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



>> Given the extraordinarily gentle grades and curves of railroad beds,
>> boredom may be a bigger source of discomfort than having only 27 gears
>> instead of 30.

>
> There are some rather scenic ones around here. But because they're so
> straight and flat, discomfort becomes an issue. The Virginia Creeper
> Trail is an exception. It's actually quite curvy, and even somewhat steep
> (by normal, non-athletic person standards).


But steep enough to need a higher-than-normal gear on a mountain bike? What
would you estimate the grade to be? Looks to be about a 2000 foot descent in
just over 20 miles. 100 feet/mile.... a bit under 2% if I"m figuring this
correctly. A 2% grade with a less-than-fast road surface isn't going to get
you going very fast, is it? Does look like a very cool trail from what I
find here- http://www.vacreepertrail.org/maps.html. Too bad we don't have
anything like that out our way (Northern California).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:21:53 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Given the extraordinarily gentle grades and curves of railroad beds,
>>> boredom may be a bigger source of discomfort than having only 27 gears
>>> instead of 30.

>>
>> There are some rather scenic ones around here. But because they're so
>> straight and flat, discomfort becomes an issue. The Virginia Creeper
>> Trail is an exception. It's actually quite curvy, and even somewhat steep
>> (by normal, non-athletic person standards).

>
>But steep enough to need a higher-than-normal gear on a mountain bike? What
>would you estimate the grade to be? Looks to be about a 2000 foot descent in
>just over 20 miles. 100 feet/mile.... a bit under 2% if I"m figuring this
>correctly. A 2% grade with a less-than-fast road surface isn't going to get
>you going very fast, is it? Does look like a very cool trail from what I
>find here- http://www.vacreepertrail.org/maps.html. Too bad we don't have
>anything like that out our way (Northern California).
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Dear Mike,

To be fair, it's likely that the grade of the Virginia Creeper Trail
railroad bed varies in its 20-mile length, so some sections are
probably steeper than the average 1.9% grade.

For example, the steepest standard railroad grade in the U.S. is
allegedly found on the 3-mile Saluda to Melrose line in North
Carolina, which climbs 600 feet in 3 miles (3.8%), but has a short
5.03% section:

http://www.saludagrade.org/CHLhistory.html

Similarly, the Durango-to-Silverton steam-engine tourist-train runs 45
miles through the San Juan Mountains in southwest Colorado in about 3
& 1/2 hours at speeds up to 18 mph.

Durango is at ~6500 feet and Silverton is at ~9300, so the train gains
about 2800 feet in 45 miles, a 1.2% average grade:

http://www.durangotrain.com/faq.htm

But conquering Hermosa Hill, a daunting 2.5% grade just north of
Durango, takes full throttle from the ancient steam locomotive:

http://www.sandovalsignpost.com/oct03/html/time_off.html

For comparison, maximum grade on interstate highways is supposed to be
limited to 6%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards

As for curves, railroads often feature scenic curves, but it's hard to
imagine a railroad curve tight enough to trouble a frail grandmother
riding a bicycle.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:05:02 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:21:53 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Given the extraordinarily gentle grades and curves of railroad beds,
>>>> boredom may be a bigger source of discomfort than having only 27 gears
>>>> instead of 30.
>>>
>>> There are some rather scenic ones around here. But because they're so
>>> straight and flat, discomfort becomes an issue. The Virginia Creeper
>>> Trail is an exception. It's actually quite curvy, and even somewhat steep
>>> (by normal, non-athletic person standards).

