bud16415

To give a idea when I had the 22-32-44 with the 12-36 my lowest was 16.5 gear inch.

If you look at the roll out table that’s moving 52 inches per crank revolution and 4 MPH at 80 RPM. I didn’t have any trouble staying upright and maybe my incline wasn’t steep enough I'm guessing if straight up a wall is 100% and a 45 degree climb is 50% the steepest section was 20% or less maybe an average closer to 15%. It was a very easy spin and I should have up shifted when it tapered out but I stayed in the low gear and wore myself out with spinning my leg weight around. I have no idea what the cadence was.
I wasn’t opposed at all having a 16.5 in reserve. What I didn’t like was not having a taller range in the middle gear the highest I could go on the 32 was 72 gear inch. With a lot of weight that might be a reasonable gear but I wanted something around 90 on the center that took me back to my 42 and dropping from 42 to 22 I thought might give me issues. 26 seems to be about the reasonable max.

The discussion is very interesting. Hmmmmm 48-40-24 haha

nun

The starting point for my gearing was that I like around 66" as a cruising gear, so I wanted to have a straight chain line in that gear. I also use a compact double 48/34 on my road bike so it seemed obvious to simply go to smaller rings keeping the 14t difference so that the front derailleur would have enough capacity and use a MTB cassette. Fitting 42/26 rings on a crank is easy once you realize that you can use the middle and inner positions of a 110/74 triple and leave the outer ring unpopulated (or install a chain guard if you want).

It's necessary to adjust the left right position of the BB bearing and I set it so that the space between the crank's rings was centered on the cassette (the 20t sprocket). This put the big ring in line with the 17t sprocket and the small ring in line with the 23t sprocket. Using a 42t big ring gives me 66" with the 17t sprocket and 3 changes gets me to 42x11 which is 103" and will get me to 24.5 mph at 80 rpm, more than fast enough. The 42t ring will work across the entire cassette so I can go to 33" on it, but the lowest I tend to go is the 26t sprocket which gets me 43" which gets me up a lot of hills. The 26t ring is aligned with the 23t sprocket giving 30" which is a nice gear for long not too steep climbs. When the gradient kicks up 3 changes gets me to 20.6"

The rings are TA and I use a 110/74 Sugino XD triple crank. The FD is a 105 double. The gap between the FD and the 42t ring has to be larger than recommended so that it will clear the chainstay.....but it's basically in the same position as I'd have it if I had a big ring installed, the shifting is done with a shimano barend in friction mode so that the FD can be trimmed at the extremes on the rear cassette range. The RD is a Shimano XT long cage, there are lots of RDs with enough capacity, changes with an indexed shimano barend. Here's my bike, you can see how small the front rings look.

Tourist in MSN

The bar end shifters from Shimano are friction front and index rear. But, if STI works for you, keep the STI. I have bar end shifters on four different bikes, but I was using bar end shifters before STI were invented so I see no reason to switch. One of my bikes has 1970s Shimano bar end shifters that predate index shifting. But, if I had not used bar end shifters before and had a working set of STI shifters, I would probably not switch.

If you wanted to use friction front and STI index rear, I recall hearing a few years ago that Lance Armstrong used a downtube shifter (presumably friction) instead of an STI shifter for the front. I also remember seeing a photo of him on a bike with that setup. I prefer to keep my hands on the handlebars when I shift so I would not want that setup, but if you find that your front STI shifter is not working and you want to try friction, you might be able to get a used friction front shifter out of a used parts bin at a bike shop for a couple bucks.

Carbonfiberboy 

We ride a lot in the 52 big ring on our tandem. That mostly keeps the chain off the cogs that aren't on a carrier. We run the big ring on the outer 7 rings of our 12-34 9-speed. 26-34 has been a good low gear for us. We've had to walk two very short walls, otherwise not. We're not a strong team, but we much, much prefer to never walk.

MassiveD

I think the argument for the big ring, Nun, is that the odd day when you spin that baby without pushing are really memorable. I have done it twice on the Saint Lawrence where a whole long smooth day of downhill (very slight) combined with a modest tail wing. Bike touring heaven. Ripping along fully loaded. I wouldn`t pass that up to have an empty space or a chainguard. I also think that Real old school 7 and 8s are a lot stronger. I laced up a modern deraileur wheel, and was stunned that there seemed to be zero rigging angle on the sprocket side. There has to be some, but the wheel looked wrong. Anyway, as with all of this stuff, there are increasing options to play with as one prefers.

fietsbob

I'll add, .. Maybe .. Not if you are a 20 something ..
65 is different.

bud16415

Again thanks to everyone for their input and answering my questions. It's interesting to hear peoples thought process that went into gear selection. with different abilities and uses for the bike making adjustments.

