Originally Posted by
Rowan
Where are you Garth? Tell sstorkel that he's only gained 4 gi, and tell him it hardly makes any difference...
The thing you forgot is that the percentage change at the lower end is much more significant than at the upper end. So gaining 4gi from 30 is a much better proposition than 4gi at 100.
I am not sure if Garth has actually put foot to pedal with a variety of crankset and cogset combinations, rather than just using theory through a gear calculator.
sstorkel is right, of course, that having two or three cranksets can give you a whole set of options depending on the type of terrain you intend to travel. The 22-32-44 MTB option is quite flexible for all touring unless you desperately want high speed and a big ring... but few touring cyclists do.
The point about the DA crankset setup is taken, but then the OP did say he was also opting for additional gears on the rear which would give him a few more low-range options compared with the road cogset. In addition, as I alluded to in my first reply, the doubled-up gi for the three chainrings doesn't really matter unless you like double shifting a lot.
I'm well aware of the benefits of 4 GI on the low end. I live on top of a large river valley where we have many 8-18% grades up to a mile long. All I do is ride hills. Relaying info via a gear calculator is the only way I know how to translate the experience of the road, into a written word. In my experience big hills for loaded bikes could use GI's in the low 20's. It's always better to have too low than to not have it at all. People often let their ego get in the way ...... thinking they won't be caught dead using a 22,24 or 26t small ring. It beats walking
For flat riding, the OP could get by with their low end, but if he/she rides and steeper longer grades he may have issues, it depends on how strong they are. If they opt for a 11,12-32,34 cassette .... that should do it.