While browsing through the latest PricePoint catalog, I found myself wondering, "where will it end" when it comes to rear cogs. I remember when 6 was "new", and when 7 was "a lot". When 8 came along, people started wondering, and when there were 9, some of my friends were heard saying, "Oh please" with an eyeroll.
Now there are 10. A good, round place to stop. But will there be 11? 12? How many people here want a 12-speed rear casette with a 2cm-wide chain? I dunno if I do, but maybe I'm being a technophobe.
I read somewhere that Shimano has a patent on a 15 or 16 sprocket cassette....
Do they have the patent on the 200mm dropout spacing to go with that? Personally I can't remember ever sitting on a 7 speed wishing I had more gears. I went with 9 on my new bike because it was the fewest I could get. At some point they're just going to have to figure out how to put a continuous variable ratio transmition on a bike.
It's probably about time to introduce a quadruple up front. :eek:
I'm stopping at 9 in back and 3 in front. I don't care what the industry does at this point because I'm done at 27 gears. I've already stocked up on some bargain 9 speed items taking advantage of 9 speed Ultegra becoming NOS overnight.
There isn't anybody alive that can convice me from an engineering point of view that having 30 speeds is in any way superior to having 27 speeds. If a good tight ratio (12/21, 13/23) can't do it for you already, then you have issues.
It's a funny question. I'm sure it will keep creeping up, but think about it: the only thing that's moved along more steadily than the cog additions has been weight reduction.
It's clearly possible to address both simultaneously, and I'm sure Campy and Shimano both will, but it's a factor which keeps me from throwing up my hands and thinking, "man, we'll have 14 speeds before we know it." The weight factor keeps expanding cogsets and cranksets from going breakneck.
There's always the constant velocity style of transmission - moveable cones that a belt or chain rides on. Vary how far apart the cones are to vary the size of the 'wheel' that pulls the belt. No one has come up with a cycling version of this yet, though I've heard that more than one engineer has been working on it. Theoretically, this provides an exact ratio without the need for gears.
The current implementation of a CVT is on snowmobiles and atv's, runs on a friction belt. Too heavy and friction lossy for cycling use, but a pair of toothed cones with a v shaped chain might do the trick.
