My thinking about better climbing gears turned into looking for better climbing gears. I found I had a a couple options (1) I could modify the gear set on my existing Sequoia or SWorks and use one of those bikes, or (2) I could get a touring bike which is normally geared for loads and climbing. I decided to go with Option 2. First, my Sequoia is a trusty bike but would require an extensive overhaul to change the gearing. It would need a new long cage derailleur, new and bigger rear cassette and also a new front three-ring crankset. Not sure of the exact costs but probably $400-$500 at least. My SWorks would require a similar makeover but that makeover would be even more expensive and completely change the character of the bike. Sort of like changing a sports car into an SUV. Didn't want to go that route.
To get an idea of the gearing I wanted on my new touring bike I found some research on gearing options for touring bikes written by John Shultz. He says it comes down to "gear inches". That's the ratio of the number of teeth on the chainring divided by the number of teeth on the cassette times the diameter of the wheel. On a 700cm wheel the diameter is about 27 inches. If you multiply the gear inches by pi (3.14) you get the distance you move with one revolution of the crank. So here's what Shultz suggests for a touring bike:
For my situation I'm looking at the low gear inches. Lowest suggested with No Load is 30". Considering my "clydesdale physique" I think I'm more like a Heavy Load. If I was 160lbs I'd be carrying a 100lb load, so that would be 18" or 22". Here's a chart that shows what my existing gearing on the Sworks and Sequoia looks like compared to the Trek 520.
Here's how to read this chart. My current Sworks is now set up with 50/34 chainrings up front and an 11/28 back cassette. So the Gear inches are 122.7" for the flats and 32.8" for hills. Just to get going I need 30" for the hills (lower is better). So the Sworks configuration might work provided my legs could provide a little more power than expected and there's no wind, rain or very steep hills. My existing Sequoia is set up with a triple 50/39/30 front chainring and an 11/28 in the back. The gear inches are 122.7" for the flats and 28.9" for the hills. This looks like it might work for the light load scenario, however I already know from experience that this gearing made for a harder than expected RedSpoke ride from Seattle to Spokane in 2009. I do remember getting off the bike on the 7 mile 7% grade out of Wenatchee and also on the climb out of Grand Coulee dam. It was not fun.
Now look at the Trek 520. It has a 48/36/26 front chainring and an 11/32 rear cassette. The gear inches drop to 118.0" for the flats and 21.9" for the hills. It looks about right. If I was carrying extra gear I would even consider going lower but this should work. Now, as far as how much speed I'll be losing on the flats, there's another chart below.
This chart is from Bicycle Bike Gear Ratio Speed and Cadence Calculator which allows you to generate a chart based on the specific gears you have on your bike. My top speed on the flats would probably be about 26.3mph (that's the 48x11 gear at 75rpm). My hill climbing speed is probably about 3.3mph (the 26x32 gearing at 50rpm). This compares with 26.7mph on the flats for the Sworks and 5.0mph on the hills. So, I'm not giving up much speed but I'm getting 33% plus improvement on the hills. I'll take that. Just for the record I'll be slower on inclines greater than 7% but I probably won't have to stop and I'll be able to keep up on the flats.
After my research on the internet, I narrowed down the choices to a Surly Long Haul Trucker, the Trek 520 and a custom bike from Co-Motion in Oregon. I quickly eliminated the Co-Motion due to the time-frame required and the higher cost. My search then narrowed to finding a local shop in Tampa or nearby with either of the Surly or 520 bikes. I found a shop in Gainesville which carried the Surly but it would need to be special ordered after an extensive sizing requirement. Looked in the Northwest for the Surly and 520 but most shops don't stock either the Surly or the 520. Margie found that the Classic Bicycle shop in Bainbridge had a floor model of the 520 on sale so I decided to take a look.
The 520 in Bainbridge was a floor model on sale for $1249 ($170 off MSRP). It had a 57cm frame which was just on the bubble for sizing but I tried it out and decided to keep it rather than ordering a new bike just 3cm larger (one week delivery promised but who knows). I added two water bottle cages, a carrying bag for the back, a new computer, got some new SPD shoes and charged it to AMEX. That was on Saturday. On Sunday I went back in to get properly fitted. I was impressed by the fitting as the tech took the time to get it right. Saddle height, for and aft positioning, a little larger stem for a more upright riding position and that was it. Brought the bike home and if it hadn't been raining I would have given it a test drive.
