djb

Jno, as you can see from our responses, gearing is a hugely important thing--but also be aware that traditional touring bikes are generally a good whole package--ie they will come with a strong wheelset that is made for touring loads.
Im sure you know about spoke counts and various rim specific advantages vs others, strength and all that. A typical touring bike wheel has 36 spokes, and will have a very good quality rim and spokes. Some "gravel" or other bikes will have smaller spoke counts and or a less tough rim, simply because the bike is either not made or marketed to be carrying 40lbs of stuff, and or its a price point thing.

you will most likely in your research see bikes that look interesting, but many of them will have 32 spokes or whatever that on a cross country trip carrying X lbs, it is entirely likely that you'll start having spoke issues, which is a real pain in the keester , and may not be resolved by getting spokes replaces and or tightened.
You may weigh 120lbs or you may weigh 220lbs also, but just be aware that in general, a dedicated touring bike will come with an appropriate wheelset for the bikes main intended purpose, a lot of other bikes will very likely be lacking, but you wont know that and the salespeople who havent toured won't either.
Just a heads up to look at the whole package of how a bike will work touring.

a bunch of years ago I met some young women friends who were biking across Canada and were passing through Montreal. One of them had one of the first "gravel type" bikes marketed as such, I think it was the trek 920, It came with 32 spoke wheels and sure enough, she went through a period of the trip breaking spoke after spoke, having to find shops to replace them, until finally it stopped happening. It was a pain for her to deal with this, but this bikes wheelset clearly was not sufficient for a loaded trip, and while she did jettison stuff as the trip progessed, so less weight, she certainly didnt weigh 200.....Just a real world example from a few years ago.

Its also really important with any bike used for touring to get a good mechanic to go over the wheelset after its been ridden a bit, and to do a great job of tightening , trueing and evening out the spoke tensions. Spokes always loosen up over time, and very often are shipped with just so so tensions. Ive always done this before a bike trip, going back 25+ years, and Ilm a light guy 140 tops.

Tourist in MSN

I concur with those that suggest 36 spoke count. I do not know how much stronger a 36 is compared to a 32, but the rear wheel takes a lot of weight and there is no excuse to use less than 36.

I build my own wheels, thus I know the spoke lengths that my wheels take and I carry spare spokes on the bike. That said, I have not busted a spoke for over a decade, that busted spoke was on a wheel that was built in 1961 by someone else. But, I still carry spare spokes. I carry a cassette lockring tool when I tour.

A couple years ago I bought a road bike, complete, someone else built the wheels. Instead of trying to figure out the spoke lengths, I bought a Fiberfix emergency spoke instead, works on any wheel. If you buy one, you probably will never have a spoke break, but it is a cheap insurance policy.
https://www.amazon.com/FiberFix-Emer...dp/B001GSMQZC/

But as I noted above, it would be good if one in your group knows how to true wheels.

fishboat

It seems there's no perfect solution. Any option will have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the rider's needs or desires. Given your comments..I'll toss this out for the OP's consideration, fwiw(others here have much more touring experience than I...but I'm out there and collecting tours..). It comes to my mind due to your referencing the Surly LHT road crank and Deore/XT mountain crank.

I assembled this chart when I was figuring out what a new-to-me touring bike might look like. I put together an all-rounder & touring bike for my GF using a '91 Trek 750(she loves it with or without a touring load). I was considering a mtn bike drop-bar conversion. Both were compared to two well-known reference touring bikes, a Trek 520 and the current Surly LHT. While this mixes wheel sizes**, it surprised me just how similar all the bikes(frames) are.



All of the above were(are) the OEM setup. Naturally, that can be changed. The Surly is a 9 speed. The rest were OEM 7 speed.

I eventually went with a '93 Trek 970 and did the drop bar conversion. I haven't touched the 7 speed geartrain nor the wheels (32h, 14ga) as they were very nice and seem to work perfectly. I have about 1000 miles on the bike since the conversion, 600 miles of that was full-loaded 4-pannier touring with 35-40lbs of gear. I weigh 225, the bike with racks is about 30. I run 26 x 2.15 Schwalbe Big Ben tires. Very comfortable, stable bike that rolls super-easy...it's a pleasure to ride.

The top tube length of Trek 900 series mtn bikes increased in length by around 2cm after 1994. 1990ish-1993 had shorter top tubes. You'll note the chainstays of the LHT are 30mm longer than the Trek 970. I wear a size 12 riding shoe and have plenty of room with the rear (60L) panniers..not even close to any heel-strike issues.

