djb

Hey Chris, forgot to ask, but what crankset do you own that is 44/34/24 ?
that is not a usual standard stock set of chainrings.
I'd be curious to see a photo of it.
square taper?
outboard bearings?

Germany_chris

It's a Sugino AT that I have a couple sets of rings for, right now it's 46/36/26.

I also have a 3 ring 104/64 spider for a Carmina (square taper), a riv silver double that could be triple (external), and an older XT triple (external), I have crankset flexibility it's just a matter of choosing the right one. If it was just over Brenner pass or something like that I'd just run a mountain double in like 34/22 but it's the lead up to the mountains that makes me think about these things. On that bike I'm happiest with a 36 ring but I have a feeling that running through Frankonia I'm going to want something larger if I do I could pull the VBC off one of my other bikes and pick up a 24 inner ring and say run a 40/24 or do much the same thing with a Carmina.

This whole thread is just me thinking out loud

Germany_chris

The bike ready to go with all the bags is ~39 pounds, it's funny because is lighter than my CC as pictured in the other thread and it's a stiffer bike.

djb

lots of fun options then, and its also fun to think out loud and hear some informed opinions from others with experience.
My triple on my Troll is an older XT, external--light, and even though I bought the bike used and completely dismantled it to the frame and then reinstalled the XT hollowtech 2 , first time I had ever worked with external bearings--I have never had to touch the bb since then, and the bike must have 10,000kms on it, a reasonable percentage of this loaded up.
So in other words, I have a great opinion of the crankset 44/32/22 and the hollowtech 2 bb.

I would also add that I use friction shifting for the front derailleur, and so find shifting between front rings to be smooth, fast, quiet, and really nice all in all. I use those Gevenalle shifters, on the hoods.
Ive spent weeks and months on that bike and have never gotten sick of the shifting , nor when loaded found the 44/32 thing to be an issue or annoying with too much shifting back and forth.
To be frank, if your bike is already 39lbs and then you have to add. your gear, it seems to me that this is exactly where a triple is so nice--and to repeat myself, especially in mountains.

have fun deciding, and no matter your choice, it will be a fun trip, so enjoy.

djb

just reread this, do you mean 39lbs with the bags AND your gear in the bags?
If so, thats quite light
add on a few lbs for a crankset, water, food etc, but still light.

Tourist in MSN

Does this mean you chose a crankset and installed it already?

I assume that weight is the bike, racks and empty bags.

djb

sorry chris, you did say at the beginning that you would be carrying about 50lbs of gear, so that's all clear.

Germany_chris

No, built with empty bags.

I have not..I'm going to measure the chain line tonight and see what the difference is between the three triples I have. I know this isn't rocket surgery but I'd like to get this buttoned up in the next few weeks so I can get some miles on the bike again.

Germany_chris

Which will put the bike at ~90 pounds which is about what the KM weighed last summer. Since that ride was flat I just ran a 32 w/11-36 and everything was fine I'm probably putting more though into this than I need to.

djb

Probably, but as someone who has pared down my load for riding most of the Pyrenees, with a bike with 21 gear inch low, that worked out well, but I certainly had less than 50lbs.
When I've carried more in mountains, I had the forementioned triple and a low of just under 17 g.i., but you hopefully will know what low you would be happier having.
I'm very much in the camp of preferring a low low, and if I hardly ever use it, that's fine, I just shift up.
Speaking for myself though, I use my low gear often enough that it is worth having, even when touring with less stuff.
And one can always slap on a tighter cassette if you want for tighter shifts, which is nice too.

Again, have fun building and planning

Tourist in MSN

My titanium touring bike with racks front and rear but no panniers is roughly 35 pounds, would be about 43 pounds with empty Ortliebs front and rear. Your 39 pounds is quite respectable. My touring weight tires and wheels push up the weight some, as does the Brooks Conquest. I have some lighter panniers but my next trip will probably be with the Ortliebs.

My lowest gear on this bike is a 24T front and 32T rear, for 20.7 gear inches, or about 1.65 meters of development.

cyccommute 

Wow! I find that hard to believe based on the weight of my YBB. That’s a lot for a titanium bike. My YBB is a mountain bike with a suspension fork and a rear rack that weighs way less than that. I weighed everything before one of my trips last summer and for this bike



I got thisYBB weight : 29.2 lb
Harness with sleeping bag and tent: 9.75
Pocket: 1.9
Seat bag: 5.25
Gas tank: 0.75
Frame bar: 4.4
Camelbak w/o water: 7.5
Total: 56.9

W/100 oz water: 6.25
Total: 63.2

That’s the total weight of bike, bags, food, cooking gear, etc.

Configuration and weight can change a bit depending on the trip length but not by too much. I carry a bit more food is all and, for the most part, that food is freeze-dry for my off-road touring.

For my road touring bike, I don’t have exact weights of the whole kit but the bike is 28.3 with racks. I do carry food with more weight…I’ll exist on freeze-dry for up to 5 days but not much longer than that…and I carry more elaborate cooking gear. Maybe 45 lb instead of 35 lb.

nun

I would put some effort into reducing your gear weight along with thinking about gearing as both are important when climbing hills.

Germany_chris

I agree and if I was going alone weight wouldn't be an issue since I'm quick to walk but this ride is being planned and conducted buy a pretty fast 160 pound academic roadie. I've been in or worked for the U.S. Army since I've graduated from college so I understand that I want to =/= a plan and I like plans, so I'll compensate for any perceived lack of planning since .gov taught me and pays me to operationalize ideas.