>>
>>But steep enough to need a higher-than-normal gear on a mountain bike? What
>>would you estimate the grade to be? Looks to be about a 2000 foot descent in
>>just over 20 miles. 100 feet/mile.... a bit under 2% if I"m figuring this
>>correctly. A 2% grade with a less-than-fast road surface isn't going to get
>>you going very fast, is it? Does look like a very cool trail from what I
>>find here- http://www.vacreepertrail.org/maps.html. Too bad we don't have
>>anything like that out our way (Northern California).
>>
>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

>
>Dear Mike,
>
>To be fair, it's likely that the grade of the Virginia Creeper Trail
>railroad bed varies in its 20-mile length, so some sections are
>probably steeper than the average 1.9% grade.
>
>For example, the steepest standard railroad grade in the U.S. is
>allegedly found on the 3-mile Saluda to Melrose line in North
>Carolina, which climbs 600 feet in 3 miles (3.8%), but has a short
>5.03% section:
>
>http://www.saludagrade.org/CHLhistory.html
>
>Similarly, the Durango-to-Silverton steam-engine tourist-train runs 45
>miles through the San Juan Mountains in southwest Colorado in about 3
>& 1/2 hours at speeds up to 18 mph.
>
>Durango is at ~6500 feet and Silverton is at ~9300, so the train gains
>about 2800 feet in 45 miles, a 1.2% average grade:
>
>http://www.durangotrain.com/faq.htm
>
>But conquering Hermosa Hill, a daunting 2.5% grade just north of
>Durango, takes full throttle from the ancient steam locomotive:
>
>http://www.sandovalsignpost.com/oct03/html/time_off.html
>
>For comparison, maximum grade on interstate highways is supposed to be
>limited to 6%:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards
>
>As for curves, railroads often feature scenic curves, but it's hard to
>imagine a railroad curve tight enough to trouble a frail grandmother
>riding a bicycle.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel


Ah, the joys of browsing the internet!

Matt O'Toole certainly looks righter (or at least much steeper) than I
thought.

Here are two sites that mention a "nearly 7% grade" near the end of
the Virginia Creeper railroad line:

"At the trail's lowest point, where it crosses South Holston Lake on a
huge curving trestle, it is 2,000 feet above sea level, but by the
time it reaches Whitetop Community it has ascended 1,600 feet, some of
it at nearly 7 percent grade."
http://www.vacreepertrail.org/

"For most of the uphill, the grade is about 3%, although the final
section to whitetop is nearly 7% grade."
http://home.comcast.net/~cmorhiker/VaCreeperBike.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Mar 20, 10:49 pm, "Dave Mayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My favorite
> shops #1 customer upgrade is to convert high-end MTBs to Shimano XTR M900
> 8-speed drivetrains. Costs an arm and a leg to find these 10-year old
> parts, but the wider cog spacing gives more reliable shifting in harsh
> conditions.


Think of the fortune to be made in converting the faithful to even
more reliable 7-speed Shimano Deore XT M730 drivetrains!

Chalo
 
> On Mar 20, 10:49 pm, "Dave Mayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My favorite
>> shops #1 customer upgrade is to convert high-end MTBs to Shimano XTR M900
>> 8-speed drivetrains. Costs an arm and a leg to find these 10-year old
>> parts, but the wider cog spacing gives more reliable shifting in harsh
>> conditions.


Chalo wrote:
> Think of the fortune to be made in converting the faithful to even
> more reliable 7-speed Shimano Deore XT M730 drivetrains!


If only! You'd be surprised how many people ask for that series.
(which we don't have and can't find)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:25:08 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the cogs are the same thickness, they'll be just as strong. If not,
>> Shimano can use higher strength steel. No big deal. This isn't
>> rocket science. 10sp drivetrains probably won't have lower gears, just
>> more of them. (22/34 is bordering on ridiculous already.)

>
>But the cogs *do* change in thickness, from 1.78mm to 1.6mm. Not an
>insignificant change. As for using different materials, I'm sure there are
>trade-offs between lateral stiffness, wear & brittleness that all come into
>play. It may not be as simple as saying "Let's use a higher-quality alloy
>that costs a bit more but is much stronger!"


You mean stronger, more costlier alloys are NOT the reason the
component prices have been going up so fast? I'm simply shocked!
-)

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:21:53 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are some rather scenic ones around here. But because they're so
>> straight and flat, discomfort becomes an issue. The Virginia Creeper
>> Trail is an exception. It's actually quite curvy, and even somewhat steep
>> (by normal, non-athletic person standards).

