Touring - Granny Gear question

I have a 2006 Cannondale T-800 with a stock drivetrain that consists of Shimano 105 9-speed shifters, Tiagra FD and Truvativ Blaze triple (26-36-48). All I want is a lower granny gear than the 26-34 that I currently have but have never been able to get a definitive answer as to whether that is a simple job or not. Can someone answer that question in layman's terms please?

Thanks, in advance, for the replies.

Are you sure what you have on the rear cassette? 34 teeth is usually the largest on a rear cassette. If you already have something like 12-26 cassette with a triple, I think all you need to do is buy and install an 11-34 cassette. The derailleurs you have should work. Most people recommend installing a new chain with the new cassette, especially if you have a lot of miles on it.

With that 26-34 combo, your lowest gear is already close to walking speed -- 3.7mph at 60rpm.

I don't think you will really benefit much from going any lower. Plus, let's face it, the lower your gearing, the more likely you are to dive for the granniest of your granny gears once you hit a hill.

You may just be better off doing a lot of hill repeats in a higher gear in order to build up those muscles. As long as you're still spinning rather than mashing, your knees should be fine.

Thanks for the responses!

To respond to some of the points: I've got a cassette that has 34 as the biggest cog. Speed is less of a concern to me. What is a concern is a 4% to 6% grade (or more sometimes) for 16 to 18 miles and me blowing up trying to tote my fat ass and 45 pounds of stuff over a couple of mountain passes on a self-supported tour. Knowing my body and what hasn't worked in the past, the low I've got isn't low enough and I'm just trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to go about rectifying that dilemma.

I had a small front of 26 and rear of 34 and found I wanted something even lower, so I install a 24. Since you currently have 26-36-48 crank the FD can handle the 22 difference (48-26=22). You can install a 24 and see it if shifts appropriately, and if not, you may need to drop your 48 to 46. My current setting is 24-36-46 with a rear mega cassette with 34 as the largest. Also, you rear derailleur needs to be able to handle the large cassette. If it is a long cage (SGS in Shimano language), then it should be fine.

Go with the 24T granny.

So I can get a 24T sprocket, pop the crankarm off, install the new sprocket and ride over the hills and through the woods? It's that easy huh?

So I can get a 24T sprocket, pop the crankarm off, install the new sprocket and ride over the hills and through the woods? It's that easy huh?

Perhaps you would have to shorten the chain a bit? I am not too mechanical so I won't say for sure.

BTW...Assuming 700c wheels with 35c tires and a 172.5 crank arm length, Sheldon Brown's web site says the change from a 26 to a 24 will drop your low gear inch from 20.8 to 19.2.

Perhaps you would have to shorten the chain a bit? I am not too mechanical so I won't say for sure.


if you are not changing the 2 big cogs, don't shorten the chain,
though It's often a good idea to replace the chain , preemptive maintenance.
if its a 74 BCD 3rd cog , 24 is all you have,
a Mountain bike compact crank with a 94/58 BCD lets the gear size drop to a 20t

indyfabz - no (on shortening the chain). The chain length is set by his big-big combination (48+34). The OP doesn't need a longer chain. If he needs to shorten it to accomodate small-small combos with 2 fewer teeth (26 to 24T chainring), I'd try to avoid the small-small combos first as it's easier to recover from a dropped chain (greasy fingers) than a locked-up drive train (greasy fingers, some dissassembly may be required, broken derailluer, damaged chain!).

Is a 7% plus change lower gear worth the cost and effort to the OP - it's up to him. The same "expense" reducing weight of gear carried (or as I suspect many of us including myself - carried by the 'motor'!) would pay off throughout a hilly ride, but he knows his terrain and abilities better than we do.

As an alternative, how about using a 12-36 cassette, either with the current 26 tooth front chainring, or switching to a 24.

Another alternative -- put on a standard 22-32-44 front crankset to replace the 26-36-46 -- should be less than $100, and that would make a big difference in your low and you could keep your current cassette. And you'd have plenty of high end if you wanted that.

