34 tooth rear cassette low

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Wayne T, Feb 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:19:52 -0500, Wayne T wrote:

    >> What's the advantage of 11-28 over 12-32 or 12-34?
    >
    > The advantage I see with the 11-28 over 12-32 or 12-34 is that it is lighter in the rear and the
    > 11 allows you to drop to a 42 max up front instead of a 46 in order to obtain the same high gear.

    Remember, we are talking about a loaded touring bike here, and loads of 40 pounds or more in
    addition to the rider. What earthly difference to you think the weight savings between a 42 and a 44
    or 46 up front, and a 28 vs a 32 or 34 rear would make under those circumstances?

    As for the continued assertion that nobody has any use for a 22 front 32 or 34 rear, obviously Bruce
    Gordon thinks somebody -- in fact, everybody who buys a Rock 'n Road Tour -- can use one. And I can
    tell you from my personal experience, the last time I was on a loaded tour climbing a mountain with
    a 40-odd pound load, I found it very handy indeed. So you should consider rephrasing your comment:
    _you_ might not have any use for a gear that low, but many do.
     


  2. On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:30:06 -0500, Paul Kopit wrote:

    > 26/32 - 21.5
    > 24/27 - 23.5
    > 22/27 - 18.2
    > 22/32 - 21.5
    >
    > 22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette

    Obviously you have some sort of error in your calculations. A 32 T rear will certainly give you a
    lower gear than a 27T if you use the same chainring up front for both.

    Here's what Sheldon Brown's online gear calculator comes up with (for a 700x35 tire, which is
    appropriate for a loaded touring bike)

    26/32 - 22.1
    27/27 - 24.3
    28/27 - 22.1
    29/32 - 18.7
    30/34 - 17.6
     
  3. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:ndn*[email protected]...
    > Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >The advantage I see with the 11-28 over 12-32 or 12-34 is that it is
    lighter
    > >in the rear
    >
    > Do you really see the weight of sprockets as a serious issue on a touring bike?

    Every bit counts. Besides, most of the time, I ride with out touring gear. But, I have a feeling tht
    the weight difference may not be all that significant.
    > --
    > David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  4. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Paul Kopit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 26/32 - 21.5
    > 24/27 - 23.5
    > 22/27 - 18.2
    > 22/32 - 21.5

    Ok, then I was right that a 26/32 is lower than a 24/27. Double check your
    22/27 and 22/27. They should be 22 and 18.6 respectably. Although a notch lower since I used 27 as
    my multiplier.
    >
    > 22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette
    >
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:28:35 GMT, "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Are you sure? I believe that my 26 x 32 is lower than a 24 x 27.
     
  5. Paul Kopit

    Paul Kopit Guest

    I'll try again:

    26/32 and 22/27 both are 21.5" gears

    On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:30:06 GMT, Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:

    >26/32 - 21.5
    >24/27 - 23.5
    >22/27 - 18.2
    >22/32 - 21.5
    >
    >22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette
    >
    >
    >
    >On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:28:35 GMT, "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Are you sure? I believe that my 26 x 32 is lower than a 24 x 27.
     
  6. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:30:06 -0500, Paul Kopit wrote:
    >
    > > 26/32 - 21.5
    > > 24/27 - 23.5
    > > 22/27 - 18.2
    > > 22/32 - 21.5
    > >
    > > 22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette
    >
    > Obviously you have some sort of error in your calculations. A 32 T rear will certainly give you a
    > lower gear than a 27T if you use the same chainring up front for both.
    >
    > Here's what Sheldon Brown's online gear calculator comes up with (for a 700x35 tire, which is
    > appropriate for a loaded touring bike) 27" wheel
    > 26/32 - 22.1 21.9
    > 24/27 - 24.3 24.0
    > 22/27 - 22.1 22.0
    > 22/32 - 18.7 18.6
    > 22/34 - 17.6 17.5

    As you can see, the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is slightly higher than that Sheldon
    Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire. Why is that? Isn't a 700 wheel smaller than a 27' wheel?
    Therefore, I would think that the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be slightly lower, not higher,
    even for a 35cc tire.
     
  7. Wayne T wrote:

    > As you can see, the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is slightly higher than that
    > Sheldon Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire. Why is that? Isn't a 700 wheel smaller than a 27'
    > wheel? Therefore, I would think that the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be slightly lower, not
    > higher, even for a 35cc tire.

    You might think that, but it isn't. Here's the relevant bit of code from my Gear Calculator
    http://sheldonbrown.com/gears.

