Cycling UK Forum

Nearholmer wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 8:51am If find all this “back in the day” and “you can manage on” stuff a bit strange, because while both are usually true (although sometimes true with a heavy rose tint), as technology changes, objectively better things become relatively cheaper, and there doesn’t seem to be much point in sticking with the old, except that …..

When it comes to the cost of parts, things that are long-mature, but not yet verging on obsolete, always work out cheapest in any field, because suppliers have long recouped their development costs, any novelty premium is long-forgotten, production runs are huge and unit costs low, etc. From what I can work out, based largely on the very canny advice of Messrs Spa Cycles, 3x9 hits the sweet spot in terms of cost vs value when the priority is a very wide range of gears, and super-sporty gear-changes aren’t top of the agenda, at the moment. Maybe at some point, 9x will edge towards obsolescence, or fall into that market segment where quality is sacrificed significantly, at which point maybe 3x10 or 2x10 will be the value for money option for users with wants as described.

Of course, if what a person values for a particular bike differs from what I’ve mentioned above, super-slickness of changes, absence of faff when riding difficult surfaces off-road, absolute light weight, micro-steps between ratios, or something, 3x9 may not hit the sweet spot.

That is my point above, there is actual objective utility and 'tech hype'. Like all the ones saying 3x is 'defunkt' just because that is what marketing has told them to say. I am not saying that doesn't offer advantages to some users but most of those who reel off the 'negatives' of 3x don't seem to be in that category.

It is sorting the wheat from the chaff hence why I asked, if it is really useful to have more or just hype.

I'm going to muddy the water here... by talking about half step triples....
..when triples became the 'thing' from 1980s, until they were replaced by the x1 set up, manufacturers spaced the rings out fairly evenly 24/34/44 or 28/38/48 or 26/36/46 and so on...
However some, having purchased a triple, changed the middle ring to produce a half-step set up https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vint ... aring.html
So that there were only a few teeth difference in the large and middle rings. The reason for doing so was to allow for a wide ratio 7 speed system at the rear wheel, but fine tune the gear ratio between either the middle or high chain rings.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 8:51am If find all this “back in the day” and “you can manage on” stuff a bit strange, because while both are usually true (although sometimes true with a heavy rose tint), as technology changes, objectively better things become relatively cheaper, and there doesn’t seem to be much point in sticking with the old, except that …..

When it comes to the cost of parts, things that are long-mature, but not yet verging on obsolete, always work out cheapest in any field, because suppliers have long recouped their development costs, any novelty premium is long-forgotten, production runs are huge and unit costs low, etc. From what I can work out, based largely on the very canny advice of Messrs Spa Cycles, 3x9 hits the sweet spot in terms of cost vs value when the priority is a very wide range of gears, and super-sporty gear-changes aren’t top of the agenda, at the moment. Maybe at some point, 9x will edge towards obsolescence, or fall into that market segment where quality is sacrificed significantly, at which point maybe 3x10 or 2x10 will be the value for money option for users with wants as described.

Of course, if what a person values for a particular bike differs from what I’ve mentioned above, super-slickness of changes, absence of faff when riding difficult surfaces off-road, absolute light weight, micro-steps between ratios, or something, 3x9 may not hit the sweet spot.

I suppose this is about right. I don't think I am being nostalgic using 3x7: it's just I have older bikes that work with that set up and can't see any benefit of changing.

There are a lot of US YouTube videos of people turning old steel MTBs into x1 gravel bikes. I can't see the point: you just get a heavy, slow bike that is less versatile than sticking with the 3x7. I like something very light for off-road, hence my carbon 1x11 MTB.

My London commuter is x3, but it has been x1 in the past. I put a triple on because I had one and because it means I can use it out of London where there are proper hills.

I value simplicity in bikes very highly. And, living in London, I prefer to ride one that if it gets nicked won't cause me too much pain.