>
>But steep enough to need a higher-than-normal gear on a mountain bike? What
>would you estimate the grade to be? Looks to be about a 2000 foot descent in
>just over 20 miles. 100 feet/mile.... a bit under 2% if I"m figuring this
>correctly. A 2% grade with a less-than-fast road surface isn't going to get
>you going very fast, is it? Does look like a very cool trail from what I
>find here- http://www.vacreepertrail.org/maps.html. Too bad we don't have
>anything like that out our way (Northern California).


There's about a half a mile of 6% between Green Cove and Whitetop.
Not to mention the trail surface degrades there (erosion). Is that
enough to make you change gears?

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
> Matt O'Toole certainly looks righter (or at least much steeper) than I
> thought.
>
> Here are two sites that mention a "nearly 7% grade" near the end of
> the Virginia Creeper railroad line:
>
> "At the trail's lowest point, where it crosses South Holston Lake on a
> huge curving trestle, it is 2,000 feet above sea level, but by the
> time it reaches Whitetop Community it has ascended 1,600 feet, some of
> it at nearly 7 percent grade."
> http://www.vacreepertrail.org/
>
> "For most of the uphill, the grade is about 3%, although the final
> section to whitetop is nearly 7% grade."
> http://home.comcast.net/~cmorhiker/VaCreeperBike.html


As a train nut, this certainly has my curiousity aroused. 7% grades on
standard-width track simply do not (and did not) exist. The 5.89% grade on
the Pennsylvania Railroad in Madison, Indiana is the current record-holder
in the US, but that's steam-only. The steepest kinda sorta normal grade is
the 4.7% at Saluda Hill in North Carolina.

Given that the trail is called the "creeper", there's an implication that it
was very slow, which was likely due to tight curves and/or steep grades. So
perhaps this might have been narrow guage to begin with. But no, it wasn't
abandoned until 1977, so it was most definitely standard guage. I found the
park service reference to the "almost 7%" grade, and one other, but nothing
anyplace that specifically talked about the various grades found on the
route in a way that instilled confidence.

In a blog http://vacreepertrail.blogspot.com/, you find this reference-

"We started off riding with other members of our van group but slowly people
found their own pace and the group spread out to where John and I were by
ourselves. The intial descent from Whitetop is some of the steepest grade on
the entire trail and we had fun blasting down the mountain at about 20 mph."

Must have been a pretty strong headwind on that 7% grade!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:28:01 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Matt O'Toole certainly looks righter (or at least much steeper) than I
>> thought.
>>
>> Here are two sites that mention a "nearly 7% grade" near the end of
>> the Virginia Creeper railroad line:
>>
>> "At the trail's lowest point, where it crosses South Holston Lake on a
>> huge curving trestle, it is 2,000 feet above sea level, but by the
>> time it reaches Whitetop Community it has ascended 1,600 feet, some of
>> it at nearly 7 percent grade."
>> http://www.vacreepertrail.org/
>>
>> "For most of the uphill, the grade is about 3%, although the final
>> section to whitetop is nearly 7% grade."
>> http://home.comcast.net/~cmorhiker/VaCreeperBike.html

>
>As a train nut, this certainly has my curiousity aroused. 7% grades on
>standard-width track simply do not (and did not) exist. The 5.89% grade on
>the Pennsylvania Railroad in Madison, Indiana is the current record-holder
>in the US, but that's steam-only. The steepest kinda sorta normal grade is
>the 4.7% at Saluda Hill in North Carolina.
>
>Given that the trail is called the "creeper", there's an implication that it
>was very slow, which was likely due to tight curves and/or steep grades. So
>perhaps this might have been narrow guage to begin with. But no, it wasn't
>abandoned until 1977, so it was most definitely standard guage. I found the
>park service reference to the "almost 7%" grade, and one other, but nothing
>anyplace that specifically talked about the various grades found on the
>route in a way that instilled confidence.
>
>In a blog http://vacreepertrail.blogspot.com/, you find this reference-
>
>"We started off riding with other members of our van group but slowly people
>found their own pace and the group spread out to where John and I were by
>ourselves. The intial descent from Whitetop is some of the steepest grade on
>the entire trail and we had fun blasting down the mountain at about 20 mph."
>
>Must have been a pretty strong headwind on that 7% grade!
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Dear Mike,

I'm no railroad nut, but I do love finding how different figures
accumulate around things that should have only one measurement.