    <option value=27.86>700 X 44 / 44-622</option> <option value=27.32>700 X 38 / 38-622</option>
    <option value=27.17>700 X 35 / 35-622</option>

    <option value=27>700 X 32 / 32-622</option> <option value=26.76>700 X 28 / 28-622</option> <option
    value=26.38>700 X 25 / 25-622</option> <option value=26.28>700 X 23 / 23-622</option> <option
    value=26.14>700 X 20 / 20-622</option> <option value=26.53>Tubular / Wide</option> <option
    value=26.38>Tubular / Narrow</option> <option value=27.18>27 X 1 3/8 / 35-630</option> <option
    value=27.08>27 X 1 1/4 / 32-630</option>

    <option value=27>27 X 1 1/8 / 28-630</option> <option value=26.88>27 X 1 / 25-630</option> <option
    value=25.94>26 X 2.125 / 54-559 / MTB</option> <option value=25.75>26 X 1.9 / 47-559 / MTB</option>
    <option value=24.87>26 X 1.5 / 38-559 / MTB</option> <option value=24.47>26 X 1.25 / 32-559 /
    MTB</option> <option value=23.97>26 X 1.0 / 25-559 / MTB</option> <option value=24.46>26 x 1/ 650C/
    25-571 </option>

    The number right after "<option value=" is the value used for calculations for the wheel size
    indicated after the ">"

    A pretty fair approximation of wheel diameter can be had by doubling the tire width in mm and adding
    it to the ISO/E.T.R.T.O. rim size.

    Thus 700 x 35 (35 - 622) = 622 + 70 = 692 mm, which is 27.24 inches.

    While for 27 x 1 1/4 (28 - 630) = 630 + 56 = 686 mm, which is 27.01 inches.

    The values I used for the gear chart were derived from the values on my Universal Cyclecomputer
    Calibration Chart http://sheldonbrown.com/cyclecomputer-calibration.html and these are probably a
    bit more accurate on average than values derived from the ISO, but there's not much difference.

    By the way, there's no such thing as a "700 cc" wheel or a "35 cc" tire. In the old French sizing
    system, "A" indicated a very narrow tire, "B" a somewhat wider one and "C" a wider one still.

    The original "700 c" size was originally used with a rather wide tire, back in the pleistocene era.
    The "700" designates the ancient tire's outside diameter in millimeters.

    Other "700" sizes are mostly extinct, but the next size series, down, 650, exists in 3 variants:
    650A (590 mm) 650B (584 mm) & 650C (571 mm.) (Thus, if you ever hear somebody speaking about
    "650" tires as if they were referring to a specific size, you know they don't know what they're
    talking about!)

    Back in the day it seemed like a good idea to designate tire sizes by their outside diameter, but
    experience has proven that it is more useful and less confusing to use systems such as the modern
    ISO/E.T.R.T.O. that relate to the interface between the tire and the rim.

    For more on tire sizing, you could look at http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html

    Sheldon "I've Never Been Able To Figure Out If The Letter Should Be Capitalized, Or If There Should
    Be A Space Between The Number And Letter" Brown +------------------------------------------------+
    | If you don't want your message to get to me, |
    | insert **NO-SPAM** into my email address. |
    +------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
    617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
    http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  8. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:gzE%[email protected]...
    >
    > "Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    > > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:30:06 -0500, Paul Kopit wrote:
    > >
    > > > 26/32 - 21.5
    > > > 24/27 - 23.5
    > > > 22/27 - 18.2
    > > > 22/32 - 21.5
    > > >
    > > > 22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette
    > >
    > > Obviously you have some sort of error in your calculations. A 32 T rear will certainly give you
    > > a lower gear than a 27T if you use the same chainring up front for both.
    > >
    > > Here's what Sheldon Brown's online gear calculator comes up with (for a 700x35 tire, which is
    > > appropriate for a loaded touring bike) 27" wheel
    > > 26/32 - 22.1 21.9
    > > 24/27 - 24.3 24.0
    > > 22/27 - 22.1 22.0
    > > 22/32 - 18.7 18.6
    > > 22/34 - 17.6 17.5
    >
    > As you can see, the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is
    slightly
    > higher than that Sheldon Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire. Why is that? Isn't a 700 wheel
    > smaller than a 27' wheel? Therefore, I would think that the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be
    > slightly lower, not higher, even for a 35cc tire.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Quoting Wayne:
    > the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is slightly
    > higher than that Sheldon Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire.

