# Too Many Gears?



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

This is probably a dumb question. My first geared bike was a five-speed 20" Schwinn Fastback with the cool but dangerous shifter on the top tube. I then got a 10-speed Varsity when I was 12 or 13. I had a friend with the 5-speed version called the Collegiate. Even then, we debated whether 10 gears were really necessary.

After school was over, I got an 18 speed hybrid (what???). The granny gear was nice when you needed it, but I rarely did.

Now I have a 24 speed xc mtb. There is a decent amount of redundancy (with less cross-gearing) in the combos, but even so, I sense that there are more gears than I really need. I do try to keep a decent cadence going and use the gears to do so, but I note that particularly in the middle highs (the first three cogs after the highest) are very close ratio and I go through them pretty quickly (downshifting) to maintain cadence on a grade. I suspect that I wouldn't miss 2-3 or more of the cogs on my cassette too badly or at all.

Now I see that 10-speed cassettes are the new, new thing. I gather that these are really for 1x and 2x setups, which seems like a good thing as front derailleurs are fiddly as hell and a 1x allows chainring protection.

And of course there are always single-speeders (I will discount hipsters and their fixies here, lol).

Is it basically kind of agreed now that 24-27-30 speeds are kind of overkill? Or am I just a rank amateur shifter and rider? I suppose the number of gears on lower-end consumer bikes is kind of a marketing arms race and we won't see 1x and 2x setups on those anytime soon.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

10-speed cassettes are standard on multi-ring bikes too.

I don't think anyone's agreed on anything. Doubles are maybe more popular than triples lately, but triples are still a common part, available from both SRAM and Shimano at a few pricepoints, as well as from third-party manufacturers.

The number of cogs is certainly an arms race. If you pay enough, SRAM will sell you a cassette with 11.

I think the mass market bikes just have whatever's cheapest. Since Shimano and SRAM stop making parts for fewer speeds as they increase the number, cheap bikes move up, whether they want to or not. But they'll probably only let go of 7-speed freewheels kicking and screaming: those allow a cheaper hub.

Fewer chainrings is new. Sort of. Removing the big ring and substituting a bash guard is a common modification, and the first few doubles that came out of the box that way did that. XC doubles, with an unguarded large ring (and no flat surface to mount one on!) came out a little later. Probably some of it is that since cassette ranges are wider, a taller large ring can encompass the low gear ratios a 32t ring got to, while still having some top end gears that would have required a large ring. For example, my new bike has a 38t middle ring and 11-36 cassette. So my lowest accessible ratio is 38/36, not much higher than 32/32. (Though I liked 32/34.)

And, of course, you can sometimes sell a new component group to someone who already has a working bike if you cram on an extra cog or shave a couple grams.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Gearing depends on a combination of fitness, terrain, preference, length of the ride and riding style. Lots of people make full use of a wide range 30 speed setup and many others do fine with just one gear.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Personally I think it's all a lot of bollocks really!

You have a bike. There is nothing wrong with it. This is not a happy situation if your job is to sell bikes! So manufacturers have to keep coming up with new gimmicks in order to convince you that your perfectly good bike is too old-fashioned and you need to buy a new one.

So now 2X10 is enough gears. So how come 3X7 wasn't? Except now your gears and chain are so thin that they bend and snap. We'll you're just not riding correctly obviously. 

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the changes have been good but let's be sensible.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

2x6 was enough by range for me. (Road bike.) Just had to choose the right chainrings.

On a mountain bike, I like 8-speed cassettes just because multispeed freewheel hubs have no place on off-road bikes and 7-speed cassettes have a different width from everything else.

8 to 9 and 9 to 10 haven't been useful changes for me. I only have 10-speed on my new bike because high-end complete bikes ship that way.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I went back to 8sp myself because I found 9sp to stretch and wear too quickly.


----------



## iscariot (Oct 24, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> I went back to 8sp myself because I found 9sp to stretch and wear too quickly.


Stop cross chaining and shifting under load.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> I went back to 8sp myself because I found 9sp to stretch and wear too quickly.


please explain...


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

Lol i don't agree at all.. I don't think of it as 24 speed, and I don't think it's overkill. If i'm climbing something technical I'm going to want my 22t up front, and I might want some incremental gears depending on terrain and other changes. On the other hand, my middle ring will propel me on straights and flats pretty good, but as inclines come, I want to lower the gears. But I don't want my 22t climbing gear, I want my 32t with all available increments. How is it overkill? Do you want to throw half the cassette out? Like have a jump from 32t to 24t to 12t? And 2 rings up front, like a 22 and a 44? That bike would be pretty useless.. So no, not overkill, just efficient. 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

time229er said:


> please explain...


9 speed chains are delicate like a flower?

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## velo99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I agree with JB. I think it depends on the rider and the trail or sections of the trail. When I was riding Sunday, I switched between all of the chain rings & 3,4,5 cogs. I had to drop down to 1-1 on a couple of climbs. Lots of times all you have to do is switch chain rings instead of cogs to get a bigger bite on a cassette with close gearing.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

ou2mame said:


> 9 speed chains are delicate like a flower?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


I wonder where the bacon went...he's got me wondering about my fragile 10 speed...maybe a 7 speed makes better sense?


