Bicycle Mechanics - Why the ever more number of gears

Really------isnt the ever more increase in the number of gears on the freewheel over kill. Even if we are talking about a 7 or 8 speec cassette--------who really uses all of them? Isnt it really just an example of the manuf to keep making more money off people that has to have the "latest" on their bikes. Granted if you are talking an Aveo a Chevvy Malibu is a far better car, but what extra do you really get with a Lexus over a Malibu. Mainly snob appeal.

It's done solely to piss you off. However, I do somehow manage to use every cog on my 8, 9, and 10 speed bikes on almost every ride. Obviously, these systems were not created to piss me off, hence my earlier conclusion.

It's to help you maintain a higher, more efficient cadence (90 to 105 rpm at the crank). This is especially important when riding in a fast group or when fighting a hard head wind.
I use every cassette cog on every ride, 9 and 10 speeds.

You don't really need more than 8 cogs if you ride in the flatlands of Nebraska, but come to the Colorado mountains and you'll appreciate having more.

Using Campy 11, I've managed to switch from a triple to a compact crank and still have a cassette with close cog spacing. I don't have quite as much low gear, but it's adequate. With 10 speed I can use the same 11-25 cassette, but then I lose the 16T cog and get a big jump in the middle. It's not a huge problem, but occasionally annoying. I can't complain about the extra cog with 11 speed.

Well, I don't know about 11 ;)

I do remember that going from 6 to 8 in the back made it much easier for me to go on group rides. It's not such a huge deal when setting your own pace but when you're in a pace line it's really nice to have closely spaced gears so that you can fine tune your speed while maintaining the cadence you want.

I'm content with 9 but I could see how somebody really serious might want more. If 11 allows you to dispense with the triple, that's huge too.

Get a horse...

Marketing.

the main reason to go from 5 or 6 to 10+ was to make the transition between gears smoother. insted of a 2 or three tooth jusp to go from a 12t to a 23 or 24 now you only jump one tooth. thus this make index shifting sommther.

however I do agree to a point with the OP it is alot of marketing hype. just as in recent years the firearms industry and come out with several "new" cartridges ie a .270 Winchester Short Magnum. oddly it has almost the exact same bullistics as a normal .270 Winchester but, the firearm weighs 1/4 pound less so you it is a must have to save weight on your next Elk hunt.

To the OP, I say GET A FIXIE! You'll love it. :)

The human engine has a narrow power band, more gears helps you stay in it more. AND I'm sure the racing scene drives what we have in a big way. Theres no downside to more gears unless its more expensive components, or the fact you can't run cross chain combos like you could on your old Schwinn. They still make some with 5 or 6 cogs, go get one of them and ride it. If you like it, then good for you. Its win-win for you and us.

There's another advantage that's probably not very obvious to people who are into bikes. That is that cycling novices are often confused by front shifters. In fact my wife would never shift the front derailleur until after her 2nd triathlon because she didn't really understand how it works.

Can't blame her, the left and right shifter typically work the opposite way from each other. The same button on the left that makes pedaling "easier", makes it harder on the right. Aside from that, a front derailleur that goes out of adjustment can easily lead to dropped or jammed chains.

So in my mind if more gears on the back allows for just a single ring on the front, that's progress for casual bikers.

Really------isnt the ever more increase in the number of gears on the freewheel over kill.

Why do you ask?

"These go to eleven" Nigel from Spinal Tap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY

I usually ride a mono speed... anything after that is a bonus and I find I need less gears on the road than I do on the trail. The mtb needs the gearing to get me there and gearing to handle some serious terrain.

If I drove to the trail head I could eliminate a lot of the mtb's gearing.

The road bike only needs the "getting me there" gears and for this 12 speeds is enough.

If I was racing competitively I'd be just as involved in the arms race as anyone.

I ride an eight speed and a ten speed and I notice the slightly bigger jumps in the gearing on the eight speed. It's not an issue really as I mostly ride the eight speed to work and back. However on group rides where I'm struggling to keep up with people who race competitively and think 25mph is a good flat road cruising speed, the tighter gear spacing is valuable as I'm able to stay within my power band at 90-95RPM.

