Your 48/16 is the same gear ratio as the 36/12, but will use your power significantly more efficiently. Your 48/18 will be a little more efficient than the 36/14.

tcs

Hmm.
Lots of good responses here. Maybe you should review how much you are carrying?
My first tour in the early 80's had us packing at least 28 pounds more than I would carry now. Its taken me a long time to get the weight down.
I think you have enough gearing BTW.

and speaking of gear, that aint no Ricoh, looks like a M3....(I still have one, havent used it in years tho)

Get rid of the backpack. I can't imaging doing a long climb with a backpack. Also reducing weight is always an option.....

If you are doing 60 km and averaging 12 to 14 k/h I wouldn't say you are particularly fit. Don't take that as a criticism or discourage
you in anyway as touring isn't about speed, but 14 kph is only 8.75mph which is very slow. Also riding hills is very different from the flats.
Before you get new gearing I'd rearrange you baggage (ditch the backpack) and start training in some local hills.

That's a Ricoh 519......

would be cool to have 4 chainrings :)

Right, I guess there are different ways of touring. In my case, I don't tour to break records, to cycle x kilometers per day, to get fit, or just to cycle - I tour because it forces me to go slower than I would by car, because it's easier than walking and more independent than using public transport, and because it's simply more exciting. I'm not super fit, but neither I'm very unfit. I'm definitely not super strong, and I also won't build up strength just to go touring. I don't see touring as a sport, but as a means to travel.

I'm planning a long trip (12+ months) that is supposed to be more like a backpacking trip and less like a traditional cycle tour. For these reasons, I will probably take a bit more and somewhat different equipment than most tourers here might do (e.g. I want to do quite a bit of hiking, therefore need to take poles, hiking boots and a backpack). I am trying to keep the weight low, but I expect to take around 15kg (plus food and water). BTW: I did not and do not carry the backpack on my back while cycling. I just strap it to the rack.

In any case, I'm not big and strong, and whatever I can do to make long and gruelling climbs easier, I will at least try. I hate pushing my bike. I think that is even more tiring. I'm going to try lower gearing. I don't think that I will have difficulties with the low speed. And I guess it's good to have a low-low gear. If I won't need it after a couple of weeks or months because I get stronger: fine. But should I need it, it's there. If most posters here don't need low-low gearing: good for you. Different strokes, right? :)

Most folks on here take a similar attitude to you. We like to smell the roses and enjoy touring as opposed to racing. Most also need the small gears (24-34) for spinning up hills. But the only way to get comfortable with hills is to ride them. Training on the flats simply won't prepare you for them and I think that having a good excess of fitness makes the touring all the more pleasurable. So get the lower gear, but also train in some hills and I'd try to get your average speed up into the double digit mph. You don't need to be big and conventionally strong to, in fact being light is a positive advantage.

My lowest gear is 24", my 2 feet. :roflmao:

Exactly the gearing I used last week at one point near the Sea Lion Caves. (I didn't get geared down soon enough for the conditions :rolleyes: ).

You should be able to find some mt bike cranks in 165mm, square taper.

I'm running 52-39-26 in the front and 11-34 in the back. Ultegra FD and XTR RD. Only problem I've had is shifting up too much in the granny ring before grabbing the middle ring. Then the RD sort of collapses, and the middle ring can't pull chain. But if I don't do that, everything works fine. I'm switching to a 12-34 to get better midrange gear options.

terribly sorry, I must plead ignorance of Ricohs, just read up on it, I like the film advance thing. I played with a Leica version of that once and thought it was a great idea (although as with everything Leica, just ridiculus with prices, why I had Nikon stuff....)
Do you still shoot with it? As I said, I havaent shot with a rangefinder for many years, but there is a lovely unobstrusiveness in the approach isnt there? Im surprised they didnt have interchangeable lenses, although perhaps they did, as again I confess ignorance...
Interesting to read they followed the Nikon et al direction of focusing.

cheers

FWIW-- I run a 46/36/26 ( sometimes switching to a 24) with a 12-34, 8 spd on the bike I ride daily. I built the rear cassette from 3 cassettes to get the gearing I wanted. It is my favorite handling/riding bike. I also run a 48/36/24 with an 11-34 on one of my touring bikes. It is a 9 spd, but I don't know why a similar combination would not work on an 8 speed. That particular crank is also a Sugino DX 600. I use a Tiagra FD, and a Deore LX RD on both bikes. Ths shifters are Tiagra STI's.

I just geared a bike with a 44/32/22 and an 11-34 cassette. I am not the world's best bike handler, but I "tweedled" up a 15%+ grade last weekend at 90 rpm and 3.5 mph and did not fall over once!

Can you disassemble and assemble cassettes just like that? I thought with the exception of the smallest cogwheels, they were permanently attached. Maybe I should have a closer look.

What kind of gearing for the back would you recommend for a 46/36/24 chainset, keeping in mind that I want a low-low (34) and a decent high gear?

