Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Randonneuring Gearing Question

I looking to modify my Trek 520 touring bike to use for randonneuring. It is geared low with a Sugino crank at 26-36-46 and using the Cyclotouriste 13 cassette from Harris Cyclery that goes from 13 to 34. It computes at 95.5 to 36.5 gear inches with a 170 mm crank. This works great for pulling loads up hills but is lacking in speed on level or downhill.
I looking at changing the cassette to a 12-25 which would give me a gear inch range of 49 to 103 or a 11-23 cassette yielding 54 to 112 gear inches.

I've not done any randonneuring before, but don't think my current set up has enough in big gears. Don't want to try a 200k event and suffer because of the gearing. The cassette swap is a fairly cheap and easy change.

Anyone have an idea on what would be the best?

Al

You'd suffer if you can't push big gears?
Most of these choices will be personal - and reflect the local terrain, your fitness, etc.
And how you'll feel @ mile 90 and 100 and 110 and 125.


I run a 30/46 double with 13/29 on the rear.
This gives me 27.7 to 94.7 with 700x28 - which is lower than your touring setup overall.
Most of my riding is in the 46...

For me a wiser expenditure of energy is fighting terrain rather than trying to overpower the wind.

I used to swap stuff around all the time, tuning my gearing per the event.

Now I just generally leave the 30/46 on and switch wheels. Not that I gain anything by that - but I go to a 13/26 instead of the 29. ;)


YMMV

26t chainring to 23t cog doesn't give a 54" gear.

Well, to each his own. My Raleigh Sojourn has 50/39/30 up front and 11-34 in the rear. I almost never use the big ring. I have to be going about 30 mph before I need it, and unless I'm going downhill, that just isn't happening. With the 39-11 combination, I can only use that with a tailwind and that'll be pretty comfortable cruising at 21 or 22 mph (and my average for a ride normally won't be over around 16 mph or so). Maybe you're just faster and stronger than I am and need bigger gears, but I suspect I could get along with your gearing just fine on a brevet. I'm more apt to run out on the low end.

You will need to change two of three of your speed factors to increase your speed range more than 30%. You can change your crankset to one with larger chainrings. You can change your cassette to one that includes a 12t cog. ...Or you can pedal faster. You will need to select two.

I'm assuming your pedaling at 80 rpm most of the time, and your gearing will begin to limit you above 22 mph. That's still faster than most long distance cyclist will travel on the flat. Downhill travel is another situation, and I assume you have some sustained downhill sections near Knoxville. Keep in mind that your average will be in the 14 to 19 mph range for any distance greater than 100k. Slower if long hills are involved.

I stop pedaling at 30 mph with a fast cadence of 100 rpm on downhill sections. Faster than that and gravity is going to have to do the work. How fast do you want to be assisting gravity?

I would consider a 12-27 nine speed cassette. However, that will only add a little less than 2 mph to the speed range while on a 44t chainring and very steep climbs will be difficult.

Another idea is to install a Shimano Tiagra 50-39-30 triple and keep your 13-34 cassette. The 50t chainwheel will add 3 mph over the 44t.

These cranksets can be found on ebay for about $95 with the BB adding about $25 to your costs.

Changing both the cassette and the crankset will add 5 mph at 80 rpm.

...Or you can pedal faster. Select two.

Barrett - Thanks for the detailed reply.

You are correct in getting sustained downhill in this area. I quickly max out the gears on any downhill and lose the ability to pick up some speed. Still thinking about various things to try as I can buy just the large chainring. They are available in 50, 52 or 53 on ebay in the $50 and less range.

Think I'll buy a 50t to swap out and see what it does.

Al

Barrett - Thanks for the detailed reply.

You are correct in getting sustained downhill in this area. I quickly max out the gears on any downhill and lose the ability to pick up some speed. Still thinking about various things to try as I can buy just the large chainring. They are available in 50, 52 or 53 on ebay in the $50 and less range.

Think I'll buy a 50t to swap out and see what it does.

Al

That would be a good test. Just be aware that the front derailleur would need to be repositioned higher on the seat-tube and that downshifts might cause problems. The derailleur is designed for a certain change in chainwheel diameter with each shift and increasing the diameter of a chainwheel will impact the shift quality.