I had forgotten, I also have a 3x8 (below), which works very nicely. All these bikes have downtube friction shifters (Suntour ratcheted are my favoured type). I don't know whether I would like x9 cassettes on friction shifting. I certainly disliked x10 with friction shifting because the shifting has to be precise and it was a faff trimming.

I light toured (well, I carried 14kgs in fact) quite happily on my 3x8 in hilly Dorset and kept up fine with others on much more modern index linked bikes.

Of course, most of my club friends tell me to bin all these bikes and upgrade: they were aghast that I had ridden the steel MTB from Normandy to Provence for eg, almost as though it were something from the 1890s.

I won't because they work fine; they are simple and I can work on them myself. My 3x8-speeder while touring:

Manc33 wrote: ↑30 Aug 2024, 8:39pm I think 9-Speed is the sweet spot. All the parts are cheaper than 11s.

Sheldon Brown was probably referring to cassettes that didn't have very low gearing, like 32t or more on the cassette. He could have also written that article a long time ago. There might have been a time when 8-Speed was all fancy, but not in 2024.

Having more sprockets only has one benefit - smaller gaps between gears. There is only one cassette I know of on 9-Speed that starts with 11t, ends with 32t and doesn't have a gap of 3 teeth from 17 to 20 or from 18 to 21 - the cheap Shimano Altus CS-HG200-9 that has 11/13/15/17/19/21/24/28/32. This to me is the perfect cassette.

If your triple chainset has a 22t or 24t then there is no real point having a cassette sprocket bigger than 32t, even if you were touring with a load. I went to 11-Speed a while back (and went back to 9-Speed again). Beyond 22x40t it became impossible for me to balance, because I had to pedal like mad, going 3 MPH or less. Not to mention the strain that must put on the chain and the spokes of the rear wheel.

I even had 22x51t at one point, but that was short lived because it's a bridge too far with how low the gearing is.

Well spoken Manc,
The years of wisdom have come....

I don't know whether I would like x9 cassettes on friction shifting.

I’m just about to find out, because yesterday my 3x9 bike was converted from “north road like” bars with trigger shifters, to drop bars with those sunrace “little click at each step” downtube shifters. The quick test ride highlighted that I’ve got a bit unsubtle with downtube shifters since last using them (c35 years ago!), and my intended long ride for today has been cancelled in favour of a family outing, so the journey of discovery will possibly be tomorrow.

9 speed is my own "sweet spot", possibly because when 9 speed was king, I was in my most vigorous bike-buying phase. But if I were going out to buy a new bike today, I'd have one eye on long term parts availability. If someone were still making high end, nicely made 9 speed mechs etc, I'd be content with that. But last time I looked, the 9 speed mechs available (and I have a few in store) were visibly cheap looking things, with the more reassuringly nice ones no longer being made. 7 speed stuff went that way a long time ago. I suppose if one could buy up enough replacement parts for the future, that concern would be gone. It is tedious to be swayed by parts availability, but it matters. 3x is also a problem are these days, with manufacturers having ditched it for high end stuff.

pwa wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 10:03am 9 speed is my own "sweet spot", possibly because when 9 speed was king, I was in my most vigorous bike-buying phase. But if I were going out to buy a new bike today, I'd have one eye on long term parts availability. If someone were still making high end, nicely made 9 speed mechs etc, I'd be content with that. But last time I looked, the 9 speed mechs available (and I have a few in store) were visibly cheap looking things, with the more reassuringly nice ones no longer being made. 7 speed stuff went that way a long time ago. I suppose if one could buy up enough replacement parts for the future, that concern would be gone. It is tedious to be swayed by parts availability, but it matters. 3x is also a problem are these days, with manufacturers having ditched it for high end stuff.

I don't understand your issues here. If you look on the retrobike forum you will see what a thriving community there is from swapping old stock, some new old stock.