It's only a matter of time before Shimano figures out how to do half steps between cogs, and then the 20 speed (x 2 or 3) will be the next must have drivetrain for racing.

I won't have enough gears until I've got a 12-24t straightblock!

Really------isnt the ever more increase in the number of gears on the freewheel over kill. Even if we are talking about a 7 or 8 speec cassette--------who really uses all of them? Isnt it really just an example of the manuf to keep making more money off people that has to have the "latest" on their bikes. Granted if you are talking an Aveo a Chevvy Malibu is a far better car, but what extra do you really get with a Lexus over a Malibu. Mainly snob appeal.

I'm going to take a wild stab at it and say that in Nebraska, you probably don't need that many. In Oregon, West Virginia, Cali, Montana...those extra gears, particularly the lower ones, come in pretty darn handy.

I've also got to take issue with the car analogy. A Chevy Malibu offers more space than an Aveo, but is about as reliable. Most Lexus's are about the most reliable car ever made. Now if you'd said, "Isn't a Cadillac an overpriced Malibu?" Yes, that's true, especially since most Caddies are less reliable than Malibu's. Refer to Consumer Reports.

To the OP, I say GET A FIXIE! You'll love it. :)

The human engine has a narrow power band, more gears helps you stay in it more. AND I'm sure the racing scene drives what we have in a big way. Theres no downside to more gears unless its more expensive components, or the fact you can't run cross chain combos like you could on your old Schwinn. They still make some with 5 or 6 cogs, go get one of them and ride it. If you like it, then good for you. Its win-win for you and us.

The weird thing is this: When I ride my single speed, I don't really miss the gears. I have three modes: coasting, pedaling seated and pedaling standing. I climb some pretty steep hills with 69 gear inches and get a lot of speed out of them too (to the point that I don't really average a faster speed with a geared bike). People talk about maintaining cadence, but I can ride longer if I vary the cadence. I really don't get why anyone would need more than about 5 or 7 gears on the rear wheel.

The weird thing is this: When I ride my single speed, I don't really miss the gears. I have three modes: coasting, pedaling seated and pedaling standing. I climb some pretty steep hills with 69 gear inches and get a lot of speed out of them too (to the point that I don't really average a faster speed with a geared bike). People talk about maintaining cadence, but I can ride longer if I vary the cadence. I really don't get why anyone would need more than about 5 or 7 gears on the rear wheel.

It's true. The gears are useful but more of a hassle. Singlespeeds are certainly very pleasant.

Maintaining cadence does conserve energy, but it takes training to maintain higher and higher cadences. My guess is that when you are changing your cadence, you are exercising your muscles differently, which gives you some reprieve, but if you timed yourself on a course maintaining 90 rpm, and then again varying cadence, you'd be much faster with higher cadence up to about 110 rpm. I say this because I feel the same way, but when I time myself both ways, I am much faster when I keep a higher cadence in slightly lower (or more options of) gears.

I really don't get why anyone would need more than about 5 or 7 gears on the rear wheel.

I really don't get the obsession on this forum with denigrating the gearing choice of everyone besides yourself . If you are happy with your gearing, great. If not, change it to what works for you and not what others feel you should be using. That includes increasing the number or rear cogs and/or chainrings or removing or resizing the same.

Why? It sells bikes.

Why would anybody want anything besides a 286 processor and 14.4kb internet connection? Daggum speed demons. Always showing off.

A 286 processor played solitaire just fine and you can get pac-man, too!

I find that having finer spacing between gears really makes a difference when I'm very tired. I'm happy I have 10 gears in back!

The weird thing is this: When I ride my single speed, I don't really miss the gears. I have three modes: coasting, pedaling seated and pedaling standing. I climb some pretty steep hills with 69 gear inches and get a lot of speed out of them too (to the point that I don't really average a faster speed with a geared bike). People talk about maintaining cadence, but I can ride longer if I vary the cadence. I really don't get why anyone would need more than about 5 or 7 gears on the rear wheel.

Well, like I said, if you're setting your own pace, it's less of an issue. If you're riding in a group where the rider at the head of the line is setting the pace, then it's nice to have lots of gear choices so you can match the speed utilizing a cadence that's comfortable for you rather than being forced to pedal at an uncomfortable cadence to maintain that pace. For that matter you can vary cadence while maintaining the same speed if that helps keep you from getting fatigued.