----------



## WA-CO (Nov 23, 2013)

JB and Velo are spot on. Many many factors. I ride a 1x11, wifey has 3x10. Different riders, different skill sets, different terrain, different requirements.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> So now 2X10 is enough gears. So how come 3X7 wasn't? Except now your gears and chain are so thin that they bend and snap. We'll you're just not riding correctly obviously.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, a lot of the changes have been good but let's be sensible.


For me it's as simple as my knees - I can pick any of three cardinal directions and climb 2000ft in under 4 miles, and I like still being able to use my knees afterward, so I want a granny gear. I also enjoy being able to pedal usefully at speeds above 30mph, therefore I need at least a 5:1 gear spread to do what I want. Some people can run a single speed brilliantly, and I know plenty of folks who can run a 1x9 with just a 12-28T cassette and be happy; but with .mil abused knees and living near proper mountains, I need gear spread and I happen to enjoy having some gears in between so I can keep my fat self in a decent cadence envelope.

I make enough torque that I can turn cheap chains into necklaces quickly if I get stupid about cross-chaining, and now that indexed trigger shifters are so good I see no reason to do that anyway.

For me having usable access to 8 gears quickly with just the RD is a fantastic capability to have, especially since that covers about a 3:1 delta in gear ratios without having to drop off pedal power much (like a front shift necessitates). The 3x7 setups really only gave you 5 useful gears per front cog at best, and either the spread was pretty big or the actual range of gears was fairly poor compared to what modern manufacturing can turn out, so it may be only a fractional gain (~40% ratio range improvement on accessible rear derailleur change without using the front der.) but considering the price of decent modern 2x10 setups, for the cost they're light years ahead of the old 3x7 setups I remember, and I have no intention of going back.

The 'boring' 24/36 x 11-36T 2x10 setup has exactly that 5:1 range (.66 granny out to 3.273 tallest gear), can be had very affordably, and unless I love somewhere much flatter, I'll keep using both extreme gears (and all the ones in between).


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

I've got a 2x8 setup, but my 8 speed cassette is setup with 34 32 30 28 etc because I don't ride this bike on the street. I combined a few cassettes I had laying around to build this one. So my 16 speed had the low range of a 9 speed with the increments of a 10 speed. 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

time229er said:


> please explain...


9sp chains didn't last as long. That's all there is to it. About six-months to get 1%. I was talking to a guy in one of the big bike shops in Glasgow and he said that all of the guys in the shop used 7sp for their commuters for that reason, 7sp transmissions last for years, 'thinner' transmissions don't.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

two things to consider:

"more" gears are not necessarily better. the range of gears is what matters. you can build a 3x7 drivetrain that has the same range of gears as a modern 3x10. however, the 3x10 will have a better-shifting cassette, (presumably) stronger chain, stiffer derailleurs, smoother chainrings, and lighter-feeling shifters because all the design research that went into making those things work better also went into adding a few gears. it's a shame Shimano doesn't make a XC 7 speed Shadow+ rear mech, so we can use old (cheaper!) chains, cassettes, shifters, etc, but I don't blame them for wanting to sell new parts and stay in business.

FWIW, I ride a 11/32 9 speed XT cassette with a short-cage SRAM X7 cassette and a single 32t narrow-wide chainring in front. or I swap the rear for a single cog and ride single-speed. both setups work fine for me, depending on where I am riding.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

A bike only needs 2 gears. 
Sit and stand.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

And a third gear- walking and cursing.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

mack_turtle said:


> And a third gear- walking and cursing.


I usually say 3 gears. Sit, stand and push. I don't curse when I push though.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> it's a shame Shimano doesn't make a XC 7 speed Shadow+ rear mech, so we can use old (cheaper!) chains, cassettes, shifters, etc,


Isn't it only the new 10-speed specific derailleurs that are incompatible with the non "Dynasis" shifters? Should be able to run a Rapidfire-compatible one with 7 speed, no?


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

Yeah 9 speed derailleurs are compatible with 7 and 8 speed cassettes

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Looks like you can get a 9 speed Shadow setup.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Isn't it only the new 10-speed specific derailleurs that are incompatible with the non "Dynasis" shifters? Should be able to run a Rapidfire-compatible one with 7 speed, no?


Yip, pretty much.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

TwiceHorn said:


> ...Is it basically kind of agreed now that 24-27-30 speeds are kind of overkill? ..


Run an "old school" 3x9 with 27 gears. Sounds like alot, but it not that bad becuase it all cmes down to how you use them.

I consider it having a 1x9 with 3 different chainring options all at the ready. I used my 22 chain ring for sustained climbs. I will drop in my 22 up front and mange my leg strength with my 9 rear cogs. Of course I don't use all due to cross chaning, but 6-7 do get used alot. On level ground, slower speed downhills or rolling terrain I use my 32 middle ring and all 9 of my rear cogs. For really fast smoothish descents or paved roads I will go my 44 chainring and my smallest 4 or maybe 5 cogs. I use this chain ring the least, but it is nice to have.

