technical reasons why MTBs haven't moved to 30 spd?



On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:59:39 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> The chain itself may not be weaker, in terms of resistance to wear, but in
> terms of failure due to pins not holding, there is a dramatic, not subtle,
> loss of durability when moving from 9 to 10-speed. Anyone believing
> differently hasn't worked in a shop. In fact, the 10-speed chain pin
> installation is so much more critical than with 9 that some bike companies
> are installing quick links instead of the supplied Shimano pin when
> installing the chains.


Is this only a problem with pins not inserted by the chain's maker? That
is, if anyone putting a 10-speed chain on a bike uses a removeable link,
is it just as strong and reliable as a 9-speed chain in use?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
On 21 Mar 2007 13:00:08 -0700, Rick wrote:

> It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> same range.


Not necessarily true. Someone using a 9-speed 12-25 could upgrade to
11-25 with a 10-speed system.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
On Mar 21, 2:00 pm, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
---snip---

The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> same range.
>
> - rick


---/snip---

Not exactly. The range of the 12-28/26-36-46 MTB I rode in the early
90's hardly compares with the 11-34/22-32-44 that I ride now.

SYJ
 
On 2007-03-21, Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 1:24 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>> Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?

>
> Riddle me this: what use is to any rider to have 1 or 2T differences
> between adjacent cogs? It really is useful only for minor adjustments
> to speed at a given cadence as conditions change, something that is
> unnecessary to anyone not riding in a peleton.


I really like those one-tooth jumps. Otherwise I end up either mashing
my knees to a pulp or going a bit more slowly than I really want to and
getting bored. I'm never in any doubt about which is the "right" gear to
be in with one-tooth jumps which sort of implies it's not too many
gears.
 
Per Lou Holtman:
>Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?


For me, it seems tb the terrain: riding off road, I get such frequent large
diffs in gear requirements that the fine distinctions seem to fade into the
background.

I only have 14 speeds on my FS and they're evenly spaced. Even so, that's
plenty for me - having tried more and different spacings in the past.

Riding road, OTOH, even I can see the need for more gears and different spacings
- narrower as the gears get higher. It's been awhile since I spent any
significant time on the road - or on a road bike.. but it seems to me like I
gravitated towards 1-tooth diffs at the upper end... and when I put slicks on my
hardtail and ride pavement, I always wish for a couple extra gears here and
there at cruising speed.
--
PeteCresswell
 
On 21 Mar 2007 15:14:14 -0700, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 21, 2:48 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2007 13:00:08 -0700, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >That is, arguably, a good thing for road racers, and of
>> >no particular use to any other road rider, and no use to MTB riders.

>>
>> No use? That's too definite.

>
>OK, let say it is has the use of 'bragging rights', the use of showing
>that someone has bought into a inane marketing pitch, .... but no real
>mechanical or operational use.


You're a zealot and are overstating the issue.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Ron Hardin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> > It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> > 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> > same range. That is, arguably, a good thing for road racers, and of
> > no particular use to any other road rider, and no use to MTB riders.

>
> I use all the gears on a 21 speed MTB (7x3), and could use more in the
> gaps. The longer you ride, the more sensitive you are to exactly
> the right gear. It's not even a close call.
>
> All I do is commuting.


Are you commuting off-road? If not your comments are really not
applicable. Terrain changes so rapidly when riding off-road that close
ratio gearing is useless.

The only thing I found useful in going from 8 to 9 speed was getting a
34 tooth low (from 32 on the 8 speed). Since I ride a 29er, I need that
34 tooth low gear. Going to 10 speed with the same overall gear range
(11x34) would only give me a more finicky drivetrain. I think 8 speeds
shift better than 9s too.
 
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-03-21, Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 1:24 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:

> [...]
>>> Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?

>>
>> Riddle me this: what use is to any rider to have 1 or 2T differences
>> between adjacent cogs? It really is useful only for minor
>> adjustments to speed at a given cadence as conditions change,
>> something that is unnecessary to anyone not riding in a peleton.

>
> I really like those one-tooth jumps. Otherwise I end up either mashing
> my knees to a pulp or going a bit more slowly than I really want to
> and getting bored. I'm never in any doubt about which is the "right"
> gear to be in with one-tooth jumps which sort of implies it's not too
> many gears.


