Up until approx 1980 we had 10 speed bikes. After that the bike industry started their march to ever more gears by increasing the number of sprockets on the freewheel. Right now as far as I know we are up to 12 speeds in the rear. My question is isnt that overkill? I feel this is true especially when you throw into the mix that a good percentage of us have triples in front. So do we really need 36 speeds? Or is the march to ever more speeds just a marketing ploy to dip into the pockets of cyclist that need "the latest thing"?

I know when you posted "Up until approx 1980 we had 10 speed bikes" you were actually referring to 5 speed freewheels at the rear.

I agree that there is little need or advantage for most riders to have 10 or more speeds in back. It costs a lot more and is not as robust as the 5-8, and even 9 speed systems. Thankfully, many of us are smart enough to not fall for the hype of every "advancement"... if you can call it that.

I have a 2x8 road bike and a 3x9 longtail. Interestingly, if you eliminate the duplicate gear combinations that have the same gear inches, I have 11 different speeds on the 2x8 and just 14! different speeds on the longtail.

Keith

The 12 speed cassettes aren't designed for use with triples, but rather doubles.

And it isn't a question of how many speeds, it's a question of total gear range and how close are they spaced.

So, no, it's not overkill.

And we were all doing just fine with friction shifting until that Shimano Index System thing was forced onto us in the Eighties. Why can't things just stay the way they are?? If something works OK, why mess with it?
(But, don't touch my trigger shifters.)

Up until sometime in the early '80s, higher math (multiplication) was generally understood by the cycling public. So referring to 2 X 5 as 10 was common. Now that requires the calculator function in one's pocket electronic device. It is easier and faster to just count cogs. There has been recent improvement in math skills though. Recent cyclists now can count beyond their fingers.

Ben

The more gears combined with electronic shifting is the thing. Not many do it because of the $$. Those who do, I think like it for several reasons.

High sprocket counts work best in the high-end groupsets for which they were designed, with advanced materials and design. Once you try and replicate the count using simple stamped steel sprocket, you get issues.
Thin cogs in larger sizes can get flexy as the required precision gets tighter.

As high sprocket counts trickle down the groupsets, it will become increasingly hard to create low-geared drop-bar bikes for touring that are durable and easy to maintain.

I see most of the so-called "advancements" in bicycles as nothing but pure marketing and planned obsolescence.

I'm actually yearning for downtube shifters. (Brifters just don't give you the same control; the same speed and ease of quickly shifting to the extremes)

I had to try a modern CF bike, just to see what all the fuss is about- so I bought a used Venge. I like it well enough- but mainly just because it is new and different. In practical terms, I think many aspects of it (like flange-less hubs and nipple-less rims) are stupid. They offer no real advantage, and yet make simple maintenance tasks more difficult.

I was perfectly satisfied with my old 8-speed bike; and ditto my 9-speed Klein. When I ride the Venge, I don't say "Boy, this 10-speed stuff is just so much better!". In-fact, I can't tell the difference. No advantage- but there is a disadvantage, as the wheels and other components are not compatible with my 9-speed! There must be 1000 different BB's out there now...everything's becoming proprietary.... it really disgusts me.

I refuse to buy 11-speed. Don't need it; don't want it; won't have a skinnier chain. Whether bikes or motor vehicles, as they keep foisting all this non-sense on us, and get further and further away from the things that really matter, I'm tending to buy older and older stuff.

My Venge, for all it's fancy modern technology, does not have a THING on my 18 year-old Klein! Not A THING.

The pinnacle of great engineering, is to be able to achieve flawless performance via the simplest means possible. Bicycles reached that point many years ago. Anything beyond that becomes a liability; and is purely a trade-off, for show/aesthetics/marketing.

And don't even get me started on electronic shifting! [Sorry, guys...] To me, that is just LUDICROUS.

It has never been a better time to be a cyclist. Though I fondly remember the 10 speed era, I am not nostalgic for it. While 11 speed cassettes seem like overkill, the advance from 5 speed freewheels to 8 speed freehubs seems like a big advance. In my experience as far as geared bikes go, for me, the jump from 6 to 7 speed, and friction to indexed shifting, and clipless pedals were the biggest advances. Some years ago after riding a 3 x 7 Bianchi hybrid, I switched back to a friction shifting 3 x 6 Schwinn LeTour Luxe touring bike. The two things I really noticed and not in a good way were the friction shifters, and the 6 speed freewheel.

Today I ride a steel Salsa Casseroll with 9 speed brifters and a Brooks Saddle. Old school meets modern. Best of both worlds, IMO.

This is a common complaint. The idea that business, and more specifically marketing, force products on consumers. Yet it is well known that consumers force the choices on businesses, at least up until those business can control a market completely. Sorry for your disappointment but life is short and uncertain, remaining healthy and open to change are probably your best bets for avoiding disappointment.

Regarding the number of gears. Use the ones you want/need and ignore the others. I have combinations I want using all three of my front rings but there are some combinations I don't use. YMMV.

I am inclined to agree re the push to 10 and 11 speed systems. For the average rider or even enthusiast, it is hard to see why they really need more than 8 or 9 speed. Disagree re clipless pedals, free hubs, and indexed shifting.

I think you must be missing the point of change. It is there to make riding more enjoyable not worse. The fact that you disagree with this notion explains why you agree with the OP but not why you're not enjoying the change. Maybe it's time to work on your technique.

