GeorgeBMac

I use all 30 gears on my cyclocross as well. But I really don't need all 30. What I really need is the range from the lowest low to the highest high -- the stuff in between is more than I need. In fact, far too often I can't even feel the difference from one gear to the next on that 10 speed cassette and shift a second time. I would be just as happy with a 7, 8 or 9 speed that had the same range. Maybe if I was racing and pushing all out I would feel differently.

But, if wasn't using a triple up front I might also feel differently. Actually, I think the move away from triples down to double and even single cranks is driving a lot of the push towards more gears on the cassette.

For myself though, I say "Long Live the Triple!"

Burton

Don't have a clue where you get that stuff. Mechanical failures have occurred to lots of racers regardless of whether they were using the latest stuff or not. When companies like Shimano introduce new products they do their best to engineer them to be better across the board. That means stronger, more precise, easier to use and with better user interfaces. Chains are no exception. Maybe you want to look at some of the testing thats being done to confirm that claims of 'better' aren't just smoke and mirrors.
https://www.bikerumor.com/2013/02/19/...e-the-results/

jsdavis

Pretty much this. A 50/34 with 12-30 10sp cassette has the same gear range as a 50/39/30 with 12-26.

Kimmo 

Problem is (do we agree front shifting sucks?), that 34t means a whole bunch of front shifting at cruising speed, which blows. At least the triple pretty much delineates uphill from cruising from downhill/tailwind.

And if you think about it, ideally the gaps between ratios get smaller as speed rises, but the opposite happens on the back once you get to the 1t jumps. The only way to make those gaps smaller is to shift onto a bigger ring, so as far as ratios go, the perfect system would have only a few cogs and many chainrings...

Unfortunately the most efficient drive system involves inescapable compromise on this front... it's a bummer. I'd like to build up a speed machine around a NuVinci 360, and see how that goes.

fietsbob

Really the expensive part is done.. the tooling to make the stuff.. the machinery in the Shimano factory has paid fot itself.


now the continued making more parts is cheaper, so more profitable.

oldbobcat

With an 11-28 cassette I can stay in the compact big ring almost all day, until I hit a categoried climb or a monster headwind. But the jumps around the slow end of the cassette can be a little annoying.

Some guys embrace compact doubles and others won't part with a triple until you pry it from their cold dead fingers. I understand.

Kimmo 

I ran 52/42 until only a couple of years ago, when I went to 53/39, which bothered me a bit but wasn't too bad, and it was nice to have fewer redundant combos. I'm trying out a 50/34 on one of my bikes, but I don't think it's for me...

I like to be doing more than 30-odd clicks before I have to shift into the big ring, and 34/14 @90rpm is only 26km/h.

I don't have to deal with too many hills, so I only need to go down to about 1.7:1 or so. I made do with 2:1 for 15 years.

krobinson103

I have a 21 speed mtb, a 16 speed roadie and a 27 speed mtb. I have to say that the deore shifting is far superior BUT the range is similar to the old indexed 21. In fact the extra speeds make no difference to me. I see no reason to go beyond 9 speed. As long as cassettes and chains are available I'll stick to what I have.

DX-MAN

jimc, you need to look twice; a 5-y-o bike (basically a 2008) does not differ significantly from a 2014, and most of what would make the difference is interchangeable. Mid-90's to '05 made a UNIVERSE of difference, though! The improvements that have come down the line over about the last 3-5 years have been things like tapered headsets, the perfection of the dw-link, the addition of the 142mm rear hub spacing, to accommodate the external BB design (less of an innovation than the 92mm press-in BB idea, IMO); 10-speed and 11-speed are largely gratuitous, with advantages mostly to racers (who may well need the gear spreads they can achieve with these setups).

*8-speed* rear ends are still performing out there, doing VERY well, and saving riders money in the process -- you actually think a drivetrain that takes a $269 cassette is necessarily BETTER?

So, in answer to your question: I ride an '06 Kona Coiler, with a lot of '05 components, and will ride that sucker to DEATH; when it DOES finally die, I MAY or MAY NOT replace it with a Process (or whatever Kona replaces that with by then). You won't convince me, though, that the new ride will be leagues above my present one.

jimc101

Threads like these are always controversial, the simple thing is, that most posting on the BF Mechanics don't like change, or want to move with the times, thinking that every innovation / technological update is going to cost them money, and is not necessary.

Take a 2006 bike, with won't have a a clutch (Shadow+) mech from stock, probably won't have had a tapered steerer, not saying that these are essential for making a bike better in 2013, but at the same time, if you were to buy a bike today without them, even a mid range bike, means the bike is not future proofed for the next few years. When you come to replace you Coiler, your going to have to move with this times, for convincing you, where did that come from?

Having had a quick look through the thread, there are a post about 12 speed, which doesn't exist for any type of drive train yet. What I said at the beginning, was that MTB's have stuck with legacy parts, and I still stand by this, I wasn't saying that they didn't work, just they aren't suitable for modern riding, perhaps this would have been better put as being they aren't optimal rather than suitable.

For the $269 cassette, take it you mean the SRAM XX, not sure why you have bought this up, as it's the first time it's been mentioned, Go ride it i you like, I woudl rather buy one with better which last longer than these seem to.

cny-bikeman

Five years old is not "modern?" I must disagree, as derailleurs do basically the same thing they have always done, and chain technology has not changed appreciably in that time frame. I'd rather have my 5 year old bike with the 8 speed cassette than a 10 block with a useless 11 tooth cog. Component designers care more about merchandising than about function, and to be cynical, but I think accurate, they are just fine with you wearing things out faster, which is going to happen with smaller chainwheels and cogs. I will find a way to keep my 48/38/28 12-32 bike going for a very long time.

