8 to 1.6 - a difference of 0.2. Among the smaller cogs of the cassette, the difference is usually .4 or higher, so that's why I'm saying .1 is just about the same as an exact match.

Anyway, from looking at the numbers, the middle chainring on this configuration looks redundant.

In fact there are other matches between the small and large chainring:
4.8/4.9
4.1/4.2
3.1/32

Out of 27 gears, 12 are redundant, which leaves 15.

Anyone can do this exercise by using Sheldon Brown's gear calculator:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

As to injury, I am not aware of any research that indicates that a cadence of, say 80 vs 90 is actually going to reduce injury. We're not talking about climbing all day with a fixed-gear 52/19.



Injury is going to come from riding too hard for too long without recovery. Which is a function of the operating system between the ears and not the gears. If you were riding along at 200watts and your ideal cadence is 80rpm for a given incline and the incline increased 1% you'd have to shift to a lower gear. If your ideal gear wasn't there to maintain 200watts at 80rpm what is the solution? Pedal at 190watts in that non-ideal lower gear that is 4% too low. Horrors. OR you could pedal at 210watts at the less than ideal gear that is 4% too high. That's why it's touring and not racing. Trying to maintain some max hp/heartrate is what you need to do for racing against the clock which kind of goes against the idea of touring with extra weight on the bike. Most of my touring was on ten to 12 speed bikes that had eight to nine useful gears. Now I've got 8spd cassettes with double cranksets that have more usable gears than 15spd triples from 30yrs ago. If you cut off the super high gears on most 11-34 9spd clusters used for triple touring rigs you're actually riding an 8spd gear combo. There's no way a 100"-118" gear is going to get you over a mtn. faster than a 93" gear.

Out of 27 gears, 12 are redundant, which leaves 15.

Anyone can do this exercise by using Sheldon Brown's gear calculator:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

and of those 15 the top two are relatively useless for loaded touring.

While I absolutely agree with the comments about ratio redundancy, there is something to be said for just being able to click one shifter and hop up/down to a close ratio. In other words, I don't mind the overlap between ratios. I find it easy to have a "going up chainring" a "level chainring" and a "going down chainring". I'd rather be paying attention to the scenery than the drivetrain. That's the point of touring for me.

While I absolutely agree with the comments about ratio redundancy, there is something to be said for just being able to click one shifter and hop up/down to a close ratio. In other words, I don't mind the overlap between ratios. I find it easy to have a "going up chainring" a "level chainring" and a "going down chainring". I'd rather be paying attention to the scenery than the drivetrain. That's the point of touring for me.

If you look at the numbers I posted, you'll see that you can still do that quite easily. The only disadvantage to not having the middle ring would be that when it comes time to shift chainrings, you'll have to shift more on the rear as well, but since you'll probably be shifting the rear at least one cog anyway, that doesn't seem like much of a benefit.

Anyway, my only point is that the manufacturers have been increasing the number of gears with the perception that something is somehow improved, when we're all still stuck with the same gear inches and having to pick the right one to go up the hill...

Do I really need to explain this?
Yes, you do! People aren't required to guess what you are saying in your vague post!


Anyway, from looking at the numbers, the middle chainring on this configuration looks redundant.
How well is that 26/48 setup going to shift?

Actually, a 26/48 would be "illegal" for Shimano front deraileurs. They specify a maximum of 22 teeth range between high and low.

Yes, you do! People aren't required to guess what you are saying in your vague post!
Boy, you really do like to complain and argue.



How well is that 26/48 setup going to shift?Vague question.

Boy, you really do like to complain and argue.
Vague question.

I guess only you are allowed to be vague!


For a cassette with 11 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 34 and a chainring with 26 36 48 (standard configuration on a Surly LHT - I'm assuming it's for a 700 wheel and 170 mm cranks), you get the following gain ratios (listed in order of 11 to 34):
It looks like that LHT setup has a large number of duplicate gears.

