Can you tell the difference between these gear inches ranges?

[andrew_s]

The 19 inch lowest gear was a flat bar tour de fer. The 21 was stock spar cycles 9 speed tourer. The 725 tourer from spa had an option for 19 inches but it's a drop bar which she doesn't want.

I'd have thought that Spa would be happy to swap cassettes for you, or even chainrings.
Have you asked?

[Jamesh]

There's a few touring bikes we've seen with similar ranges but would there be much difference in real term use?

26" x 1.95 tyres 18 to 99 gear inches
26" x 32mm the tyres with 21 to 107 inches with the possibility of 19 to 107
700 x 32mm tyres with 19 x 107 gear inches

All same sized frame, xs. First is a mtb on citijets. The other two are possible replacements

I won't give the brands but the last one is on two different bike brands/ models.

Loaded touring in Western Europe and leisure riding without load locally.

Anyone explain this simply to me? I'm not really sure I'd notice it but my partner would. The mtb is a little under geared at higher speed for her and she would like to keep the low gear but have a higher top gear.

26 x32 19 - 107.

A 26" wheel will have lower gearing than a 700 wheel all things being equal...

However if the rider is not particularly tall then 26" is the way to go. Also 26" is more available tyre around the world although how good they are is variable. But you can always carry a folding tyre.
However 26" doesn't ride as well as 700c imho.

Cheers James

[Vorpal]

Brakes were good as you'd expect from an mtb. Used to race with it way back. Now it's out of action. She's not fast on average speed but she often finds her top gear isn't high enough when it was used more. Even my 50 chainring and 11 cassette runs out on downhills fairly quickly. No bite to the pedals and you're basically freewheeling faster than you can pedal. That's why I don't see top speed as important a steep hill will run out of gears anyway.

I would expect touring that she'd not need as high gears, anyway.

[slowster]

Regardless of whether it's an MTB, a tourer, a Spa tourer, or 26" or 700C wheels, for a Shimano 9 speed triple set up the lowest gear possible will typically use:

- a 12-36 cassette
- a 'Shadow' version SGS/long cage rear derailleur (the Shadow versions are designed to cope with the 36t sprocket, the non-Shadow are designed for up to 34t) - use with either road or MTB shifters
- a road triple with 24t inner ring (smallest possible with 74 BCD) - needs a road front derailleur and STIs or road flat bar shifters
- an MTB triple with 22t inner ring (potential downside is a wider Q factor, which some dislike) - needs an MTB front derailleur and MTB shifters.

So in the case of probably any of the 9 speed Spa tourer options, Spa have the Alivio and Altus Shadow SGS/long cage rear 9 speed derailleurs in stock. At the moment they are showing out of stock for the 12-36 cassette, but they hold back some stocks for complete bike builds, so might actually have them. Even if Spa could not supply one right now, you can buy them elsewhere, e.g. Bikester (https://www.bikester.co.uk/shimano-aliv ... 7767.html?).

With a Spa TD2 triple chainset and a 24t inner ring, your choice would be a combination of 46 or 44 outer ring and 34 or 36 middle ring, e.g. 46/36/24.

Personally I would not have a bigger difference than 22t between inner and outer, so if a higher top gear was required I would use a 26t inner, 38t middle and 48t outer. That gives a 109 inch top instead of 104 inch with a 46t, as illustrated in the link below.

http://www.ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB ... 6&UF2=2170

[pwa]

I don't know that I could tell the difference between 18 & 19 inches, but I can between 18 & 21.

The difference between 18 and 21 inches for me is how often/soon I walk up hills. Maybe it's easier to think about it as a percentage of the range? So, about 3% difference between 18 and 21 inches. But you really only notice it when going up hills that require the easiest gears. How often does she use them?

Living in Norway, I will always come across the occasional hill that makes me walk, or spin out going down, but I'd generally prioritise the easy gearing on a tourer.

+1
18" could be really helpful with a load, on steeper hills or at the end of a long day in the saddle. And having your top gear limited to 99" just means that you will have to stop pedalling and freewheel on fast descents. Which is what you do anyway when you want to conserve energy for the next climb. A bottom gear of 21" is adequate but not great. In hilly country you might soon wish you had gone for 18".

If the bike is mostly for flatter terrain you will seldom use that gear. Going up a steep Pennines climb with panniers, you would be in that gear all the way to where it starts to ease, and you'd be glad of it.

[djnotts]

The game changer for low gears is surely rear mech extenders, allowing an easy and cheap swop from a 34 to 40/42 largest rear cog with standard road drive trains. Add in sub-compact chainset and a double STI set up almost matches old style mtb triples.
My Boardman ASR 8.8 came 50/34 and 11-32.
Current 46/30 and 11-40 gives 20.3"- 112.9". Some biggish gaps obviously, but it's not a race bike.

[531colin]

The 19 inch lowest gear was a flat bar tour de fer. The 21 was stock spar cycles 9 speed tourer. The 725 tourer from spa had an option for 19 inches but it's a drop bar which she doesn't want.

I'd have thought that Spa would be happy to swap cassettes for you, or even chainrings.
Have you asked?

Spa(r) will build any bike with any shape handlebars you like, and any gearing you like....
.........only provided that the cycle parts you select are stuff which will work together.

The differences between the gears you list are quite small.....small enough that it might be worth calculating them on the basis of the actual real world diameter of the tyres you intend to use.

[David2504]

I don't know that I could tell the difference between 18 & 19 inches, but I can between 18 & 21.

The difference between 18 and 21 inches for me is how often/soon I walk up hills. Maybe it's easier to think about it as a percentage of the range? So, about 3% difference between 18 and 21 inches. But you really only notice it when going up hills that require the easiest gears. How often does she use them?