Overall I don't get 27 separate ratios from my 3x9 or even 27 use able ratios, but I do get range of gearing that go from 3.5 mph were you are almost ready to fall over from going so slow to 30 mph speed runs with close enough spacing to find my ideal cadence given the terrain. Some guys feel they get enough range with a 2x10 and others a prefectly happy with just on chain ring and realizing they lose something at the top or bottom end.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

The number of gears depends on one thing... performance, as in how much performance/speed you are looking for. And speed is dependent on cadence. For roadies cadence is king and that is why you see racers with corn cob cassettes with a single cog difference.

So if you are racing or just want to get the maximum speed you can, then more gears are better. 1x10's or 1x11's are perfect for this as you lose a little weight and you never lose any time shifting the front derailleur and or making dual shifts to adjust for cadence.

For non-racing, especially mountain biking, range is more important where there are abrupt terrain changes. This is where the debate always ends up... the number of gears you need to fill in the range. For me it comes down to being able to find a comfortable speed so that the gaps are not too far apart and I lose too much momentum or too close and I have to multiple shift all the time.

I run a 2x7; although it probably won't work for a lot of others. With a 2x7, 24/34, I can actually run all 14 gears without crossover issues (although I usually don't run the small-small). The crossover is even less if I run the 7 speed cassette with 8 speed cassette spacers and an 8 speed shifter. If the terrain is generally uphill I'll run my 24, if I am not sure of the trail. If it is pretty much just rolling terrain or I know there is nothing severe, I'll use my 34. If I ride on the road, I use my road bike, so I don't need a 44.

What I give up with this setup is speed. The comment above about the sore knees is really about speed control and maintaining speed with fewer gears means having to push too hard, tough on knees, or gearing down and end up going slower.

John


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> ...8 to 9 and 9 to 10 haven't been useful changes for me. I only have 10-speed on my new bike because high-end complete bikes ship that way.


For me moving from a 3x7 to 3x9 was useful for one reason. Low end gearing. My 3x7 had a 22/32/44 up front, but a 11-28 in the rear. My 3x9 uses the same chain rings, but uses an 11-34 the rear and that gives me an 30 and 34. That 22/34 combo could be considered "wimpy" I will say it is really nice on a 2 hr 12 mile climb when the grade pitches up to 15%. It sure is nice drop into the 34 and keep spinning. Plus the 34 low end allows me to run 32 chain ring in some places where I have otherwise needed to drop to the 22 chain ring. I do think there is a point of diminishing returns where cog thickness and chain thickness get so narrow that you lose in durability more than you gain in versatility.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

My 7 speed is 13-34 so I end up with a 29/34 compared to your 9 speed with the 30/34. There is a definite weight penalty with the 7 speed cassettes as they do not use a spider.

I do wish I had your 11t, but not enough to widen my cassette and lose my 34/34.

John


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I would happily ditch the 11 to keep the 34. Of course given what I have I don't need to.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

JoePAz said:


> I would happily ditch the 11 to keep the 34. Of course given what I have I don't need to.


That's exactly the case - most riders could happily lose a cog at either extreme, but what they have works and they don't have to give that up anyway. I'm in the minority that I spend half an hour of each ride using one extreme gear or another on my setup, but I wouldn't be necessarily unhappy with a comparable range 2x7 since most of the time I grab gears in pairs anyway, the only place where I would tend to give up speed is climbing consistent grades - sometimes those intermediate gears are the ticket for the right cadence where I'd otherwise be pushing myself too hard or simply acquiescing to a slower climb because of the gear.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Well I still like my 11t cog, but if I had to chose between my 11t or 34t I will keep the 34. The thing is why should I choose? The trend is these days is to "upgrade" to a 1x10 system, but for me I don't see how that is an "upgrade" because it forces me to choose between super low 22/34 and super high 44/11. I just don't understand how giving up is "upgrade". Sure you drop the front derailuer, but that has never been big concern for me. 

Now my next bike will probably have a 2x10 only because 3x systems a falling out of favor. I hope the impact will not be too severe.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I do have a question about cassette width and chain crossover.... 

My 2x7 my cassette width is 31.9mm (31.0mm for 7 speeds with 8 speed spacers).

A 9 speed cassette is 36.5mm and a 10 speed is 37.2mm.

With a typical 34t low cog is there a crossover issue running a 34t outside chainring and 34t cog on a wider cassette?

Obviously chainstay length play into it, but on a typical 26er with a 16-3/4" to 17" chainstay.

Thanks!

John


----------



## velo99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Just a question, are most chainstays spread enough to allow for an 11 speed cassette vs a 7 speed?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

JoePAz said:


> Now my next bike will probably have a 2x10 only because 3x systems a falling out of favour. I hope the impact will not be too severe.


I think it totally depends on what you use the bike for. I use my bike both off and on road so need gearing that does both. Before you ask I don't use the same tyres! I swap over the wheels and pedals depending on what I'm doing.

Off road I never use the big ring, 48, but on road the top combination of 48-11 gets used regularly. I've never found a hill, either on or off road, that I couldn't climb with the lowest gear so I reckon for purely off road use 2x10 is more than enough. In fact I think 2x8 of even 2x7 would be fine for most off road use.

