vespasianus

Yeah, my old bike (from a week ago!) had a lowest gear of 42X25. I rode up the Tourmalet on that bike!

HTupolev

Even when bikes only had 5 cogs in back, and any ratios came at a premium, racers still demanded tight gear spacing. To accommodate different rider's gear-spacing preferences, loads of freewheels were available, and many manufacturers offered options for customization. So many tight-ratio clusters were manufactured that, in 2020, ebay is still flooded with 13-17 and 14-18 5-speed freewheels.

genejockey 

"Why, when I were a lad, we had 5 speeds in back and two in front, and we were GRATEFUL!!!"

genejockey 

(that's where this is headed, right?)

znomit

When every ride is uphill, both ways, in the snow, in bare feet, you don't need that many gears.

Atlas Shrugged

The reason for the tight ratios back in the day was due to technological limitations of the derailleurs.

HTupolev

Racing derailleurs back then were limited to a much narrower overall range, but not to tight spacing from cog to cog. For example, nearly all of them circa 1970 could handle at least a 24T cog; a 14-24 freewheel has an average step size of about 11.4% and might look something like 14-16-18-21-24. That's not tight-ratio at all!

Robert A

My 1972 ItalVega Super Speciale with a Record groupset had 13-26 in the rear and (I think) 52-39 in front. The bike weighed 23 pounds (it had Columbus tubing).

I have no idea how I climbed in 39/26 gearing. Nowadays, my lowest is 36/32.

diphthong

heavy breathing for sure. i’m still
on the line...pearl white is my fave bike frame color.

Leinster

My road bikes have low of 39-29 and 34-27.

I avoid certain roads. Especially with my current fitness. I suffer a lot when I choose to tackle them. In between I have plenty of gears to choose from, and my 53-12 means I get down fast. I think it’s right that I should have to struggle up certain climbs above a certain difficulty level, that some hills should be a question of “if” I get to the top.

It’s all easier than the 42-24 gearing I grew up with.

ultrarider7

And our bikes weighed 30 pounds! We rode to and from school, uphill in both directions!

SSRI

Go Big - dont stop at 34 - go for the extra large pie 40T.

Atlas Shrugged

Perhaps I worded my point wrong. You were limited both in total capacity the rear derailleur could hand as well as the maximum size sprocket. This is the reason triples were popular as the maximum sprocket size was very limited.

HTupolev

You didn't word your point wrong, I addressed the issue of max cog size in my post. Even though racing derailleurs were limited to smaller max cogs than today's models, this did not restrict them to freewheels with super-tight gear spacing. Racers frequently used freewheels that were significantly tighter than their derailleurs were capable of handling.

Triples have basically never been popular on road racing bikes. In the 5-speed era, racing bikes nearly always used doubles, and they usually had chainring gaps of 10 teeth or less (such as the classic 52-42). Many of the rear derailleurs they used had geometries that didn't play all that well with wide front shifts anyway, even if they technically had the chain wrap to deal with it (Campagnolo's Gran Sport and its direct descendants - the Record, Nuovo Record, Super Record, and C-Record - being the classic example of this).

Triples have been intermittently popular on non-racing-oriented road bikes, but this has usually been alongside long-cage "touring" or (more recently) "MTB" derailleurs that were also not limited to super-tight freewheels. For example, the "GT"-geometry derailleurs that SunTour started making around 1970 - and which were commonly used alongside triple cranksets - were designed to smoothly handle freewheels with cogs up to about 34T.

Atlas Shrugged

Thank you. Let’s just leave it I am wrong you are right. We good?

bfaIllini

Absolutely. I moved to Boulder CO from East Coast sea level when I retired.
Withhout 34:34 I couldn't even think of riding the climbs here, let alone riding them
The rolling terrains, or steeper, have enhanced my cycling joy immensely.
You sacrifice nothing and gain everything
Have fun!

rondi

I used one of these when I changed my cassette to a larger baby gear:
wolftoothcomponents dot com/products/roadlink I don't have enuf posts to use a .
It worked great--no need to change the RD, just a longer chain.

dsbrantjr

The OP could do that IF keeping the old parts is a part of the $199 bargain. It would not surprise me if the shop was intending to keep the takeoffs and sell them. Best to understand the deal fully.