Having said that, it just might shift perfectly.

Michael

What Mike said (hey Mike, long time no see, Burlington repruhZENT!)( :) ). I find gear range to be far more important for randonneuring, rather than being able to dial cadence. I am currently running a triple crankset and 11-32 cassette for 21 to 108 gear inches. This serves me well when the hours go long, the winds run high, and the hills get severe, and when all three factors come together. An added bonus is that I can haul a trailer on other errands.

I wouldn't really sweat about running out of top end when it comes to randonneuring. But to make this relevant to you: are you really running out of top end on your descents? How much speed would you estimate that you're missing? I ask because I recently switched from a road triple to a mountain triple. I have actually not been able to hit the same top speeds on the road crank that I was getting on the mountain crank.

If you are using 9 speed, why not just a standard 11-32 for about $30?

If you are using 9 speed, why not just a standard 11-32 for about $30?

or a 11-34 $19
http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/CS500B00-Sram+Pg+950+Cassette+Oe.aspx

Whew - I'm glad that problem is solved. Its tough to find good gearing in modern bicycles. I have no idea how those old guy do it with those worthless 52-39 crank mated to a 13x28 freewheel. What cavemen -sheesh!

Whew - I'm glad that problem is solved. Its tough to find good gearing in modern bicycles. I have no idea how those old guy do it with those worthless 52-39 crank mated to a 13x28 freewheel. What cavemen -sheesh!

Ahhh... the good old days;

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/HHH2010008.jpg

But this is better;

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/Soma2x2009drivetrain.jpg

Al,

In concentrating on gearing, you are overlooking a crucial factor in the equation: your frame.

I have been riding a Trek 520 for the last 27 years (I bought her new in 1983) so you could say that I have a few miles of saddle time with that frame. And your newer 520 is basically unchanged from my older one... the frame is the same according to the boys at Trek. Only the components have changed over the years.

If you attempt to push big gears on that frame to any real degree, you will discover that the 520's frame will bend and wrap like a wet noodle. The very properties that make the 520 ride like a Cadillac also make it accelerate and climb like a slug. All that frame flex represents wasted energy... so you tire yourself out for nothing. The only efficient way to ride that frame is to spin smaller gears and avoid inducing the frame flex that mashing produces.

I love my 520 and she still rides like your Granddaddy's Buick. I commute on her 20 miles daily, but it's not the best brevet frame in the world. If I ride the 520 for a few days and then jump on my Surly Pacer it's like the Pacer is an anti-gravity bike on the hills! The 520 slogs up the inclines... the Pacer accelerates up them.

Now all of that begs the big question:

Would I ride that 520 on a brevet?

Yes. I would. But I would ride that bike with the knowledge that you have to ride it a certain way in order to take advantage of the bike's strengths and avoid its weaknesses. As long as you're smart about it, you'll be fine on your 520 for long long distances.

Whew - I'm glad that problem is solved. Its tough to find good gearing in modern bicycles. I have no idea how those old guy do it with those worthless 52-39 crank mated to a 13x28 freewheel. What cavemen -sheesh!you mean 52-42, them were the good old days, a 39 is practically modern

you mean 52-42, them were the good old days, a 39 is practically modern

Or, the 52 & 49 half step with a 13-24 five speed freewheel as shown above. That was OE 35 years ago.

Okay, give this a try:

http://www.kstoerz.com/gearcalc/compare/image.php?lbl=1&tsid1=3&igbbid1=1&cogs1=13,15,17,19,21,24,27,30,34&rings1=26,36,46&ighid1=1&tsid2=3&igbbid2=1&cogs2=13,15,17,19,21,24,27,30,34&rings2=26,45,48&ighid2=1

26/45/48 gives pretty close to true half-step gearing, less gear duplication, you don't lose anything on the low end and gain a bit up top.


By the way, I think Sheldon's gearcalc is crap, the "visual drivetrain comparison tool" at Kstoerz.com (http://www.kstoerz.com/gearcalc/compare/) is VASTLY superior, though it still needs more tire-size choices. Still and all, it's a fun tool to play around with.

Whew - I'm glad that problem is solved. Its tough to find good gearing in modern bicycles. I have no idea how those old guy do it with those worthless 52-39 crank mated to a 13x28 freewheel. What cavemen -sheesh!