The way I see it the manufacturers, mainstream ones anyway, put a wide range of gears on their bike because they know that most of the people who buy mountain bikes just ride them on the road anyway. The closest they get to off road is the odd canal path.

Incidentally, I've noticed quite a few that on quite a few new MTBs they've dropped the 11t. Used to be standard on everything except the cheapo junk with screw-on freewheels. Don't know what that's about.


----------



## Kajjal (Dec 14, 2013)

2 x 10 suits my XC riding and I only use the smaller chainring for long steep climbs.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> I think it totally depends on what you use the bike for. I use my bike both off and on road so need gearing that does both. Before you ask I don't use the same tyres! I swap over the wheels and pedals depending on what I'm doing.
> 
> Off road I never use the big ring, 48, but on road the top combination of 48-11 gets used regularly. I've never found a hill, either on or off road, that I couldn't climb with the lowest gear so I reckon for purely off road use 2x10 is more than enough. In fact I think 2x8 of even 2x7 would be fine for most off road use.
> 
> ...


please explain...


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

JoePAz said:


> For me moving from a 3x7 to 3x9 was useful for one reason. Low end gearing. My 3x7 had a 22/32/44 up front, but a 11-28 in the rear. My 3x9 uses the same chain rings, but uses an 11-34 the rear and that gives me an 30 and 34.


You won't hear me arguing with having some low gears available. I just already had that 34t cog with my 8-speed setup.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

I don't care much about the total number of gears. What's more important to me is the highest and lowest gear ratios.

For now, I prefer at least 3.3:1 ratio on highest gear and 2:3 on lowest gear.


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

You're overthinking gears. 3x9 gives you exactly 9 useful gears. Use the middle chain ring with the four smallest cogs. The big chainring is used with the two smallest cogs when you start to run out the middle ring, and the granny ring mates to the largest three cogs for those epic steep climbs. While there are other gear combinations available, only being a stravatoad that wants that perfect cadence to get that perfect heart rate warrants the small differences between the remaining combinations. That's fine for the road, but conditions change too much on the trail to be that anal.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

LOL, I resemble that. I haven't put a cadence sensor on my mountain bike, but I self-select a pretty narrow band on the road. I imagine I do on trails too. I find when I ride rolling trails off-road, I make the occasional single shift to keep my effort about where I want it. Usually just based on how I feel like riding that day, but I have to confess to Stravaciding things on occasion.

If it makes you feel any better, I was racing and starting to clock myself on repeatable pieces of road or trail long before I heard of Strava. Though I'm terrible at hitting the right buttons at the right time on a runner's watch when I'm riding like I mean it, so I never really learned anything. I like that Strava will be anal for me - I don't have to.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

time229er said:


> please explain...


Explain what?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Flamingtaco said:


> While there are other gear combinations available, only being a stravatoad that wants that perfect cadence to get that perfect heart rate warrants the small differences between the remaining combinations. That's fine for the road, but conditions change too much on the trail to be that anal.


I appear to be in the minority but I really appreciate having small jumps between gears and use an 11-32 cassette instead of a 34 or 36 low for that reason. I'm no prima donna but I make single shifts all the time, it's not so much about cadence as it is maintaining speed. I was fine with 5,6,7,8 and 9 speed freewheel/cassettes but I like my 10 speed setup even more!

I'm no "stravatard" but I probably would be if my phone was smart enough for that app.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> Explain what?


how about "most people who buy mountain bikes just ride them on the road anyway..."


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Flamingtaco said:


> You're overthinking gears. 3x9 gives you exactly 9 useful gears. ..
> 
> While there are other gear combinations available, only being a stravatoad that wants that perfect cadence to get that perfect heart rate warrants the small differences between the remaining combinations. That's fine for the road, but conditions change too much on the trail to be that anal.


I guess I am a toad... I find real versatility in my 3x9. I happily use all 9 cogs with my middle 32 chain ring and often make single gear shifts both up an down so I can dial in my effort. My big ring gets used with my smallest 3-4 cogs and my granny ring get used my largest 6-7 cogs. I have found a big difference between my 32/34 ratio running a similar ration in granny. When in the 32/34 I have no where to go if I need to drop a gear quickly. Because the front derailuer does not shift under power if I need to drop gear fast I can't. However when I do the same ration using the granny ring I have fast shifts. This why for longer climbs the granny is nice. I have range of 6 to 7 gears so I can fine tune my effort for the grade and terrain. The 32/34 combo is good for shorter climbs where I can power up if need to and keep my momentum going. So for flats, rolling terrain or gentle climbs the 32 middle ring what gets used alot. When I have longer steeper climb that 22 gets alot of use. I would not have enough range to ride the terrain I do with 32t 1x9 and 11-34 and probably 11-36. Once you start getting in 40t or 42t big cogs then you start to get close, but loose the closer spacing of the 11-34 unless you add in 11 to 12 or 13 cogs.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

I prefer my 1 speed bike....has enough gears for me. Long rides with big elevation gains are not a problem.

In fact my geared bike is a 1 x 10 and hardly ever gets ridden.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

time229er said:


> how about "most people who buy mountain bikes just ride them on the road anyway..."


How about it?


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> How about it?


please provide the forum with a legit link that may help you establish credibility re your post...anybody else smell bacon burning?


