Originally Posted by
Thulsadoom
A 24x34 is fine for 2011, and apparently 2012 (so far) on the touring forums. But it won't be soon.
As society gets weaker and weaker, people seem to need lower and lower gears and lighter and lighter loads on their touring bicycles to be "right", as you'll notice if you research the forums. It gets pretty hilarious, since there is no set standard for what is right or wrong gearing or loading, it depends completely on the individual. A strong/fit rider can handle a much heavier load and higher gears, with ease, than a weaker rider. It's that simple. 40 years ago people toured on 10 speeds with much higher gears and heavier loads, and were perfectly content doing so.
It's true that the gearing 40 years ago was higher. I started in the 70s on a bike with something like the usual 40-52 front and a 14-28 in back, giving a range of around 38" to 100".
The result was persistent pain in my knees if I was carrying any kind of load. The fact is that I was not "perfectly content" with the gearing.
However, back then, there wasn't much choice. Most derailleurs couldn't handle triples (if you could find them) or widely spaced doubles along with wide ranges in the rear cluster. You had to pick one or the other. But I knew the standard setup wasn't working for me so I decided to sacrifice the top end in order to get lower gearing. I set up my next bike with a 36/40 front (!!) for half step, and a 14-34 back. That helped a lot. The half step gearing was to compensate for the giant jumps in the rear cluster.
Then triples came along and the knee problems went away.
Now I am in my 50s and I have a mountain triple (22-32-44) along with a 13-28 rear on my Trek 720. Something lower than a 28 on the rear would be great, but freewheel selection is pretty minimal, and this works for me.
The guys in the bike shop tell me that I don't "need" a low like mine. "Just get stronger", they say. "Stand up more", they say.
Of course, I could ask them why they care if a bike is 200 grams lighter. "Just get stronger and stand up more", I could say. But I don't.
Still, it's funny that there's all this posturing about low gearing, especially among roadies ("all you need to climb the Rockies is a 39/52 and a 12-23 cassette"), but if you spend extra $$$ to shave off some weight from your already superlight bike, that's somehow not an indictment of your strength, toughness, etc.
Originally Posted by
Thulsadoom
No one can give you accurate judgement on whether or not your bike is geared correctly for you unless they know you personally. You are best judge of yourself and your capabilities.
Absolutely true. But I would say for most tourists (and indeed most bicyclists), having the low gear available is more important than having the high gears above 100" available, especially if you are going to tackle significant hills. I doubt you would be sorry to have a 22-34 combination. But there's no way to know for sure.