I too have heard people tell me "you're just going at walking speed in "X" low gear". I've had people tell me that anything less than a 1:1 ratio is pointless (e.g. 27 gear inches). OK, maybe it is for them, but I like low gearing, especially with a load. And if we're talking "walking speed", it's a lot more efficient to spin fast and pedal a bike up a hill than walk it, even if your low is 21 gear inches. And as you say, speed isn't the issue anyway.

In my opinion most bikes are geared far higher than they should be for the average rider.

I have thought about the 22-32-44 front end but have been told that with the 105 shifters and Tiagra FD, I'd have a lot of tinkering I'd have to do to make it work and I'd have to buy a different FD. I am not a hardware expert...yet but can one just swap out the crank arms without changing those shifters and the FD?

Going from a 26T chainring to a 24T chainring won't make much difference, not worth the effort IMHO. 22T may make more difference. You might try shorter crankarms too. Although, your legs may not like that.

The lowest you can go is 22T chainring and 36T cassette. I'm just not sure how that works with road bikes. All my bikes use MTB drivetrain.


As an alternative, how about using a 12-36 cassette, either with the current 26 tooth front chainring, or switching to a 24.

Another alternative -- put on a standard 22-32-44 front crankset to replace the 26-36-46 -- should be less than $100, and that would make a big difference in your low and you could keep your current cassette. And you'd have plenty of high end if you wanted that.

I too have heard people tell me "you're just going at walking speed in "X" low gear". I've had people tell me that anything less than a 1:1 ratio is pointless (e.g. 27 gear inches). OK, maybe it is for them, but I like low gearing, especially with a load. And if we're talking "walking speed", it's a lot more efficient to spin fast and pedal a bike up a hill than walk it, even if your low is 21 gear inches. And as you say, speed isn't the issue anyway.

In my opinion most bikes are geared far higher than they should be for the average rider.

Yup. I found that pushing a loaded bike uphill is much harder than actually riding it at the same speed.

You won't need to shorten the chain. As noted above, my crank is 46-36-24 and cassette is 11-34. The chains I use are 116 links and I put them on without shortening them on my Surly LHT. In most cases a long chain is not an issue unless you run in the 24 crank and 11 cassette combination then you will get sage and perhaps the rear derailleur touching the cassette if not properly adjusted. The real issue is when one runs a chain that is too short -- that could lead to a broken rear derailleur.

So I can get a 24T sprocket, pop the crankarm off, install the new sprocket and ride over the hills and through the woods? It's that easy huh?

Yeah. But, changing a 24t for a 26t is a tiny difference you might not even notice. But, this is a very simple low cost option to get a lower gear. Anything else is much more effort and pricey.

Regarding shortening the chain, don't. I am running a 52/42/24 front and 11/32 eight speed rear. If I am using the 24t front, my derailleur cage won't take up all slack if I am on the 11 or 12 rear sprockets, but that is pretty far cross chained so I do not use those gears anyway. You want to make sure you have enough chain so if you accidently went into your largest front and rear gears, you would not bind anything up.

Option B. If you really are serious about this, you can try a mountain tamer. It is a spider that goes on instead of the 26t chainring, that spider holds a smaller chainring that would normally be installed on a Suntour rear cluster. You can go as low as 18t on the front with that.
http://abundantadventures.com/mt_triple.html

I tried one with a 20t and did not like it so I went back to a conventional 24t front chainring. I found that the 20t had me going so slow that I had trouble staying upright. Photo is with a 20t front with the mountain tamer.

204191

One problem I had is that the instructions say to hacksaw off some of the crankset bosses to shorten them. I did not do that. It is a bit hard to see in the photo, but I cut a piece of sheet metal and put that on each arm of the spider with a little ramp to force the chain over and onto the sprocket. Otherwise the chain lands on the spider and not on the sprocket when I downshift.

Avid also made an adapter but I do not recall what the exact name of it was.

If you try the Avid or the Mountain Tamer, you likely would need a friction front shifter.

