Originally Posted by
cyccommute
Although it’s hardly a news flash, I really hate wide range doubles. Yes, they have the range of a triple but they have a giant hole in the middle of the range that requires a lot of jiggering after a shift between rings to get the gear you want. It’s all herky jerky where a triple is nice and smooth. It’s almost like the people who design 2x systems have not idea how gears work on a bike.
I’d stick with the triple, use a 9 or 10 speed, and forgo that extra gear or two. The gearing is tighter and more useful over a wider range of terrain.
this is a crucial point, and even worse with 1x systems that while have a place in mtb situations.
Clearly 11 and 12 spd stuff will most often have cassettes with jumps very similar to 9 spd, but with those added higher teeth counts, so they can be fine all in all.
But as you say with the underlined statement, you do have to wonder about the thinking going on. Im sure a big part of it is economy of scale, and reducing product lines to streamline production over lots of bikes.
I wonder though how much of it is just going with joe or jane blow rider who just doesnt get using a triple, and so simplifiying stuff appeals to a lot of casual riders.
I know we sound like a bunch of grumpy old bastards who dont accept new stuff, but a triple for touring still really does have real life advantages--especially if you take into account not only having a wide range of gears, which is just plain nice, but then also the possibility of having closer shifts due to more gears---that said, I still dont have personal experience past 10 spd for chain longevity etc, so I cant really say how 11 spd is in real life, let alone 12.