Living in Norway, I will always come across the occasional hill that makes me walk, or spin out going down, but I'd generally prioritise the easy gearing on a tourer.

Surely the ‘real’ difference between 18 and 21 is 16% which is why you notice the difference. A 3% difference from 18 would be 18.54, and it’s very unlikely that difference would be noticed.

[Vorpal]

I don't know that I could tell the difference between 18 & 19 inches, but I can between 18 & 21.

The difference between 18 and 21 inches for me is how often/soon I walk up hills. Maybe it's easier to think about it as a percentage of the range? So, about 3% difference between 18 and 21 inches. But you really only notice it when going up hills that require the easiest gears. How often does she use them?

Living in Norway, I will always come across the occasional hill that makes me walk, or spin out going down, but I'd generally prioritise the easy gearing on a tourer.

Surely the ‘real’ difference between 18 and 21 is 16% which is why you notice the difference. A 3% difference from 18 would be 18.54, and it’s very unlikely that difference would be noticed.

I specifically said "percentage of the range", meaning the overall gear range, as opposed to the percentage of that gear. Thinking of it a percent change from a particular gear easily explains why one can feel the difference, but in terms of practical differences between the two bikes, IMO, it makes more sense to think about it the way I described it. If I were to take the same tour with the same load on a bike with 18 inch bottom gear and a bike with 21 inch bottom gear, I don't think it would result in me walking 16% more of the time. I think it would result in me walking 3% more of the time.

Not having actually tried it, I can't be certain.

[mattheus]

I don't know that I could tell the difference between 18 & 19 inches, but I can between 18 & 21.

The difference between 18 and 21 inches for me is how often/soon I walk up hills. Maybe it's easier to think about it as a percentage of the range? So, about 3% difference between 18 and 21 inches. But you really only notice it when going up hills that require the easiest gears. How often does she use them?

Living in Norway, I will always come across the occasional hill that makes me walk, or spin out going down, but I'd generally prioritise the easy gearing on a tourer.

Surely the ‘real’ difference between 18 and 21 is 16% which is why you notice the difference. A 3% difference from 18 would be 18.54, and it’s very unlikely that difference would be noticed.

I specifically said "percentage of the range", meaning the overall gear range, as opposed to the percentage of that gear. Thinking of it a percent change from a particular gear easily explains why one can feel the difference, but in terms of practical differences between the two bikes, IMO, it makes more sense to think about it the way I described it. If I were to take the same tour with the same load on a bike with 18 inch bottom gear and a bike with 21 inch bottom gear, I don't think it would result in me walking 16% more of the time. I think it would result in me walking 3% more of the time.

Not having actually tried it, I can't be certain.

I can't agree with that - your top gear will have NO effect on how often you walk (up steep hills). Also your total range will have no effect.
That bottom gear is the single critical factor (gearing-wise, that is!)

_____________________________
While I'm here: another vote for "18 to 21 being a big difference" !

[thirdcrank]

... your top gear will have NO effect on how often you walk (up steep hills). Also your total range will have no effect.
That bottom gear is the single critical factor (gearing-wise, that is!)

And that sums it up.

There seems to have been little recognition throughout the thread of the difference between "need" and "prefer." IMO the only way to define what bottom gear you "need" is when you have to get off and walk or come to a standstill. Plenty of riders "prefer" to be twiddling within their capabilities and there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously, the gear needed to keep moving will depend on the maximum gradient encountered, the load carried and the state of the rider. Higher up, somebody (PH?) referred along the lines of getting up the final hill on the ride home and that struck a chord with me, mainly because when you are really cream crackered after a long ride you (or at least I) may default to the lowest gear available for the slightest slope.

[Vorpal]

I know that the top gear won't make any difference in hill climbing. Equally the range won't. But unless I'm trying to haul a cargo trailer with, 18 to 21 is not going to make a 16% difference in how often I walk.

It' going to make more like a 3% difference. That's all I was trying to get across.

[thirdcrank]

It' going to make more like a 3% difference

Of What? Of the entire range?

[David2504]

I don't know that I could tell the difference between 18 & 19 inches, but I can between 18 & 21.

The difference between 18 and 21 inches for me is how often/soon I walk up hills. Maybe it's easier to think about it as a percentage of the range? So, about 3% difference between 18 and 21 inches. But you really only notice it when going up hills that require the easiest gears. How often does she use them?

Living in Norway, I will always come across the occasional hill that makes me walk, or spin out going down, but I'd generally prioritise the easy gearing on a tourer.

Surely the ‘real’ difference between 18 and 21 is 16% which is why you notice the difference. A 3% difference from 18 would be 18.54, and it’s very unlikely that difference would be noticed.

I specifically said "percentage of the range", meaning the overall gear range, as opposed to the percentage of that gear. Thinking of it a percent change from a particular gear easily explains why one can feel the difference, but in terms of practical differences between the two bikes, IMO, it makes more sense to think about it the way I described it. If I were to take the same tour with the same load on a bike with 18 inch bottom gear and a bike with 21 inch bottom gear, I don't think it would result in me walking 16% more of the time. I think it would result in me walking 3% more of the time.

Not having actually tried it, I can't be certain.

We all think of things in different ways. To me it makes more sense to think of the percentage differences between the gears. For me referring to 3% doesn’t sense, because of 3% of what? Btw I know you referred to ‘range’, thatsI specifically said ‘real’.

[MikeF]

The difference between 18 and 21 gear inches is certainly noticeable on a particular bike, but I don't think you can compare ease of riding different bikes by gear ratios as there will be many other variables as well.