Questions about purchasing bicycles and parts
I have a nine speed and never had an eight speed.
I can't understand what the possible advantage is?
I know that you get three extra combinations but I only use about five or six right now.
I suppose that the extra combinations may be good for spreading the load over a few different cogs instead of the one favourite gear.
How much more finicky will the set be. Mine is already a pain with the smallest cable stretch. How fine are the tolerances becoming?
Where is the option for 72 gears? A standard 24 speed set up with one of these SRAM internal 3 speed hubs and an 8 gear cluster, see here: St Kilda Cycles
I use a 24 speed, because I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this what the LBS said), the 9 speed and above chains are thinner. Pedalling a tourer with a load does have a stretching effect on the chain.
I prefer the 24 speed as there is not too many gears, and I have fiddled with the ratios on my tourer a bit to get them nice and close. The bike is fitted with a 9 speed rear derailleur, but I'm running friction shifters, so I don't really need any more gears.
Anyhow my next bike, an expedition bike, is probably going to be 24 speed, but using one of those internal hubs, and an 8 speed cluster. This will rid me of the front chain rings and the associated problems I've had with them.
The reason that I'm not going for a Rohloff internal 15 speed is that I can't afford it
I've got 9 speed on the Trek520. Plenty of gears with a nice spread. Mix of Ultegra and DeoreLX bits so she shifts very nicely.
I've actually got a far wider spread of gears than a normal road cluster would have, yet the differences in gears (two tooth jumps for the most part) are rather slight - I can easily identify with the thought that 10 speed is too many.
Then there's the reliability issue - 9 speed is flimsy and 10 speed is even more so. Maybe it's not an issue, but you don't need mechanical issues when riding and it's when things get a bit tired that they start not to work as well.
But then again, I bet all of this was said when they went from five gears to six to seven to eight to ... And I'm sure the old timers rolled their eyes in horror when they introduced the freewheel, let alone the first derailleurs.
So I'm voting for none of the above. Nine speed was on the bike, but I would have been happy with eight and probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid if it had come with ten. Which isn't to say I don't change my bike - I'm about to fit a smaller granny, and changing the stem, changed the bar end shifters for brifters at purchase, etc.
No problems here - my new bike is 9 speed rear wioth Shimano 105, but was eyeing up a spare NIB part at a bargain price if ever I had an issue - not that I'd want to chnage it for any other reason.
Previously had a 7 speed rear on the MTB, and as I'm now road riding, I appreciate the smaller jumps in a 9 speed (MTB cluster was 11 - 28, and new bike is 12 - 26).
Only having two rings on tghe front is a chnage that makes the hills more of a challenge, but a 7kg lighter bike helps that ...
8 speed. 3 chain rings.
Don't 9s and 10s give the same top and bottom gears and it's just the extra between gears which make changing from one to another less noticeable?
It relatively flat here so I didn't see the point of the extra expense of 9 or 10 speeds.
Someone asked if 9 and 10 chains are thinner. I'm pretty sure they are.
Theres no actual correct answer, as each has its pros and cons, so it depends on the needs of the rider.
Bikes in the future will probably be 10 speed, whether we like it or not, so thats a major reason to get 10 speed. I run 9 speed and see no reason what so ever to change to 10 speed.
Burn plenty of Glycogen
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?
The answer to 'Which chains are thinner?" is "It depends!"
With Shimano gear, all HG chains are the same 'width', so the compatability chart shows that it can be used with 8 and 9 speed (and a lot of 7 speed too) cassettes and derailleurs. However, 10 speed is different (thinner) and isn't 'backwards compatible'. Similarly, the older UG (6 and some 7 speed) gear is thicker and isn't 'upwards compatible'. Because the HG spec crosses over into mtb gear, some (well, a lot really) of that is compatible too!
I've started to learn about Campagnolo stuff too, but it's still all Greek to me (or should that be Italian?)
Princess runs 9x SRAM X7
Deni runs 9x Tiagra
There's been 1x 3x 5x 6x 7x under me too over the years.
AFAIK, talking MTB, 7 and 8 speed chains are the same thickness, 9 speeds are thinner. Don't know of any 10x MTB gear at this time.
What worries me with these huge numbers is the dish on the back wheel to fit them in, Denis right hub flange looks to be almost right under the rim.
The cruiser has 7 gears and the roadie has the 10 speed cluster. Personally i've found the 10 to be of significant benefit to my riding.
With the 7 i had often found myself in conditions where one gear was too high and the next selection was too low to maintain a "comfortable" cadence/speed combination over a long period.
The 10 spd cluster for me is definitely smoother for acceleration and easier on the legs as it doesn't require a greater amount of leg strength to accelerate and i can stay in my best torque/cadence combo. On the 7 speed this process used to leave my legs weakened by lactic acid buildup to the point where once i reached the desired speed/gear often i couldn't maintain it.
All of the above can be overcome with better fitness and riding technique for sure, but the 10 spd gives me more options and lets not forget the bling factor!
There's quite a jump in efficiency between 7 and 10 because it allows a smaller step between the gears. The trouble is, those of us with 9, who've suffered less, find that 9 offers as much felxibility as you need and wonder if going from 9 to 10 offers enough improvement to out weigh the flimsier equiptment. Tim at Velosmith, a frame builder who'se life is building custom bikes, recommends 8 speed because he believes the extra mechanical life outweighs the extra ratios of 9 and 10 speed.
I hear ya Richard , durability was something i considered carefully before making a purchase.
But tbh even if it does wear out quicker the cost of a new cassette and chain is under $200 and for me thats an acceptable price in the grand scheme of things (looking at my quarterly rates bill of $387).
Wish I knew, there's a fair bit of CFC stuff out there, not just XC either. Scott has put out a Freeride bike, and boutique Kiwis Lahar have an internal gearbox, full carbon Downhill race bike.
The situation with groups seems to be more evolutionary, lighter stiffer stronger, improved shifting and reliability. IMO, thin 10 speed chains are the weak link (groan) in the plan to sell 30 speed MTBs.
Suspension and shock design seems to be where a lot of effort is taking place, the holy grail being light, stiff, mechanically efficient and independant.
Slap me if you will, but it seems to me that roadie design has been pretty much perfected and standardised in the diamond frame, only material and construction method being different, is there really that much more development possible in roadie design? Not that component makers aren't trying hard to keep up broke with new "must have"widgets released almost daily.
The problem with road bikes isn't that the design has been perfected, it hasn't by a long chalk, but the UCI sets the racing rules and they've decreed that the bike shall have a diamond frame, drop handle bars and same sized wheels front and rear. Get rid of those contraints and we'd really see some interesting bikes but they won't because you then run the risk of the bike becomming a greater part of the equation than it is now (which is 9% rider, 1% bike and 90% doctor - is my cynicism showing?).
Road bikes undergo continous minor refinements within UCI rules. The majority of the result is due to the rider rather than the bike, however in recent years there has been refinements with aerodynamics, strength, weight and durability within a price bracket. The only way to make a significant improvement in a road bike would be to dramatically reduce the wind drag on the body and this is why sporty reclumbments (sorry spelling) can be quicker, as there is less wind on the body.
I wouldn't expect to see any quantim leaps with racers like what has happened with MTB's.
Burn plenty of Glycogen
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?
... 90% doctor, eh? That's the chap on the team, who makes sure their drugs test comes back negative, right? (Is MY cynicism showing? )
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ft_critical, Google Feedfetcher