AlanK

I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in mechanics. I'm gradually building up a bike, and I'm really annoyed that virtually all newer drive trains have 27+ gears. This seems gratuitous, unnecessary and potentially problematic. Here are a few problems I see with having so many gears:

- They wear-out more rapidly. Since the chain and the space between cogs is so narrow both the chain and cassette wear out faster, and are less durable.

- Redundancy. Having so many gears means that many individual gears are essentially duplicated. I remember reading that the vast majority of riders only use about 8-10 gears 80% of the time. This in and of itself is evidence that having so many gears is superfluous.

- More weight. This is a very minor issue, but a cassette with 9 cogs will way a bit more than one with 7 cogs.

To me it seems the primary reason component manufactures keep increasing the number of gears is purely for financial/profit reasons; having so many gears means that riders will need to replace the cassette and chain more frequently, which means higher profits.

To be clear, I'm not a Luddite; I'm in favor of practical technological advancement - better function, reliability, durability, etc. But having so many gears seems redundant to me. Am I missing something?

knobster

Yeah, it's just like anything else really. If you don't offer something new, people won't buy it. Basic free market type of thing.

This doesn't always go that way though. I ride motorcycles also and I have a Suzuki DR650 that hasn't changed in probably 20 years.

I don't think the manufactures do it so the parts wear out quicker, they do it because of competition. If their competitor comes out with another speed tomorrow, many people will only buy a new bike if it's got the latest and greatest. Is it better? Depends on your riding really. Everyday cyclist probably not. Someone who races or is into fast riding will appreciate the closely spaced gearing. Regardless if they are duplicated with other front chainrings.

AlanK

Yeah, I figured it was primarily for marketing reasons; a way to sell something 'new'.

I think it's also sort of analogous to the fallacy that 'bigger is better'. Unfortunately, many riders will assume 'more gears is better', which is, of course, not necessarily true; for the reasons outlined above -among others- in cases more gears is actually worse.

MichaelW

In US-bases management consultancy, there is a well known "truth" that if you can't count it, you can't manage it. Counting has become a fetish and a bigger number is always better than a smaller one. In this regard, they resemble Communist tractor-factories and pig-iron smelters.
The way to measure product improvement is by the number of gears. It works for the engineers, the senior management is happy, the marketing suits are in clover, the pro riders have boasting rights in the peleton.
These systems often work quite well in the high end versions, with advanced metallurgy, high-precision and professional mechanics and spares to back you up.
Trickle-down marketing results in high gear counts made lower down the groupset order, with softer metals, less precision, higher rates of wear than at the high end.
There is simply no advantage to the average rider, given the disadvantages. Even high-end users have trouble sourcing critical spares for older systems. How can you replace a crash-damaged Ultegra 9 speed shifter?

IMHO, the hight of usefulness and durability was achieved with 8-speed systems.

Rhodabike

It's still possible to buy freewheels with as few as 5 cogs. I don't know what the quality is, but they exist.
The chain thing is a sticking point. I remember when almost everyone just bought the basic Sedis chain, a new one every year.

redcon1

If you build with a 1 x 11 geartrain you might find you have all the range you need. A lot of mountain guys are going this direction.

But if that doesn't suit your needs, go 2 X 10. Plenty of good drivetrain stuff still available, and for years to come, in 10-speed.

Neither of those, btw, would be 27 +.

Phil_gretz

Among my regular riders, I have 2x6, 3x7, 3x9 and 2x10. I'll say that the 6-speed wider range freewheels have pretty large jumps between cogs, and double shifting is often necessary to not have big cadence transitions. 9-speed seems about right. 10 is fine, too, but maybe it makes me shift too often simply because I can.

WestPablo

Agreed, but what's the ideal number of speeds for a road bike?

caloso

It depends. In a flat crit, I might use 2 or 3. In a hilly road race, I might use all of them.

DX-MAN

10- & 11- speed cassettes are, IMO, overkill and mostly driven by the empty desire for 'shiny new tech'. I saw an advantage going from 8-speed to 9, in the better progression of gears for my purposes (at the time). What I also saw with 9-speed was fragility of chains; I'm on my 4th 9-speed chain in 7 years. EVERY ONE has broken -- now, once I fix them, they serve really well, only 1 has broken twice -- which didn't happen with 8-speed. I broke ONE 8-speed chain in my LIFE! (yep, 5-6-7-8 setups all take the same chain)

When 8-speed becomes unavailable, I will reconsider 9 (retro-swapping over the winter back to 8) again; when 9 becomes unavailable, I will go singlespeed. NO 10- or 11-speed under this horse!! I've broken enough chains.

WonderMonkey

I have never had anything other than three rings up front but I do know I use all of them at various points along some of my rides. I think very few people use all 27+ gears as not all of them apply for each ring (obviously) due to cross-chaining.

The new bike I'm looking at has two rings. I am sure that after I get used to it I will be able to do everything my current bike does in regards to gearing.

To sum up.... I don't know the real difference between two and three rings and having three works for me. I'm sure two would work as well.