Here's a "7%" description (no "nearly") in an article about a fellow
who did about 85,000 miles on that trail:

"The trail's low point is at 2,000 foot elevation at South Holston
Lake and rises 1,600 feet to the Whitetop Community at the border --
in places on a 7% grade."

http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/ActiveSeniorCycling/_archives/2005/8/8/1116986.html

Here's a more detailed description that limits itself to 6%:

"The Virginia Creeper Trail varies in elevation from 2,040 ft at the
trailhead in Abingdon, VA, down to a low point of 1,750 ft at South
Holston Lake (mile 8), back up to 1,930 ft at Damascus, VA (mile 16),
and then on up to a maximum of 3,576 ft at Whitetop Station on
Whitetop Mountain (mile 32 -- two miles from the trail end at the
North Carolina state line). From Abingdon to Damascus the average
grade is only 1.3%. From Damascus to Whitetop Station the grade
averages 2.5%, but varies from 0% to 6%."

http://www.crescentcitycyclists.org/vacreeper/vacreeper.html

This dour description downgrades (sorry, couldn't resist it) things
even more:

"Because the railroad grade was never more than 5 percent, even going
uphill is not difficult. Nevertheless, the trail is heavily used by
mountain bikers who take a shuttle to the top, then ride downhill to
Abingdon. Walkers do well to stay alert for careening bicyclists to
come whizzing by."

http://www.sherpaguides.com/virginia/mountains/long_trails_valleys/virginia_creeper_trail.html

In the end, the Virigina Creeper at 5%, 6%, or 7% resembles the Fargo
Street hill climb in Los Angeles, which has been described as 30%,
32%, and 33%:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5b0aba5e054b02fa

Whatever the actual grade is, Fargo is damned steep for a paved city
street, and the Virginia Creeper is damned steep for a railroad. In
both cases, people are probably just repeating numbers in good faith
that they've heard from other people, possibly mis-remembering them
and perhaps forgetting the "nearly" and the "almost".

Just for fun, I googled for "Viriginia Creeper" and "8% grade". Sure
enough, someone has raised the bidding that high:

"The best way to do the Creeper is to start in Damascus (middle point
of VA Creeper) and bike up the 17 mile 8% grade incline to White Top
Mountain."

http://www.ninernation.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-13292.html

Given enough time, it may turn into a cog railroad.

:)

P.G. Wodehouse did not share my belief in innocent error:

"Why not have those stories of mine told by a fisherman whose veracity
would be automatically suspect?"

And thus was born the first (and most aptly titled) of the many tales
of Mr. Mulliner:

Two men were sitting in the bar-parlour of the Anglers' Rest as I
entered it; and one of them, I gathered from his low, excited voice
and wide gestures, was telling the other a story. I could hear nothing
but an occasional "Biggest I ever saw in my life!" and "Fully as large
as that!" but in such a place it was not difficult to imagine the
rest; and when the second man, catching my eye, winked at me with a
sort of humorous misery, I smiled sympathetically back at him.

The action had the effect of establishing a bond between us; and when
the storyteller finished his tale and left, he came over to my table
as if answering a formal invitation.

"Dreadful liars some men are," he said genially.

"Fishermen," I suggested, "are traditionally careless of the truth."

"He wasn't a fisherman," said my companion. "That was our local
doctor. He was telling me about his latest case of dropsy.
Besides"--he tapped me earnestly on the knee--"you must not fall into
the popular error about fishermen. Tradition has maligned them. I am a
fisherman myself, and I have never told a lie in my life."

--The Truth About George

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
> In the end, the Virigina Creeper at 5%, 6%, or 7% resembles the Fargo
> Street hill climb in Los Angeles, which has been described as 30%,
> 32%, and 33%:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5b0aba5e054b02fa
>
> Whatever the actual grade is, Fargo is damned steep for a paved city
> street, and the Virginia Creeper is damned steep for a railroad. In
> both cases, people are probably just repeating numbers in good faith
> that they've heard from other people, possibly mis-remembering them
> and perhaps forgetting the "nearly" and the "almost".