    That's right. The larger (27"=630mm) wheel goes farther per revolution than the smaller
    (700C=622mm) wheel.

    Quoting Wayne:
    >I would think that the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be slightly lower

    Yes. You just said that twice and you are right.

    The larger wheel does go farther per revolution. And, mirabile visu, the smaller wheel does indeed
    not travel as far as the larger one!

    And the size is "700C", as in "700A", "700B", then "700C".

    "700cc", which is about 42 cubic inches, is unrelated to anything here.

    --
    Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
     
  9. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    I apologize for having not read carefully.

    Wayne has a fatter 700, and therefore a larger overall outer diameter, than his 27, which I
    overlooked in my earlier reply.

    --
    Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
     
  10. Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>The advantage I see with the 11-28 over 12-32 or 12-34 is that it is lighter in the rear
    >>Do you really see the weight of sprockets as a serious issue on a touring bike?
    >Every bit counts. Besides, most of the time, I ride with out touring gear.

    If every bit counts, I hope you shave, cut your hair short, clip your nails, etc. before riding.
    That's the kind of amount you're talking about.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  11. "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<i02%[email protected]>...
    > Having my bike converted from freewheel to cassette 9 speed. Bike builder has suggested a 12-34
    > with a triple crank of 46-34-24 or 22. My original crank is a 52-42-26. My lowest gear in the back
    > is a 32 tooth. I seem to remember that I was once advised to stay away from 34 teeth because it
    > can be difficult to shift into. Is this true? Builder doesn't think it will be a problem.

    No problem. I have a 9 speed 12-34 on one of my bikes.

    > Also, since I am 56, I would think that the 46 in the front with the 12 in the back would give me
    > a good enough high of over 100. Or would it be better to go to a 48? He recommends a 44-34-22
    > crank for my wife. Both bikes are touring bikes. Comments? Anyone have any favorite gearing for a
    > touring bike?

    I have seen the comments others have made. I can only speak from my own experience. My commuting
    bike (a road bike) has a low of 22-32. I live in San Diego, lots of steep hills, and don't feel I
    need a 34 on that bike.

    However, I would suggest you put the 12-34 on your bike. If you find the 34 tooth too low then
    changing a cassette is trivial. Your bike shop can do it in a snap and you can also with the
    purchase of two $6 tools.

    I am always annoyed by people who say "you don't need anything lower than ...". How do they know
    what you need? That is why I am suggesting you experiment to find out what is best for you.

    Tom
     
  12. Per LöWdin

    Per LöWdin Guest

    > Having my bike converted from freewheel to cassette 9 speed. Bike builder has suggested a 12-34
    > with a triple crank of 46-34-24 or 22. My original crank is a 52-42-26. My lowest gear in the back
    > is a 32 tooth. I seem to remember that I was once advised to stay away from 34 teeth because it
    > can be difficult to shift into. Is this true?

    Only on some fullsuspension bikes. Just make sure you have a long cage derailleur. We have 34 t on
    all our bikes except the road racing bikes.

    Per
     
  13. Wayne T wrote:
    >
    > "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:ndn*[email protected]...

    > > Do you really see the weight of sprockets as a serious issue on a touring bike?
    >
    > Every bit counts. Besides, most of the time, I ride with out touring gear. But, I have a feeling
    > tht the weight difference may not be all that significant.

    Think about the fractional weight of these compared to the total weight of a heavily loaded touring
    bike. You are probably talking in the 2 oz range for a bike and gear combo that could push 70+
    pounds! Smaller cogs and rings mean higher chain tension applied to fewer teeth. The more micro the
    drive the faster it will wear out. Durability and reliability are more important concerns than
    weight for almost any cycling endeavor (racers can justifiably put more emphasis on weight, but
    still not exclude reliability). This is especially true for touring.
     
  14. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Paul Kopit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'll try again:
    >
    > 26/32 and 22/27 both are 21.5" gears

    Agreed. Which gives me a good feeling that a nice advantages of having a 9 speed as opposed to a 5
    or 6 speed, is that I can have a 27 next to a 34. Then, by having a 22 up front with the 27 in the
    rear, I still have the same low I've been fairly happy with plus I still can go one lower using the
    34 if I am carrying a full load for touring. I like it , I like it!
    >
    > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:30:06 GMT, Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >26/32 - 21.5
    > >24/27 - 23.5
    > >22/27 - 18.2
    > >22/32 - 21.5
    > >
    > >22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:28:35 GMT, "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Are you sure? I believe that my 26 x 32 is lower than a 24 x 27.
     