I maybe should have called the thread, What's your straight chain gear? As nun pointed out that was his starting point. he said his was 66 gear inch and mine it seems is 54. It was good to hear how some like a close zone of gears around that sweet spot and others like them spaced out more.

Have any of you that have been riding for many years found you wanted to change how your gearing is set up over time? Not because you had it wrong to start but because you got stronger or got older or had injury or something like that. Reason I ask is I have bought a few vintage 10 speeds I remember riding many moons ago 60's thru 80's and I never remember thinking about gearing and they got me everyplace I needed to go. Riding them now I think dang those are some tall gears. So if I had a Touring bike 30 or 40 years ago I sure would be using different gears today.

YokeyDokey

Crikey, I just earned a PhD in gearing. This is great.

YokeyDokey

I dunno - my new "racing" road bike has Rival front and rear and I still can't get up a mile-long 10% grade with it. Had to borrow my kid's old Sequoia with a triple (34 small ring) to conquer that beast.

Carbonfiberboy 

I find it very amusing that the more money one spends on a road bike, the taller the gearing that accompanies it. One would think that older riders who have more money would get the nod and gears would get lower with increased cost!

bud16415

When I had my new spokes put in a couple weeks ago and becoming somewhat gear obsessed lately I took the opportunity to bend the mechanics ear a little while the owner wasn’t around.
Being a man of few words he would nod listening to me talk gear ranges and I got a few yeps here and there. Finally I asked him straight out what he thought about all this information I just gave him and he said,

"I guess what you don’t have in your legs you need in your gears."

Speedo

Shoulda gone with Apex and swapped in one of their mountain double cranks! A guy that we rode the Bllue Ridge Bliss tour with last year had done that.

Speedo

Speedo

So true!!

I think the problem is the bikes are designed by the young and strong, and oldies either don't think too much about their gearing, or still think they're 25! I have a 62 yo friend with bad knees who is ready to upgrade his drive train. He just won't consider anything that doesn't look like racing gearing. Crazyness!

(edit)I wish there were a simple device that would record how much time you spend in each gear. People would find that instructive.(/edit)

Speedo

M_S

This really does seem to be a YMMV sort of thing. I'm using one of those 12-36 cassettes with a 39-48 double and it seems like plenty low range for me. I try to pack light and I also ride a lot of singlespeed cross andmountain, as well as a fixed gear, so I am used to mashing. We'll see though. I could put a mountain crank on, but I think I would be cross chaining too much either in the 44 or 32 ring.

bud16415

I have a couple friends that are like that. One friend put lower gears on a commuter bike and loved the ride next thing I know the tall gears are back on and when I asked what happened he said it didn’t look right. Others have their seat 10 inches higher than the drops and never ride down there because it's so low. But the best one is a neighbor kid came over with a BMX bike and wanted to air his tires and I suggested bringing his seat up about 10 inches so he didn’t have to stand to ride. He said "No way man!"

That’s a good idea to track your shifting. I bet top riders do exactly that somehow. I used to see a little hill coming and just grind it out, lately I just pop a lower gear. That’s the beauty of something like my STI's compared to the old down tube shifters, much easier to make a correction so you tend to do it.

bud16415

That was my point exactly in starting the thread. Like you I ended up with the 12-36 and what I'm ending up with as far as the front is a double much like yours (mine will be 48/42) but with the addition of a granny gear. What I thought until I saw how nun did his, was the double gears would do almost all the work the perfect gear would be lined up in the center of the cassette. And by perfect in my case a 42 because without the granny I would be forcing myself to go a little too small there.

