vintage road bikes, no granny gear
 

HI I am a newbie group rider. I have been riding 2 1990's hybrids and they each have whats called a granny gear. One is a Trek Multitrack 720 and the other is a Univega via carisma.

I got a 1983-ish Trek 760 bike and got it tuned up and took it on a group ride with pretty big hills and was surprised to find that the gearing is a lot different on this bike. I had to abort the hills.

Someone I know with a Trek 2200 road bike told me that prior to a long charity ride with a lot of hills they had their bike specially rebuilt to include easier gearing for hills.

My bike mechanic says if i bring the Trek 760 in he can probably change the cogs etc, maybe do a compact 2 front set of cogs and different cogs in back. I didnt get a price yet.

Im not asking for specific technical info on gearing but just asking in a broader sense if i go out and buy vintage road bikes say from the 80's what is the general picture or overview of what is the likelihood any of these vintage road bikes will have a low gear similar to the granny gears in my mid 1990's hybrids? Is it generally true that the higher end racing bikes from the 80's like my Trek 760 will be WORSE in terms of lack of easy gears for hills than the less expensive heavier bikes of that time period, more designed for beginner use?

Also is it generally true that if i go out and buy a new road bike say in the under $1500 range that it is more likely to have easier gears for hills than old mid level or high level 1980's steel road bike such as Trek, Univega, Centurion, Specialized, Miyata, Bridgestone, etc.

This granny gear issue is making me rethink just buying old road bikes off Craigslist to get tuned up. I had assumed if i buy a mid or high level old steel road bike like the Trek 760 that it would have similar gearing to my mid 90's hybrids or my entry level 1982 Trek 311 (which seems to have the gearing i need but is just the wrong size for me).

Yes, generally speaking, older road bikes that aren't at the bottom of the lineup will not have the gearing you are looking for. Changing the gearing can be pretty easy and cheap, or fairly expensive. If you go used, you can probably find a road or MTB triple crankset and front derailleur for very little, and that should make you happy. At one LBS, I got a cheap 50-34 compact crank, and a very nice 50-40-30 MTB crank for $20 each, and a used front derailleur can probably be had for $5-$10.

It might just be that you need to ride more, my Motobecane does not have anything close to a granny gear, and I haven't found a hill I can't ride up yet.

Road / racing bikes typically run taller gearing while road / touring bicycles will run gearings that are very similar to mountain bikes and hybrids.

Higher end racing bicycles will have gearings that are much higher than the average rider will find comfortable as they are designed for higher speeds and fitter riders that have less need of ultra low gearings... these are also lighter bicycles that are rarely encumbered with extras like racks, fenders, and extra gear.

Solution would be to swap the road double with a triple or a modern compact crank and take a look at the rear block to see if it caould be altered as in many cases you will have a narrow range out back that is not suited for hill climbing.

Did you do Ragbrai last year? ;) Potter's Hill had an 18-20% grade in portions, and even with a triple in front (yielding a 1:1 ratio with the biggest gear in back), I had to weave a little to stay upright. Unfortunately, there were so many people around me bailing out and walking that I needed to as well. :o

- Scott

The road cycling population, in general, has not required a triple with your "granny gear."
That is changing, with many road bikes, especially entry level models, being sold as triples, trying to be all things to all people.
Also, compact cranksets are more and more becoming the option of choice for road riders in mid and even upper level offerings.
The riding population is also aging, and less able to mash it up grades. Either that, or people are finally getting realistic about riding hills.

Road bikes have long been based on what's being raced, and many grannies don't race.
However, if you're trying to sell a bike, there's no reason to exclude possible buyers who may need/want a little more climbing ability built into the bike.

Just as many triathletes try to buy speed, many riders want to buy climbing. You get what works for you.

For vintage bikes, the options as far as compact cranksets are limited, but I'd still go that way, or even just buy smaller rings up front and larger cogs at the rear. Going "triple" to add the granny gear can require many changes, some that could cost as much as your bike is worth. Best bet is a donor bike that can give you the shifter, crankset, bb, fd, and rd you may need.

I bought a 1974ish Roberts bike (custom uk builder) the gearing was insane, 45-55 on the front and 13-18 on the back, I assumed he had it set up for time trials or the like but was assured that it was pretty typical for the era and the guys would just power up the hills.

I think it was a bit of bravado rather than good sense... rather like the weight obbsessed carbon freaks of today, or the fixxy obsessives.

I ended up changing the rear cassette for a 13-24 which is much better on the hills, but I only use the big chainring about 1% of the time.


I think the 'half step and granny' was common in touring bikes, but i guess that would be later when better chains came allong

Triple rings, like those on my Marinoni Squadra, are really nice for an old guy with poo-poo knees, like mine.
http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpe...a_Cranks_1.jpg

However, a 52/39 ring combination driving an extra wide range freewheel on my Specialized Junker II has proved to be the equal of every hill encountered so far...

http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpe...ns_Drive_1.jpg

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Here's a link to a gear calculator. Just enter your info and click 'calculate' and you'll get your data in gear inches, or whatever you specify. Don't neglect to specify the wheel and crank sizes. Why don't you take stock of what you have for gearing on one of the hybrids, go out and ride it on your favorite hills, taking note of what gears you find necessary, esp. the high and low. Then play around with the calculator and figure out if there is some reasonable solution using a standard or compact double chainring setup, or whether you need to go to a triple. With a lighter road frame and more time in the saddle, you might find that you're using the low end less frequently, but it's still nice to know it's there if someone puts a hill at the end of a tough ride.

Have your bike shop swap components between your 311 and 760.

