So many gears, pointless?

[Blue Hills]

Has nobody ever bought something they want rather than need?

No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.

 

[Gunk]

I went from 21 gears to 30 on my rigid MTB, could have had 33 of course but not losing sleep over it. 26 chainwheel/32 cassette is fairly useless unless you live in the Himilayas. Which I don't.

I’m running 3x10 on my MTB, only time I use the smallest front chain ring is when I’m climbing off road. For trail stuff the two larger rings are all you need.

 

[Blue Hills]

I used 11-32 on an 8 speed with a triple chainring, and I kind of noticed the jumps between gears, but was never that fussed about it. But on a new road bike with 2x10 speed and 11-28 cassette, when I'm trying to time trial or just go as fast as I can I can feel the steps between gears and wish I had something in between. So I guess the faster you want to go and the more efficient you want to be with your cadence, the closer spaced cogs of an 11 speed will help you do that.

Fair comment but as you say it"s for competitive racers

 

[davidphilips]

Apart from my single speed, would find it very hard to tell the difference between my bikes 8,9,10 and 11 speeds when cycling on them (gear wise)?
Maybe have to change gears more often on bikes with more gears and pay more for replacement parts?
Some club members and friends spend lots on upgrading from 10 to 11 etc and all say how well the money was spent and if it makes them happy then indeed money well spent but is there any difference to there speed on there bike?

 

[Twilkes]

Fair comment but as you say it"s for competitive racers

I'm not racing competitively, this is just for my own entertainment, but there's no reason amateur cyclists shouldn't try to push themselves to see what their limits are, most other sports get to do that. A closely spaced cassette can help with that, I'd get frustrated trying to ride the way I'm riding now on an 8 speed, because the jumps in cadence would be too jarring. If I was doing JogLe or riding with friends it wouldn't matter.

 

[screenman]

No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.

I disagree.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If your not using 11 put a smaller chainring on the front, I run a 46 and use all my gears, this gets you 30 mph at 90 cadence, you could run out of gears going downhill, but there is nothing wrong with freewheeling.

I have a mtn bike chain set on my recumbent. It came off my old mtn bike whose frame died. The big ring on front is 44t. I hit 31 mph on Friday when seeing what I could hit on a village speed sign. My smart turbo indicates my cadence typically averages 95-102 rpm. So yes, a big ring around 44-46 is not a limiter on the max speed you can hit on the flat. I’m going to try and hit a higher speed this week.

 

[CXRAndy]

You dont need the extra, but its really nice to have the smaller incremental steps.

 

[Venod]

So yes, a big ring around 44-46 is not a limiter on the max speed you can hit on the flat. I’m going to try and hit a higher speed this week.

I have mentioned this on numerous occasions, the biggest gear most people rode when I was a lot younger was 104 inch, 52 front 13 rear which is a smaller gear than 46/11.

 

[JPBoothy]

Has nobody ever bought something they want rather than need?

No point wanting something you won't use/have no actual need for.

I agree but, I think that part of your brain only kicks-in once your teenage years are behind you and before those mid life crisis years begin

 

[Ming the Merciless]

My recumbent has 3x9 my road bike 3x10. In rolling terrain the perfect gear shift is middle ring to big ring, leaving the rear alone. So big ring flat or slightly downhill, middle ring on the uphill. With a compact I can see you’d be messing around with multiple gear shifts as you pass through the rolling terrain.

 

[JPBoothy]

There isn’t a massive difference if you have the same top and bottom gears. Marketing...more must be better right

oops typo

I would agree with the Marketing BS being the driver in the main but, I'm sure that the terrain where you live/ride will be a big decision maker too. I live in a relatively flat(ish) area of the Wirral/Cheshire border so personally have no need for many gears and often ride my SS or use no more than 2 on my CX bikes. However, if I lived in the hills then obviously I would have to think again but, I think I would rather experiment with different chain-ring & cassette combinations on a 9/10spd than fork out more for 'stock' 11/12spd set-ups which will have thinner chains that are more likely to stretch, and closer together cassettes which are more likely to skip unless you keep on top of your maintenance.

 

[rustyroger]

When I was 13 years old I yearned to upgrade my single speed to a Sturmey Archer 3 speed or (sheer heaven) a 5 speed derailleur. When I finally saved enough from paper rounds/summer jobs I thought I had all I could want. but I always wanted the next step, from steel rims to alloys, a double clanger chainset - an alloy cotterless one was simply out of reach. Now I have recently returned to cycling for fun and fitness my 5 and 6 speed rear blocks and double chain ring is all I need for the relatively flat roads of east Kent. If I lived in Wales like my sister no doubt I would want much steeper low gears, but I doubt if I have the reactions to deal with the speeds I might achieve spinning tall gears. So in my case I don't need a big range of gears.
The van I drive for work has a 7 speed automatic, some of the latest cars have more. I believe the Jeep Cherokee has 11. the argument for this multiplicity is it helps keep the engine at optimum speed for fuel economy and low emissions. My hobby car, a 5.2 litre V8 Chrysler gets along just fine with 3 speeds. but the huge amount of torque available at all engine speeds makes any more unnecessary, the obvious downside is a healthy appetite for unleaded.
My legs no longer have vast reserves of torque (if they ever really did) so while I'm happy with 10 or 12 speeds a 3 speed wouldn't cut it for me.

Roger.

 

[mjr]

My hobby car, a 5.2 litre V8 Chrysler gets along just fine with 3 speeds. but the huge amount of torque available at all engine speeds makes any more unnecessary, the obvious downside is a healthy appetite for unleaded.
My legs no longer have vast reserves of torque (if they ever really did) so while I'm happy with 10 or 12 speeds a 3 speed wouldn't cut it for me.

I just gear it down and accept I'm going to be freewheeling lots and walking occasionally. A cyclist having a healthy appetite for fuel is not without its compensations!

 

[DCBassman]

Tis a thing of wonder isn't it?
I have several 9 speed bikes but only realised that that cassette existed recently when it came already fitted to my Ridgeback Expedition 26inch wheel bike. I have carried a mega amount of junk on that and can I think get up pretty much anything. Costs between £10 and £15 I think.

Or folks could pay pretty much £100 by hopping to chain reaction for a 12 speed Deore (Deore FFS!) cassette.

Yup, it's an Alivio cassette, therefore has no cachet, therefore is cheepy-cheap. One on the heavier Trek with a 48-38-28 up front, one on the Scott road bike (really!), with a 52-42-30 up front. Biggest cassette you ever did see on a road bike...