----------



## joel787 (Nov 21, 2011)

time229er said:


> how about "most people who buy mountain bikes just ride them on the road anyway..."


well, if u really look at it as the price of the bikes goes up they been going with less gears, 1x10 for example.. many of the $600 are not really abused/ raced but just sold to "normal" people that commute or ride trails maybe on the weekends, so i guess companies know that and they equip the bikes accordingly. i think i coluld relate to that given that in my trails i mostly use the 2 front rings and 4 rear ones, but if i do anything flat and paved ill probably use the big front one and the small rear ones, but thats really rare since i never do anyways, so i guess ill be fine without them? it doesn't hurt to have them tho...


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

joel787 said:


> many of the $600 are not really abused/ raced but just sold to "normal" people that commute or ride trails maybe on the weekends, so i guess companies know that and they equip the bikes accordingly.


Almost since the introduction of the mountain bike they have been the de-facto bike type for new riders, almost irrespective of what they intend to do with it. Urban roads are littered with grown-ups pushing knobbly tyres, well they are in the UK anyway.

I think it's changing as people get a bit more clued up, manufactures offer more options and fashions just change I guess. I was in a big bike shop the other week and there is a bigger diversity of bikes than there used to be. Still dominated by mountain bikes but some interesting alternatives. I like the cross-bikes, road bikes but with tougher wheels, chunkier tyres and disk brakes so that they can tackle dirt tracks, great idea.

So yes, I think that often manufacturers know fine well their mountain bike will probably be ridden on the road so add a little more gearing to the top end than you would need if only riding off road.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

If your mountain bike came with a 48t chainring it's most likely not a mountain bike. 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

ou2mame said:


> If your mountain bike came with a 48t chainring it's most likely not a mountain bike.


It didn't, I put one on it. Or to be more exact I put the bike together from a bare frame to suit me, nothing is 'stock'.

You are right though, MTB-type hybrids sometimes come with a 48t but on most low/medium mountain bikes it's a 44t, or it certainly used to be. The fashion is changing and I'm not sure exactly what is 'cool' right now? My point is that 44-11, which was pretty much the standard on a mountain bike for a long time, is higher than you need for off road riding.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm not saying that if you put a 48t on your bike it's no longer a mtb.. I don't care what people do. I'm just saying that if it came that way, chances are it's not built to be a mtb because the other components are most likely going to be commuter type components. 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> How about it?


maybe a simple edit may be in order...just delete "most" and insert "some"...all good now!


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

TwiceHorn said:


> This is probably a dumb question. My first geared bike was a five-speed 20" Schwinn Fastback with the cool but dangerous shifter on the top tube. I then got a 10-speed Varsity when I was 12 or 13. I had a friend with the 5-speed version called the Collegiate. Even then, we debated whether 10 gears were really necessary.
> 
> After school was over, I got an 18 speed hybrid (what???). The granny gear was nice when you needed it, but I rarely did.
> 
> ...


I have not used a triple on my MTBs since the early '90s.
2x7 then, 2x9 2x8 2x6 and 2x5 now. All with wide range cassettes. Even then I find the steps of the 9-/8-sp too close on trail (but good on the road). My 2x6 (34/24x11-34) has the range I need and is less fussy.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

ou2mame said:


> I'm just saying that if it came that way, chances are it's not built to be a mtb because the other components are most likely going to be commuter type components.


Sure. I've never seen a new MTB with a 48t on it. That's a ring I've only seen on hybrids etc.



time229er said:


> maybe a simple edit may be in order...just delete "most" and insert "some"...all good now!


Whatever keeps you happy.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Mr Pig said:


> Sure. I've never seen a new MTB with a 48t on it. That's a ring I've only seen on hybrids etc.
> 
> Whatever keeps you happy.


Never say never. Most CURRENT mtbs do not use rings larger than 44t. 46-48t use to be the norm, and I had a new bike with a 50t ring (and a 13t small cog).


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

shiggy said:


> My 2x6 (34/24x11-34) has the range I need and is less fussy.


There is a friend down the street who has been riding a single speed for a while because he doesn't want to mess with the maintenance of a 9 speed... fortunately he can pull a SS up a climb. We have talked about the possibility of going with 3 or so cogs in the back, with spacers so it will fit onto a standard cassette. It would be interesting to see a setup with something like 11, 19, and 28 cogs for the single speed folks who want a little variety.

John


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

Wouldn't it be better to have an internal setup then? 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

70sSanO said:


> There is a friend down the street who has been riding a single speed for a while because he doesn't want to mess with the maintenance of a 9 speed... fortunately he can pull a SS up a climb. We have talked about the possibility of going with 3 or so cogs in the back, with spacers so it will fit onto a standard cassette. It would be interesting to see a setup with something like 11, 19, and 28 cogs for the single speed folks who want a little variety.
> 
> John


I ride single speed, too. Prefer to have just one gear or the 2x6. Once you start messing with multi gears you might as well have the full range.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

ou2mame said:


> Wouldn't it be better to have an internal setup then?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


No. WAY less efficient.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

ou2mame said:


> Wouldn't it be better to have an internal setup then?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


I would have to agree, even though I don't know much about internal hubs, but I'm not sure he wants to go that way. Between both of us we have enough stuff to set something up to test. In the past he has used gripshifts and I would like to set the left front shifter on the right and space the cogs to work with the cable pull.