The cross chaining and or flipping between rings wasn’t for me when I tried the 44-32-22

YokeyDokey

Nah - we buy the same bike as the kids in the vain hope that the bike will make us.

nun

I hear what you are saying and I find that 42x11 (103") is more than enough on a flat road with a tail wind. I can do 25mph at 80rpm in that gear and it would have to be a strong wind for me to keep that up all day. My gearing won't be for everyone as I've optimized it for my two most frequent riding regimes; 14 to 17 mph at 80rpm on the flats in the 42t ring and climbing at 6 to 8 mph at 80rpm in the 26t ring. I came up with the scheme so that I wouldn't have to do many front changes and after riding 40x16 (66") single speed I knew that gear was good for wide variety of terrain.

djb

recently I had this in mind as I related this idea to a photo program I have used that can show the percentage of diff shooting parameters, aperture, shutter speed, lens etc. In my case seeing what combos I use was not a big surprise to me, but it was neat to see numbers back up my instincts of knowing how I shoot after 20+ odd years.

With bike gears, I strongly suspect nearly all of us are in a fairly narrow gear inch range for most of the time, and when and if you ever get a new chain and see which rear cogs are skipping, you can easily see which ones are used the most (at the back anyway).

Tourist in MSN

I made a few comments above so I was thinking about gearing yesterday during my 61 miles, about half on gravel trail and about half on pavement. On the pavement unladen with minimal wind, mostly flat or slight grade, my gear choices almost exclusively were:
76.2" - 52/18
79.1" - 42/14
85.7" - 52/16
My gearing on gravel was much more variable depending on how loose the gravel was. Tires = 26X2.0 at 4.5 atm rear and 3.5 atm front.

clasher

I've a 50/34 paired with a 12-36 for my touring bike right now... get me down to 25" or so, but I wouldn't mind lower but am limited to this without a new crank... I think I'd just get a mountain triple next time, or do the inner two rings on a 110/74 to get a 50/26 or something like that... those are my plans for my next 26" touring build but my current setup is more of a long distance rig that I've compromised for short tours.

nun

50/26 is a big range to cover, you'll have to use a triple derailleur and the shifting will be cluncky.

I just don't see the need for rings 50t or bigger for anyone unless their all day cruising speed is 25mph. What I'm saying is that all the road bikes with 50/34 or 53/39 rings sold to the majority of amateur rides are too highly geared for them.

I'm a 49 year old slightly overweight rider and struggle to maintain 20mph plus on the flats for extended periods so big gears aren't appropriate for me or indeed for most of the riders out on a weekend. On my road bike I have 48/34 with a 11/28 cassette and I only use 48x11 on downhills. My sport/tourer gearing of 42/26x11/34 often draws some stares as the front ring is so small, still when I'm in something like 42x13 and doing 20mph plus I pass a lot of bikes with bigger front rings and I'm not spinning super fast. The 53/39x12/25 gearing on a road bike won't make the rider go any faster than my 42/26x11/34 and is completely inappropriate for someone who normally rides at less than 20mph

djb

re: the 20mph/ 30 kph comment etc, completely agree. Im 48 and to hold 30kph for any extended period of time requires me to be on my drop bar bike in the drops, have no bags on the bike, and have no headwind at all--and even then I can be in the middle chain ring 39 for most of the time too.

I have never owned a really light bike, lightest Ive ever owned is probably 25 lbs so dont really know what its like on a 20lb or less bike....but again, here we are talking of "touring" or at least having some stuff on the bike, so 50 teeth chain rings really dont make sense. Yes, its fun to have a 50 for downhills and tailwinds, but then thats the beauty of a triple, you can spend maybe 80% of the time in the middle ring and have the others when needed.

nun

My point is you don't need a 50t ring to do 25mph, 42x11 at 80 rpm is 25mph and if I go faster downhill I'm happy to coast, so I don't need anything more than 42t on my touring bike. On my road bike I sometimes sprint over 25 mph and push hard downhill to build up momentum for an upcoming uphill, so the 48t ring has it's advantages. But I'm basically lazy and find doubles make life easier compared to triples. One most days touring I'll stay in the 42t ring and just go back and forth across the cassette.

djb

point completely taken and I agree, especially as my topend on the commuter is a 42/11 too. My comments on a 50 was more in line with what you say about your road bike, but can really see how your 42/26 setup must work very well. Having read your trip reports, one can see how by packing light it must really must make a diff in how your bike rides. I regularly ride with probably the same amount of stuff as you take on a trip, and am striving to do a trip with less weight like you, just for the diff in riding pleasure with a lighter overall bike weight.

cheers