Originally posted by sammer
...On a related note, I got the impression from another reader here that even if the stock granny gear on the 520 is OK for some, the tallest gear is simply too tall for 99% of the riders and rides? He mentioned he had only used his once with a galeforce tailwind. If this is so, it would make more sense, IMO, for Trek to build the 520 with the lower-geared crankset.Cheers
Too high gearing. I've dealt with that on my past four bike purchases. The dealer said I was crazy when I asked them to put a 39/48 ring pair on an Ultegra equipped road bike (in late '80's). This was simply the lowest you could gear the Ultegra crankset.
I also put together the lowest geared cogset I could, with carefully selected 13-26 cogs. This is old-timey now, but my "14 speed" has 10 truly discreet ratios, with a very nice shift pattern and nice steps between ratios. The range is 40" to 99". This served me well on several lightly loaded tours, including two weeks camping. That was when I was 24 though. I climbed some major hills, including the 16 mile, 6000' vertical into Sequoia National Park.
Flash foreward to 2000, when I went to buy a MTB to use for touring. This "24 speed" bike actually was set up with only 13 significantly different usable ratios. Low gear was greater than 1:1 at 28". All of the middle ring ratios were duplicates of useable ratios from the small or large ring. I swapped the rings and cogset to get a 21"-112" range with nice, small steps in the lower 2/3 of the ratios. I do like the "downhill with tailwind" 112" gear but it's not really needed. My top three ratios are big steps: 85", 98", 112" (I think).
Sorry about all the geek talk. In my opinion lower low gears are always a good thing, even if you seldom use them. High gears above 100" seldom contribute much unless you're trying to keep up with club riders in a paceline.
Jim