John


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

shiggy said:


> Once you start messing with multi gears you might as well have the full range.


That's exactly what I was just thinking. All you'd be saving over a full-moo rear cassette system would be a few cogs.

I have two friends who bought hub-geared bikes and they both couldn't wait to get rid of them. Fine for old ladies who wouldn't know, or want to know, how to change a puncture but that's it.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

In response to my gripshift post. I thought about it and It was pretty stupid as the pull would never work without the chain falling between the cogs due to the spacing. But a 6 speed thumb would work because the object is to keep it close to a single speed but have a high end and maybe a bailout that he would hardly ever use.

John


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

I understand how a 3 speed setup with random shoebox parts is going to have any benefit over a standard 7 8 or 9 speed setup. There are the same parts to break and be maintained, the only difference is that the 3 speed setup will be severely lacking in range. I don't know how less gears is simplistic... You'll have all the parts as a traditional setup, they just won't work as well if at all. 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

ou2mame said:


> I understand how a 3 speed setup with random shoebox parts is going to have any benefit over a standard 7 8 or 9 speed setup. There are the same parts to break and be maintained, the only difference is that the 3 speed setup will be severely lacking in range. I don't know how less gears is simplistic... You'll have all the parts as a traditional setup, they just won't work as well if at all.
> 
> Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


I do not understand your reply, or which posts you are referring to.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

70sSanO said:


> In response to my gripshift post. I thought about it and It was pretty stupid as the pull would never work without the chain falling between the cogs due to the spacing. But a 6 speed thumb would work because the object is to keep it close to a single speed but have a high end and maybe a bailout that he would hardly ever use.
> 
> John


No, you pretty much had it right the first time. Not difficult to adjust cog spacing to match the shifter/RD pull when making a shorter cog stack. Been there, done that. It can work.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

70sSanO said:


> There is a friend down the street who has been riding a single speed for a while because he doesn't want to mess with the maintenance of a 9 speed... fortunately he can pull a SS up a climb. We have talked about the possibility of going with 3 or so cogs in the back, with spacers so it will fit onto a standard cassette. It would be interesting to see a setup with something like 11, 19, and 28 cogs for the single speed folks who want a little variety.
> 
> John


I was referring to this idea.. Why 3? I don't understand... It will have all the parts that 9 speed would except the cassette

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

He basically went single speed to get away from all the gears and tweaking, in his mind it was too much trouble. But he has said that there are times he would like more top end and a few times a little lower gear would be nice. He is riding a 29er and if he can ride it with one gear why would he want add 8 more for maybe a few shifts here and there.

He isn't ready to add a deralleur and lose the simplicity. Some of the why not 9 gear since he'll have the setup there already questions can apply to why not a triple since the setup is already there. All I've said to him is that if you want to go away from a SS, you don't have to add a full cassette.

John


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

Well I understand a double with a bashguard over a triple, or a single in the front.. What I'm not understanding is how a triple in the rear is any more simple than a 7 8 9 or 10

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

All I can tell you is that he can ride that SS speed up and down a lot of tough hills and has ridden everything in our area. That SS is his only mtb so it has to take him everywhere. I don't know what else to say.

John


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

70sSanO said:


> He basically went single speed to get away from all the gears and tweaking, in his mind it was too much trouble. But he has said that there are times he would like more top end and a few times a little lower gear would be nice. He is riding a 29er and if he can ride it with one gear why would he want add 8 more for maybe a few shifts here and there.
> 
> He isn't ready to add a deralleur and lose the simplicity. Some of the why not 9 gear since he'll have the setup there already questions can apply to why not a triple since the setup is already there. All I've said to him is that if you want to go away from a SS, you don't have to add a full cassette.
> 
> John


If he doesn't want to add a derailleur, maybe a dingle. I don't think those can be shifted on the fly, but it sounds like it has potential for someone who wants a higher gear to ride to the trailhead or around town, and a lower one for actual mountain biking.

For me, it would probably feel like more trouble, not less. But it's a free country.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I think he would never go with a dingle and have to stop to move the chain.

Getting back to the OP's question...

Based on all the responses and the fact that Shimano has come out with an XTR 3x11 and some people only ride a 1x1, the answer is yes...

...and also no. You decide.

John


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Well I opened up a can o worms. But an interesting discussion for sure.


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

TwiceHorn said:


> Well I opened up a can o worms. But an interesting discussion for sure.


That you did. For what it's worth I ride 2x7. I've only ever had 7 in the rear so it feels normal to me. I'm not sure what people do with those other 3 gears on 10sp cassettes.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> So yes, I think that often manufacturers know fine well their mountain bike will probably be ridden on the road so add a little more gearing to the top end than you would need if only riding off road.


As much as I vehemently disagreed earlier in this thread on the main thrust, the majority of bikes sold as 'mountain bikes' are intended to be taken on paved or maybe groomed dirt paths more than anything we consider a trail. I don't say this because of intent, but it's mirrored on the parts specced - Shimano has three distinct tiers of stuff below Deore, and it sells on complete bikes for a reason. There is a market segment just as large as what we'd consider the actual mountain biking market that wants what amount to very capable hybrid bikes.

