With all due respect to your credentials as an English teacher, I'm not sure that's technically correct.

You can have a group of chess pieces, that are not a set. You can have a group of bicycle parts that are not a groupset. Conversely, I think we can have a set of something that is not a group. A single set of salt and pepper shakers come to mind. But if you collect salt and pepper shakers, you would have a group of salt and pepper sets.

The words set and group have slightly different meanings, even if the difference is somewhat nuanced.

i refer to mine as the HVAC system.

No complete gruppo though. Campagnolo shifty bits but Cannondale Cranks and Spinergy hubs.

You mean HVAC systemgroup.

a group is a set with an operation that satisfies the following constraints: the operation is associative and has an identity element, and every element of the set has an inverse element.

You guys are making me go back to my number theory/language theory class days.

scott s.
.

OK admit as a native English I'm biased, but in my (mostly failed) attempts at learning other language I don't see that. I mean, due to the various cultural invasions over time, common words in English have been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Look at grammar -- conjugations, declensions, English seems reduced to a minimum. None of this agricola, agricolae, agricalarum or hic, haec, hoc. Verb tenses maybe a wash. Or look at East Asian with the honorifics. Don't think a westerner could ever get that right.

As far as dialects/slang what culture doesn't have that?

scott s.
.

You mean like moviefilm?

And that's without even getting into sets in mathematics, which are usually contained in curly brackets {...}.

What's the problem with this exactly? Doubling synonyms is a standard way many languages construct words.

1. Pathway (path + way)
2. Courtyard (court + yard)
3. Safeguard (safe + guard)
4. Nonetheless (none + less)

And it's not just English:
https://websites.umich.edu/~duanmu/Diachronica99.pdf

Group and set are not complete synonyms. A group is a number of things. A set implies that there is some connection between the things. If you have a group of silverware, it means you have a bunch of spoons in a drawer. If you have a set of silverware, it means you have a curated collection of spoons that were manufactured to be used together.

A groupset is a number of things that have a connection to each other, meant to operate as a complete system.

+1. Well reasoned. I made a similar point dozens back, but you said it better, particularly about double synonyms.

Yes. My point, though, was that "group" (as in, e.g., "Shimano 105 group") was the commonly used term until "groupset" began appearing. Why replace a perfectly adequate term with a newer one that means exactly the same but is redundant in at least two senses? No one would argue that "Shimano 105 group" and "Shimano 105 groupset" differ in meaning, I hope.

(And, as you must have noticed when you typed your reply, the Bike Forums spellchecker agrees with me in rejecting the neologism "groupset" but is perfectly happy with the four counter-examples you offered above.)

Then a poster pointed out that the newer term probably arose in Great Britain, where "chainset" was already in use. That explained that.

A groupset is specific in a way that a group is not so perhaps the term has a (perceived) value to its users. In any case, there are no magical rules about words other than agreement by users as to which terms to use and the range of meanings to ascribe to those words.

While “chainset” has long been in common use here in the UK, it doesn’t make much sense. It doesn’t even include the chain!

It does include chainrings at least.

Drawing any conclusion about the validity of a word based on its exclusion from a spell checker dictionary is misguided. Most spell checkers start out with a default dictionary that is supplemented with words that are appropriate (and possibly unique) for the subject. There is no deep meaning behind the absence of groupset from the BF dictionary -- it's missing only because no one has bothered to add it.

Can you provide a sentence in which the (standard) term "group" and the (new) term "groupset" are not perfectly interchangeable?

By the way, the Bike Forums spellchecker continues to reject "groupset." Evidently it finds the word unacceptable as an example of American Engjish. I just tested some British English spellings (e.g., calibre, manoeuvre, reconnoitre), which it also found unacceptable. So "groupset" is apparently OK in British English but not in American English.

Of course there are no magical rules about words. But there are rules, and you follow them. For instance, you would likely prefer to use American English spellings in your own writing. "Groupset" does not represent a difference in spelling between U.S. and British English. But it's an example of specialized jargon that has established a beachhead in Brit English but not yet U.S. English.

It also continues to reject wheelset and chainset -- do you have a problem with those words?

Those are both usefully specific. There's no equivalent simpler preexisting single term that can be used in their place.

Unlike "groupset."

Well, there's "wheels." But chainset is the only succinct term available to express what would take a series of alternative words to describe.

Now, if only I knew exactly what a "chainset" includes.

Or what a "cockpit" (in the cycling sense) is, exactly, for that matter.

Groupset does require less context. If, out of the blue, you tell a bike-riding buddy "I gotta get a new group." He might think you're talking about something at work, or maybe AA meetings. However if you go with groupset, he'll know what you're talking about with that sentence alone.

Generally a pair of crankarms and 1-3 chainrings.

Nowadays I don't know what a groupset, or group, or gruppo consists of, so this is the first time I have used those words in many years. It used to include hubs, seatpost, pedals, and, inexplicably, a set of dropouts. I know there are reasons why those things are no longer included.

Does bikeforums have a spellchecker? I think that's your browser at work. Surely bikeforum's spellchecker would allow "bikeforums." And if it's a site specific spell check, I'm going to have them add "framebuilder."

You're citing the rejection of "groupset" by the BF spellchecker as confirmation that it's an invalid term. But, you're not applying that same standard to "wheelset" or "chainset", which you think are valid terms.

Again: "groupset" = "group," as used in bikespeak.

"Wheelset" = "wheels," arguably, but is a long-established term.

"Chainset" = no other single term I'm aware of.

"Groupset" (as I've learned since I started this thread) came into use in British English as a back-formation from "chainset" by replacement of "chain" by "group." "Chainset" = drive train group; "groupset" = complete group of all relevant components, not just the drive train components. A useful term.

Since "chainset" has never caught on in American English, "groupset" is a needless addition to the cycling lexicon in the U.S. It adds nothing to the meaning of "group." Its only merit: it is satisfying insider jargon. A shibboleth for those in the know.

Generally only crankarms + chainrings + chainring hardware when needed

No chain, no cassette included.

I should add that if you didn't spend enough time on British bikeshop websites between 2010-2020 to learn what a chainset is, then you likely missed out on some REALLY good deals.