I do enjoy my rides- whether riding my old Klein, or my '13 Venge....or [25 years ago] riding a department-store junker I resuscitated from a junk pile. But that's the thing- it's not about the equipment; it's about the ride and the rider.

On the older bikes, I never said to myself "Gee, I wish I had more gears!" Or "If only I could change gears by moving the brake levers!" or "These square-taper BB's sure suck; I sure wish someone would invent a plastic press-fit BB...yeah, that'd be the ticket!"

I never knew anyone who had complaints with their bicycles of any era. What I saw instead, was manufacturers coming out with new things, and then convincing consumers "why they need them". 100 years ago, businesses in the free market provided what consumers demanded. Then, starting with print media in the 1920's, and more so with the advent of TV in the 50's, marketing became all about "creating a need" for what you are selling. Google Edward Bernays, if you are not familiar (Sigmund Freud's nephew)....

I think BikeSnobNYC hit the nail on the head with his theory of the "Retrogrouch Breaking Point" -- that each person finds for themselves the point at which newer technology doesn't impress them enough to use. Cog count is a great example, because as the percentage of change keeps going down (from 5 to 6 cogs was a 20% increase -- very handy; 10 to 11 was only 10% -- hmm, did it shift or not?) you'll see more people coming out of the woodwork to question whether it's worth it. But as long as the stuff works, there won't be much real pushback.

I don't know about that. A few years ago, Shimano tried to push the coasting bike on the cycling public and that failed spectacularly

It isn't uncommon for individuals to use conspiracy theories to explain things but I don't. Convincing folks that they need things is far more difficult than offering them what they are asking for. The fact that you see this differently has more to do with your perspective than reality.

Now, I would be willing to bet that you would prefer a manual transmission to an automatic if given a choice and were you interested in driving a car. It would mesh with the comment you made earlier about the "pinnacle of engineering". You might also disagree with the notion that a vehicle with a continuously variable transmission (no set gear ratios but a smooth continuum of ratios) offers any benefits whatsoever. Yet many car manufacturers, responding to a demand for better fuel economy from their cars, have adopted continuously variable transmissions for the vehicles they sell to satisfy the demand for efficiency.

A human body is similar to a car engine. Both tend to operate most efficiently at a particular level of effort. That is the reason behind the increase in demand for more ratios in both cars and bikes. The ability to tune the gearing smoothly between the motor, or cyclist, and the effort at which it operates most efficiently is the benefit that you are apparently unaware of or missing out because of poor technique.

Seriously, Cale. "Conspiracy theories"? You obviously know nothing about advertising/marketing. Why do you think it is that in ads, instead of touting the benefits/durability/etc of a product, as they used to, today they use "pretty" women; or images of very carefully chosen types of people having a good time and smiling, to sell a product? Ditto why some bike manufacturers spend a lot of money sponsoring racers.....

And yes, I do prefer a manual transmission, because of the level of control it offers; and because of it's durability. Many cars of 40-50 years ago, with a 4cyl. or straight 6 and a stick could get as good/better MPGs than todays so-called "economy cars", while being more durable and offering more room and cargo capacity. The CVT might get a mile or 2 MPG out of a small engine pulling around a small car- but it's disposable- and any modest savings in the cost of fuel are more than offset by the fact that when the tranny goes south long before the rest of the car wears out, you basically have to throw it out and buy a new one, for many thousands of dollars- or just junk the whole car. Such is very typical of today's mentality and false economy.

Don't tell me people are demanding CVTs- LOL- most people didn't even know what they were a year or two ago. I know plenty of people who want sticks, but can't get them.

I stopped reading here. I have an MBA and know a bit about marketing.

i doubt if there is anything actually planned about the obsolescence (i understand it's just a common term and not to be taken literally, so no offense intended), anymore than a beagle with it's nose to the ground is planning on ending up anywhere in particular, it just follows the scent. the scent in this case is the sweet smell of money. and i pretty much agree with the rest of the post, i just removed it because it got in the way.

There is a Requirement to have something new every year And the Corporations Making stuff a re competing with each other for attention ..

OTOH Companies like the German Rohloff they put the engineering in at the front , and just have done subtile changes that dont get Press

because its Not High profile Bike Racer stuff . with TV time and a Bunch of writers and bloggers which need something to do .. to promote it all .

even calling it Speeds is a fallacy.. its not like a Car tranny where all the gears are a sequence of increasing ratios ..


enjoy your kool-aide..

Da@n, Cale, I'm gonna' embroider that quote onto my underpants! It cuts through the paranoid crapola about the poor vulnerable consumer, bereft of a mind of his own.

^^^Like and agree with this. "Did it shift or not?" actually made me laugh. Maybe just need some new batteries?

From what I understand, the 10+speed stuff costs a lot more, is more finicky, and doesn't last as long in service, especially all weather service. So for many, many cyclists, (including some in this thread) the supposedly superior technology clearly does not work.

The push for more gears in the back is for the pros who spend all day on their bike during a race. The more constant they can keep their cadence,the less energy they expend,and the better their chances at winning. The issue is when this starts to trickle down to the lower groupos used on bikes that are used for daily transportation. I wish the manufacturers would give more attention to the average rider than to the guy winning the TdF. Unfortunately,with all the money involved,I doubt it will happen.

I have two bikes, one with an 8 speed internal shimano alfine, the other a single speed. Have no need to buy into the bazillion speed craze. In reality, on the alfine 8 speed I typically only use 3 of the 8. Less is more for me.