With my old 80's road bike I found it more difficult to ride with people because at least once in awhile I'd get in a situation where one gear was too low for my liking but the next gear was too high.

The greater number of cogs at the rear, and their closer spacing, does make indexing adjustment more critical, at least theoretically. I also strongly suspect that the current 9, 10 and 11 speed chains have a shorter life than the 6 through 8 speed chains did. Cassette cogs with their shaped teeth and ramps, as well as thinner bodies, also seem to wear faster.

Much of the increase in cog counts is marketing driven I am sure but it can help the competitive cyclist by allowing a more steady cadence via smaller steps between gears.

But if you have a triple in front and 11 in back that gives 33 speeds. How many are repeats, or so close as not to make any difference. Also wont the skinney chain wear faster??

But if you have a triple in front and 11 in back that gives 33 speeds. How many are repeats, or so close as not to make any difference. Also wont the skinney chain wear faster??

Somebody already noted the use of compact doubles and their effectiveness with an 11 speed rear.

But if you have a triple in front and 11 in back that gives 33 speeds. How many are repeats, or so close as not to make any difference. Also wont the skinney chain wear faster??

Who cares how many are repeats? On a given chainring, none will repeat. Do you actually try to shift in sequence (changing chainrings and cassette cogs each shift)? I sure don't but then again I'm not too stubborn to use new technology which allows for very even spacing between gears on a given chainring.

I really don't get the obsession on this forum with denigrating the gearing choice of everyone besides yourself . If you are happy with your gearing, great. If not, change it to what works for you and not what others feel you should be using. That includes increasing the number or rear cogs and/or chainrings or removing or resizing the same.

"Denigrating"? I just said I didn't understand it; I didn't say it was evil. Sheesh, lighten up, Francis.

It's done solely to piss you off.
+1. Anything after 5 cogs is a conspiracy to infuriate the OP. Appears to be working.

"Denigrating"? I just said I didn't understand it; I didn't say it was evil. Sheesh, lighten up, Francis.

You really don't understand it? Really? You can't imagine any scenario where it might be useful? Nothing?

Whatever....

The automotive industry is doing the same thing although at a slower pace. Years ago, automatics were 3 speeds. Now, 6 speed automatics are getting more common. Why? More efficient use of energy over varying road conditions.

A few years ago Sheldon Brown predicted that within the next 5 years that, in regard to anything besides performance oriented bikes, most recreational and utilitarian models would be fitted with internal gear hubs with 8 speeds as these offered all the range most people could ever want or need.

Now Shimano is offering an 11 speed IGH which has 25 % more range than the 8 speed.

His prediction seems to be coming true as more and more models are coming equipped with or offer an IGH as an option and these are even being used for off road and touring applications.

At one time most bikes were equipped with internally geared hubs with 3 and 4 speeds and these were supplanted by deraileur gears when these offered wider gear ranges... it has now it has come full circle where an IGH can offer the same range as most deraileur systems.

I am still pretty happy to run an old 3 speed hub as it offers me the gear range I need for most riding... folks who have to deal with epic climbs might want a little more but in many places of the world a steep hill merely means that you will be walking the bike.

It depends. One of my bicycles is 7sp 13-21 , the other 9sp 12-23, both 52/42. I ride on flat roads, so I almost never use the 12 or 23. Even the 13 or 21 are rarely used, so 5 or 6sp would work for me. But for hilly country, I'd choose a 10sp 12-25 53/39 any day.

I sure don't use all the cogs and the granny ring. Likely due to the fact that I try to avoid hills.

Obviously the OP has superhuman legs and doesn't mind going from a cadence of 110 to 80 when shifting up into a headwind.


It's only a matter of time before Shimano figures out how to do half steps between cogs, and then the 20 speed (x 2 or 3) will be the next must have drivetrain for racing.It's a damn shame there's no such thing as a 98% efficient CVT... I turn my nose up at IGHs for the same reason.