Also I thought the mechs are backward compatible so a 12 speed mech would work with any lower iteration so what is the problem?

cycle tramp wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 9:24am I'm going to muddy the water here... by talking about half step triples....
..when triples became the 'thing' from 1980s, until they were replaced by the x1 set up, manufacturers spaced the rings out fairly evenly 24/34/44 or 28/38/48 or 26/36/46 and so on...
However some, having purchased a triple, changed the middle ring to produce a half-step set up https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vint ... aring.html
So that there were only a few teeth difference in the large and middle rings. The reason for doing so was to allow for a wide ratio 7 speed system at the rear wheel, but fine tune the gear ratio between either the middle or high chain rings.

The first bike I had, a heavyweight "racer" with 2 X 4 gearing, was a half-step gear arrangement. The rear 4 cogs were, I think, 14,17, 20, 24. The chainrings were 49, 46. The idea was to change both for every gear change to get those "half-ratios".

In practice I tended to use the 46 ring most of the time as it was too much of a faff to change both at the same time. The front changer was a lever on the seat tube that one reached for under one's thigh. The rear changer was a friction lever on the down tube. You needed your right hand for both. By the time you'd changed both, when approaching a rise, you'd lost momentum and needed yet a lower gear again!

*************
The reason that a triple is useful is that it gives three ranges of closely-spaced ratios from the cassette. Small ring for lots of hilly ups coming into view. Middle ring for most riding of the less vigorous kind on undulating roads. Big ring for flattish smooth roads and/or wind behind when you fancy a blast.

Despite what TdeF would-be emulators allege, no one but a real TdeFer needs a 52 X 11 for pedalling down hill. Gravity + tucking in the body parts (including the otherwise flailing knees) to get aero is much more effective.

Bice wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 9:29am
I suppose this is about right. I don't think I am being nostalgic using 3x7: it's just I have older bikes that work with that set up and can't see any benefit of changing.

You're unlikely to see the benefits of changing to more modern designs if you never try them. I agree that if your 3X7 set up "works", as did mine, for decades, then it'll continue to do so. But I find that many new-fangled fangles are actually very beneficial to the experience of cycling, including very wide gear ranges with very close ratios.

Oh, and STI levers. And indexing. And disc brakes; and tubeless tyres; and carbon fibre frames ; and suspension stems; and ........

biker38109 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 7:39am I read that small gaps between gears is good for long hill climbs to 'keep cadence'. Is that right?

I think that's pretty much in in a nutshell, though it also applies on the flat. What you need is a bottom gear low enough for any hill you wish to cycle up and a top gear that doesn't leave you frustrated by the lack of progress, for some people that might be the same single gear. We only have a pretty narrow band of power, sure we can manage short bursts well above that, or cruise well below, but the sweet spot where we're maintaining a steady output without strain is limited. The more gears you have between what you've chosen as your top and bottom gear, the better you'll be able to utilise that. This has always been understood, even back in the days of 7 speed, it's why we have those mega-range cassettes, a way of keeping the gaps close in the most used gears and still allowing a low bottom gear. It's all a compromise, which is where the personal preference comes in, it isn't about what anyone else needs, it's about what you want.

biker38109 wrote: Also I thought the mechs are backward compatible so a 12 speed mech would work with any lower iteration so what is the problem?

the shift ratio is likely the same up to 9s, but it is probably different after that. So it isn't plug n' play

Cugel wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 11:05am

Bice wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 9:29am
I suppose this is about right. I don't think I am being nostalgic using 3x7: it's just I have older bikes that work with that set up and can't see any benefit of changing.

You're unlikely to see the benefits of changing to more modern designs if you never try them. I agree that if your 3X7 set up "works", as did mine, for decades, then it'll continue to do so. But I find that many new-fangled fangles are actually very beneficial to the experience of cycling, including very wide gear ranges with very close ratios.

Oh, and STI levers. And indexing. And disc brakes; and tubeless tyres; and carbon fibre frames ; and suspension stems; and ........

If you look under my signoff you will see most of my bikes listed, and some are modern. I even have a carbon frame MTB. So I use old and new, as appropriate.