  15. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    Sheldon, I've learned something. Never realized that different tire sizes would affect the size of
    the wheel and gearing. Always thought of it as width. I must admit that I was surprised that the 35
    CC tires would cause the size to be bigger than 27. Quite interesting. Thanks. "Sheldon Brown"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Wayne T wrote:
    >
    > > As you can see, the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is
    slightly
    > > higher than that Sheldon Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire. Why is
    that?
    > > Isn't a 700 wheel smaller than a 27' wheel? Therefore, I would think
    that
    > > the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be slightly lower, not higher,
    even
    > > for a 35cc tire.
    >
    > You might think that, but it isn't. Here's the relevant bit of code from my Gear Calculator
    > http://sheldonbrown.com/gears.
    >
    > <option value=27.86>700 X 44 / 44-622</option> <option value=27.32>700 X 38 / 38-622</option>
    > <option value=27.17>700 X 35 / 35-622</option>
    >
    > <option value=27>700 X 32 / 32-622</option> <option value=26.76>700 X 28 / 28-622</option> <option
    > value=26.38>700 X 25 / 25-622</option> <option value=26.28>700 X 23 / 23-622</option> <option
    > value=26.14>700 X 20 / 20-622</option> <option value=26.53>Tubular / Wide</option> <option
    > value=26.38>Tubular / Narrow</option> <option value=27.18>27 X 1 3/8 / 35-630</option> <option
    > value=27.08>27 X 1 1/4 / 32-630</option>
    >
    > <option value=27>27 X 1 1/8 / 28-630</option> <option value=26.88>27 X 1 / 25-630</option> <option
    > value=25.94>26 X 2.125 / 54-559 / MTB</option> <option value=25.75>26 X 1.9 / 47-559 /
    > MTB</option> <option value=24.87>26 X 1.5 / 38-559 / MTB</option> <option value=24.47>26 X 1.25 /
    > 32-559 / MTB</option> <option value=23.97>26 X 1.0 / 25-559 / MTB</option> <option value=24.46>26
    > x 1/ 650C/ 25-571 </option>
    >
    > The number right after "<option value=" is the value used for calculations for the wheel size
    > indicated after the ">"
    >
    > A pretty fair approximation of wheel diameter can be had by doubling the tire width in mm and
    > adding it to the ISO/E.T.R.T.O. rim size.
    >
    > Thus 700 x 35 (35 - 622) = 622 + 70 = 692 mm, which is 27.24 inches.
    >
    > While for 27 x 1 1/4 (28 - 630) = 630 + 56 = 686 mm, which is 27.01
    inches.
    >
    > The values I used for the gear chart were derived from the values on my Universal Cyclecomputer
    > Calibration Chart http://sheldonbrown.com/cyclecomputer-calibration.html and these are probably a
    > bit more accurate on average than values derived from the ISO, but there's not much difference.
    >
    > By the way, there's no such thing as a "700 cc" wheel or a "35 cc" tire. In the old French sizing
    > system, "A" indicated a very narrow tire, "B" a somewhat wider one and "C" a wider one still.
    >
    > The original "700 c" size was originally used with a rather wide tire, back in the pleistocene
    > era. The "700" designates the ancient tire's outside diameter in millimeters.
    >
    > Other "700" sizes are mostly extinct, but the next size series, down, 650, exists in 3 variants:
    > 650A (590 mm) 650B (584 mm) & 650C (571 mm.) (Thus, if you ever hear somebody speaking about
    > "650" tires as if they were referring to a specific size, you know they don't know what they're
    > talking about!)
    >
    > Back in the day it seemed like a good idea to designate tire sizes by their outside diameter, but
    > experience has proven that it is more useful and less confusing to use systems such as the modern
    > ISO/E.T.R.T.O. that relate to the interface between the tire and the rim.
    >
    > For more on tire sizing, you could look at http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
    >
    > Sheldon "I've Never Been Able To Figure Out If The Letter Should Be Capitalized, Or If There
    > Should Be A Space Between The Number And Letter" Brown
    > +------------------------------------------------+
    > | If you don't want your message to get to me, |
    > | insert **NO-SPAM** into my email address. |
    > +------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
    > Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
    > http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  16. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:nij*[email protected]...
    > Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>The advantage I see with the 11-28 over 12-32 or 12-34 is that it is
    lighter
    > >>>in the rear
    > >>Do you really see the weight of sprockets as a serious issue on a
    touring
    > >>bike?
    > >Every bit counts. Besides, most of the time, I ride with out touring
    gear.
    >
    > If every bit counts, I hope you shave, cut your hair short, clip your nails, etc. before riding.
    > That's the kind of amount you're talking about.