It doesn't have to be specced intelligently, that mfg might have scored thousands of cheap 48T rings because nobody wants them on cheap road bikes anymore; the point is that the rest of that part spec is designed for folks that either lack the venue or desire to do anything gnarly on a bike. They still want a 'mountain' bike, even if it comes with a sticker insisting that the end user not take in a mountain trail, so tons of those exist. In that market segment (<$500 new) the numerically largest number of gears is probably most attractive (hence 3x9 being perceived as 'better' than a 2x10) with little regard to practical usability.

On my short 15mi jaunt this morning, I'm sure I used 15 of the 16 available gears (probably all of them plus some spare ratios from crosschaining it) from my 2x10 setup, and that made the various climbs a lot more enjoyable and let me keep pace with the rising sun to stay in the shadow of the Sandias most of the way up the first 1000ft elevation climb. It's not a case of too many gears, just a case that a lot of riders lack the ability to make intelligent use of all of them. I don't consider that a loss, because it means that the equipment is there for those that will use it, and anybody else isn't too inconvenienced by having it even if they don't need it; it's not like the overall weight savings is noticeable on cheap 6061 or CrMo frames with cheap wheelsets/forks/cockpits anyway.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

blackitout said:


> That you did. For what it's worth I ride 2x7. I've only ever had 7 in the rear so it feels normal to me. I'm not sure what people do with those other 3 gears on 10sp cassettes.


Depends on your lowest ratio. IME, most 7-speed freewheels and cassettes either have a 28t largest cog or go straight from 24 or 26 to 32 or 34. So either climb steeper things in the saddle or have a "just right" gear in between their middle-20s cog and their granny.

Otherwise, it's pretty much same-same. I see more cogs mainly as a "have my cake and eat it too" thing. I commuted a 2x6 for a while. By buying smaller chain rings, I gave myself the low end I wanted to climb a steep hill on my route, but lost some top end. Drivetrains with lots of cogs can have top end, low end, and small jumps, all at once.

I don't think they're a huge improvement if I make good choices about the gears I do have on a more restricted drivetrain. But with the new, tons-of-gears drivetrain, any rider can wander into a bike shop, buy any bike, and probably have the gear ratios they actually want be in there somewhere. No thought or choices necessary.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

I would like an 8 speed that starts at like 18 and ends at 34

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

My rear ends at 28t. My granny gear is 22. I'm not sure what kind of ratio that is. I don't pay attention to that stuff. I just know I can get up most anything steep where I ride in 22-28. The only thing that holds me back is fitness or momentum. I guess I'm ignorant to the advantages of a 10sp cassette.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

10 gives you more incremental gears, and they can come in 36t on the low end. That would be helpful if you are running a 2 or single in the front because.. Well, obviously you have more options. I use the lower gears for steep technical climbs.. Its hard to get the torque required to climb over roots and rocks on already steep inclines, Esp when you're trying to turn around trees and other larger obstacles. 

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

That's good to know. I've never had it so I don't really know the difference. That's probably why I can get up roots and rock gardens on what I have. Haha. So maybe it's a good thing I haven't used it. Then I'll want it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

tehllama said:


> There is a market segment just as large as what we'd consider the actual mountain biking market that wants what amount to very capable hybrid bikes.


I'm sure there are pros and cons to the different setups, good things about 2-10 over say 3-9 etc, but I do think that the primary driver of these changes is marketing. Everyone wants the new big thing, often just because it's new. Whether it's a flat-screen TV that has a picture that's actually worse than their CRT or a microscopic MP3-based stereo sounds worse than their big stack system, progress isn't always real progress.

When I was using a 3-9 setup I found myself changing two gears at a time quite often. Not always but going back to 3-8 I did not feel I was missing anything. I never, ever wish I had more ratios and I use the bike on every kind of gradient, surface and speed you could imagine from slow gravel climbs to fast blasts on the road. Can you use more gears? Sure. Do you need them? Well in the same way that people 'need' an i-Phone or surround-sound system, yes! ;0)


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> I do think that the primary driver of these changes is marketing. Everyone wants the new big thing, often just because it's new.


I'd have to agree with this. Luckily I've never fallen for it. I enjoy what I have, use it until it breaks, then go buy something else. This line of thinking seems to be in a minority these days. Marketing makes people think whatever they have is inferior because it doesn't have one feature the new one has. Smart phones and tech I feel was the precursor to this line of thinking. Get a new phone every 2 years. Now it's been applied to everything.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

FWIW...

My 7 speed cassette is 13-15-17-20-24-29-34.

The 29 to 34 has not been as issue.

I have thought about swapping the 13t with a 12t.