Gears schmears, back in my day, I didn't need no stinkin' gears, I just jumped on the ol' Worksman and rode 132 miles.
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z172/stephenhazelton/MiscBikePhotos/4790Proc.jpg

you mean 52-42, them were the good old days, a 39 is practically modernNo, no, 52-48 was the good old days, half step gearing. Did my first century on a half-step bike.

That would be a good test. Just be aware that the front derailleur would need to be repositioned higher on the seat-tube and that downshifts might cause problems. The derailleur is designed for a certain change in chainwheel diameter with each shift and increasing the diameter of a chainwheel will impact the shift quality.

Having said that, it just might shift perfectly.

Michael

I have 24/34/52 11-34 9spd on a couple of my road bikes, and have no problem with the shifts. Low gears are presently a requirement for me, but I hope to be able to put in a LOT more saddle time in the near future. Retirement is looming large!:thumb:

Gears schmears, back in my day, I didn't need no stinkin' gears, I just jumped on the ol' Worksman and rode 132 miles.


Is that a motorcycle helmet hanging on the handlebars? :D

do you need to fly down hills pushing the big ring?

i dunno.. i use a 44 big ring and don't run out with a 12, i just coast when i run out of gearing, and we have some good hills around here, routinely hitting 30+. never seemed a problem to me, really- and i know i push from about 36 to 99 inches with that setup.

i'd certainly worry about having a good range for comfortable spinning and climbing over speedwork FIRST. i honestly almost never use 44 12- but i think i might sping around 100-120 for cadence before i consider it 'spinning out'- so maybe that explains the discrepancy.

Try some longer rides with your current setup so you can have a better idea of where you need to make changes. I spend hours dicking around with gearing calculators but I'm fine with my current hybrid setup on 100k rides... 11-32 with a 52-39 up front. I'm going to try and do some randonneuring on my bike, and when I swap out my cassette I'm going to get a 12-36 29er cassette (http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/CS273Z00-Shimano+Hg61+12-36+29Er+Cassette.aspx) so I can get some lower bailout gears. Starting over I'd get a compact double too. I did set the bike up with a long-cage deore so I could run the bigger cassettes.

I spend hours dicking around with gearing calculators but I'm fine with my current hybrid setup on 100k rides... 11-32 with a 52-39 Chances are - if you're dicking around with a calculator, you'll be dicking around when you shift.

My point, at least my original point was that modern bicycles often offer at least 16 or 18 or 20 drive train combinations -meaning you have to be a bit dim to not be able to find a usable gear.

Ok OK, I know some skinny-ass pimple face geek is going to say he usually rides a straight-block but now he needs a 28 for the San Fran crit he's going to win.

But c'mon, can't we all agree that if you have a newer bike with 18 or 20 gears, the problem isn't the gearing - its you?

PS there is no such thing as "distance this" or "distance that" - either you use equipment that works, or doesn't - and it isn't a case of 10, 50, or 500 miles to argue over.

proceed to hate mail below.........

Think of it this way:

What happens on a 200K when you don't have low enough gears?
What happens on a 200K when you don't have high enough gears?

I'd venture to guess that the former would be worse than the latter.

On my commuter (SOMA Saga) I run 24/36/46 and 11-32. I rarely use the granny ring, but I use the big ring quite a bit. Downhills aside, I've never found myself yearning for a taller top-end. On the flats, my speed is limited by my lungs, legs, and how much crud I'm carrying in my panniers.

I do find myself using lower gears farther into a ride, so yes, distance does make a difference.

I looking to modify my Trek 520 touring bike to use for randonneuring. ...
Al

I have the same Sugino crank up front and an 11/32 or occasionally 11/34 in back. With 46x11 and 700x32 tires, I could easily spin to the mid-30 mph point at 110 rpm if I ever wanted to, but in fact I usually stop pedaling and tuck as soon as I hit about 28 mph. At that speed, gravity works a lot better than pedaling hard.

...but in fact I usually stop pedaling and tuck as soon as I hit about 28 mph. At that speed, gravity works a lot better than pedaling hard.