Boiled down..one option for the OP is to get a modern bike and rework the drivetrain as needed, or get an older bike that has the core drivetrain and frame geometry that still used today, and update it as needed. An older, premium, rigid mtn bike in very good condition can be had for $200-$300. The drop-bar conversion of a 970 7-speed is a no brainer & very inexpensive..front and rear DRs are fully compatible with sti shifters, if desired, or bar-end shifters. Conversion to a 9 speed would be a little more work...and cost.

**from index above..I'm not as clear as I'd like to be on how the same frame size and geometry designed for 26 in wheels vs 700c compare to each other. Not sure if it's completely apples and oranges..or just two kinds of apples.

fourfa

Since we're talking about spokes - if you have the choice you should look for rear rims with asymmetric/offset spoke holes. This really helps increase the problematic non-drive-side spoke tension. This won't cure all wheel problems, and it's not an excuse to use fewer spokes than you should, but it helps.

I've been very happy with a 3x10 setup on my traditional touring bike. I've been through a few variations with the gearing (currently 50-39-24 & 12-30) but it's totally flexible and can easily be adapted to any situation. I have 2x11 on a gravel bike that can do light touring, and it just is not as flexible or adaptable. For a cross-continent trip with real mountains I'd lean towards the 3x10.

You mention 50-60 lbs - like others here I'd set a target of 40lbs MAX and really endeavor to get down to 30. It will be an all-around more enjoyable trip. Traditional bike touring forums like this one are not the best pace to look for lightweighting advice - long distance thru-hiker forums are. (I started down that path due to backpacking knee injury but it makes EVERYTHING more enjoyable). Start by getting a scale, weigh all your gear, and put it in a spreadsheet. Knowing is half the battle. Random nice-to-haves add up unbelievably fast. I try to live by the lightweighter's credo "if you need it and don't have it, you don't really need it" Figure out which nice-to-haves really do bring joy every day, and which are used only occasionally or never. You need to actually pack the gear on the bike and weigh it all to see what fit where and how, and get the real-world weights.

And of course, experience will quickly show what works and doesn't, what you need and what you don't. A weekend test tour well before the big trip, and a warm-up 1-week tour shortly before, will be very educational. Experience gives you the confidence to leave things home, as well as identify and fix your particular friction points. Nevertheless despite doing all this myself, I inevitably ship a package home after week one of a long tour, full of things I thought I'd need but don't.

Dynos: I have three dynohub wheels and two dyno converters, one of which I ordered as a kit from Germany, soldered together myself, and constructed a weatherproof housing just the way I wanted with a big cache battery. I like the peace of mind it brings, and I guess I like having my bike computer and lights and phone and airpod gadgets. But given how small and powerful USB batteries are today, it's hard to recommend anything else when starting out. Get one that has 2-3 USB outputs, can quick-charge from a high-current AC converter, pair it with a newish compact GaN fast-charger. Make sure all your gear can charge from USB. Lastly bring a mini 3-to-1 AC outlet adaptor (random example) for the inevitable conflicts at campground outlets. Put your name prominently on everything that might be left unattended in a laundry room or wherever.

Happy Feet

As far as weight goes.

Sometimes a person will comment that they want to take a lot of stuff along so that they are comfortable while touring. In reality, most of the time is spend pedalling so that is where one should try to create comfort - usually by carrying a reasonable amount of weight.

If it takes me 12 hours per day to cover a route because of heavy load/slow speeds while someone else covers the same distance in 8 hours, that gives them 4 extra hours of recovery each day and they will feel fresher as a result. Over a longer tour that adds up.

Jno

Forum: I had thought I would have lots of time to research and try out my “ideal” touring bike. It turns out that covid has wiped out the inventory and supply chain for months to come, so if I want to get a bike this summer, to ride before launching tour in 2022, I need to act almost immediately. That means I am choosing a store based on its ability to get bikes rather than on its level of touring expertise. Can the forum help to reassure me that the store’s young roadie ”knows his stuff” and then offer its counsel? I am taking the advice of the forum to get lower than stock gearing. The 2 touring bikes he has are:

520 comes with Sora shifters 11-36 (9 sp) and Alivio t4060 26/36/48, Sora front der and Alivio rear long cage rear der.
The Marrakesh comes with Sora shifters 11-34 (9 sp) Alivio 26/36/48 and Alivio derailleurs

He proposes to replace triple with Deore FC-M6000 with 40/30/22. Will this work? Is it a wise choice? Is one bike a better choice (as far as its gearing) than the other (34 tooth vs 36, with long cage)? Is the proposed triple an upgrade? Any counter-suggestions?

thanks for any suggestions

cyccommute 

Here is a comparison of stock and proposed gearing for the Trek 520. Here is the same for the Marrakesh. The 40 tooth outer ring gives you a high that is lowish but workable. I was initially going to say that it was too low but after running the numbers 100 gear inches used to be just about the highest we could get. (I’ve added links in the quote for both bikes.)