I have thought about the 22-32-44 front end but have been told that with the 105 shifters and Tiagra FD, I'd have a lot of tinkering I'd have to do to make it work and I'd have to buy a different FD. I am not a hardware expert...yet but can one just swap out the crank arms without changing those shifters and the FD?

Tiagra seems to work with many triple cranks. Here are a few threads with folks who use Tiagra with differing combinations of triples:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/673059-Suggestions-needed-for-46-36-24-touring-crank?highlight=Tiagra+46

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/607491-Drivetrain-question-for-Soma-Saga?highlight=Tiagra+46

I dropped from 26t to 24t on my LHT. I would have gone to 22t if my equipment allowed it for a reasonable cost. I found a significant difference between the two. The 8% drop in my lowest gear was quite noticable on really steep grades, on which I often (always?) ride slower than 3.6 MPH. The lower grade allows a noticably higher cadence up these steep grades, reducing stress on my knees. My ride has 26" wheels, so I estimate my lowest gear at 18.4 gear inches now. This is about as low as I can handle with my current bike-handling skills. I need to keep enough speed to steer while spinning up those hills. I've read on this forum that other more skilled riders have gone lower with good success as well.

Front shifting is not as crisp, between small and middle chainrings. I only make this shift in bail-out mode anyway.

I find that it's much easier to spin up hills at walking speed than to actually walk.

That's been my experience. I am not a performance-oriented cyclist, so your experience may differ.

Jim

The difference between 26T to 24T is noticeable but not huge. Since you can do that for $10-12 and going to a 22T is probably going to require a different crank, I figure that a 24 is a no brainer.

I have thought about the 22-32-44 front end but have been told that with the 105 shifters and Tiagra FD, I'd have a lot of tinkering I'd have to do to make it work and I'd have to buy a different FD. I am not a hardware expert...yet but can one just swap out the crank arms without changing those shifters and the FD?

No you won't have to do a lot of tinkering. You could even just change the inner ring to a 22 (better than only a 2 tooth change) and leave everything else the same. I am currently using a 46/34/20 crank on my T800 with 105 STI and a Tiagra front derailer. It works just fine and didn't take a whole lot of extra effort to make it work properly. In fact, it too nothing special at all.

The change isn't all that hard either. You just need the proper bolt center diameter and bolt number for your crank. I believe that yours is a 64mm inner. Get a steel ring for durability.

OldZephyr has it right on gearing too. I regularly pedal up steep crap in my 20/34 combination. You aren't going to fall over and, to be honest, 60 rpm in that gear is a bit slow to be spinning the pedals.

A big Thank You to All who have responded. I greatly appreciate the time and effort taken to share your knowledge and experience with me, and the Forum at large, in this endeavor of mine. I'll contact my LBS tomorrow and get the ball rolling on the parts. If this doesn't work I may trade the bike in on one with a V-Twin motor.

We'll see.

Best regards,
Don Johnson

"If this doesn't work I may trade the bike in on one with a V-Twin motor." --Don Johnson

I don't have a face palm pic serious enough! (Yes, I ride motorcycles also.)

Some numbers assuming 700X35 and a bit of rounding off:
26/34=21.03 GI (now)
24/34=19.41 GI (proposed)
24/36=18.33 GI (proposed + 36T in cassette)
22/34-17.8 GI ($$ swap to mtn crankset plus required items $$)

A 20 GI granny is the most often recommended (lower doesn't hurt, of course) granny gear I've read. My T700 has a 20.8 GI granny that so far has stood me well. I'm also sure that there are some hills that I'd need to walk whether I went to a lower granny, or not. The change from the 26T to the 24T isn't much, but maybe enough.

Brad

An argument in favor of granny gears that aren't super-low

Since I'm in the minority... ;)

At a certain point, I'd say that lowering your gears not only hits diminishing returns, it's actually counter-productive.

Let's say you are on a hill that is 1 mile long. If you're pedaling at 4mph, that hill will take you about 15 minutes. At 3mph, it will take you 20 minutes. I'd say for many people that's a good trade-off, although you're working 25% longer.