Right, but the difference between the "Creeper" and Fargo is that the
low-end given (5%) is within just about anyone's capabilities, but 5% pretty
much describes the upper end of the easily-ridden-up range. Thus I would
make the case that we're seeing descriptions of the "Creeper" that vary from
relatively-easy to difficult (7%). Fargo, at the low end of the scale, is
still daunting. It hardly matters that it's 30 or 33%; either one is in the
hors categorie classification!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:16:15 -0600, Patrick Lamb
<[email protected]> wrote:

>component prices have been going up so fast?


Is this true? I'm not talking about high-end aftermarket stuff like
ceramic bearings and carbon fibers wheels, but basic material like
various road or MTB racing groups in their standard configuration.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:44:14 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:16:15 -0600, Patrick Lamb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>component prices have been going up so fast?

>
> Is this true? I'm not talking about high-end aftermarket stuff like
> ceramic bearings and carbon fibers wheels, but basic material like
> various road or MTB racing groups in their standard configuration.


It sure looks that way to me. I was just looking through Performance,
Nashbar, etc., and thinking, "What the hell am I going to do if my STIs
give up the ghost?" In this town, I can buy a serviceable used *car*
cheaper than a new pair of STI shifters!

Relatively speaking, it seems parts are going up faster than bikes.
The main problem is, the more reasonable alternatives (32 spoke wheels,
cranks that accept standard chainrings, etc.) are disappearing.

Matt O.
 
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:16:15 -0600, Patrick Lamb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> component prices have been going up so fast?


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Is this true? I'm not talking about high-end aftermarket stuff like
> ceramic bearings and carbon fibers wheels, but basic material like
> various road or MTB racing groups in their standard configuration.


Select your data points to prove it either way.

Standard tires and tubes haven't changed at retail or wholesale for 25
years or more. Basic $14.95 derailleurs last moved from $9.95 in the
mid-80s.

Brooks' new Ti saddle at $795 may not have an antecedent though.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Matt O'Toole certainly looks righter (or at least much steeper) than I
>> thought.
>>
>> Here are two sites that mention a "nearly 7% grade" near the end of
>> the Virginia Creeper railroad line:
>>
>> "At the trail's lowest point, where it crosses South Holston Lake on a
>> huge curving trestle, it is 2,000 feet above sea level, but by the
>> time it reaches Whitetop Community it has ascended 1,600 feet, some of
>> it at nearly 7 percent grade."
>> http://www.vacreepertrail.org/
>>
>> "For most of the uphill, the grade is about 3%, although the final
>> section to whitetop is nearly 7% grade."
>> http://home.comcast.net/~cmorhiker/VaCreeperBike.html

>
> As a train nut, this certainly has my curiousity aroused. 7% grades on

[deleted]


The "Route of the Hiawatha" on the Montana/Idaho border is worth a
look:

http://www.skilookout.com/hiaw/bike_trail_info.html

You get 11 tunnels (one is 1.66 miles), and 9 high trestles in 46
miles to keep the grade under 2.1%. Then you can ride clear across
the Idaho Panhandle to Washington State on brand new rails-to-trails
(and I mean REAL smooth pavement!) starting with the 72 mile "Trail
of the Coeur d'Alenes" to Coeur d"Alene, ID

http://www.idahoparks.org/parks/trailofthecoeurdalenes.aspx

followed by the Spokane River Centennial Trail to Spokane

The plan is to make it all the way to the Pacific on the abandoned
Milwaukee Road Corridor, making this the longest rails-to-trails.

Not much in the way of rail-to-trails in Montana, because nobody lives
here (it's amazing how the traffic drops off when you cross the
border), so you just ride on the road

Bill Westphal
 
On Mar 21, 9:59 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> 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.


Then use a different chain....
>
> Campy has also had some infamous 10-speed chain failures (during the Tour de
> France).


