this is a crucial point, and even worse with 1x systems that while have a place in mtb situations.
To start, I have to say sorry for the thread hijack, cs1.
I mountain bike as well and I don’t see the appeal of 1x there. It’s okay if you ride loops around the bike park or if you are racing a circuit, I suppose. But I ride over long enough distances that having a wide range of gears is worth the (slight) complication of the triple.
I once read something in Adventure Cycle magazine from the guy at SRAM who is the force behind going to 1x. He said that changing the chainwheel on a 1x completely changes the character of the bicycle. I fully agree. What if you carried along the chainrings and had the is nifty little device that switches between those chainrings? It would completely change the character of the bike. Why has no one invented such a system?
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 think there are a couple of different things going on here. Bicycle manufacturers...and uninformed people...have always been fascinated with the number of gears rather then how to use them. 10, 15, 18, 21, 27, etc “speeds” is meaningless but explaining how to make use of those gears and how there really are only about half of those gears are unique is just too hard to deal with. They just stick with a number which sounds good without thinking about how the thing shifts and rides.
The other issue is that component manufacturers are racing companies who also happen to sell some bike stuff. Racers have looked down on triples forever. Even the low gear is derisively called a “granny” gear because only old grannies need one. I have not problem using a low gear...even a lower gear than most people even think is possible. It doesn’t challenge my manhood to do so. I’m actually kind of proud to have a 730% range...from 114 gear inches to 15 gear inches. I can ride up most anything and down have to coast down the other side.
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.
While I agree, I think that goes back to education rather then just getting rid of the system. But I question the “simplicity” of 2x systems. All of the ones I’ve seen require multiple upshifts to find the proper gear. Someone recently told me that having a middle chainring is a silly reason to avoid double upshifts after a downshift. Huh?
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.
For quite a while, the only additional gears were on the high end. Thankfully the current trend is to add more low...and lower...end gears. That’s a plus but from what I’ve read, the longevity of 11 and 12 speed chains is greatly diminished.