The newer Shimano cassettes have removable small cogs, but the larger cogs are held together on a "spider" to save weight. However, you can still buy individual sprockets and make up your own cassette.

For me the 11 or 12/34 cassette gives plenty of range and more attention should be paid to the chain rings when it comes to suitable touring gears. My all day gear is around 67" and I want that with a neutral chain line. Also I like a high gear around 100", as I don't mind spinning out around 25mph when I'm touring, and a low gear around 20". So my solution is to use a wide double, 42/26 with an 11/34 cassette. Works very well.

Luxlu: Cassette customizing sounds interesrting, doesn`t it? I know people do it and I`m kind of tempted to try it "just because", although in these days of 7 to 11 sprockets I can`t say as I`m really dying with the factory offerings. I know that you also have to pay attention to the tooth orientation and to which teeth are beveled or ramped if you want to retain the magic shifting that modern cassettes provide. sounds complicated, but intriguing all the same.

Nun: I`ve been curious about subcompact doubles like yours, too. Do you use a triple front derailler with your 26/42? Triple 74/110 arms without the big ring? The thing that`s kept me from doing it so far is that I read one acount where the rider kept finding himself right in the middle of the range and having to constantly shift back and forth between rings with a big jump of at least three cogs each time. I can see myself being in the same situation. I take it that doesn`t happen often to you? Or it does happen and it doesn`t bother you?

I've found that when I got down to the lowest gear (a little over 4 mph), especially on steep forest roads, I'd rather just walk the bike. Walking is a welcome change after hours of pedaling, using different muscles, etc.

As a blanket statement, that is not true.
XT & XTR cassettes use spiders, but SLX uses a stack of individual cogs.
In both cases, they are riveted together.
BTW the new 10s XT uses two spiders for the 6 largest rings, ie there are 3 cogs on each spider.

explain please.
how is the same ratio more or less efficient in one size or the other?
they both yield the same speed @ the same rpm.
aside from the wear on the smaller cog (pulling on the surface area of teeth of a 12 versus a 16)...how does it change things?

Another line . . . I was told to always use the biggest front cog you can without cross chaining, as that reduces chain tension and thus chain wear, which is also the best way to create the least wear on your cogs and chainrings. Nothing to do with efficiency, of course.

On our tandem, I tend to run in the big ring a lot, which brings the chain down onto the spider on our XTR cassette, which keeps the loose cogs from digging into the hub so much. No big deal on a single, but a tandem sees a lot of torque on the cassette.

48/12 and 44/11 are the same gear, about 100" with 26x1.5" tires. If you want low gears and the only reason you use a 100" gear is to pedal slowly downhill I would suggest you learn to pedal 5% faster because there is going to be nothing gained with the high gears compared to what you NEED with the low gears. In order to increase your speed going downhill requires substantial hp to overcome wind resistance so the net result is simply pedaling slower, not gaining any speed advantage with the higher gear. In other words the gears are needed to keep you in your powerband. If you don't have a low enough gear you blow up and strain your legs. If you don't have a high enough gear you do what? Coast or pedal a bit slower. It'll be the speed going uphill that makes the difference overtime, not the speed downhill.
Coming from the perspective of someone who toured a lot in my 20's, raced and owned a bike shop the most common misconception people had was that they needed higher gears so they could pedal DOWN hill in their limited range of cadence, when what they really needed to do was develop a better aerodynamic tuck(on a touring bike with panniers?), learn to spin faster and put out POWER with better technique in their whole body. This is something most folks don't do with a 80" gear let alone a 108" gear.

I've got a 30/44 with 12-32 8spd cassette. Using a triple and chainguard ring on the outside position the "middle" 44t chainring I can use the entire range of the cassette as I would with a triple and the smaller chainring for low gears. I don't find the three middle gears: 57",66", 75" too far apart.

am curious to see if TCS answers teh same as me, but while the actual "efficiency" is hard to put real numbers to, I have always instinctively tried to keep my chain straighter, and as you say, knowing that its better for a chain and cogs not to be on the 11 or 12 teeth cogs........is all of this an insignificant amount? who knows, I dont.

all I can say is that for the live of a chain and cogs, its got to make a slight diff by not "cross-chaining" and running alot on the smallest rear cogs--I mean you can hear the difference.

for me its just old habits, and my drivetrains tend to last a good long time, but then again, I tend to clean and lube my chain when it is looking dry, and/or after I ride in the rain. Lots dont. I prefer to know how my chain is doing lube wise and grungy junk stuck on it wise, as well as not riding with it crooked.

lots of people start their car at -10, -20 and drive off right away. Some bikers dont let up much when they shift. As you wish, its more long term a lot of it, but I will take any efficiency gain any day, any amount. Waste not want not.

umm. you replying to me replying to tcs?
hit the 'reply with quote button'. makes things easier to follow.

i'm confused by tcs' reply. nowhere does he / she mention chainline.