As for half-steps, that's never gonna happen until a shorter chain pitch comes along. A 6Al4V Ti chain might be able to be shrunk down to say, 9mm pitch...

In the meantime, I spose you could opt for bigger rings and cogs.

Obviously the OP has superhuman legs and doesn't mind going from a cadence of 110 to 80 when shifting up into a headwind.

It's a damn shame there's no such thing as a 98% efficient CVT... I turn my nose up at IGHs for the same reason.

As for half-steps, that's never gonna happen until a shorter chain pitch comes along. A 6Al4V Ti chain might be able to be shrunk down to say, 9mm pitch...

In the meantime, I spose you could opt for bigger rings and cogs.

Interesting. With a 9mm pitch chain, you could have what, like 60t F/15-20t R?

Obviously the OP has superhuman legs and doesn't mind going from a cadence of 110 to 80 when shifting up into a headwind.

It's a damn shame there's no such thing as a 98% efficient CVT... I turn my nose up at IGHs for the same reason.

As for half-steps, that's never gonna happen until a shorter chain pitch comes along. A 6Al4V Ti chain might be able to be shrunk down to say, 9mm pitch...

In the meantime, I spose you could opt for bigger rings and cogs.

The efficiency of internal gear hubs is far better than you think... a deraileur system will be slightly more efficient until you introduce a little dirt into it or start cross chaining and then the IGH becomes a clear winner and will remain highly efficient in the worst conditions.

You can also get astounding chain life on an IGH as without any deflection it is subjected to far less wear and sheering forces.

Interesting. With a 9mm pitch chain, you could have what, like 60t F/15-20t R?

Shimano tried to introduce 10mm / .39 inch pitch chain in the early 80's in an effort to reduce component weight... it never caught on.

The automotive industry is doing the same thing although at a slower pace. Years ago, automatics were 3 speeds. Now, 6 speed automatics are getting more common. Why? More efficient use of energy over varying road conditions.

Actually there have been many two speed automatics, Chevy Power Glide one of the better known.
Over the last few years the Germans have sold many seven speed automatics.

I have a real road bike and my C-X bike. The C-X bike is a 1x9. Same gear spread as the road bike with bigger jumps.

I find myself riding the 1x9 more. No handicap even on fast rides. I find on the road bike I am usually shifting twice anyway.

-Z

Actually there have been many two speed automatics, Chevy Power Glide one of the better known.
Over the last few years the Germans have sold many seven speed automatics.
Sure enough the Powerglide was indeed a two speed. Buick had a Dynaflow transmission that was a one-speed in normal use and relied on it's torque-converter for all "gearing". It had a manually selected low gear but it wasn't used in normal driving. These were among the poorest transmissions ever inflicted on the automotive world.

Mercedes currently has a 7-speed automatic but Toyota has one-upped them with an 8-speed in some Lexus models.

Then there are the continuously variable transmissions that Ford, Nissan and several others use and these have an invifite number of "gears".

The truth is that we need more gears because we're getting bigger and heavier. As a 20 year old I used to ride a 53/44 on the front with a 12-18 straight up cluster on the rear so every gear was one tooth bigger or smaller than it's neighbour. Now I find that I need a 53/39 with a 12-25 on the rear or I can't get up the steep hills. As someone said, if we were all superhuman we'd only need six or seven speeds maximum. My father rode a single speed bike with a hub brake and he lived on what I would consider a pretty steep hill, we are definitely the weaker generation ;-)

The efficiency of internal gear hubs is far better than you think... a deraileur system will be slightly more efficient until you introduce a little dirt into it or start cross chaining and then the IGH becomes a clear winner and will remain highly efficient in the worst conditions.I was under the impression frictional losses in IGHs are in the order of around 16%.


Shimano tried to introduce 10mm / .39 inch pitch chain in the early 80's in an effort to reduce component weight... it never caught on.O_o

Far out. Bummer...

Maybe they should give it another crack. With a 42t front ring, I find the jump between 16t and 15t a bit much sometimes...

I was under the impression frictional losses in IGHs are in the order of around 16%.

O_o

Far out. Bummer...

Maybe they should give it another crack. With a 42t front ring, I find the jump between 16t and 15t a bit much sometimes...

The Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub is one of the most efficient drives ever made and when it is properly lubricated and run in will have drive a drive efficiency of 97% in high which exceeds most derailer equipped bikes.

Sachs has reported their 3 speed drives to be 94% efficient in low which is only a 6% loss.

As you add more gears to an IGH they lose a little efficiency although this is offset by higher durability and there's another thing I forget to mention... you get a much stronger wheel when you have no dish and shorter spokes.

With lower speed IGH drives you have very high drive efficiency but this can impact the efficiency of the rider as the jumps between gears are between 33 and 36 %.

The new Shimano 11 speed is oil lubricated which should increase the hub's efficiency a good deal... not that the 8 speed is bad.

The Nuvinci CVT is probably the way to go for anyone who can't deal with a one tooth jump as a constantly variable drive has a seamless gearing transition but suffers in that it weighs 8 pounds.

:)

The weird thing is this: When I ride my single speed, I don't really miss the gears. I have three modes: coasting, pedaling seated and pedaling standing. I climb some pretty steep hills with 69 gear inches and get a lot of speed out of them too (to the point that I don't really average a faster speed with a geared bike). People talk about maintaining cadence, but I can ride longer if I vary the cadence. I really don't get why anyone would need more than about 5 or 7 gears on the rear wheel.

I ride fixed a lot and I get it, I also used to ride a 6 speed. My 9 speed right now feels so nice in comparison to the 6 speed

The Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub is one of the most efficient drives ever made and when it is properly lubricated and run in will have drive a drive efficiency of 97% in high which exceeds most derailer equipped bikes.

Sachs has reported their 3 speed drives to be 94% efficient in low which is only a 6% loss. Gee, that's not so bad at all... but close ratios and IGHs seem mutually exclusive...


The Nuvinci CVT is probably the way to go for anyone who can't deal with a one tooth jump as a constantly variable drive has a seamless gearing transition but suffers in that it weighs 8 pounds.Now that's seriously nifty.

Hopefully future generations of the design can be made dramatically more compact... does it really need to cope with 130Nm? That's as much torque as a small four-cylinder makes! I'm down for one as soon as it starts approaching a kilo...

But having spotted this browsing around, I'm more interested in the SIVAT (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2667394369567824498&ei=m4kVS8LTFI7A-AbI4o2oCQ#). It has a feedback loop so your controller would just be for desired cadence, and the prototype is already more compact than the NuVinci.

Someone should throw that poor Simkins bloke (http://infinitelyvariabletransmission.blogspot.com/) some $$ already.

It's not true that humans have a narrow power band. It's really wider than a car's. You can start up in top gear without a slipping clutch. It's just not fun on a bike. With a car, it's not possible.

We do have a lower power-to-weight ratio than cars, though. That's why we want more gears than a car has.

Having more gears does not give you a higher high or a lower low. These are possible with a 2x5 setup. The advantage of more gears is that they're spaced more closely. This is pleasant, but it's not necessary. I've been riding a 12-speed bike (2x6) for a long time. I recently built up a 27-speed bike (2x9) so it has more gears than I'm used to. It's terribly pleasant, but if I were forced to go back, it wouldn't be a big deal for me.

Oh, and I am annoyed at the trend of adding more and more. It makes drivetrains less durable, and upgrading is impossible or prohibitively expensive. So is just keeping something going!

For all the true advantages a freehub offers, I still like my bikes with freewheels.

Regarding evenly spaced gears, I have the oldish 3x8 setup in my hybrid. When commuting, I find myself sticking to the middle front ring, and running through rear gears as needed. If I'm touring, I use the small front ring more, but even then I prefer staying mostly on the same front gear. On flat road, with heavy load / trailer and headwind, I may monkey around with front/rear gear combinations to find one that best suits my speed. My winter bike may have had its big front ring used once cirka 2007:).

How many would actually run through the various front-rear combinations to stay on the most effective or evenly spaced "path" when accelerating, for example? For me, the front gears serve to provide occasionally much needed extension in the very high or very low end. It seems I don't need more than 7-8 gears (if even that) in the cassette, but it might be nice. I'm sure the 14-gear Rohloff with even spacing would be even nicer in that regard.

--J