Going the Distance
First of all, let me identify myself as a practical neo-luddite. I tend slightly towards rejecting new technology that seems sales-driven, or that answers a question nobody asked. On the other hand, I rapturously embrace what works, especially what works for me. Although I once toed the Bridgestone line, and maintained that suspension forks were unnecessary, that was partly due to the fact that suspension forks of 5 years were total crap. I'd still rather ride my MB1 rigid than with some fucked-up piece of junk like a Mag-21. Furthermore, I'm embarrassed to admit that I once owned a Scott Unishock LF, which might even have been worse. Nowadays of course, everyone who has actual off-road terrain to ride realizes that MTB-ing without suspension is just pointless showing off.
I also hated the push-push type rapidfire shifters right from the start. Those things really were just plain suck-filled wafer thin mints. If you disagree, you're an idiot. Shimano fortunately refined their rapidfire idea, so now it sucks alot less. I still think it sucks more than GripShift, but at least now I could live with it if I had to.
I think 9-speed is really a bad idea for off-road use. I didn't even think 8-speed was all that necessary, and to prove my point I raced most of a season on Suntour 7-speed stuff, which taught me alot about why Suntour went out of business, but that's another story.
One thing I don't like about more gears is that the spacing gets narrower and more finicky and the drivetrain becomes less robust and more disaster-prone when mixed with mud, sticks, blood, worms, water, rocks, ducks and lemurs. This was hammered home to me in vivid detail this year in all the mud that el Nino brought us in NorCal. Any kind of thick, sticky mud got stuck in the drivetrain and skipped and popped until it got squished down really well in between the cogs, at which point more sticky mud would be placed on top, causing the process to repeat. It may just be coincidence, but I had much less trouble in the 2 muddy races where I rode my old 7-speed MB1. Mountain biking is all about being able to ride in all sorts of conditions, so I'm very hesitant to give up any reliability unless the up side is overwhelming.
Another drawback to more gears is it means more wheel dish, which means weaker wheels. Now I'm not that heavy (155 lbs) and I'm not that hard on equipment, but it seems to me that 8-speed rear wheels with lightweight rims are right on the edge of the minimum amount of durability. Once Bontrager and Ritchey started selling asymmetrically drilled rims we got back some of what we lost with 8-speed (maybe more than what we lost), so once more I'm satisfied with my ability to build light wheels that can be raced hard and almost never trued. I'm not so sure I really want to give that up and accept any more dish. Now it may be that Shimano was able to squeeze in an extra gear without more dish, I haven't read anything conclusive on this point. If they fit 9 gears into the same spacing we have now, the wheel strength thing is a non-issue.
There are only three valid reasons you might want 9 speeds instead of 8. 1) Greater range, i.e., lower low gear and/or higher high gear. 2) Smaller gaps between gears to help maintain your most efficient cadence. 3) To impress chicks and show off your shiny new equipment to your friends.
--help, i need 9-speed to get up this hill
My argument may not work for everyone because I'm reasonably fit and I know how to pedal, but I don't think MTB's need any greater range than a 22-32-44 on the front and a 12-32 on the back (I personally can't feel any difference between a 44t ring and 42). If you can't get up just about any ridable hill in a 22x32, you need to stop chowing down on cheesy poofs and Weightgain 4000 and get your fat ass in shape. As it is I have to go to the 28 (or 26) to climb anything technical, just to get some speed and momentum. You can just as easily walk as push a 22x32, and at least if you're walking you'll know what a puss you are and you make a resolution to eat less.
If you need a bigger gear than a 44-12 you're either a chairlift-riding, southern cal DH dork (in which case you need to stop reading this e-zine right now), or you don't know how to pedal a bicycle. You don't see Tinker, or Frischy or anyone else who rides fast whining about spinning out of a 44-12. If you can't easily maintain 100-120 rpm then you're just a poser anyway, and Shimano has no business designing their upper end equipment for your needs. I rarely even use the 12t cog, and i certainly would trade it to get better reliability in the mud.
Ok, this one may be slightly valid. On a standard 12-32 cassette there's a pretty dang big gap between the 4th and 5th cogs (i think). Reducing this gap would probably be a good thing. Hey, how about swapping that 12 out for a 13 and bumping up the 5th, 6th and 7th cogs 1 tooth each too? We already established that no actual bicyclist needs a 12t, so it can go away. At any rate, I don't really hear people complaining about the big gap, and I only notice it occasionally. In fact, I don't hear alot of gearing complaints period, except from DH idiots and people who only ride their MTB's on the road (and don't know how to pedal) so maybe the whole 9-speed thing is the question nobody asked?
It makes sense to me to use 9-speed on a road bike. You can get great range and close gaps and keep a double chainring (or you can go completely wild and have a 27-speed). Road bikes are typically not subject to sticky chunky mud. Most importantly, road bikes last so long that manufacturers have to invent a reason for you to buy a new one. Everyone except me already has some kind of ergo/sti shifting, so they're set for the next 10 years or so. No one is likely to revolutionize road geometry the way Fisher (and more importantly his team and test riders) revolutionized the off-road world with Genesis. Suspension technology is just a circus sideshow in the roadie world (deservedly so), so that's not going to drive the early obsolescence of any bikes. The only real reason to buy a new road bike is to get the new 9-speed jewelry in a complete no-hassle package, so you can impress your friends. This is not the case with mountain bikes.
Pretty much everyone is going to need a new mountain bike or two in the next 2-3 years because of 1) Genesis geometry shows the failings of the old Norba standard, 2) Actual ridable, lightweight full-suspension bikes will be produced by companies besides Santa Cruz, and 3) Disc brakes will probably start to take over the high end. You can argue (ignorantly) against these developments, but you have to agree that they pretty much all mean you have to buy a new bike. If you actually ride, you'll start to wear enough expensive stuff out after 2 years that you'll probably need a new bike anyway.
So give us a break Shimano! 9-speed isn't going to sell any more mountain bikes, and no one really needs it. In view of the abuse drivetrains and rear wheels take, most people need not to have 9-speed. At least if you must make the stuff, and force all the bike companies to spec it, have the decency to close out all those leftover xtr 8spd ti cassettes at killer prices so I can stock up.
More rants? check out the rant archive.