Although I wouldn't state it with such hyperbole, terrain defines the
cadence. Not all MTB rides have rolling hills or changing terrain. A jaunt
through a wooded area with little to no elevation change might have cadence
problems with too few a selection of gears.
--
Phil
 
Rick wrote:
> On Mar 20, 8:06 pm, "damyth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What are the technical reasons why MTBs have not migrated to 30
>> speeds? I want to make clear I'm not trying to "advocate" MTBs move
>> to 30 speeds, just seeking to understand the technical reasons. That
>> said however, given the greater variation of terrain while riding a
>> MTB, I'd imagine that 30 speeds on a MTB would be "more useful/
>> necessary" than 30 speeds on a road bike.

>
> It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> same range. That is, arguably, a good thing for road racers, and of
> no particular use to any other road rider, and no use to MTB riders.


That statement begs the question as to whether or not you actually ride any
bikes.

--
Phil
 
On 21 Mar 2007 15:07:35 -0700, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, "James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rick" <[email protected]> a écrit:
>>

Snipped

>> > The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all
>> > been to add increments within the same range.

>>


>> Of more practical benefit than the wider total range is that a greater
>> variety of terrain can be ridden in the middle ring, reducing the need to
>> drop to the granny gear.
>>
>> James Thomson

>
>Poppycock. I can put a 32T or even 32T cog on any of them, and I can
>do a slight mod to get an 11T on a 7. I can get the range 11-34 on
>any cassettes from 7sp up so my statement stands. There is a
>difference between what is commonly sold on bikes and what is
>possible; I speak of what is possible, and has been done numerous
>times.
>
>- rick


Second the above, plus:

It kind of boils down to this;

Roadies want and need several close ratios in a narrow band to
maintain a very rnarrow, specific cadence range at a nearly constant
speed.
(39-52/3 - 11/12-23 being a nice tight combo, and quite common).

Gearing for road = Narrow range/lots of choices. (Narrow range of
operating conditions - maintaining cadence important)

Fine, I don't see any problem with that at all, but.........

Mtn, (read typical trail type mtn riders) need only a few choices with
an extremely broad range to deal with all types of terrain.. Cadence,
while entering into the picture is also spread over an extemely wide
range when trail riding here in NE.

For instance, on one of my own mtn bikes, I have had a 20t - 32t front
with an 11-34 rear..
(I've been told that it is impossible to stay upright with this low
gear combination, but I guess I didn't listen <BG>)
Have NO big ring at all, and have never gone fast enough (where I
ride) to ever use or need the 32t 11t combo. I use a small
bash ring on the outside position to get the added ground clearance
which is worth many times the value of the non-existant, (unusable
anyhow) "big" ring. <G>

On another, I have 22t-32t-Bashring and 11-34.. same reasons as above,
but the bike is a little lighter and I can "force it" up a steep
banking or grade a little more easily..

Cadence in these conditions .......... nearly zero RPM..
The only thing you need to do at zero cadence is to push the bike out
from under you in hopes on gaining enough ground to get to the next
pedal stroke and so on until you crest the hill, rock, whatever or
bail off.

Mountain Bike Action Mag recently did an article on converting back to
8 speed from 9. Shifting under dirty and adverse conditions was
improved. Going back to seven would be even better from that
standpoint.
Again a really big advantage off road. (Same range - fewer steps, and
you'll never miss them - I defy anyone to even notice any difference
in actual use except for the improved shifting in snow, ice, mud,
etc.. )

Gearing for MTN Bike = Wide range / number of choices not important.
(Wide range of operation conditions - any cadence that works under the
circumstances you are in at the time)
Note that you can't really flail a mtn bike through a technical
section at 120 RPM like a roadie in a full sprint on blacktop.

Now let's look at the Single Speeders on my trails around here to tell
us that the whole range of ANY riding conditions can be dealt with
ONLY by cadence.. The extreme example of choiceless gearing..
Pick one, screw it on and go.
I'm not one of them, however. <G>

So you see, you really don't need any gearing choices at all unless
dealing with a very specific situation, and the guy training on the SS
will tell you that he is a better rider on his multi-speed bike
because of it...

Gearing is a very personal thing, and whether you have one speed or
thirty, like to spin or have to grunt or need something other that
what comes stock to ride the bike under conditions that it wasn't made
for, like a mtn bike on pavement, or a road bike by a normal human
being who would like think that he can push a 53 - 11 at 120 RPM but
would be a lot happier with a 48 - 13 and a dose of reality.. <G>

Bottom line.. gear it any way you like.. if you can't get it so you
like it, you probably won't ride it as much as you should....

If you want 30.. get em'
If you like only one.. that's fine too!

Change the casette, change the cranks, get some gears from Sheldon, do
whatever you have to and get off of here and RIDE!!