No need to take the Sworks in Florida on the ride. Just need to gather some spare tubes and maybe tires for the Trek 520 and I'm set. One last thing. The shop will box up the bike and I'll send it to my shop in Florida to be assembled prior to taking off for Yorktown on May 10th.
To get an idea of the gearing I wanted on my new touring bike I found some research on gearing options for touring bikes written by John Shultz. He says it comes down to "gear inches". That's the ratio of the number of teeth on the chainring divided by the number of teeth on the cassette times the diameter of the wheel. On a 700cm wheel the diameter is about 27 inches. If you multiply the gear inches by pi (3.14) you get the distance you move with one revolution of the crank. So here's what Shultz suggests for a touring bike:
For my situation I'm looking at the low gear inches. Lowest suggested with No Load is 30". Considering my "clydesdale physique" I think I'm more like a Heavy Load. If I was 160lbs I'd be carrying a 100lb load, so that would be 18" or 22". Here's a chart that shows what my existing gearing on the Sworks and Sequoia looks like compared to the Trek 520.
Here's how to read this chart. My current Sworks is now set up with 50/34 chainrings up front and an 11/28 back cassette. So the Gear inches are 122.7" for the flats and 32.8" for hills. Just to get going I need 30" for the hills (lower is better). So the Sworks configuration might work provided my legs could provide a little more power than expected and there's no wind, rain or very steep hills. My existing Sequoia is set up with a triple 50/39/30 front chainring and an 11/28 in the back. The gear inches are 122.7" for the flats and 28.9" for the hills. This looks like it might work for the light load scenario, however I already know from experience that this gearing made for a harder than expected RedSpoke ride from Seattle to Spokane in 2009. I do remember getting off the bike on the 7 mile 7% grade out of Wenatchee and also on the climb out of Grand Coulee dam. It was not fun.
Now look at the Trek 520. It has a 48/36/26 front chainring and an 11/32 rear cassette. The gear inches drop to 118.0" for the flats and 21.9" for the hills. It looks about right. If I was carrying extra gear I would even consider going lower but this should work. Now, as far as how much speed I'll be losing on the flats, there's another chart below.
This chart is from Bicycle Bike Gear Ratio Speed and Cadence Calculator which allows you to generate a chart based on the specific gears you have on your bike. My top speed on the flats would probably be about 26.3mph (that's the 48x11 gear at 75rpm). My hill climbing speed is probably about 3.3mph (the 26x32 gearing at 50rpm). This compares with 26.7mph on the flats for the Sworks and 5.0mph on the hills. So, I'm not giving up much speed but I'm getting 33% plus improvement on the hills. I'll take that. Just for the record I'll be slower on inclines greater than 7% but I probably won't have to stop and I'll be able to keep up on the flats.
After my research on the internet, I narrowed down the choices to a Surly Long Haul Trucker, the Trek 520 and a custom bike from Co-Motion in Oregon. I quickly eliminated the Co-Motion due to the time-frame required and the higher cost. My search then narrowed to finding a local shop in Tampa or nearby with either of the Surly or 520 bikes. I found a shop in Gainesville which carried the Surly but it would need to be special ordered after an extensive sizing requirement. Looked in the Northwest for the Surly and 520 but most shops don't stock either the Surly or the 520. Margie found that the Classic Bicycle shop in Bainbridge had a floor model of the 520 on sale so I decided to take a look.
The 520 in Bainbridge was a floor model on sale for $1249 ($170 off MSRP). It had a 57cm frame which was just on the bubble for sizing but I tried it out and decided to keep it rather than ordering a new bike just 3cm larger (one week delivery promised but who knows). I added two water bottle cages, a carrying bag for the back, a new computer, got some new SPD shoes and charged it to AMEX. That was on Saturday. On Sunday I went back in to get properly fitted. I was impressed by the fitting as the tech took the time to get it right. Saddle height, for and aft positioning, a little larger stem for a more upright riding position and that was it. Brought the bike home and if it hadn't been raining I would have given it a test drive.
No need to take the Sworks in Florida on the ride. Just need to gather some spare tubes and maybe tires for the Trek 520 and I'm set. One last thing. The shop will box up the bike and I'll send it to my shop in Florida to be assembled prior to taking off for Yorktown on May 10th.
No comments:
Post a Comment