robmcl

I have a stock Surly Cross Check that I am interested in setting up for more appropriate loaded touring gearing, which means lower gears. I am wondering if anyone has tried this:

Switch out the rear cassette to a 11 -42 10 speed:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0744Q6859...v_ov_lig_dp_it

Plus use one of these derailleur extenders:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B013ZTTEJK...v_ov_lig_dp_it

Its not impossible that I may need a longer chain.
The stock Cross Check has a 110 mm BCD Crank, Road Double so I am limited to 34 tooth small chain ring. I think I would go with a 34-42 tooth chainring setup.
The stock Cross Check rear derailleur is the Shimano Deore T610-SGS with 45 tooth capacity so I should be good there. (31 + 8 = 39)
The stock Cross Check also has a 10 speed cassette so no change there.

According to the Sheldon Brown gear calculator this would get me down to 22 gear inches. The top end would be 103 gear inches. I have had other bikes with triples but with LOADED touring I am mostly in the 40 to 80 gear inches range anyway. I think I am good with this gear distribution.

Reading reviews online people use this setup for MTB, which I would think would be more abusive than the pavement and maybe some gravel touring that I would do with this bike. It seems like people have had good luck with this. I just wonder what other people think or if anyone has already tried this setup. If it works, it is a cheap easy setup.

elcruxio

I'd suggest you consider rather getting a triple crankset with a decently low granny gear for touring. It usually by far the easiest and least risky method of getting more range on a touring bike. The road link system isn't what any rear mech was designed for and as such it does somewhat increase the risk of the rear wheel eating the derailer. At the very least is adds to the fragile nature of the rear mech and mech hanger by increasing the hanger arm length.

If you're changing parts anyway, it's around the same amount of hassle of getting the triple and accompanying shifters than getting the larger cassette / adjusting the road link to work.

Now I don't consider myself a retro grouch or luddite as I've toured with a 1x system, double with a wide cassette as well as with a triple. I started out with the triple, considered it heavy and cumbersome to shift. I am however strongly considering going back to it because it's just handy and more importantly i'd get a tighter cassette at the back. I never thought I'd be sensitive to large gaps in cassette spacing (especially when my MTB has a 10-50), but in road touring I feel a 11-speed 11-42 cassette is WAY too widely spaced. I think a 11-34 is pretty close to widest I can tolerate.
And now that I've resigned myself to using a downtube friction shifter for the front mech, I don't give a sod about the front mech adjustments which for triples I have always found to be too complicated.

robow

Would you be willing to change out your crankset to a 46 x 30 ? Then you wouldn't have to go to such a large cassette in the back which can create large gaps or spaces in your gearing.
I'm assuming you want to keep your shifters you presently have and don't want a triple up front.

robmcl

Thanks for the replies. I wish Surly would not have used a 110 BCD crank. A 40 30 crank would probably be good enough for me.

I am not interested in putting a triple on now. It’s more than the crank that would need to be replaced. It’s also the BB and the FD. It’s a new bike and now I haves just changed out most of my drive train. Right now I would just like to make some tweaks and see where that gets me. If the gaps in gearing bug me too much I will go the next step next year.

Having said that, there are a lot of positive reviews for the Wolf Link Roadlink.

robmcl

Check that . . . . Upon further review I ended up ordering a Shimano Deore 36 x 22 crankset Mt double and the corresponding BB. Using my stock 34t cassette gets me down to 18 gear inches and I will not have to mess with the rear end at all. This gearing is about perfect for me. My other bikes had 46-36-24 triples and I was almost never on the big chainring.

It has been awhile since I have bought bike parts and chainrings were more expensive than I thought. This came to $110 and was as or more cost effective than my other idea.

LeeG

Much better solution than your original one. On my CrossCheck I used a triple with outer ring occupied with a ring protector, 44 middle and 30 inner with 12-32 rear 9spd. I’d rather stick with conventional cassette sizes.

52telecaster

good move in my book.