As to which, I would probably choose the Marrakesh over the Trek just based on the rack. The Salsa racks are just a little bit better than the ones on the Trek. The high rack on the Trek is mostly useless and kind of has a belt and suspenders vibe to it. The Trek is a little bit better because of the gearing but it wouldn’t be difficult nor that expensive to duplicate the gearing on the Marrakesh. But the difference is razor thin.

Happy Feet

I like both those bikes and personally would tour without the conversion, unless he is offering a good deal on the swap out costs. 26-36 is pretty low already, as is 26-34. Both are pretty close and it just comes down to the small things like racks and accessories.

Tourist in MSN

I have two touring bikes with a smallest chairing that is 24T. The big ring is 46 on both.

I am assuming that any triple crankset that has a 26T smallest chainring can instead be fitted with a 24T chainring on that same crankset for a very low cost. But much greater cost to use a different crankset to obtain a 22T smallest chainring. Thus, a few bucks for some imrprovement, but a lot more bucks for a bit after that.

Since I am used to using friction shifters, I have no idea if such a change would impair indexed shifting.

With newer odd chainring standards coming out every few years, I do not keep track of names and models of cranksets, I am only looking at tooth count here.

I would want a bigger chainring than 40 for sure. My derailleur touring bikes are fitted with a 46T big ring. I do not use the 46/11 gear very much on my touring bikes, but I would not want to give it up. That gear gets used for shallow downhills.

L134 

A 5 arm crank with a 74mm bolt circle can be adapted to take as small as a 17t ring using one of these: Mountain Tamer Triple adapter - LOWER GEARS for bikes of all kinds. I’ve used one to go to a 19t ring and had no trouble. I did use a chain catcher just in case.

TA Pro Vis Cyclotouriste style cranks go no smaller than 26t as far as I know.

djb

jno, I havent looked at the specific specs of both the bikes, but the most important thing is to look into if the triple cranksets on those bikes hvae bolts holding the rings on, I suspect that they do.
If yes, you can easily change the 26 to a smaller ring, but you'll have to look at the bolt pattern, the BCD to see if yoiu can put smaller rings on. The triple the store recommended is a 10 speed mtb triple, hence the kinda weird 40/30/22

on your own, get teh gear inch ranges of this setup and post it for us. Use the calculator cycoo recommended, he showed that one to us a long time ago, its pretty neat.

You might be able to find a 9 speed triple 44/32/22 which will give a bit higher gears in the mid and top rings, which is nice BUT also if you can easily change the 48/36/26 to a 24 or 22 , it will give pretty good touring range also--figure these numbers out and get back to us with them, gear inch ranges I mean.

djb

https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/produ.../FC-T4060.html

this appears to be whats on the trek 520, do similar searching to find out what is smallest possbile small chainring avail, and to confirm that it has bolts and not rivets

Jno

I followed up the forum suggestion to inquire about swapping one ring for another and was told that the jumps required of fd would be so big that I’d end up needing to swap one or both of the others (depending on my substitution choices). When I ran the gear calculation and compared the speeds at various gearings, the difference wasn’t alarming. Even the max difference seemed okay; I don’t expect often to find myself pedalling mid 30s but when I do, the lost chance to go almost 5 km/hr faster doesn’t trouble me.

The only trekking triple I found online that had lower gearing has been discontinued. Assuming that’s the only option, my search is over. Thanks to all who have helped me to make my determinations. I will (almost certainly) be getting the 520 with 11-36 and substitute crank 22/30/40.
I converted the gear inch info (which I know little about) to speed at cadence. When I try to post, image not included. Sorry I can’t oblige the request to include.

[img]blob:https://www.bikeforums.net/a0829e35-3767-4cb6-b232-fc6e440039b5[/img]

djb

quickly on these points. When I have changed out small chainrings for smaller ones in the past, 28 to 24, 30 to 26 a few times on two bikes, the fd handled it with no problems, even on my sti bike, but I wasnt using a Sora 3x fd, but tiagra 3x fd and and deore fd way back in 91 or something.
But as you say, this will probably be a moot point for you anyway, deciding to go with a mtb triple.

couple of thoughts again on mtb triples--your roadie instincts will think its ridiculously small, but for touring, there isnt really much downside. Worse comes to worse and you see that the 11-36 is just too low (unlikely) you can always try a slightly tighter cassette (lets say if you get your touring load to rather light).