The one you and so many others refer to was a shimano chain...
>
> 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.


I agree that even 9s is stoopid for MTBs, but shimano's chain is the
issue, not 9 or 10s.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
On Mar 23, 1:25 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> There's no technical reason. It's all marketing. Give 'em a year or
> >>> two.

>
> >> Matt: As I detailed in my prior post, I have to disagree. We're pushing
> >> the edge as we make ever-narrower chains. And perhaps you recall
> >> Shimano's first year with 9-speeds on MTBs... we saw quite a number of
> >> bent/folded-over larger-sized cassette cogs. Just because something
> >> works in a relatively clean & predictable road environment doesn't mean
> >> you can expect the same off-road.

>
> > Dirt has nothing to do with this. It's simple mechanics, the higher
> > torque and chain tension of a MTB's low gears. These days people are
> > using 22/32 and even 22/34 gears.

>
> Drivetrain longevity is highly dependent upon cleanliness. And the narrower
> 10-speed chains are more susceptible to wear from being dirty than are the
> 9-speed versions. I should have also pointed out that, when I used the term
> "predictable" I should have elaborated and said that mountain bikes are far
> more likely to see people shifting under heavy loads, another major
> contributor to component wear & failure.
>
> > If the cogs are the same thickness, they'll be just as strong. If not,
> > Shimano can use higher strength steel. No big deal. This isn't
> > rocket science. 10sp drivetrains probably won't have lower gears, just
> > more of them. (22/34 is bordering on ridiculous already.)

>
> But the cogs *do* change in thickness, from 1.78mm to 1.6mm. Not an
> insignificant change. As for using different materials, I'm sure there are
> trade-offs between lateral stiffness, wear & brittleness that all come into
> play. It may not be as simple as saying "Let's use a higher-quality alloy
> that costs a bit more but is much stronger!"
>
> And why is everybody always thinking "rocket science" isn't appropriate for
> such mundane tasks as bicycle component design?
>
> > Like I say, give 'em a year or two, when they'll pull 10sp out of their
> > hat for their next big marketing trick.

>
> Shimano could have used a 9-to-10-speed upgrade for 2007, as many product
> managers don't feel Shimano has done enough to upgrade components lately,
> aside from what they've done with disc brakes. I think it's more than a
> marketing issue.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com


And Mike, when shimano DOES go to a 10s MTB drivetrain, be sure to
ention all above to shimano..like they'll listen...
 
On Mar 21, 4:12 pm, "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? 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



pelOton..please....


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.
>
> - rick
 
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:23:15 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> On Mar 23, 1:25 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Shimano could have used a 9-to-10-speed upgrade for 2007, as many product
>> managers don't feel Shimano has done enough to upgrade components lately,
>> aside from what they've done with disc brakes. I think it's more than a
>> marketing issue.


> And Mike, when shimano DOES go to a 10s MTB drivetrain, be sure to
> ention all above to shimano..like they'll listen...


People are riding 10sp MTB drivetrains already, using Paul Thumbies with
10sp barend shifters. I just read that SRAM is now making 11-32 and 11-34
10sp cassettes, too.

9sp and 10sp Thumbie/barend shifters are gaining popularity because
they're more reliable than RF+ or Gripshift.

Matt O.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Matt
O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:44:14 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:16:15 -0600, Patrick Lamb
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>component prices have been going up so fast?

> >
> > Is this true? I'm not talking about high-end aftermarket stuff like
> > ceramic bearings and carbon fibers wheels, but basic material like
> > various road or MTB racing groups in their standard configuration.

>
> It sure looks that way to me. I was just looking through Performance,
> Nashbar, etc., and thinking, "What the hell am I going to do if my STIs
> give up the ghost?" In this town, I can buy a serviceable used *car*
> cheaper than a new pair of STI shifters!


At the risk of kicking the proverbial sleeping dog, you can do what I
did when faced with that same outrageous replacement cost: turn your
brifters into an overengineered pair of brake levers and swap out your
bar plugs with a pair of barcons.

Luke
 

Similar threads