londonbikerider wrote:Wherever I go, I see people happy riding their 11 speed groupsets with fairly low gear, the same 11 speed ones that people were slagging off (or raising an eyebrow at best) a few years ago. Isn't that a good thing, that people can have a wide range of gears without big jumps in between? In my view, it certainly is, and if that means more wear on the chain, well there is always a trade-off that people should be allowed to choose and pay for, if so they wish.
Not sure what you mean here tbh.
A 50/39/30 chainset with 12-28 8 speed cassette has a 24-28 jump and a 14-16.
A modern 50/34 with a 11-32 11 speed cassette has the same 14-16 jump and then a 28-32.
As far as low gears goes they are roughly the same, while there's a slightly harder fast gear.
Oh and the 50/34 has a massive gap so you will have to double shift when you change, whereas the 50/39/30 is easier to use as it won't change your cadence too much. The 3*8 is clearly a better system to the new 2*11, though you might be stuck with low end components that complicate that
I'm not really sure people have actively chosen this so much as the manufacturers have created it.
People buy 11 speed, and it works, and at this point there might even be good reasons to choose it over other options - but those reasons generally relate to manufacturers' decisions, not anything technically superior about the system.
In general when you have around 10 cogs, the idea that adding one more is critical to gear selection is plainly ludicrous.
Certainly comparing say a 3 speed hub gear to an 8 speed it is more significant but on modern derailleurs not so much.
I note that a lot of the tricks of marketing-led engineering have been shut down by the EU in that applicances sold on the basis that one is more powerful than others - I e. It consumes more electricity - are no longer allowed, and you can no longer buy vacuum cleaners that use enough power to illuminate a village, or dishwashers that wash at 70C. For cycling though this scam is unabated, and 12 speed is here, and it's being used to persuade people who prefer buying bikes to actually riding them that they need to throw away their old bikes and replace them with new ones.
That there might be improvements along the way is incidental to the product lifecycle which depends on making a product a few years old appear little better than scrap.
Certainly there is no duty incumbent on posters here to praise this - you can find that anywhere else online.