StanSeven

You are just going too long with a chain then. You didn't indicate what your annual mileage is but most people get 3000 -3500 miles out of a chain. Just watch for good prices, buy one and save it until the chain is worn, and replace it. I really don't even know someone that has broken a 9, 10 or 11 speed chain because they monitor chain wear well before it breaks

MattFoley

Just to play contrarian, I think if this were the case they'd just make the stuff out of cheaper, less-durable materials. My guess is that an 11spd drivetrain costs considerably more to develop and produce than a 7spd one, so at least in the tech's formative years, the margins are probably less. I, for one, appreciate that companies try to innovate and come up with new tech, even if it's not seemingly "necessary". Ultimately, the new, expensive tech ends up trickling down to the cheaper stuff....for instance, Tiagra stuff now is probably on par with Ultegra stuff from a couple of years ago, so budget-minded consumers ultimately benefit from products initially aimed at the higher-end crowd.

cplager

Yes, you are.

I went for 36 miles of rides this weekend pulling my two kids (alternatively, not at the same time) on a trail-a-bike. I used my highest high gear (106") and my lowest low (< 17") and everything in between (both my bikes have more than a factor of 6 between high and low gears).

No, it's not a marketing gimmick. And for those of us who want closer spacing between gears, having a triple up front and a tighter cassette makes a lot of sense. (Some people honestly don't mind big gaps; a lot of people like myself do).

And as several people have pointed out, a 3x9 doesn't mean that you have 27 gears that you should be using.

Bandera

Yes, functional requirements & efficiency.

I require a 36" low and a 110" high gear for my hilly local area and conditioning.
Having 10 closely spaced cogs out back is efficient within this range, big gaps do me no good at all.

-Bandera

fietsbob

Not much gained with the 8th, other than a 12t top-cog..

Me, since I got a Rohloff hub I dont use any of my Derailleur bikes .. other than decoration..

the % ratios do make the lower gears closer together than the higher.

I like rolling through the gears to find the right one even though Im moving slow, or stopped..

Leebo

So let me know how your single speed works out. Lets see, more gears, yes more gear inches, good for touring or hills. Or a closer range cassette with smaller gear jumps. Or a wider range rear cassette so my mt bike only needs 1 or 2 chainrings up front, nice. Just use your 126mm rear spaced freehub with 7 wide spaced gears with thumb shifters and be happy. My sram 2x10 on my new enduro shifts perfect all the time, and I use the full range of gears, works for me, YRMV.

fietsbob

OP offered, essentially, I got X chainwheels, and Y chainrings .. x=9, y=3 in this case.
it helps sell bikes..

It's the gear-ratio combinations that counts..

count teeth, do the math and get back, you will find a lot of the ratios overlap ranges ..

and in actuality you don't really have 27 unique gears . just cassette with 9 cogs on it.
and a triple crankset

1961 I had a 3 speed hub, fitted with 3 cogs, and a triple crankset, it too was a 27-'speed' ..

3 cubed.

cplager

I think they're a fine choice, but definitely a lot more expensive than the derailleur equivalent (and a little less range than what I've got).

I'm confused by this statement. Rohloff has consistent gear spacing (which is one of their strengths, in my opinion). Why would you say that the low gears are closer than the high gears?

Nightshade

When it comes to gears I look at it this way............You can't use what you don't have.

Little Darwin

Let's get back to the true 10 speed... I am a fan of the concept of a 1x10 drive train with a wide range cassette. Ten usable, well spaced gears without the old school double shift patterns needed.

My current regular rider rarely gets any use except on the middle ring, mostly because the shifting in back is always so much smoother, so I in effect have a 1x8 drive train with extra components up front.

I think too often the 2x and 3x are used multiplicatively, but in reality, each is a range of gears... kind of like the 4wd truck systems that had a high and low range... Front shifts should be infrequent, and should mostly be performed at transitions from up hill to down hill etc.

himespau 

Whatever works for you. Go with that.

redcon1

If you're breaking 9-speed chains that frequently you aren't maintaining them... or you have the power output of Jens Voigt. So which is it?

Darth Lefty 

My Dad's Paramount has 48-101 gear inches with a 14-24 tooth freewheel. It spins out on a mild downhill and anything other than mild uphill is terrible for me and my bum ticker. But the shifting ratios are great. So another cog on the top and two more on the bottom would be nice please. That would mean a 12-32 8-speed cassette. Not sure that I'd need more than that.

My MTB commuter has an 8-speed rear but with its MTB triple rings has a low end of 18 inches and a high end of 95. I don't need the low end so low and could use a much higher high for commuting. But that's the price of making do with what you have.

I don't mind the overlaps in gear ranges between the rings, that's just how derailleur bikes get the nice ratios for shifting. Of course you don't need "24" speeds but it isn't really a 24 speed bike. My 10-speed is really a 6-speed and the 24-speed is 13-ish depending on when you remember to shift the front.

MattFoley

I'm guessing Jens breaks chains very seldom. Which leaves only the former option to explain it...