I don't have a carbon road bike, as I enjoy what I have (titanium, steel and aluminium with carbon forks). But I have hired a modern carbon road bike and very much liked it, although disc brakes aren't essential and Di2 seems a pointless complication for me.

biker38109 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 10:33am Also I thought the mechs are backward compatible so a 12 speed mech would work with any lower iteration so what is the problem?

They're not. You might find some that'll work (after a fashion), often more by accident than design but once you get above 9sp, you're into a whole world of compatibility issues with cable pull ratios.

biker38109 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 10:33am If you look on the retrobike forum you will see what a thriving community there is from swapping old stock, some new old stock.

I think what you're seeing there is "retro-modding" where you take a decent retro frame and then fit new and up-to-date parts to it. It's different from doing a bodge job of swapping out one part, you basically do a complete strip and rebuild. As someone else mentioned, there's quite a niche trend of converting 90's MTBs into "gravel bikes", it's fairly straightforward to take off an old 3x8 and replace the entire drivetrain with a 1x10 and you avoid all the compatibility issues of mixing and matching new and old or trying to cut down cassettes and other pointless complications.

biker38109 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 10:33am

pwa wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 10:03am 9 speed is my own "sweet spot", possibly because when 9 speed was king, I was in my most vigorous bike-buying phase. But if I were going out to buy a new bike today, I'd have one eye on long term parts availability. If someone were still making high end, nicely made 9 speed mechs etc, I'd be content with that. But last time I looked, the 9 speed mechs available (and I have a few in store) were visibly cheap looking things, with the more reassuringly nice ones no longer being made. 7 speed stuff went that way a long time ago. I suppose if one could buy up enough replacement parts for the future, that concern would be gone. It is tedious to be swayed by parts availability, but it matters. 3x is also a problem are these days, with manufacturers having ditched it for high end stuff.

I don't understand your issues here. If you look on the retrobike forum you will see what a thriving community there is from swapping old stock, some new old stock.

Also I thought the mechs are backward compatible so a 12 speed mech would work with any lower iteration so what is the problem?

If I thought I could use new 11 or 12 speed mechs with my 9 speed drivetrains, I'd have bought one or two nice ones already. But my understanding was that interchangeability sort of ended around the time of Shimano 10 speed, which was and remains a pity. As for the retrobike market, I confess that I haven't really investigated it. Maybe I should. But I wouldn't be interested in mechs that have seen serious use already. I have those in my garage. I'd want new or nearly new condition and at a sensible price.

My approach with my existing stock has been to keep 9 speed going as long as I can do that sensibly, and so far it is okay. I won't be ditching 9 speed just because of a silly "upgrading" itch. I am helped by the fact that my miles have decreased dramatically since getting a dog, walking having replaced most of my cycling, so wear is greatly down.

biker38109 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 7:39am I read that small gaps between gears is good for long hill climbs to 'keep cadence'. Is that right?

I fink.... you're over thinking it.. many of us here have completed size-able mileages on really quite basic machines...
..I know that Brucey manage to knock out a 130 mile journey on a three speed, I've done a couple of overnighter on 5 and 3 speeds, and Carton Green is still using his 3 speeds for all sorts of local adventures...
..cycling itself doesn't actually require that much... but it does require us to stop fretting about the smaller stuff, build the bike and use it to have pleasant adventures on...
..its not actually against the law to push your bike up a hill nor is it an affront to God, your humanity, or your ego if you freewheel for a bit if you run out of gears...
..as someone who has built many bikes in the last twenty or some years - the chances of you getting it perfectly right on your first time are slim... they'll always be something to adjust, swap, exchange or remove or add, however you only get to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th change, by building the 1st bike and putting some miles under the tyres..
...on the provision you're not doing something dreadfully heroic on your bike, like using if to tow a trailer full of goats, nuns, kittens, and a family fleeing occupied countries.. over the alps, then most stuff works to a greater or lesser degree....

..and yes, even after 25 years of cycling I'm still bumbling about on a 1 x 5 speed set up (after trying a load of other set ups)...