What about a longer hill, say 5 miles? At 4mph, it takes you 75 minutes; at 3mph it takes you 100 minutes. Now, you're fighting gravity for an extra 20 minutes. Is it still worth it? (Before you answer, try to recall how you felt when you recently got to the end of a 5-mile climb in your lowest gearing. :D)

How about over 10 miles worth of climbing? 4mph is 150 minutes, 3mph is 200 minutes. Even if that's spread out over a 50 mile ride, a slower pace will mean you have to climb for an extra hour.

20 miles? 4mph, that's 300 minutes of climbing; at 3mph, it's 400 minutes. I'd say that adding over an hour and a half to your day's efforts is quite significant.

How about comparing a 4mph pace to 3.5mph -- can't be that much, right? At the 20 mile amount, it's an extra 45 minutes of climbing. So lowering from that 26 to a 24 up front, which is a very small change, is going to mean you work longer on every climb.


Keep in mind I'm not characterizing this in terms of performance or presuming that saving time is of primary importance. Rather, I'm pointing out that almost any mechanical decision involves a compromise. If you choose to work less on the climbs, then you'll need to work longer -- even when you happen to be cycling at slower speeds.

Thus at some point, it's better to get stronger than to lower your gears.

"An argument in favor of granny gears that aren't super-low"

Around here the hills are not a constant gradient and a goody granny combination can keep the whole deal moving through the steepest 100 yards.

That is why I have a 48-36-22t crankset and an 12/36 cassette.

With that big of a tooth differential use a chain guide. When downshifting the chain may tend to overshoot the small chainring and jamb between it and the frame, leading to sudden stops and pain. N-gear jump stop works well for me. http://www.gvtc.com/~ngear/

I'm sure Bacciagalupe's math is spot on :D

When climbing a steep hill for hours on end - that dang hill up Death Valley to Towne's Pass came to mind ;) - I start off in a higher gear, then shift down the tireder I get, shift up one gear and stand on the pedals for a while, shift down and sit down again :repeat: As the day wears on the gears get smaller and smaller... At last I take micro breaks and start off refreshed with a higher gear - for a while :repeat:
My speed (and cadence) is probably very erratic, a bit faster standing up (higher cadence sitting down?)... but all the time I'm shifting gears, adjusting my position, resting, to an inner voice that is telling me how best (for MY legs) to get to the top of the dang hill :D fwiw my granny is 22/28 and very very occasionally I'm so knackered that I wish it was even lower... Rambling point being, I'm not considering the math involved, just trying to get up the hill :)

204286

All else, i use the 24 inch gear... two feet .. and walk the bike up the slope.

One memorable climb, the south side of Loch Ness
[B862 on my map, Ft Augustus towards Foyers]

It was push, grab brake, rest, push, repeat, etc.

You could even just change the inner ring to a 22 (better than only a 2 tooth change) and leave everything else the same.

I didn't realize that the Blaze accepted smaller than 24T. So yes I agree that you might as well go to a 22.

Only if the granny gear is on a smaller than 74 mm bolt circle..
like a M56 or 58 ..
TA Zephyr, now out of production, was drilled twice for the 3rd chainring.
a 56 and a 74.
the large chainring is for a 110. TA makes a 33t for 110.

Only if the granny gear is on a smaller than 74 mm bolt circle.
Apparently he has a Truvativ Blaze 3 that does.

Originally posted by Bacciagalupe
An argument in favor of granny gears that aren't super-low..............

I'm also sure your calculations are spot on, but--
The way I understand it, you are assuming that you can maintain an RPM that will give you that extra speed, and that you don't build up enough lactic acid to have a detrimental affect on the rest of the day's performance.