    Touche. I guess I would do better getting a Swift Ti Brooks saddle with a Thomson seat post which
    would save me an oz short of a pound.
    > --
    > David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  17. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:gzE%[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:p[email protected]...
    > > > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:30:06 -0500, Paul Kopit wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > 26/32 - 21.5
    > > > > 24/27 - 23.5
    > > > > 22/27 - 18.2
    > > > > 22/32 - 21.5
    > > > >
    > > > > 22 as small ring with 12/27 cassette
    > > >
    > > > Obviously you have some sort of error in your calculations. A 32 T
    rear
    > > > will certainly give you a lower gear than a 27T if you use the same chainring up front for
    > > > both.
    > > >
    > > > Here's what Sheldon Brown's online gear calculator comes up with (for
    a
    > > > 700x35 tire, which is appropriate for a loaded touring bike) 27" wheel
    > > > 26/32 - 22.1 21.9
    > > > 24/27 - 24.3 24.0
    > > > 22/27 - 22.1 22.0
    > > > 22/32 - 18.7 18.6
    > > > 22/34 - 17.6 17.5
    > >
    > > As you can see, the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is
    > slightly
    > > higher than that Sheldon Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire. Why is
    that?
    > > Isn't a 700 wheel smaller than a 27' wheel? Therefore, I would think
    that
    > > the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be slightly lower, not higher,
    even
    > > for a 35cc tire.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Quoting Wayne:
    > > the gearing I calculated above for a 27" wheel is slightly
    > > higher than that Sheldon Brown calculated for a 700x35 tire.
    >
    > That's right. The larger (27"=630mm) wheel goes farther per revolution
    than
    > the smaller (700C=622mm) wheel.

    I take it then that you disagree with Sheldon that the 34C tire would result in slightly higher
    gears than say a 27" wheel with a 1 1/4" tire.
    >
    > Quoting Wayne:
    > >I would think that the gearing for the 700 cc wheel would be slightly lower
    >
    > Yes. You just said that twice and you are right.
    >
    > The larger wheel does go farther per revolution. And, mirabile visu, the smaller wheel does indeed
    > not travel as far as the larger one!
    >
    > And the size is "700C", as in "700A", "700B", then "700C".

    I must admit my ignorance. Thanks for correcting me.
    >
    > "700cc", which is about 42 cubic inches, is unrelated to anything here.
    >
    > --
    > Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
     
  18. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Thomas Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<i02%[email protected]>...
    > > Having my bike converted from freewheel to cassette 9 speed. Bike
    builder
    > > has suggested a 12-34 with a triple crank of 46-34-24 or 22. My
    original
    > > crank is a 52-42-26. My lowest gear in the back is a 32 tooth. I seem
    to
    > > remember that I was once advised to stay away from 34 teeth because it
    can
    > > be difficult to shift into. Is this true? Builder doesn't think it
    will be
    > > a problem.
    >
    > No problem. I have a 9 speed 12-34 on one of my bikes.
    >
    > > Also, since I am 56, I would think that the 46 in the front with
    > > the 12 in the back would give me a good enough high of over 100. Or
    would
    > > it be better to go to a 48? He recommends a 44-34-22 crank for my wife. Both bikes are touring
    > > bikes. Comments? Anyone have any favorite
    gearing
    > > for a touring bike?
    >
    > I have seen the comments others have made. I can only speak from my own experience. My commuting
    > bike (a road bike) has a low of 22-32. I live in San Diego, lots of steep hills, and don't feel I
    > need a 34 on that bike.
    >
    > However, I would suggest you put the 12-34 on your bike. If you find the 34 tooth too low then
    > changing a cassette is trivial. Your bike shop can do it in a snap and you can also with the
    > purchase of two $6 tools.
    >
    > I am always annoyed by people who say "you don't need anything lower than ...". How do they know
    > what you need? That is why I am suggesting you experiment to find out what is best for you.

    Yeah, will be fun to experiment. BTW, does anyone have experience with a 11 tooth rear? Does it run
    smooth or have problems with chain skip since it is so small. Also, what about chain wear? Does it
    accelerate chain wear?
    > Tom
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...