Bill G

I read about guys with the 26" rear wheel Catrike 559 and the Expedition Trikes not liking there gear ratio. Trying to lower the ratio by changeing the small ring up front ore there rear cassette gears. Well I found the perfect fix for my Catrike 559. I now have great low gears, great midrange gearing while still maintaining a solid top end gear ratio that gives me decent top end speeds.

I have been running the setup below for a year now with excellent results. The trike shifts fantastic.

I picked up a Shimano XT M780 165mm arm length 24/32/42 10 spd crankset with the XT bottom bracket (Your crank set Q factor will change and your cranks will be about 5 to 6mm wider). This is not a problem at all. My trike shifts great after all the correct adjustments were done. I also personally like the wider Q factor with the Shimano XT crank set.

Also I still have plenty of top end gearing for speed with this crank set change out on my 559. I find myself useing the middle ring (the 32) a lot. In my opinion the 24/32/42 front chain rings and the 11/36 10 spd cassette with the 26" rear wheel is the way to go, excellent gearing all the way around.

In the pic you will see the 2 spacers on the gear side and the 1 spacer on the non gear side to fit the 68mm bottom bracket, spacers included (The wider Q Factor I mentioned crank arms are about 5 to 6mm wider and derailleur throw will have to be adjusted wider on the out and in stops). Also the front derailleur will need to be lowered to the appropriate position, cable re adjust. The factory front Micro Shift derailleur works just fine and it shifts perfect with no issues.

It took me about 20 to 25 minutes taking my time to install and adjust everything including removing 6 links from the chain.

Ride Safe,
Bill G
__________________
My Trike Catrike 5.5.9 Folding Eon Green.
Wifes Trike Catrike Trail Folding Candy Purple.

Retro Grouch 

'26" Rear Wheel Gearing Upgrade'

I always thought the rear wheel was the one at the back of the trike. Your post is all about the front.

Bill G

No it is not all about the front and how you came to this the way you stated it is beyond me. Its about changing the gear ratio of a 26" wheeled trike if you read the context and intent of the posting correctly.


Its about installing lower gears to help with the ratios because a 26" rear wheeled trike has taller gears by having a 26" rear wheel verses a 20" rear wheeled trike with the same gearing. My wife's trail came with the exact same gearing as my 559. Point being apples to apples because of the 26" rear wheel my gearing was taller. One of the things some guys don't like about a 26" rear wheel a stated in my posting. The trade of being the long wheel base and the added comfort and looks of a 26" wheeled trike.


The set up I did as stated gave me the best all around great gearing with much better lows gear ratios and mid gear ratios in my opinion while still having or maintaining a decent top end gear ratio. While having the advantages ride and looks of the 26" wheeled trike.


I have posted this on several trike forums and your the only one that did not get what I was saying. I think I explained it all pretty clearly.


Ya, I know the 26" wheel is the rear wheel (really). Re read and you will see I said guys try to lower there gear ratios on 26" rear wheeled trikes by changing the inner small gear ring up front. I then showed the option I choose instead to lower the over all gear ratio on my 26" rear wheeled Catrike 559.


I have no idea with what I wrote how you come to the conclusion you did.

Ride Safe,
Bill G

Retro Grouch 

I was just joking. I knew what you were getting at.

FWIW, we have a Catrike Trail and a 559 at our house too so I understand the gearing issue. When I'm in full uphill granny gear mode on my 559, my speed drops down to around 3 MPH. Any hill so steep that I can't maintain 3 MPH I have no interest in climbing anyway.

VegasTriker

I suspect that many new riders do have trouble with the 20.7 GI granny gear on the 559 wheel Catrikes but in reality it is not much different than the 19 to 98 gear inches that came on my first trike with a 20” drive wheel (not a Catrike). The stock 26" rear wheel Catrikes have a gear ratio of 20.7 to 117.6 gear inches essentially using road bike components 11/36 and 30/39/52 with a 170mm crank. You switched to what is more commonly used on mountain bikes but left the cassette the same. The new gear range is 16.6 to 95 gear inches so you lowered the lowest gear by 19.8%. Catrike gets a pretty wide gear range as a result of using the 10 speed cassette with a 36 tooth granny gear. I certainly did have trouble climbing hills with the 24 speed, 19-98 GI range on my first trike even though I had ridden my Linear LWB recumbent 3K miles in the year before buying my first trike. There is no doubt that once you get your trike legs, things get easier. These days I ride a Catrike 700 with a 21.9 to 124.2 GI range. I have no trouble climbing steep hills on it and wouldn't change out the gear setup. I very rarely shift into the smallest chainring.

Bill G

I see now you were joking... embaraced 😐

It looks like you being a 559 owner yourself you definitely understand the pros and cons of the gearing with a 26" rear wheeled trike.

I wish Catrike would offer other front crankset options on a new trike. I talked with them in detail and even sent pic's. They said they would consider it but nothing obviously came of it as a factory option.