Pizzaiolo Americano 

This is a timely thread...I just did a short ride with an 11-34 cassette and have to say, I hate the spacing on the higher gears. It is very flat where I live though. Amazon to the rescue. My new 11-30 will be here Wednesday...for the OP, I’d go with the 11-34 since you will be doing more climbing. You can always swap back and forth with the 11-30 if you want later since you will have the long cage derailleur.

genejockey 

My new bike came with a 11-34. I do find that the 34 is too low in some places where I'm in my lowest gear on other bikes, but then yesterday on this one hill, I reached down to click into the 34 as the hill got steeper, and discovered I was already in it. We old fat guys use ALL the gears.

SpeedyBlueBiker

Great thread! My Specialized Tarmac has a 52/36 up front and a 11-30 in the rear. Love that bike. I rode the RAMROD on that bike and it worked like a charm. I rarely use the 36/30 but have on occasion on very steep hills. My Fuji is only slightly different, 52/36 and 11-28. It works great as well. My LeMond Zurich is a 9 speed triple, 52/42/30 and 12-25 in the rear. I've done four RAMRODS on that bike and one STP. I've also climbed the very steep and long road up Doi Suthep in northern Thailand on that bike and it was great. That 30 up front came in real handy.

I would say go with the 11-34 if you feel it will give you more confidence on the hills. It's a pretty good bargain at $200 to make the change so why not?

xroadcharlie

Actually the stock low of 30 gear inches (GI) is pretty good IMO for the average cyclist on a road bike. That's just over 5 mph at 60 rpm.

While I have a 21 GI granny gear, I only need my 30 GI cogs on my 35 lb comfort bike to climb a steep trail nearby of soft gravel and loose stone. I started out with 21 GI but find it is actually more efficient in the taller gear. And a paved road would be much easier, especially on a much lighter and faster road bike. I'm 63, Cycle about 4 hrs/week and in perhaps average shape

While I do think the stock gearing on your bike goes higher then most of us will ever need, As I indicated, I think they still managed to get it low enough for most folks too. It might be worth trying stock.

One thing to consider is what you might loose. As they say there's no free lunch Swapping out an 11 - 30 to an 11 - 34 cassette might introduce big gaps between gears that can be more frustrating then the rare occasion you might want a lower gear then 30 GI. But if you have 9 or more gears on the cassette, It might not be a problem. Only an 11 - 13, and to a lesser degree 13 - 15 jumps are high.

Also, after some practice climbing hills in a taller gear then we might be comfortable with, we will inevidably become stronger and may find like I did that it's actually more efficient. Of course there are times even with some practice and the accompanying added strength some hills are still tough, But I think a low gear of 30 gear inches should cover it, Keeping in mind some people ride, even tour on a single speed bike locked at 60 - 70 gear inches.

CAT7RDR

^^^^^ As I understand the OP, he desires to get in better shape and ride more challenging climbs in the near future. I have had an 11-34 on my road bike for the past year and I do not miss the old 11-28. Once you dial in the adjustments on the RD on the Ultegra 8000, it is smooth sailing. You have to understand that it will take a full 1 1/2 turn of the crank to get into that 34 cog but I am usually riding no more than 8 mph at that point and finesse it into the 34. I know what you are stating about the closely separated cogs as my other bike I use has a 12-27 cassette and I find it more suitable for rollers and the flats.

genejockey 

For the last 3 weeks I've been riding the new bike, the one with 52/36 x 11-34, and LOVING IT!!! So this morning, I went out on one of my older bikes, the one with 53/39 x 12-30, and although I briefly missed the 36x34 on the first really steep pitch, by the end of the ride, 39x30 felt like plenty. Weird!

I also confirmed that bikes are like children - when you get a new one, it doesn't make you love the ones you already have any less.

Joearch

Continued great input and follow up. Bike is in but I am out of town So not able to ride it fo a week or so. Will report back. Am in another location with beautiful riding which has some hills in the plus 12% range which make me happy I am doing the switch and hope to move to some modest inclines now.