I'm only basing my opinion on my experience, but I have used a 26, 24, and 22 tooth granny gears on various tours. With the 22/34 combination I can climb at about the same speed as the 24 or 26, maintain a higher RPM, and get up the hills easier and without the telltale thigh "burn" -- well at least most of the time;)

If it takes the same amount of work to get a given weight up an incline (I did not do well in physics class) it is the same ammount of effort regardless of gearing. It is like bench pressing 200 pounds 3 times or bench pressing 100 pounds 6 times. Which one seems easier?

I want a really low gear available for steep, long hills when I'm carrying a load. I put a Sugino crankset on my LHT that had a 26-tooth granny. I changed it out for a 24-tooth and I like it better. The crankset won't accept anything smaller; I might have tried a 22. The switch was relatively easy and I did it myself.

Riding slowly uphill with a big load takes a little concentration to keep from swerving, but if I maintain that small amount of concentration it's easy. I'm very glad I changed.

I think I used Sheldon Brown's website to help know what was compatible. If you don't want to do it yourself, go to your local mechanic. He/she should be able to find a good chainring and install it for you cheaply.

have a Quad adapter , 2 more chainrings, 26 & a 16.. its in a bin,
the gearing can be quite low, towing a trailer in a trike,
you could use the low, otoh,
the development on the ground, with each pedal stroke,
is so short, a 2 wheel bike on a hill would lose momentum
before clipping in the other foot.

Tried it, thats why it went into storage.

have about a 17~18 GI, that seems OK,
though spinning it Vs walking is often a toss up. :rolleyes:

The difference between 26T and 24T is small, but when I made the switch 20 years ago, I noticed an immediate improvement in the ease of climbing. And I was stronger and fitter in those days!

Now, my lowest gear is 36T in back and 22T in front. I have NO PROBLEM staying upright or balancing, even on extremely steep hills. My knees are happy. When I ride with friends who have "standard" gearing setups, they often struggle up hills when I am barely breaking a sweat.

you are assuming that you can maintain an RPM that will give you that extra speed....
To be precise, I'm recommending that you build a bit more strength and/or mental toughness so that you can climb the hills a small amount faster. I'm hardly suggesting you take every hill at 15 mph.

I'm also pointing out that there is a trade-off. With the lower gearing you will not work quite as hard, but you'll work for a longer period of time. When you get to the point of adding nearly two extra hours of climbing to a full touring day, does the trade-off still make sense?

Lowering your gearing is not a free lunch.



and that you don't build up enough lactic acid to have a detrimental affect on the rest of the day's performance.
This is an almost completely incorrect understanding of the physiology.

Lactic acid is not a caustic agent that causes fatigue; it is a fuel for your muscles. In the early days of sports physiology, a researcher detected the presence of lactic acid during a period of intense exercise and presumed it was a cause of fatigue. It turns out its presence was correlative but not causative. I.e. lactic acid doesn't cause fatigue.

The only problems from using higher gears might be from too much stress on the knees or if you go anaerobic during the climb. This seems rather unlikely given the speeds and already low gearing under discussion.

Originally posted by Bacciagalupe
To be precise, I'm recommending that you build a bit more strength and/or mental toughness so that you can climb the hills a small amount faster. I'm hardly suggesting you take every hill at 15 mph.

What do you recommend for building a "bit more strength/or mental toughness"? I've ran 50mile ultra marathons, over 2 dozen marathons, and placed in the top ten (9th:rolleyes:) in the National 50km Men's Open Championships. I've also raced bikes. Apparently my approach has not worked, because I still choose to use lower gearing.

"Originally posted by Bacciagalupe
To be precise, I'm recommending that you build a bit more strength and/or mental toughness so that you can climb the hills a small amount faster. I'm hardly suggesting you take every hill at 15 mph.

I'm also pointing out that there is a trade-off. With the lower gearing you will not work quite as hard, but you'll work for a longer period of time. When you get to the point of adding nearly two extra hours of climbing to a full touring day, does the trade-off still make sense?

Lowering your gearing is not a free lunch."

A bit of a straw man here, I'd suggest. I don't think anyone is suggesting that lower gearing is a free lunch. Of course it involves tradeoffs.

