My advice is to try the bike with the original gearing. Your lowest gear with the 26T chainring and 34T cog works out to a 20" gear. If you pretend the gearing makes it like a penny-farthing with a 20" front wheel, you get the idea. Riding a bike with a 20" gear is difficult to balance for some people, so gearing it even lower may not be of value. My wife can't use her lowest gears for this reason. Or if she can move in that gear, she can't start up on a steep hill in low gear.

Gear inches are calculated thusly:

GI = F/R*27

Where
F = teeth on chainring
R = teeth on rear cog
27 = approximate diameter of rear wheel

that is good to hear.
In my cases, the slightly looser chain in the (never practically used while riding) small-small position, 22t granny and 11 or 12t small cog of cassette, was never a problem and the rd took it up fine--but the reality is that one will never get into the two smallest cogs at the back while in the granny anyway, or if you do, you realize it and switch to the mid ring.

also, in the worst case scenario, all that happens is that the pulleys rub up against the chain a bit in the small-small, no harm no foul (unlike a too short chain which in big-big can cause a disaster to happen, busted rd)

also, the no fd adjustments mirrors my experiences going down 4 teeth , as the actual distance the chain is lower is rather small and my front derailleurs always had enough room to allow for this with space to spare.

I've also done this on my wifes road bike, from a 30 to an old 28 I had, and also a friends bikes going from a 30 to a 26.

20.8 or 20.9 depending on the calculator with 35mm tires.

as for not being able to balance with lower gears, I believe you about your wife, but if its that hard, then one is probably in too easy a gear. There is of course an individuals bike handling skills that come into play, a big part actually, but I have spent countless hours upon hours in first gear on trips going 5, 6, 7, 8 kph and its not really that hard, especially when one is putting out sufficient force , which I have always found to be a help in being stable.

I've been on hills that even with 16.7 g.i I had to stand and put everything into it and could only hold this for a minute or two before I was completely in the red and had to regularly stop and let the ol ticker slow down (we're talking a 80lb bike on probably 20%+ hills in Latin America).

[MENTION=199530]djb[/MENTION], those are all good points, but gears this low have been available for a short time. It used to be commonly accepted that we couldn't pedal up all the hills. We got off and walked. Now that threshold is a lot higher because of our gears. But it still exists. Seeking gears that eliminate the threshold is worthwhile, up to a point. And that is my point. The lowest gear I've ever had is 25", and I got by with a lot higher than that. I'm only one person, and others will have different preferences, but I just don't want anyone to think that a 20" low is wholly inadequate. For most people on most roads on most days, it's more than adequate.

By this it would appear I have a 19gi (22/30*26).

I don't have a problem riding this up hills in low low.

When you say a high gi is adequate do you refer to a loaded or unloaded bike? The difference I have found is that on long sustained hills loaded I would have to stop every so often and walk while now I can climb without doing so.

Get to a spot where the road/trail is wide enough, start perpendicular to the direction of travel, then turn up as/after getting your second foot on the pedals.

I've done loaded touring with a low of 35" to 38", as that was all that was available to me. I wouldn't do it again. When I was in Britain, I challenged myself to pedal up all the hills, which was crazy, because they have ancient roads without switchbacks. I did it by stopping to rest and then resuming. The locals didn't believe me when I said I pedaled up every hill.

So it's not something I recommend, but I'm proof that at least some people can do it.

But there's not much of a penalty for having that very low gear that only gets used once in a blue moon (same with a high gear that's used very rarely).

I did the same thing when I was young, but with age came wisdom and a triple crank with smaller chainrings

noglider, the issue I have with your view is that I have at least one friend who always rode bikes with not enough low gearing, and she now has pretty knackered knees and she is younger than the fellow here who is asking advice.

I know I have pushed too high gears in the past for my skinny legs, and had problems, and had the good sense to listen to my body 25 years ago and change my gearing. Some stout folks with stout legs and knees can handle lugging along at slow cadences, my knees dont like it and know its bad for them.

I just finished a trip where I climbed 38,500m or 126, 312ft over about 3000km, and you know what, my 53 year old knees were fine, and I know it was because I could downshift and downshift when needed.
Before the trip I was frankly worried about my knees, which have complained at me over the years at times when overdoing it, but for this trip, this total bike weight and the climbing and steepness involved, I was completely and utterly thrilled with a 16.7 g.i low and I know that it was a big factor in how the trip went (as well as being a bit smarter than in the past and pacing myself)

the thing is, when you cant downshift any lower and give your knees a break, well, that option just isnt there, so you struggle along and hump and hump along up at a too low cadence and putting more torque into your knees than is ideal cuz you have no choice----been there, done that---sore knees, sore legs.

as cycco would say, ride smart. Too high gearing isn't smart.