OK you have convinced yourself you need the latest kit ,

as someone who had already plodded my way thru a few long trips , I appreciate the functional simplicity of these
German Precision oil dampened needle bearing planetary internal gear hubs

Never have to look on my R'off no pattern to follow , one ratio follows another, in a line.
13.6% gear ratio difference between each over a 526% range, with one chainring,
add a 2nd chainring and there can be a 6% difference , just A/B an half step, switching between the 2.

and there is only 1 cog to replace, can use any 3/32(or 1/8") chain, ..
they last longer if not flexed sideways.
and so thin to work in such narrow gaps of packing in 10 in the space of 8..

Bring funds and staying in Hotels and B&B's will let you travel really light, and the money you dont spend on High tech Camping gear will go a ways on nice dinners, hot baths and clean sheets.

48/11 is 117".. geez , 44:11 is high enough. at 108, [52/13] I coast down hills after all the work to get up the other side..
50:14 seemed fine to me.. even stop on the top or in the middle of the decent to enjoy the view, snap a couple pictures, etc.

Bene Sugg: Just get the 22, 32 44 crankset out of the MTB group too, .. and the FD

Shimano hates being broken up the engineers pay for their expensive houses in Osaka designing the stuff and worked hard to make something to be shipped as a whole and work for any Brand bike company with out fussing ,
but mixing road and mountain stuff fills pages of these lists as people try to figure out what will make it work when it's reluctant to do so.

I guess only you are allowed to be vague!

No, just pointing out that nitpicky people often aren't as precise as they expect others to be.

Regarding my so-called vague comments, I thought it was perfectly appropriate within the context of the thread's ongoing discussion. If you didn't, then that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. My opinion is that there are polite ways to request more clarification.

No, just pointing out that nitpicky people often aren't as precise as they expect others to be.
Well, if you didn't think your original post was vague, you would not have expanded on it.

Blaming things on "marketing hype" is lazy.

You still haven't indicated what particular number of cogs crosses over into being "hype".

It's the number of cogs that people talk about as being "too much". Yet you talked about triples being "too much".



How well is that 26/48 setup going to shift?Vague question.
Not so vague.

I suspect that there is a reason that triples are used instead of doubles with large tooth differences, even with the redundant gear issue.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/front-derailers.html

Here is an extensive write-up on selecting gears for touring.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/touring/gears.htm

He also provides an explanation of why the LHT has the "duplicate gears" problem.

<snip>(not every post is about you)


I don't know why people don't run gear charts instead. People with triples have even more reason to run gear charts.Uh, because they have them memorized? And instead of what?



You can shift both brifters and have your hands on the "controls" and have access to the brake all at the same time!

While you have to take your hand off of the bar, you can shift downtube shifters at the same time too (it is a bit harder).

(Barcon shifters are perfectly fine!)I thought the OP had already eliminated brifters. Just saying that of the two remaining choices, barcons and DT, I've found barcons a better choice on my bikes. And I don't see at all how the Thumbies are going to work with road bars.



The "float" is engineered in (that is, it's there for a reason). Don't second guess your derailler system manufacturer!Why not? After years of messing around with pulleys, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have sealed ball bearings on both pulleys, that float was not necessary if your shifter delivered accurate shifts, i.e. if you maintained your bike, and that derailleur manufacturers were building product for the average user, which I'm not. I was right about the brifter bikes, but wrong about the barcon. I still use it that way, though, having become accustomed to the necessary increased precision. And like I was saying about trombones, having been a trombone player, you get used to moving your hands accurately. And I've enjoyed having maintenance free pulley bearings, though the edges of even aluminum pulleys still do wear down and need to be replaced occasionally.

(not every post is about you)
I'd say that next to none of them are!


Uh, because they have them memorized? And instead of what?
If you already have them "memorized", you might not need the gear chart. Doing a gear chart provides a bit more information than just trying things out and it's easy to do. It might even make the "memorization" easier! I don't know why people don't do it.


Just saying that of the two remaining choices, barcons and DT, I've found barcons a better choice on my bikes.
Barcons might be generally a better choice of the two.


Why not?
You are certainly free to question the manufacturer (no one can stop you from doing that).


In redoing my derailleur pulleys for that bike, I took the float out of both of them and that made the shifting too fussy, though it worked fine on my STI bikes. So don't do that.
This doesn't seem that surprising a result. I was more saying that there's a reason for the float (it's not accidental).