John


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> When I was using a 3-9 setup I found myself changing two gears at a time quite often. Not always but going back to 3-8 I did not feel I was missing anything. I never, ever wish I had more ratios and I use the bike on every kind of gradient, surface and speed you could imagine from slow gravel climbs to fast blasts on the road. Can you use more gears? Sure. Do you need them? Well in the same way that people 'need' an i-Phone or surround-sound system, yes! ;0)


Considering that I ride a 130mm FS 29er rig, I'm all about extra capability even if I'm not using all of it each ride. Better shifters make that pretty tolerable, and I'd rather have to double tap the shifter every time than have to hunt for a gear on hills, so I'll fork over some more cash for a new fangled 10spd cassette. The fancier shifters will even go up 2/down 3 cogs in single swipes at a trigger shifter. The other part of that is where people ride, and how much they need the bike to do. Flatter areas with less sustained climbs, a 1x7 setup can encompass everything I'd use off of a 3x11 XTR setup.

Just because progress made isn't something you can make use of, it isn't 'fake' progress, just something that benefits a few immensely and looks good on paper everywhere else. Is it an engineering solution to what is often a software problem? Yes. Do I give up anything by having more gears? Sure, but I'll make that weight/cost/complexity tradeoff for how I ride. It's not too many gears, it's just another luxury item that makes it a more enjoyable riding experience and lets me take my bike more places.

Is it worth upgrading a 2x9 setup that is working for a 3x10? Probably not. An older 3x7 setup that may not be running great probably would make sense to upgrade to a 2x10. The smartphone argument holds - the difference between the 5S and 5C is minute, but the capability difference between an iPhone and a flip-phone is massive, so there is a line where letting the early adopters fund the development of new stuff is prudent, but after new capability has tricked down to a reasonable price range, it make sense to accept that newer stuff derived from more recent technology might be worth a look if the drivetrain somebody has isn't working well enough for them.

Need in this case is individual, and somewhat subjective. I don't need an x10 setup, but my knees wouldn't let me do nearly as much without some low gear ratio(s), and to cover ground I want some taller gears. The base functional need isn't there, but if my intention for that bike is to put in 20mi+ rides up and over cool terrain, then that bike would need the drivetrain capability I've mentioned - modern frame, and suspension follows with that as well.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

blackitout said:


> I enjoy what I have, use it until it breaks, then go buy something else. This line of thinking seems to be in a minority these days.


Very much so. We live in a consumption-driven economy, it's not very healthy and it's ultimately not sustainable. I'm not a tree-hugger or anything but I can recognise a pyramid scheme that just hasn't collapsed yet.

One of the guys at my work has an old Garry Fisher bike, steel frame, no suspension, cantilever brakes. I've tried it. Comfortable, responsive bike and a lot lighter then mine. He likes it and has never seen the need to change it. Having a basic bike has never stopped him doing the same things the rest of us do.

Yes, a do think a more modern bike would be much more capable than his Garry Fisher but there is a limit. Most products reach a point in their development where only slight further upgrades are possible and are largely irrelevant to functionality for most users. Who can see the difference on the new super-resolution TVs and what content are you going to watch on it if you could?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I don't know that I'd upgrade something predating 8-speed to 8-speed or more. It opens up a can of worms. When it came down to it, I kept my old 2x6 bike 2x6.

The waste involved in tossing out functioning drivetrain components bothers me too. Not that I haven't done it, but I'm pretty unlikely to ever go past 3x9 on my older mountain bike because I'd need to get at least a new rear derailleur at the same time as shifters, chain and cassette. And all I really wear out frequently are chains. So I'd probably be pitching good parts with the bad.


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> Very much so. We live in a consumption-driven economy, it's not very healthy and it's ultimately not sustainable. I'm not a tree-hugger or anything but I can recognise a pyramid scheme that just hasn't collapsed yet.
> 
> One of the guys at my work has an old Garry Fisher bike, steel frame, no suspension, cantilever brakes. I've tried it. Comfortable, responsive bike and a lot lighter then mine. He likes it and has never seen the need to change it. Having a basic bike has never stopped him doing the same things the rest of us do.
> 
> Yes, a do think a more modern bike would be much more capable than his Garry Fisher but there is a limit. Most products reach a point in their development where only slight further upgrades are possible and are largely irrelevant to functionality for most users. Who can see the difference on the new super-resolution TVs and what content are you going to watch on it if you could?


I have something simliar. a 1992 Marin Palisades Trail, most everything on it is original. I've had it for 20 years. It works. I never thought about buying another bike until reading forums for the first time in all my years of riding. 3x7, cantilever brakes. It worked that whole time. I still love it. It was my first real mountain bike. Oh and Rockshox Quadra, yeah I rip it.

It seems people change up bikes now every few years. Nobody keeps anything anymore which is very sad. I'll never get rid of my Marin. I'll have it repainted exactly how to was made and keep it. Hell my rear derailleur is the same one that came on the bike. That was when Shimano parts(Altus) lasted 20 years on black diamond trails without breaking. Haha I'm only 34 and sound like some grouch but whatever. Today people are retarded over bikes and spending thousands of dollars without even knowing what they're buying. It's like another world to me. MTB has become trendy. Dear god help us.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm running a 1 x 10 with an 11-36 cassette. The range is just about right, but I hate the close ratios. When I shift, it's usually 2 or more gears at a time. The close ratios would be great for the road, but with constantly changing terrain on the trails I ride, I prefer to just vary my cadence and torque to the pedals instead of constantly shifting.

If an 11-36 7-speed was available, I'd be all over it.


----------