I AM NOT SAYING that having a high bottom gear is just as good as having a lower one. OK? Please understand this. My story is to make the point that lower is always better, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can pedal up everything. You have to accept that you'll walk. I did say I DO NOT RECOMMEND what I did when I was young and foolish.

[MENTION=425264]tyrion[/MENTION], true, there's not much penalty, but there is the cost of making the change, and there is a small chance of mechanical challenges of making it work. These penalties are small, but I started out by saying try what you have first before considering a change.

I get the feeling my points are too subtle to be accepted. Or I'm terrible at explaining them.

Same here but I go from a 34 to a 20 tooth inner. Never had a problem.

ok, all's good. The example of my friend with the buggered knees is one though that even not too many years ago, she got a new bike that only had a 30 g.i. low, but was too bloody minded or just accepted it, and so riding with panniers on steep hills was overly hard on her.
I guess this is part of why I post detailed opinions/examples/solutions on threads like this, to help folks realize that riding loaded touring can be easier, or at least to make them aware of possible solutions, because frankly, in bike stores there generally still is the "this bike will be fine for touring" line from salespeople, either because they are young and strong, or they havent really toured and believe the manufacturers take on things.

I'll finish by saying sorry if you took things the wrong way. Its just a bike forum.

I get that

I'm one who talks about mixing walking with riding to increase the length of time I can ride on tour. It gives the riding muscles a rest (or at least a different movement) and lets some circulation happen. There isn't anything wrong with walking on a hill - it just is what it is.

I too did some cranking in my youth. Once I tried to keep up with a guy using a 21sp while I had a 10sp on Coppermine Hill out of Princeton. Doggedly determined not to stop on the hill and buggered my knee up for about 6 months.

What type crank do you have that has that range?

I've done what noglider had done when I was in University. 38in. low gear touring on my road bike. It was fun, but I probably can't do it again.

My current lowest gearing is around 23in., but I will have a setup to lower my gearing to 20in. later this year. Do I need it? Probably not, but I trying to see if I can gain more comfort by using low gearing than I'm used to.

No hard feelings. I was not irritated that there might be disagreement. I just wanted to be understood, and thank you. [MENTION=447450]RoscoeP[/MENTION] is the original poster here, and I'm not sure he's coming back. His salesperson may have said that about the bike he has. A cyclist who may appear to be an expert planted the idea that [MENTION=447450]RoscoeP[/MENTION]'s 20" low would be inadequate, and while lower can help, 20" is far from woefully inadequate even for loaded touring for most people on most terrains. So many of us cyclists live in fear that our bikes will prove to be inadequate. We call it upgrade-itis, and we're always thinking about upgrading our bikes.

I just hope that he gets out one day with his panniers on full of soup cans or whatever similar to the weight that he will be travelling with, and try some hills.
It really comes down to how heavy the bike+load will be and what sort of hills he will be on, and of course how his 68 year old legs are and how much he rides.

in the end, one just wants to have fun and enjoy riding, so whatever works. Getting out there is the most important thing and being comfortable.

It's an old school Race Face Turbine with a 5 arm 94/58mm BCD. You can mount a 20 tooth inner ring on a 104/64mm BCD crank but, as I found out the hard way, the chain may not engage the inner ring. Luckily, there are few hills from Toledo, OH through Detroit and across most of lower Ontario. The few hills I did encounter where I could have used the 20 tooth inner were short and I could struggle up them in a 36/34 combination. I didn't relish using that combination every time a hill raised up in front of me, however.

Things improved greatly when I switched out inner ring for a 22 that worked. I did miss my 20 tooth inner, however. It makes a difference when riding eastern US mountains.

late to the party; but put me down for a 3x9 with 42/32/22 and a 11-40 cassette.

That ought to get you anywhere.

What crank set has 22/32/44 rings?
While I would prefer a 38 to 40 big ring, a 44 would be a heck of a lot better than the 48 I have now. I ain't racing, after all.

MTB cranks, 4 bolt types.

like these ones. I like the 44 because with 26in wheels, and a 11t cog, it does a reasonable high gear which for me spins out at around 55kph or 60kph, which is fine for me and the 32 and 22 are just dandy for loaded touring.

Shimano Deore M590 9-Speed Triple Chainset | Chain Reaction Cycles