After years of messing around with pulleys, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have sealed ball bearings on both pulleys, that float was not necessary if your shifter delivered accurate shifts, i.e. if you maintained your bike, and that derailleur manufacturers were building product for the average user, which I'm not.

I think the float allows the pulley to follow the angle of the chain better. Many tourists are looking for things that are more tolerant of problems and maintenance issues.

Build your own cassette with closer range where you need it most.

Well, if you didn't think your original post was vague, you would not have expanded on it.

That is an incorrect assertion on your part.

Doing a gear chart provides a bit more information than just trying things out and it's easy to do. It might even make the "memorization" easier! I don't know why people don't do it.
Why would I need a gear chart?

If my cadence is getting high or low, I change the cassette and voila, I'm back at a more preferable cadence. All I really need to know is the range. I don't use my triple to double-shift to nit-pick a gear; I spend most of my time in the middle (which, by the way, has the straightest chainline most of the time). I'll use the little ring when climbing, the big ring for descending or high speeds. Since I'm not racing, I don't need tweak on matching a specific cadence to my speed.

I might add that small gearing gaps are a relatively recent innovation. It wasn't that long ago that tourists were "stuck" with 8sp cassettes, 7sp or 6sp freewheels, and did quite well with them.



I suspect that there is a reason that triples are used instead of doubles with large tooth differences, even with the redundant gear issue.
Yes, it's because tourers are retro-grouches. ;)

Compact doubles are becoming increasingly common and capable. For example, the new SRAM Apex road gruppo has a 50/34 + 11-32 10-speed config, for a range of 28" - 122". Compacts have already all but killed off road triples. We might actually start seeing them on touring bikes one day.

I don't know what the best gearing for you is but I could get buy with 6-8 gears.I could get rid of the outer chainring all together and I wouldn't miss it.

I would use a compact double,if it would fit a 20-34 gears.I don't think that will be anytime soon.

+1 for Rohloff - 14 unique gears with regular increments throughout the range, and you can use a proper chain rather than the super-thin jobs required for a 10sp cassette. And as someone else has said, you can change gear when stationary without having to lift your heavily-laden back end and turn your cranks! Fantastic bit of kit.

Why would I need a gear chart?

If my cadence is getting high or low, I change the cassette and voila, I'm back at a more preferable cadence. All I really need to know is the range. I don't use my triple to double-shift to nit-pick a gear; I spend most of my time in the middle (which, by the way, has the straightest chainline most of the time). I'll use the little ring when climbing, the big ring for descending or high speeds. Since I'm not racing, I don't need tweak on matching a specific cadence to my speed.

I might add that small gearing gaps are a relatively recent innovation. It wasn't that long ago that tourists were "stuck" with 8sp cassettes, 7sp or 6sp freewheels, and did quite well with them.



Yes, it's because tourers are retro-grouches. ;)

Compact doubles are becoming increasingly common and capable. For example, the new SRAM Apex road gruppo has a 50/34 + 11-32 10-speed config, for a range of 28" - 122". Compacts have already all but killed off road triples. We might actually start seeing them on touring bikes one day.I don't know about the compact doubles thing. Why? Reduced weight? Heee-heee. I do the spreadsheet thing for my gearing choices and find that a small granny ring and a closer ratio cassette will give closer ratios down low, which is where it really matters to me. When climbing a long pass, I want to dial in my cadence as closely as I can. I just built up a bike with 52-39-26 and a 12-25 in back. That puts my bottom gears about 3" apart all the way to the middle of the cassette, where the middle ring takes over. Younger folks could tighten it up to a straight block. Something to think about. The 26-39 shift works fine, though I did put on a chain stopper. So not a retro-grouch, rather a beneficiary of new technology. With more speeds in the back, we can have closer choices on each ring.

On the flat, as a previous poster pointed out, we can vary cadence and/or speed quite a bit and have a comfortable tour. But when I'm dribbling out my reserves on a long climb, I like to be able to fine tune it.

Anybody know anything about or tried the Mountain Tamer quad chainring setup (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabundantadventures.com%2Fquads.html&ei=DB1STPb8DcO78gbIjv2WBA&usg=AFQjCNHFGr5UCVGg2vFBRpncD8AjIL4dag[/url)? I bet you could do a nice 4x9 setup with small steps.