Originally Posted by
speyfitter
RANT
I feel that the front cranks sold on many bikes commonly promoted to commuter types are too large and that this is doing a disservice to commuter cyclists. For example many 8 speed commuter type bikes are sold with a 48-38-28 triple crank. If you shift with consideration for chain line management this means that the average commuter cyclist will seldom utilize the largest chainring for much of their city riding and the smallest 28 tooth chainring will at times, depending on the rear cassette (assume an 11-32 rear cassette), find on steeper hills the lowest gear won't be low enough requiring them to have to get off and push their bike or find the climb more gruelling and tiring then it needs to be, especially for newer riders and/or those carrying more weight. In this case, if the bike was sold with a 42-32-22 front crank instead the climbs on harder hills would be much easier, the likstock comelihood of pushing bikes in these situations would be reduced, and the front crank set would see a more even use of all 3 gears on the front crankset and on the rear cassette. The reality is the average commuter cyclist can't push a 48-11 or 48-13 tooth combo except on downhills or if they somehow like extra low cadence.
END OF RANT
I would assume large bike manufacturers have marketing departments that determine which components go on which bikes based on the ultimate goal of profitability. A product may appeal to a larger pool of consumers if it targets the median desires of a defined group, and does so by hitting a certain price point. Sometimes those decisions have nothing to do with ride ability, durability or ergonomics, and everything to do with maximizing return on investment, using leftover components, and shooting for a percentage of a marketplace, rather than aiming at a smart, quality product.
Then there's the emotional appeal of a bike...how it looks, what it suggests it can do rather than what it actually can do. With the right look, graphics, and style, a low-information consumer can be persuaded to buy a bicycle that doesn't meet their needs, and with substandard components. That goes for how the gears look (including how many) rather than usability. Cheap, crappy disk brakes, instead of even cheaper, but adequate rim brakes. Look at the big-box store bikes (Like Wally World)...for extreme examples of marketing over quality or capability.
If you are a seasoned rider, and know what you want and need, you will customize components, etc. And if you are smart, you can buy a lower-price bike and modify it to fit your needs for less than a stock set-up that already does.
I've been a serious bike commuter since 1992, and in December 2014 I began looking for a new bike to fit my commuting needs. No bike I saw packaged as a "commuter" fit the bill. I ended up buying a bike and modifying it to fit my needs, just as I did in 1997 ...and in 1987, even though I wasn't as dedicated a commuter back then. In fact, when I acquired my 1984 Nishiki International in 2009, the first week I had it I changed the small front chain ring for $15 to give me a wider spread of gearing.
So, I agree with you in the sense that many bikes on the market seemingly defy logic as far as set-up and components, etc. But when you buy off the rack, you can't expect a custom fit.
On the other hand there is an astounding variety of new bikes out there with an amazing variety of configurations. Add some customization to the equation and the possibilities are infinite. Ignore the labels, look past the marketing, resist peer pressure, embrace a little customization...your near-perfect ride is out there.