Bob
 
On Mar 21, 4:31 pm, Ron Hardin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> > It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> > 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> > same range. That is, arguably, a good thing for road racers, and of
> > no particular use to any other road rider, and no use to MTB riders.

>
> I use all the gears on a 21 speed MTB (7x3), and could use more in the
> gaps. The longer you ride, the more sensitive you are to exactly
> the right gear. It's not even a close call.


My road bike is 13-21, my MTB is 12-30, both with 8s clusters; I ride
my road bike on pavement, my mtb off-pavement. I notice the gaps on
the MTB, and 9s would be an improvement, 10s more so. You can't be
making double shifts to find the right gear on a MTB- you need to make
most changes on the rear. Little front ring = very steep uphill,
middle ring = moderate uphill-level, and big ring = level - downhill.
More or less.

It's ironic that I have railed against 9-10s for road bikes all this
time as an ego-marketing gimmick to discover that I think it is
actually useful and needed on MTBs. I think that you reach a point
where you want a certain gear and you really notice it when you don't
have it. Bottomline is that 10s makes more sense on a MTB where the
terrain varies more and the gear ratios are wider. On a MTB more gears
fills gaps, on a road bike more gears add range that is useless for
most people. Just because you need it more doesn't make a 10s chain
strong enough, though.
 
On Mar 21, 4:22 pm, Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2007 13:00:08 -0700, Rick wrote:
>
> > It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> > 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> > same range.

>
> Not necessarily true. Someone using a 9-speed 12-25 could upgrade to
> 11-25 with a 10-speed system.



Yeah! And, they can "upgrade" to a 9*-25 when 12-speed is inflicted
upon the market. I can hardly wait!

*9 and 10T cogs and the freehub body to accept them......
 
>> The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all
>> been to add increments within the same range.

>
> That isn't actually true for mountain bikes.
>
> A typical 21-speed mountain bike transmission had a 12-28 cassette with
> 24,36,46t chainrings, giving a high-gear:low-gear ratio of 4.47:1or gear
> inch range of 22"-100"
>
> A typical 24-speed mountain bike transmission was 11-28 with 22,32,42t,
> for a ratio of 4.86:1 or 20"-99"
>
> A typical 27-speed mountain bike transmission is 11-32 with 22,32,44t, for
> a ratio of 5.82:1 or 18"-104"


At the low end of the range, you're describing an improvement of 10% with
each added cog. That's far from insignificant. I'll agree that any small
changes to the high end are, for the most part, irrelevant.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
Michael Warner wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:59:39 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> The chain itself may not be weaker, in terms of resistance to wear, but in
>> terms of failure due to pins not holding, there is a dramatic, not subtle,
>> loss of durability when moving from 9 to 10-speed. Anyone believing
>> differently hasn't worked in a shop. In fact, the 10-speed chain pin
>> installation is so much more critical than with 9 that some bike companies
>> are installing quick links instead of the supplied Shimano pin when
>> installing the chains.

>
> Is this only a problem with pins not inserted by the chain's maker?


yes. the joining pins need to be inserted just so, and the process is
highly skill and attention dependent.

> That
> is, if anyone putting a 10-speed chain on a bike uses a removeable link,
> is it just as strong and reliable as a 9-speed chain in use?
>


for road, yes.
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> I was under the assumption that 10spd chains are no weaker than 9spd.
>>> Is this assumption incorrect?
>>>

>> the assumption is correct, the chains are no weaker, but overall, a finer
>> mechanism is more susceptible to dirt abrasion & clogging, hence 10 may be
>> a little more problematic.

>
> The chain itself may not be weaker, in terms of resistance to wear, but in
> terms of failure due to pins not holding, there is a dramatic, not subtle,
> loss of durability when moving from 9 to 10-speed. Anyone believing
> differently hasn't worked in a shop. In fact, the 10-speed chain pin
> installation is so much more critical than with 9 that some bike companies
> are installing quick links instead of the supplied Shimano pin when
> installing the chains.


i don't like quick links because they don't always mesh with cassette
ramps like the original links and shifting can be a little lumpy.
correctly used, shimano link pins are very reliable. i've never had one
fail, road or mountain. but they're definitely not idiot proof, and
that's the question for the installer to consider.

