Originally Posted by
Rootman
Am I wrong or have some posters hinted that you need a smaller front ring to get the low gears necessary to climb? Which would also leave the top end on the short side too? If you could get an internally geared crank with the proper ratio to get the low gears and then switch to a higher gear in the front for the flats and down hills. Besides MORE added weight and expense would it even work?
You might be commenting on comments that I have made.
As noted by GeorgeBaby, Rohloff has a range of 526 percent. My derailleur touring bikes have a range of 630 percent and I regularly use the full range from lowest to highest when touring. I think you will find that almost all touring bikes have a range smaller than my 630 percent range. Thus, I suspect that most people would find that the 526 percent range from the Rohloff is more than sufficient for their needs.
I normally run a 44t chainring and a 16t rear cog on my Rohloff bike. But plan to tour with two chainrings, a 44t and 36t. The 44t is great for most riding, but if I anticipate several hours of very steep climbing, I will have the ability to pull a segment of chain and switch from the 44t to 36t. I only finished building up my Rohloff bike a few months ago, have not toured with it yet. Thus, I can't really say how often I will switch rings.
Because I am used to this wide range of 630 percent, I am assuming that I will want to use both of those chainrings. That said however I can only point to two days in my past touring experience when I can say with certainty that I would have taken the time to switch to the 36t chainring if I had been touring on the Rohloff bike.
I would never want to use an internally geared crank, I am not even going to put a front derailleur on the bike and a front derailleur is much simpler, lighter and less potential for failure.