Ride Safe,
Bill G

Bill G

All great points...I get what your saying but for my situation I prefer to keep my gear ratios more knee friendly after my right knee surgery. I have the lows I need for hills while still having a decent top end and as said a nice mid range gear ratio as well. I do understand getting your trike legs as I have been riding them now for quite a while.

Thanks,
Bill G

Retro Grouch 

I suspect that the design concept for the 559 was to distinguish it from the Trail with higher stock gearing. I can tell you that was certainly a part of my purchase decision.

If I were doing it over today I think that I'd buy myself a Trail. The Trail folds a bit more compactly so it would fit in my Honda Element differently and would store under a certain shelf in my workshop. I'm sure that I could live with spinning out the 95 inch high gear once in a great while. The derailleur arm on the Trail does drop mighty close to the road surface but that has never been an issue for Mrs. Grouch.

Bill G

Yes sir,

I do agree about the Catrike Trail I like my wife's Trail a lot and would have been just fine with one myself. On the other hand I do really like the long wheelbase and the ride look and stability of my Catrike 559. The gearing change I did above gave me a top end just a hair taller than the wife's Trail and very comparable lows for the hills the one thing I needed out of the gear ratio change.

As far as the folding goes for us we don't use it at all though it is a nice feature. I wish Catrike had offered both these trikes at a lower cost without the folding ability. We might be in the minority here on this but that would have been fine with me.

My wife absolutely loves her Catrike Trail as I am sure your better half does to.

Ride Safe,
Bill G

Juan Foote

Adding an IGH or "mountain drive" works well also.

I opted to go with SRAM SSD3 (iirc) on the wife and mine. Lowest gear combo resulted in a sub 3mph cruising speed. It would have been a little tougher on the larger wheel models.

sterlihs

Hi Bill,

I have a Catrike Expedition and was interested in your post as my wife would like to try riding mine' but trying to fit her into my expedition' I find that the boom is too long and maybe the stock crank may also be to long.

I'm not sure the crank is 170mm or 165mm, but a bike shop I spoke to when I ordered the terracycle chain tensioner to help with the change I mentioned, said that I should change out the crank to 145mm and the bottom bracket to the shimano xt which you added to your bike.

He mentioned when I cut the boom an inch or so to fit her, her heel would most likely hit the cross member. I'm about 5'6" and the bike fits me fine but my wife is 5'2". I think that the 145mm crank he suggested may be too short, and maybe a 155mm would work. I believe when I shorten the crank, I may need to change the chain rings.

I was wondering if you had some thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Howard

Velocivixen

@Bill G - what are those sleeves on your crank arms made from? I presume it’s to protect the arms from wear.

Nice idea.

Retro Grouch 

1. If you look closely at the inside of your crank arms near the pedal hole, you will usually find the length stamped. My Catrike came with 165mm crank arms so that's what I'd expect to find on your Expedition too.

2. Crank arm length and boom length are related. If you install a crank with shorter arms, you will have to lengthen your boom to keep keep your leg extension the same. A change from 165 mm cranks to 152 mm cranks (a commonly available size) is about 1/2 inch. If you install the shorter cranks to fit your wife, it might not be necessary to cut the boom.

3. I know that the folks who think digitally will have a concern about the loss of leverage with the shorter cranks. What matters, however, is total leverage which also includes the gear ratios and wheel size. I'd wait until after changing the crankset and see if your wife has enough gear to handle hills before messing with gearing changes. I've shortened the cranks on all of my bikes and haven't found it necessary to change gearing afterwards.

sterlihs

Hi Retro Grouch,

Thanks for replying to my post.

I did notice that the original crank is 165mm. I’m about 5’6” and my wife is 5’. I measured roughly our “xseams” and hers is about 39” and mine 44”. I had the boom at its shortest length and she had a very hard time riding in the lowest gears. Her knees and calf’s hurt after a 5 min ride. It was recommended that we both try a 145mm crank and leave the gear chains alone and try that. I bought an inexpensive 145mm crank and square taper bottom bracket to try this out. Since I believe 39” is the least xseam the boom will go, I believe I’ll have to cut some 30mm of the boom. I also bought the terracycle Chain tensioner so i can move the boom without having to adjust the chain length. You had an excellent idea to see how the new crank works before cutting the boom. In any case, I’m not worried much about a loss of leverage, but more so that my wife can ride pain free. I’ve been riding around my neighborhood a couple of months now and love it!

Retro Grouch 

165 mm to 145 mm is almost an inch. That's a lot of crank arm length difference.

If it was my trike, I'd install the shorter crank, run in the boom as far as it will go and see how it works for your wife. If she doesn't find herself gradually sliding forward on the seat you're good without cutting the boom.

Does your boom have distance markings painted on it? If it doesn't, I'd use a Sharpie or something to mark the settings for you and for your wife.

sterlihs

It does have index marks on it. So far, I used a bit of masking tape to mark my position. If the 145mm crankset is too short, I will likely try a 155mm one. I noticed there is a “bump” on the bottom of the cross member of the frame that the bottom of the boom hits when fully retracted. Maybe instead of cutting the boom (if it comes to that), I may just try cutting the bottom end of the boom at an angle so it goes beyond the cross member. ( =/ )