>
> Campy has also had some infamous 10-speed chain failures (during the Tour de
> France).
>
> 10-speed chains are *not* ready for mountain bike use. Making the chain
> narrow enough for the space between the cogs, and yet wide enough internally
> to fit over the teeth, has resulted in pushing the limits of design &
> construction.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 1:24 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Rick wrote:
> > > On Mar 20, 8:06 pm, "damyth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> What are the technical reasons why MTBs have not migrated to 30
> > >> speeds? I want to make clear I'm not trying to "advocate" MTBs move
> > >> to 30 speeds, just seeking to understand the technical reasons. That
> > >> said however, given the greater variation of terrain while riding a
> > >> MTB, I'd imagine that 30 speeds on a MTB would be "more useful/
> > >> necessary" than 30 speeds on a road bike.

> >
> > > It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
> > > 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
> > > same range. That is, arguably, a good thing for road racers, and of
> > > no particular use to any other road rider, and no use to MTB riders.

> >
> > Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?

>
> Riddle me this: what use is to any rider to have 1 or 2T differences
> between adjacent cogs?


Any rider?

> It really is useful only for minor adjustments
> to speed at a given cadence as conditions change, something that is
> unnecessary to anyone not riding in a peleton. Last I checked,
> MTB'ers do not ride in peletons and usually are not into maintaining a
> steady cadence. Going up and down hills is more a matter of range; I
> can see adding cogs if range changes, but it is a bit of marketing
> fluff to pretend that anyone other than a road racer needs closely
> spaced increments within a range.


Oh, it was a rhetorical question; you do not want a serious reply
to why ordinary mortals like 1 cog differences.
--
Michael Press
 
>> On Mar 20, 8:06 pm, "damyth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> What are the technical reasons why MTBs have not migrated to 30
>>> speeds? I want to make clear I'm not trying to "advocate" MTBs move
>>> to 30 speeds, just seeking to understand the technical reasons. That
>>> said however, given the greater variation of terrain while riding a
>>> MTB, I'd imagine that 30 speeds on a MTB would be "more useful/
>>> necessary" than 30 speeds on a road bike.


> Rick wrote:
>> It is neither more useful nor necessary. The move from 5 to 6 to 7 to
>> 8 to 9 to 10 speed clusters have all been to add increments within the
>> same range. That is, arguably, a good thing for road racers, and of
>> no particular use to any other road rider, and no use to MTB riders.


Lou Holtman wrote:
> Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?


Carrying a bike with a broken chain on your shoulder a few miles in mud
is less fun that sticking out your thumb?
Just guessing, not an MTB guy myself.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
"Phil, Non-Squid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2007-03-21, Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mar 21, 1:24 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:

> > [...]
> >>> Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?
> >>
> >> Riddle me this: what use is to any rider to have 1 or 2T differences
> >> between adjacent cogs? It really is useful only for minor
> >> adjustments to speed at a given cadence as conditions change,
> >> something that is unnecessary to anyone not riding in a peleton.

> >
> > I really like those one-tooth jumps. Otherwise I end up either mashing
> > my knees to a pulp or going a bit more slowly than I really want to
> > and getting bored. I'm never in any doubt about which is the "right"
> > gear to be in with one-tooth jumps which sort of implies it's not too
> > many gears.

>
> Although I wouldn't state it with such hyperbole, terrain defines the
> cadence. Not all MTB rides have rolling hills or changing terrain. A

jaunt
> through a wooded area with little to no elevation change might have

cadence
> problems with too few a selection of gears.


Exactly. Not to mention those miles on the road to and from the track. For
that reason I have a wheel with a close ratio road cluster.

Lou
 
On 2007-03-21, (PeteCresswell) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per Lou Holtman:
>>Why is it of no use to a MTB rider. What makes him so different?

>
> For me, it seems tb the terrain: riding off road, I get such frequent large
> diffs in gear requirements that the fine distinctions seem to fade into the
> background.
>
> I only have 14 speeds on my FS and they're evenly spaced. Even so, that's
> plenty for me - having tried more and different spacings in the past.
>
> Riding road, OTOH, even I can see the need for more gears and different spacings
> - narrower as the gears get higher. It's been awhile since I spent any
> significant time on the road - or on a road bike.. but it seems to me like I
> gravitated towards 1-tooth diffs at the upper end... and when I put slicks on my
> hardtail and ride pavement, I always wish for a couple extra gears here and
> there at cruising speed.


I think that's right. It's also in very flat places that you
particularly want the small jumps, where you might be riding along for
miles at a time with no change in conditions.
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> a écrit:

> At the low end of the range, you're describing an improvement of
> 10% with each added cog. That's far from insignificant. I'll agree
> that any small changes to the high end are, for the most part, irrelevant.


Just in case it seems like we're disagreeing, we're not.

I do think that the reduction in front shifting is generally more useful
than the extension of the bottom end though.

James Thomson
 

Similar threads