+1

I have the same Sugino crank up front and an 11/32 or occasionally 11/34 in back. With 46x11 and 700x32 tires, I could easily spin to the mid-30 mph point at 110 rpm if I ever wanted to, but in fact I usually stop pedaling and tuck as soon as I hit about 28 mph. At that speed, gravity works a lot better than pedaling hard.

When you go from the 11/32 to the 11/34 do you have to add a link to you chain. I have 2 cassettes, one is a 11/28 and the other is a 11/34 and I have a 11/32 on the bike now.

Chances are - if you're dicking around with a calculator, you'll be dicking around when you shift.

My point, at least my original point was that modern bicycles often offer at least 16 or 18 or 20 drive train combinations -meaning you have to be a bit dim to not be able to find a usable gear.

Ok OK, I know some skinny-ass pimple face geek is going to say he usually rides a straight-block but now he needs a 28 for the San Fran crit he's going to win.

But c'mon, can't we all agree that if you have a newer bike with 18 or 20 gears, the problem isn't the gearing - its you?

PS there is no such thing as "distance this" or "distance that" - either you use equipment that works, or doesn't - and it isn't a case of 10, 50, or 500 miles to argue over.

proceed to hate mail below.........

So, HTFU. Gotcha. This should be flagged "best-of", really. :rolleyes:

or a 11-34 $19
http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/CS500B00-Sram+Pg+950+Cassette+Oe.aspx

Yes, this is what I was thinking of.

When you go from the 11/32 to the 11/34 do you have to add a link to you chain. I have 2 cassettes, one is a 11/28 and the other is a 11/34 and I have a 11/32 on the bike now.

I'd say probably you will need that, but it really just depends on how tightly things are set up in the first place. One tooth is not a big increase, but you might be at the limit with the 11/32.

I'd say probably you will need that, but it really just depends on how tightly things are set up in the first place. One tooth is not a big increase, but you might be at the limit with the 11/32.

Thanks for the reply RF, but I was going to use the 11/34 on my touring bike. It has a 11/32 on it now, so I think it should work.I also have a 12/28 9 spd for my touring bike as well, so I think I would have to take 2 links out, if I have it set up for a 11/32 now. I was thinking about going to a 12/27 on my LOOK, which has a 12/25 on it now. Anyhow thanks again.

When you go from the 11/32 to the 11/34 do you have to add a link to you chain. I have 2 cassettes, one is a 11/28 and the other is a 11/34 and I have a 11/32 on the bike now.

Haven't had to add a link. I guess things are loose enough that they can go from 32 to 34. But I try to avoid ever being in the big/big or small/small combinations. It's set up so it can handle big/big without breaking the derailleur, but you can feel and hear the resistance and shift out of that gear fast. Similarly small/small has some amount of chain rub against itself that you can hear.

What happens on a 200K when you don't have low enough gears?
What happens on a 200K when you don't have high enough gears?
If you are too dim to choose correct gearing because of the length of the ride, you are too dim too choose gearing in any case. Again, if you can't get it done with 16 or 18 or more ratios - then give it up.

And this goofy - super, wide range cassette or crank deal is just another "all -day" head ache to sort through.

There is a reason bicycles come with given gear ratios - and I guess - it must be so lame riders can guess about wider, more useless gearing setups.

End of story, eat turkey - go buy worthless gearing.

looking at some of the period classics bikes French riders did the PBP trip on ,
they used wide doubles
particularly with the 9 and 10 speed cassettes with a 11 to 34,
a 44 24 may give you the range without that 3rd ring.

If you are too dim to choose correct gearing because of the length of the ride, you are too dim too choose gearing in any case. Again, if you can't get it done with 16 or 18 or more ratios - then give it up.

And this goofy - super, wide range cassette or crank deal is just another "all -day" head ache to sort through.

There is a reason bicycles come with given gear ratios - and I guess - it must be so lame riders can guess about wider, more useless gearing setups.

End of story, eat turkey - go buy worthless gearing.

You really should just STFU already.

You really should just STFU already.Man's got a point. My '99 Trek came with the usual 52-42-30 triple and a 12-25. Stock bike. Nothing wrong with that gearing, until I was over 60. Then I went to a 12-27. BFD. Cassettes wear out, anyway. That's still what I've got on there. I gotta agree with RC. I don't understand this thread at all. The point is? Advantages being sought are? My stock Trek is flawless as far as I can tell. If you can't turn a 30-27, you need to get out more. Isn't this the LD thread? Or are people are weenie-ing about the weight of a 30T ring? But don't mind a 25 lb steel bike? Eh?