This ride could easily be a credit card tour but the "man card" seems to be on the line for some reason so we'll camp and ride heavy bikes.

No matter how this plays out Lake Garda in August is great and bike rides are great so I'll "let it go" and prepare for the unexpected

zandoval 

WOW... DOUBLE WOW... That's a real accomplishment.

I am not a Touring Bike guy, but I have done quite a bit of multi day summer West Texas hiking. I don't think I have ever gotten my gear less than 35 pounds and that's not including water.

Back in the day (US Army SETAF) our little excursions would easily have me with 70+ pounds on my back before my fighting load... Ha

Tourist in MSN

The cited weight was with a Racktime Addit rear rack, Tubus Tara front rack.

The frame is lighter than the weight of my rear wheel with tire, so just because the frame is a few pounds lighter does not mean the whole bike will be that much lighter. I will be the first to admit that a titanium touring bike is pure bling, as spending a lot on a frame to trim a few pounds is not cost effective. I got a great price on the frame, so could not pass it up. At that time Lynskey wanted an extra $300 for the front fork, but the rake and axle to crown length almost perfectly matched a LHT front fork I already owned, I used the LHT steel fork. Thus, rim brake front and disc rear.

Photo is lighter weight, as the racks were not on it at the time. But I have the heavier touring 37mm wide tires fitted. Dyad rims.



Yes, the lake was frozen at the time of photo, that was a year ago in mid March.

cyccommute 

My YBB has a Fox Float which is half a pound heavier than the LHT fork and my YBB has a suspension for the wheel. Add to that that it has mountain bike wheels with knobby tires. It does have a Tubus Airy rack but it does have a rack. I don’t consider it to be a particularly lightweight bike.

My Cannondale T1’s weight is with a Tubus Tara and a Tubus Cargo with a steel fork. And I haven’t gone particularly lightweight on components nor wheels.

Not saying you are wrong, just that I find the extra 10 hard to square when compared to a mountain bike.

Germany_chris

So I was weak when I couldn't find some bits to make my road barcons to finish the install, I bought enough Tagra 4703 bits to make everything work.

elcruxio

A bit late to the party but no matter.

I've gone from Vienna to lake Garda so not sure how much overlap of routes there's going to be. But with lots of weight I feel you really can't go too low with gearing. I think I had a 11-34 cassette with a 22-24-44 crankset and would not have frowned at a 11-36 on some of the steeper climbs.

As for not needing the high end of the triple, I feel that coasting forever if boring. Also spinning out on tailwinds sucks. With a 44 big ring that doesn't really happen.

I've tried a wide double for touring and frankly I did not like it. The large jump between big and small chainring is jarring and I felt like I was constantly cross chaining trying to find a proper gear. My road bike has a wide double but with no luggage it doesn't really matter all that much.

djb

Ive toured on a bike with a 50/39/30 converted to 5039/26 and have ridden/toured in the past a lot on a 50/40/24---so a 13t jump and 16t jump between chainrings most commonly used.
My experience is similar, and while shifting up a few gears when going down to the smaller ring is fairly easy and doesnt bug me, if you have to do it often, it can be annoying a bit.
The point about this being more of an issue with a loaded bike is important, so do keep this in mind chris in germany. Maybe for you its not an issue, and also doubles probably dont have that "cross-chainng" feel to them like a triple does, so I guess see how it feels in real life.

personally, I find when riding loaded, a 40t ring is a bit big, but then thats me and also more modern drivetrains handle everything better , crosschaining etc, so I guess you can just set the bike up with the tiagra shifters and see how it is when riding with all the stuff you plan to take.

Charles Lathe

I still like my Sugino triple with an 11-34 nine speed cassette. I haven’t ridden in the Alps, but I have ridden across all the major mountain ranges in the United States and I don’t think fifty pounds of baggage is too much. Barcons are alright, but I am an old guy and I still prefer friction down tube shifters with drop bars.

Tourist in MSN

On the big jumps between chainrings, I think a lot of front derailleurs are designed for a 16T change for doubles. The compact double of 50/34 is quite common, I have that on my road bike. And we are seeing more bikes with a 46/30 crankset, which also is 16T.

When I built up my LHT in 2004, I used a road triple (52/42/30), but swapped out the 30T for a 24 before I even installed it so the 30T chainring is still pristene in storage somewhere. So, my shift to the granny gear was a change of 18T, which was big, but I did not use the granny gear that much and therefore do not notice it that much. And this was on an eight speed cassette, so only a couple shifts in back countered that big change in front.

A decade later, decided to swap out the 52 big ring for a 46 on my LHT, thus had a half step with granny triple (46/42/24), thus still have the big step of 18T from middle ring to granny in front. I am not suggesting everyone else should use a half step plus granny gearset, it is an acquired taste. I think I got my first half step bike in the late 70s or early 80s, that bike had a five sprocket freewheel, I got used to the benefits of half step at that time. I liked that enough that when I built up another derailleur touring bike, I used the same gearing. And later when I finally got rid of the LHT frame, I put that same drive train on the frame that replaced it, a Lynskey Backroad.

When I ride my road bike with a ten speed cassette and the compact double with a 16T jump, I certainly notice when I shift the front, as I am having to make about three shifts in back to counter that big change But when you have so many sprockets in back, I think you need to expect something like that, it is less noticeable with cassettes with fewer sprockets.