I've never met a hill I was not ashamed to walk up.
Otherwise, for vintage, you will have to target bikes that might have been built with triples. Some doubles can be converted but you may have to swap out the BB spindle, front derailleur, etc to make the triple fit.
On a Felt bike that had a double, I swapped the cassette for one with a wider range and it still was a push.

Some bike of 1980's vintage came with triples. It is not that hard to swap a triple on to an older frame. Cheap if you do your own work. You just need the correct bottom bracket and a good used triple. Well you need a shifter that can shift that triple but back in the day shifters were friction shifters and could do a triple with no issues.

Have a look at what I did to this old Raleigh Technium:

http://backroom.hardsdisk.net/technium.html

You'll have to find a Megadrive freewheel, buy a new chain and change the rear derailer. If I also added a compact crank, it would have low gearing similar to having a granny.

As it is, it handles all but the steepest hills here in NY mountain country quite nicely.

GaryinLA, Many race and roadster bikes from the '70s and '80s ran doubles, often 52-42T, with 5 and 6 speed freewheels. The race bikes had close ratio freewheels and the roadsters were wider ratio. My '80 Raleigh, a roadster had a 30ish" bottom gear.

There's basically two ways to have a better climbing drivetrain. First is the compact double with a wide ratio freewheel/cassette or a triple with either a close or wide ratio freewheel/cassette. I prefer the latter.

Brad

I have a 1983 760 frame with a total 9-speed upgrade. I experimented with a Deore RD and 12-32 cassette, 53-39 in front, and it was a lot better on hills than the 12-25 cassette that I normally use. I ended up going back to the narrower range, I don't normally have to climb long steep hills, and I like having more choices at cruising speeds.

pics here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/5720614...7627244603444/

I'm willing to bet the op has a 42 as the small ring on front. A 39t is a $3.00 change at most if the op can do the work. I had to make that change on my bikes for the hills here.
The other change is in riding style. You can't expect to maintain a constant speed in hilly areas. Gain speed going in, change gears properly ahead of time and keep pedaling. Judging from your name, you're in Los Angeles. I am fairly certain there are few hills there that a 39 can't deal with.

The 1983 Trek 760 was designed for racing and thus is geared much higher than a hybrid type bike. The stock crank has a 144mm BCD and thus will only accommodate chainrings with 41 teeth or larger. If you need a "granny" gear smaller than that, you will need a different crank.

Back in "the day" the smallest chainringd to fit a double crank was 42 tooth. Frewheels were nomally 6 spd 28-14. Now "compact" 110bcd cranks have as small as 30 tooth rings and 7-8spd freewheelsare available with ranges from 34-12. A different crank and new freewheel will cost you around $120,but you'll probably need a new chain and possibly rear derailler. So it's lot cheaper than a new bike. Beware the LBS that tells you different.

Marc

I dont know about a 39, but there are some quite steep hills in the greater LA area. The hills i am riding with a group are Palos Verdes Estates. It's one of the local places bicyclists go to ride hills. There are other hills, probably a lot more steeper in places such as San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel, and Pasadena, where riders seek out the hills. I am not particularly lookign for hills but riding in groups, it is common for rides to have some hills, they look for them.

I have a 52/40 double up front and a 14-30 6-speed freewheel in back on my '82 Trek. Every once in a while I think about upgrading to a triple setup (could probably do it for less than $100 -- crank/BB spindle/deraileurs). But that 40-30 combination (36 gear inches) gets me up most hills. Maybe if I start doing some light touring, I'll need something lower. But I might just grab one of those mega-range Shimano 7-speed freewheels with the 34t cog and a long-cage derailleur (maybe $35 total) for a 31 gear inch low gear. That'd probably be the economical and easy solution (at least til I get north for age 40!).

FWIW, I have found that many mid-level semi racing bikes from the 80's with SR or Sugino cranks were drilled for triples (i.e., will accomodate a granny gear), but this will likely require a different bottom bracket and FD.

In a race twiddling a granny gear gets you dropped off the back..

The companies sell racer replicas, so they dont have triples.

you just change over the drivetrain to suit your needs, experiment.

The lowest gear on the 83 and 84 Trek 760 was a 42x21 is 52.5 gear inches.
That's pretty high for the average rider on steep hills.
If you're going to keep the bike period correct I'd suggest changing the
rear cluster to something like a 13-28 suntour ultra 6 (the current is either 12-21 or 13-21).
As John Thompson said these were designed as race bikes, not sport/racer
(and he should know, he brazed them).
Marty

This is simply not the case. Many racers of course used Campagnolo cranks when these came out, and the smallest chainring these would take was a 41 - though these are rare. Initially, the smallest was 44, until the bcd changed circa 1966. But Stronglight made a number of double cranks intended for racing that allowed for a 38 inside chainring; the Williams C1000 (a common choice in its day in the UK) took a 32 (the AB77 cotterless double could take a 26); and Magistroni made a number of doubles with 116 bcd that could take smaller inside chainrings. There are more examples. The big influencing factor on the relatively large size of inside chainrings on racing doubles until about 1962 or so was the commonality of half-step gearing (though some touring types would use a "half-step-plus-granny" setup).

All in the motor (see: legs). As for Potter's, there were too many people walking to literally ride a bike, no matter your strength or gearing. I was forced to get off my ordinary and walk because it was bottle-necked to a stop. Did you not ride this year? Twister was *much* worse than Potter.

I have a 1983 Trek 670 w/ campy drive trian. I picked up an old stock 9 speed campy compact crank cheap and it slipped right on the existing BB.