Medic Zero

I think it'd be more interesting to see the durability of 8S vs 9 or 10 rather than the linked articles 9S vs 10S study.

I'm quite happy with 8 speed, and it would take a more rigorous test than the linked one to convince me that thinner chains somehow last longer.

rebel1916

Actually racers are usually more concerned with having more options to maintain their cadence, than with the gear spreads, which have largely similar options amongst all of the above systems.

GeorgeBMac

That's a good point...

I am far less likely to worry about keeping up my cadence than I am about getting up that damn hill any way I can short of pushing.

Unfortunately, it seems that the cycling community applies the criteria used by the racers to their own equipment -- yet most riders are not racers. The majority seem to be either retired folks or younger folks using their bikes as transportation...

But that doesn't mean that we will accept inferior equipment. To be perfectly honest, I need a good, light, well performing bike not to go faster but to compensate for an older body that sat rusting in an office cubical for 45 years...

dbg

Still being available is one thing. Being cheaper is another. I would like to standardize all my road projects on 9-speed drivetrains. But I am discovering I can get 10 speed ultegra shifters cheaper than 9 speed ultegra shifters these days.

bradtx

GBM, The old adage in the automotive industry of "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday." also applies to the cycling industry. The high end models are the bait that draws in new buyers of lower tier models.

For road bikes 9S has been 'obsolete' for quite awhile now, it's now mountain biking's turn, as is the concept of covering a triple's range with two chain rings. There is a large contingent of serious recreational and club riders along with the two groups you pointed out. They often buy the latest and greatest big buck products, similar to the rabid golf players, or those into computers for a couple of examples.

I see all of the latest offerings as good for the cyclist as more options are now available than ever before WRT the drivetrain. For roadies it seems the compact double/wide range 10S cassette is best suited to those that ride in hilly areas. Those riding primarily in flatter terrain tend to favor non compacts and closer ratio cassettes. There are cross over users of both systems, of course. Where the 2X10 fits into mountain biking is yet to be seen, but I don't think it's going to be as polarizing as it seems to be in road biking mainly because I can't think of a single episode riding XC or technical trails where I trimmed for a head or a tail wind.

Brad

GeorgeBMac

There is another factor at play between road and mountain:
I've noticed it is a LOT trickier to shift the rings on my triple 105 (5600 series) than it is to shift my flat bar Deore/Alivio triple. I tend to 'miss' a lot more shifts on the 105 and have to pay a lot more attention to the shift than I do on my flat bar bike with the triple. The problem seems to be the 'half shift' trim on the 105 that doesn't exist on my flat bar shifters. Plus the distance the lever has to move to shift the 105 is FAR longer than the short little click on my Deore shifters. Shifting the front rings on the Deore is pretty similar to shifting the rear cassette: Click! and it's done. I can't say the same for my 105's...

I am not surprised that a lot of the road riders do not like front shifts.

For me, I find it annoying but not a problem. I only shift out of the middle ring when I need a bigger or smaller ring -- and then only for longer or exceptional circumstances (like a 25-30 degree hill on the entrance to my favorite trail) or a 5-10 mile long downhill.

gsa103

In answer to OPs question:

Yes. 9-speed is obsolete from your perspective. New mountain systems are all 10-speed and are unlikely to go back to 9-speed. If you want upper-tier components move to 10-speed.

9-speed will continue to exist for a VERY long time in low end group-sets though. So there will be replacement part options for 10+ years.

If you look at road bikes, 8-speed continues to exist with Claris, 9-speed as Sora, 10-speed Tiagra/105/Ultegra, 11-speed Dura-Ace.

Ultegra/105 will be moving to 11-speed shortly, but the other speeds continue to live on.

The lower gear counts will always have an advantage for cheaper systems because they can run with wider spacing, more cable pull, etc.

Chris516

I can attest to this, since I have an 8-speed chainring, with three in the front, which gives me twenty-four gears. But I don't go higher than 22 in the gears. Because triangulating the chain for an extended period of time, stretches the chain links, and bends the teeth on the chainrings. A chain is easier to replace, than a multi-speed chairring.

Jiggle

Search on ebay or craigslist for "dura ace". You can find all the NOS parts you want, sometimes for very cheap. I got a set of NOS 7400 hubs for $50. What is that, a 15 year old part?

TallRider

It's at least a 20-year-old part. But won't the 8-speed front hub be incompatible with other modern components?

HillRider

Uh, "8-speed front hub"? What's that? Joking? If there is one component that hasn't changed in decades, it's front hubs.

Chris516

Robbie McEwen, Bob Roll, or Paul Sherwin?
I actually looked into going to a a 9 or 10-speed setup. I am glad you mentioned that. Makes me glad, I only have an 8-speed setup.

anixi

Phil Ligett

Burton

Personally I'm not out to convince anyone. I figured out a long time ago that most people start with an opinion based on personal bias and simply look for 'facts' that'll justify their position.

But if long term durability is really an issue for you, there are a number of customers than come in the shop with bikes that date back to the 50's and 60's. They weigh a ton and most parts are discontinued but they're in near mint condition and will obviously last forever so of you wanna swap - maybe we can work out a trade for what you have now.