Certainly if higher gearing works for you, then that's great. If, say, 35 gear inches works well for someone as their low, then it works for them.

For those of us who lack the requisite "mental toughness" or strength to use higher gearing (that's me), or for those of us who have balky knees (that's me), or for those of us who may be less concerned about achieving a particular distance in a day (that's me), lower gearing works well.

What do you recommend for building a "bit more strength/or mental toughness"...? Apparently my approach has not worked, because I still choose to use lower gearing.
Again, I'm not suggesting that you use a 54-39 + 11-25 on tour. I'm more specifically suggesting that going below ~20 gear inches is likely to be counter-productive.

Hill repeats at higher gears ought to help. Running ultramarathons definitely makes for mental toughness -- when it comes to running. :D There's also a lot of activity-specific elements in play though. E.g. I can cycle 75 miles with 5000 feet of incline at a halfway decent clip, and still feel wiped out by a 2-mile run. Some of that is physical, some is mental.

I'm old, And don't have the Butt that looked OK in spandex, 30 years ago.

So even my Road bike, has a granny gear now. the Campag Race triple. 50-40-24t

My folding Brompton, AW3 got a Swiss Mountain Drive crank..
planetary gears front and back .. still no derailleurs. a fine setup.

low range takes up where high range low, ends .. 17-77 GI range in 6 ratios.

The last ride I did through hills I was using a 22/25 low combo, on 26" wheels. I was lightly loaded with only rear panniers, and if I were going to do it again with more gear (or for longer climbs) I would need at least a 22/28. If your lowest gear is too low, you don't have to use it, but if it's not low enough, you will loathe every hill that you wish you had it for. With current 9-speed cassettes, there's no reason not to have a low gear just in case.

I do much like imi suggests, I stand and sit and shift until I get over the hill. I just do whatever it takes.

[I]A bit of a straw man here, I'd suggest. I don't think anyone is suggesting that lower gearing is a free lunch. Of course it involves tradeoffs.
Uh, no. I have never seen anyone point out that lower gearing, which are almost always accompanied by lower climbing speeds, is going to produce any sort of adverse effect at all.

Look at this very thread. Who, besides me, has mentioned any sort of tradeoffs or disadvantages for using lower gears?



For those of us who lack the requisite "mental toughness" or strength to use higher gearing (that's me), or for those of us who have balky knees (that's me), or for those of us who may be less concerned about achieving a particular distance in a day (that's me), lower gearing works well.
Again: I'm not talking about mashing up hills at 15mph, referencing performance issues, "saving time" or covering a set mileage. My example was climbing at 4mph instead of 3mph -- hardly knee-crunching speeds. I'm specifically pointing out that the slower you go, the longer you're fighting gravity, and as such you're really not saving yourself from any effort when the gearing gets too low.

Again: I'm not talking about mashing up hills at 15mph, referencing performance issues, "saving time" or covering a set mileage. My example was climbing at 4mph instead of 3mph -- hardly knee-crunching speeds. I'm specifically pointing out that the slower you go, the longer you're fighting gravity, and as such you're really not saving yourself from any effort when the gearing gets too low.

You are talking about 'saving time'.

Knee crunching doesn't depend on speed but on effort. You can certainly crunch knees at 4 mph or even 3 mph if you are trying to lift a heavy load with a bike that is geared too high. You could, for example, climb a hill in a 53/11 at 4 mph (at about 4 rpm). Certainly a knee crunching effort. Or you could climb the same hill in a 20/34 at 3 mph (at about 70 rpm). Which is going to take less effort? Both will get you to the top of the hill but one is guaranteed to leave you with bone fragments where you knees used to be.

If your lowest gear is too low, you don't have to use it, but if it's not low enough, you will loathe every hill that you wish you had it for.

Well said.

I used to tour on a double, stood up on the pedals to get up the hills. Worked great. Now I'm a bit older and rebuilt with a triple a couple of years ago. I now sit down with lower gears, but shift up and stand for variation.
I'm sure I climb slower with lower gears as Bacciagalupe pointed out.
I'm not convinced standing up with heavier gears is as dangerous for knees as is often commented. The action is more like running without ground impact.
My cassette is 9 speed 11-28, close gears so I can fine tune
Varying the position and gearing helps me get up the hills :) but miles and knees vary...