Here is the gear inch chart for the 520 with this crankset, I took a guess and put in 35mm tires.
Compared is my Surly Troll set up with a mtb triple also, but with 26in wheels which slightly changes the g.i numbers cmopared to 700 wheels.
Your proposed setup is very close, and like Ive mentioned before, loaded up this is a pretty darn good setup that covers all kinds of riding terrain.
The other neat thing with triples like this is that I find that instead of spending the vast majority of time in the mid ring, I very much spread my chain lifetime on all three rings, which has to be good for more even drivetrain wear over time.

Oh, one thing, the dealer must know if the fd on the 520 is easily moved down on the seattube, it will have to moved down a bit to be at the right height for the smaller diameter of the mtb triple. Some bikes have those braze on areas rather than a simple clamp, and it can limit fd lowering.

fishboat

..continuing research on how various bike's frame geometry compares. Given this discussion, I was interested in how the LHT, Marrakesh, and 520 compared.

Interesting results:

The LHT compared to the 520:



The Marrakesh compared to the 520:

djb

dont know about you peeps, but I'd have to actually ride the bikes to take anything from that.
Or not even take it into consideration and just take what my body was telling me riding it and see how the things handled.

cyccommute 

You are running up against what someone has been told and what can be done. You aren’t really even asking that much of the Sora front derailer by going to a 22 tooth inner. I’m currently running a 46/34/20 using a Sora equivalent and I have zero issues. That’s even with an STI shifter which is indexed. I have a 48/36/22 on another bike with an Ultegra front derailer that also has zero issues. The funny thing about Shimano is that the more expensive front derailers are much more finicky than the cheaper ones.

Don’t be afraid to experiment. You won’t break anything. It might not work but, then again, it might work perfectly. You won’t know until you try.

Try Fleabay. Search for Shimano Hollowtech. You may have to look around for a while but they pop up. The 40 tooth substitute wouldn’t be horrible, however.

fishboat

I agree, there's no substitute for riding. I just find it somewhat surprising the same geometry (essentially identical or just downright identical, often 71* HT, 73* ST) is used in so many places, across bike categories (touring, hybrid, mtn), across different manufacturers, and across decades, as my chart above seems to indicate. I don't doubt there's limited degrees of freedom in designing some styles of bikes, but I would have thought there'd be a little more variation.

In any event, the OP seems to have made a bike selection..

djb

Jno, I can confirm what cycco is saying, that at a bike store, they will not recommend something that is not "official". I've done stuff that wasnt officially kosher, but it worked out--but I'm a confident home mechanic which helps a lot, and a good improviser also.
When I changed my 50/39/30 to a 50/39/26, like I said the fd handled it without any issue whatsoever, didnt have to do anything--but the 26t ring I bought had a slightly different shape or profile than the 30 ring on my FSA crankset, so the new one sat just a bit too close to the 39 ring, causing some rub at some points. I simple put some washers in to shim it out a mm or so, and voila , fixed the problem----but that took improvising, and a bike store mechanic just wont do that, its not worth their time.
It also is not worth their time and hassle doing things that arent official because if there are hiccups, which I totally get, not worth an unhappy customer and a bad reputation for the store.

Jno, do you do any of your own bike mechanic stuff? Are you going to keep the 48/36/26? I would add that if you do go the route of getting the 40/30/22 put on, I would be interested in buying the 48/36/26 and BB if they take it off and give it to you. I would use on some bike project at some point. Keep it in mind.

Oh, and back to using the 40/30/22, here is a photo from a blog I did a few years back from a trip. Just an example of how having a low first gear is just plain handy. You can be having a day where its hot like in the photo, or you are tired and hungry, or you are starting a cold and feeling lethargic, so having a low this low is just plain bloody nice to have to use.
And again, if you dont need it, you shift up, simple. But sure as heck is nice to know that its there.
This photo was taken somewhere in Honduras, a real kick-ass country of mountains mountains mountains. Never ending it seemed.

Tourist in MSN

I am running a front derailleur designed for a 52/39/30 on a crankset that is 52/42/30, and it is not very smooth when upshifting from the 30 to the 42. So, sometimes the front derailleur on a triple might not work very well when outside the design specifications.

But on one of my bikes I am using a Campy 10 speed shfiter with a 8 speed Shimano rear derailleur and Sram 8 speed cassette, works just fine. While the Sram and Shimano components in that case were designed to work together, the Campy and Shimano parts never were, any chance that it would work well is pure coincidence.

My point is that sometimes you can go pretty far outside the normal specifications and not have a problem. But, that is not always the case.

If you are a bike shop employee and someone asks if something will work out of specification, they are taking a lot of risk of a very unhappy customer talking to their boss later if it did not work just right. So, don't expect bike shop employees to say that something should work outside of specification unless they are 100 percent certain that it will work.

And sometimes you find clueless employees that will try to assure you that they are experts when they are in fact idiots.