thebulls

I have the same Sugino crank up front and an 11/32 or occasionally 11/34 in back. With 46x11 and 700x32 tires, I could easily spin to the mid-30 mph point at 110 rpm if I ever wanted to, but in fact I usually stop pedaling and tuck as soon as I hit about 28 mph. At that speed, gravity works a lot better than pedaling hard.

bmike

+1

George

When you go from the 11/32 to the 11/34 do you have to add a link to you chain. I have 2 cassettes, one is a 11/28 and the other is a 11/34 and I have a 11/32 on the bike now.

clasher

So, HTFU. Gotcha. This should be flagged "best-of", really.

Road Fan

Yes, this is what I was thinking of.

Road Fan

I'd say probably you will need that, but it really just depends on how tightly things are set up in the first place. One tooth is not a big increase, but you might be at the limit with the 11/32.

George

Thanks for the reply RF, but I was going to use the 11/34 on my touring bike. It has a 11/32 on it now, so I think it should work.I also have a 12/28 9 spd for my touring bike as well, so I think I would have to take 2 links out, if I have it set up for a 11/32 now. I was thinking about going to a 12/27 on my LOOK, which has a 12/25 on it now. Anyhow thanks again.

thebulls

Haven't had to add a link. I guess things are loose enough that they can go from 32 to 34. But I try to avoid ever being in the big/big or small/small combinations. It's set up so it can handle big/big without breaking the derailleur, but you can feel and hear the resistance and shift out of that gear fast. Similarly small/small has some amount of chain rub against itself that you can hear.

Richard Cranium

If you are too dim to choose correct gearing because of the length of the ride, you are too dim too choose gearing in any case. Again, if you can't get it done with 16 or 18 or more ratios - then give it up.

And this goofy - super, wide range cassette or crank deal is just another "all -day" head ache to sort through.

There is a reason bicycles come with given gear ratios - and I guess - it must be so lame riders can guess about wider, more useless gearing setups.

End of story, eat turkey - go buy worthless gearing.

fietsbob

looking at some of the period classics bikes French riders did the PBP trip on ,
they used wide doubles
particularly with the 9 and 10 speed cassettes with a 11 to 34,
a 44 24 may give you the range without that 3rd ring.

clasher

You really should just STFU already.

Carbonfiberboy 

Man's got a point. My '99 Trek came with the usual 52-42-30 triple and a 12-25. Stock bike. Nothing wrong with that gearing, until I was over 60. Then I went to a 12-27. BFD. Cassettes wear out, anyway. That's still what I've got on there. I gotta agree with RC. I don't understand this thread at all. The point is? Advantages being sought are? My stock Trek is flawless as far as I can tell. If you can't turn a 30-27, you need to get out more. Isn't this the LD thread? Or are people are weenie-ing about the weight of a 30T ring? But don't mind a 25 lb steel bike? Eh?

invisiblehand

One, if I follow your paragraph correctly, your calculations are off. A 26 chainring to a 34 tooth cog with a 27" wheel ~ 20 gear inches. It sounds to me that your easiest solution is to simply use an 11-34 or 11-32 if you believe that the low end is overkill but you want some taller gears. It probably mates well with your present rear derailer and in case you need a low gear you still have the bail out gears available. Personally, if you're not riding in pacelines, I think that the additional granularity of the narrower road cassettes is unnecessary. But YMMV.

46/13 ~ 3.5
46/11 ~ 4.2

So about a 20% increase in the top end. If that doesn't do it, you can change the big ring to a 48 or 50.

EDIT: I see that others already mentioned the same. Sorry for the overkill.

akohekohe

I have a low 13.5 inches and a high of 126 AND 6.5% jumps between each gear. I have both steep grades (20+) and long down hills so I do use all these gears. This setup is on my Alex Moulton AM bicycle (17" wheels) with a Rohloff hub with 16 tooth cog and a Schlumph Speed Drive with 46 and 49 tooth chainrings. I can get 17" to 155" by swapping out the 16 tooth cog with a 13 tooth one. I am half stepping with the 46-49 chainrings against the Rohloff's 13% jumps between gears. I actually use this bike both for the commute (22.5 miles each way) and for long rides.

Richard Cranium

My second point, was that the term "engineering" means something. When you "re-engineer" to change a gear train for some theoretical ratio - you also change many other characteristics of the drive train.

If you genuinely thought these gearing changes are so important then you should understand that you need to evaluate all the components of the drive train - making this "one angle" thread as lame and as useless as I call it.

Trek Al

Thanks so much for you thoughtful and well-informed posts. They have really enlighted my thinking on making any changes to my bike. It's a shame I won't be reading any more of them as you just made my ignore list.

thebulls

People have been making drive train changes to bikes since bikes were invented. If the original poster, or I, or anyone else want to swap to a different cassette or different chainrings (assuming our shifters and derailleurs can handle them and we don't screw up the chainline too much) I do not think that the bicycle gods will be offended. Bicycle "engineers" are designing a drive train for some imagined "typical" rider for the type of bike they are making. That doesn't mean that it is right for the original poster, me, or anyone else.

Just out of curiosity, can you provide a cite to published or second-party information to document your expertise on either long distance bicycling or on bicycle engineering? You could start with your real name. If Lennard Zinn says something, I pay attention because he has published books and he publishes a regular column on bike tech. He clearly knows what he is talking about. If some anonymous guy who calls himself "Richard Cranium" says something, why should I pay attention?

FWIW, the only Richard in the RUSA database who lives in St Louis has ridden total mileage since 2000 that is less than many randonneurs rode this year. So I'm assuming that either you are not he, or that you are not a randonneur, given your claim to long distance bike riding expertise.

Nick

shelbyfv

Thanks Bulls, I think you closed that pie-hole!