I had a similar need and solved it with a rear cassette with a 36 tooth sprocket. A very easy change out. Lots of good suggestions here. You might want to check your gearing changes first with Sheldon Brown's Gear Inch calculator first. Also, my first solo tour was with nearly fifty pounds of stuff. I am now down to 25 or less even on a ten day trip. That made more difference than adding two teeth in the rear! Now if I can drop twenty more off of my middles I will be like a rocket on the hills.

At my age I appreciate low gearing. I prefer 94/58 cranks so I can put a 20 low gear on them. I get them on Ebay for $25, then I build a 20-32-42 crankset and put it with a 12-34 for my 26” wheeled touring bike and 12-36 on my 700c bike. When you are hot, tired and near the end of your limit, low gears can be a savior. The nice thing with 9 spd. clusters is, you aren’t sacrificing middle gears to get the low gear, and if you don’t need them you don’t have to use them.

I put a 20 tooth on the front(46-34-20) to build my mental strenght and practice balancing.....At my age,I could run a 20-30-40 and be happy,I could take the outer ring off,I really wouldn't miss it.It would have a 40 on it now but I would have to change the derailer to a short cage,it almost hits the chainstays now.

Bacciagalupe nailed it square on the head. Not only do you work LESS on the 20t granny....but you work much LONGER - amen. I have used a 20t granny for two years' scaling the steepest hills(18-22% grade) on my MTB and I'll be honest, I can easily hike faster than that! Going to 20t is counter-productive, because your comfort level suddenly skyrockets and you become SLOWER....which is the straight-up cost of that comfort. Lastly, the crazy high chain tension a 20t chainring exerts leads to guaranteed, chain and frame-demolishing CHAINSUCK, once moisture/water and dirt touch the chain.

If you think a 20t granny will make biking funner....you're wrong. The human body thrives on IMPROVEMENT and adapts only when conditions get HARDER....which is actually a temporary setback. I'm 47 and I thought a 20t would help...but it made things SLOWER, and I'm not ready to drop speed just yet. Over time, a 20t ring will backslide your skills and endurance. Nothing improves and people with 22t + rings will repeatedly drop you.

As I write this - I am retiring my XTR M960 2x9 20-32 crankset, running a 11-34 cassette. Yes, I scaled some steep stuff...but it kicked my ass every single time. I'm through fooling myself. Hello SRAM XX 26-39 crankset....

On my LHT I plan to switch to a MTB crankset with a 20T granny and 11/34 cog. I like lower gears on a touring bike.

My LHT had a 26,36,48t chainring I change it out for a MTB crankset with a 22,32,44t running with the stock 11-34t cassette.I lost a lot of speed or it seemed that way to me and it got to be hard on me always spinning more than I wanted to.So I put my stock crankset back on but went with a 26,36,46t with a 11-32 cassette and I find it a lot better on my legs I don't spin out as much either.The 26,36t chainring is the stock part of the stock crankset I took off the 48t and put on a 46t it works great for me now.But I am building a BD and I am going to run a stock LHT crank but with a 24,34,46t chainring and run it with a 11-32t cassette it should give me a good ride.Or I hope it does anyway lol.A MTB crankset is just to low for me.

I'm going to build up a LHT. This is the best gear thread I've seen so far.

I don't accept the premise that higher gears are a free ticket to climbing faster. I haves noticed, surprisingly, that I climb at about the same rate within a gear or two. What's not surprising is that it takes the same amount of power to climb at the same rate regardless of gearing. The difference is in the pressure on the knees.

There are two limits to consider: Your cardiovascular system's ability to output power; and The maximum torque your legs can repeatedly impress on the cranks.

Give the 24 a go. It is equivalnet to about one gear lower than you have now. Get the 22 if you can.