I looking to modify my Trek 520 touring bike to use for randonneuring. It is geared low with a Sugino crank at 26-36-46 and using the Cyclotouriste 13 cassette from Harris Cyclery that goes from 13 to 34. It computes at 95.5 to 36.5 gear inches with a 170 mm crank. This works great for pulling loads up hills but is lacking in speed on level or downhill.
I looking at changing the cassette to a 12-25 which would give me a gear inch range of 49 to 103 or a 11-23 cassette yielding 54 to 112 gear inches.

I've not done any randonneuring before, but don't think my current set up has enough in big gears. Don't want to try a 200k event and suffer because of the gearing. The cassette swap is a fairly cheap and easy change.

Anyone have an idea on what would be the best?

Al

One, if I follow your paragraph correctly, your calculations are off. A 26 chainring to a 34 tooth cog with a 27" wheel ~ 20 gear inches. It sounds to me that your easiest solution is to simply use an 11-34 or 11-32 if you believe that the low end is overkill but you want some taller gears. It probably mates well with your present rear derailer and in case you need a low gear you still have the bail out gears available. Personally, if you're not riding in pacelines, I think that the additional granularity of the narrower road cassettes is unnecessary. But YMMV.

46/13 ~ 3.5
46/11 ~ 4.2

So about a 20% increase in the top end. If that doesn't do it, you can change the big ring to a 48 or 50.

EDIT: I see that others already mentioned the same. Sorry for the overkill.

I have a low 13.5 inches and a high of 126 AND 6.5% jumps between each gear. I have both steep grades (20+) and long down hills so I do use all these gears. This setup is on my Alex Moulton AM bicycle (http://www.flickr.com/photos/professor_john/5152627777/in/set-72157625328361560/) (17" wheels) with a Rohloff hub with 16 tooth cog and a Schlumph Speed Drive with 46 and 49 tooth chainrings. I can get 17" to 155" by swapping out the 16 tooth cog with a 13 tooth one. I am half stepping with the 46-49 chainrings against the Rohloff's 13% jumps between gears. I actually use this bike both for the commute (22.5 miles each way) and for long rides.

My second point, was that the term "engineering" means something. When you "re-engineer" to change a gear train for some theoretical ratio - you also change many other characteristics of the drive train.

If you genuinely thought these gearing changes are so important then you should understand that you need to evaluate all the components of the drive train - making this "one angle" thread as lame and as useless as I call it.

]- making this "one angle" thread as lame and as useless as I call it.

Thanks so much for you thoughtful and well-informed posts. They have really enlighted my thinking on making any changes to my bike. It's a shame I won't be reading any more of them as you just made my ignore list.

My second point, was that the term "engineering" means something. When you "re-engineer" to change a gear train for some theoretical ratio - you also change many other characteristics of the drive train.

If you genuinely thought these gearing changes are so important then you should understand that you need to evaluate all the components of the drive train - making this "one angle" thread as lame and as useless as I call it.

People have been making drive train changes to bikes since bikes were invented. If the original poster, or I, or anyone else want to swap to a different cassette or different chainrings (assuming our shifters and derailleurs can handle them and we don't screw up the chainline too much) I do not think that the bicycle gods will be offended. Bicycle "engineers" are designing a drive train for some imagined "typical" rider for the type of bike they are making. That doesn't mean that it is right for the original poster, me, or anyone else.

Just out of curiosity, can you provide a cite to published or second-party information to document your expertise on either long distance bicycling or on bicycle engineering? You could start with your real name. If Lennard Zinn says something, I pay attention because he has published books and he publishes a regular column on bike tech. He clearly knows what he is talking about. If some anonymous guy who calls himself "Richard Cranium" says something, why should I pay attention?

FWIW, the only Richard in the RUSA database who lives in St Louis has ridden total mileage since 2000 that is less than many randonneurs rode this year. So I'm assuming that either you are not he, or that you are not a randonneur, given your claim to long distance bike riding expertise.

Nick

Thanks Bulls, I think you closed that pie-hole!