"8 speed cassettes have big gaps vs 11 speed"

[xxnick1975]

Firstly bike reviews......

Read with a filter, gist will be okay but detail often a load of crap!

Secondly,

More gears in general is helpful, but obviously front chainrings mean extra complexity, hence 1*X that's now all the rage.

Of course the bike industry is somewhat cynical, but with new bikes it's really the overall package - you want a frame and wheelset of a certain quality, and the groupset fitted will be at that same level, even if you are firmly convinced 8 speed is all you need.

Modern kit works really well, is easy to set up and pretty reliable, it does offer a lot - not perhaps the consensus on here what with it being a retro forum!

 

[SimonJC]

When you do the maths, it is a quite clear fact that a triple chainset with a 9 speed cassette has closer range gears than a double chainset with 11 or 12 speed; of course the industry would rather focus away from the logic that leads me to this conclusion; which a lot of newbie cyclists won't generally know.
With a 3x9 setup, you will have 27 gears, however you lose a number of extreme crossover gears, leaving you with 21 useable gear ratios.
With a 2x11 or 12 set, you have 22 or 24 gears, but lose two gears on each chainring with the crossover gears (eg with the larger chainring, you shouldn't use the two largest sprockets, and the same with the smaller chainring with the two smallest sprockets), so you end up with 18 or 20 gears. The cassettes on 11/12 speed have the sprockets physically closer together than 9/8 speed, hence why you only lose one sprocket with these setups.
The industry has been pushing these gear options for about ten years plus, when they got rid of triple chainsets, which I thought was odd; when they were saying you get better gear ratios, I know this was untrue once you understand the maths and the practical reality of chainlines.
In addition, it annoys me when you get SRAM saying that crosschaining is no problem, but it is quite clear to me that chains wear out much quicker if you do this. However the industry again pushes the idea than it is completely normal for a chain to last less than 2,000 miles which is completely bonkers to me; 8/9 speed chains last far longer than this.
However, one thing I have learnt with the bike industry is that they will peddle serious nonsense if it helps with bike sales; more so now than ever before, as it seems that the real innovations to improve road bikes ended around the mid/late 90s. The only innovation I can think that might be considered a genuie improvement in recent years woud be ebikes, which allow people to be able to get out more which I believe is a good thing.

 

[SimonJC]

Firstly bike reviews......

Read with a filter, gist will be okay but detail often a load of crap!

Secondly,

More gears in general is helpful, but obviously front chainrings mean extra complexity, hence 1*X that's now all the rage.

Of course the bike industry is somewhat cynical, but with new bikes it's really the overall package - you want a frame and wheelset of a certain quality, and the groupset fitted will be at that same level, even if you are firmly convinced 8 speed is all you need.

Modern kit works really well, is easy to set up and pretty reliable, it does offer a lot - not perhaps the consensus on here what with it being a retro forum!

Agree to a point; however the two bikes that I regulary use are from the mid-late 1990s, and give faultless service. The main difference I think is that the quality in general of the current mid-range groupsets are much closer to the top setups. This compares to what it was like in the early-90s, when 8 speed Shimano Dura-Ace was vastly superior to the 105 groupset of the time, in every respect; shift quality, longevity, reliablility and overall performance. Today, however, this difference is virtually nonexistent; 105 is basically the same as Ultegra, which in turn is basically the same as Dura-Ace; unless you race, there is no pracical advantage to go for the higher end components.

 

[Siish]

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned when discussing modern/retro gear setups is the rolling radius of the wheels, in theory a 29er will take less input to travel the same distance as a 26er, maybe this is one of the reasons for current 1 x setups, yes on a 1 x setup you will spin out quicker but has anyone done a proper test with top speed equivalent etc with an older 3 x setup. In real world tests the difference could be minimal. I don't know the answer and this is only theoretical speak, would be interesting to know though.

 

[bagpuss]

I still use a triple front on all my daily ride/touring bikes . Dropping the size of the chainrings . A 46 outside is big enough for me now . As for cassettes an 11 -28 ten speed cover every thing . The 11 and 12 are rarely used . A cassette with a 13 upwards would be ideal .

 

[legrandefromage]

Dont forget folks! SRAM didnt want to pay anyone for front mech patents so the 1x drivetrain was born. It was a gift to the full susser frame designers to get around the headache of where to put that pesky front mech

The bandwagon rolled on and its now considered the norm and any of us old fruits with our over complicated doubles and triples are seen as some sort of freak


big tires on the old 26 wheels really helps too but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what we do on our old bikes, its just that it does not fit with the marketing or the sales of new in any shape or form

 

[KermitGKona88]

 

[Woz]

One thing that got demonised by the industry is the notion of redundancy of gear ratios. Back to the famous compact road chainset, and now on the MTB side it is considered an evil and unwanted thing. Personally, it was, and still is a very good thing to have on certain terrain.

 

[CassidyAce]

One thing that got demonised by the industry is the notion of redundancy of gear ratios. Back to the famous compact road chainset, and now on the MTB side it is considered an evil and unwanted thing. Personally, it was, and still is a very good thing to have on certain terrain.

Yep. The sudden, large shifts due to changing chain ring seem to be frowned upon too, but if the terrain has sudden, large shifts in gradient, changing chain ring is no bad thing and easier than shifting through half a dozen sprockets at the rear.

@Siish See the 'Top Speed and Spinning Out' section at the end of my opening post here: https://www.retrobike.co.uk/threads/1x-vs-3x-the-maths.445016/. It factors in different wheel sizes and goes through the maths. However, while calculations indicate that the 26-er with an average 3x set up should have a higher top speed at a reasonable cadence, in practice 29-ers seem to be faster. I think that's because a higher top speed doesn't count for much if it isn't sustained for long; a higher average speed is more important, and 29-ers are better able to achieve that. Not my cup of tea, but there's little doubt that modern 29-ers tend to be faster overall, even with 1x.

 

[legrandefromage]

Because modern 29 bikes are huuuuuge!!!!