28

Back when I was a younger man I bought a road bike, a 1998 Giant Kronos. It has a frame made from aluminum tubes, a triple chainring in front, and a 7-sprocket cassette in back. By US standards, it was an entry-level quality road bike from a bike shop. I rode the bike solo for about five years, and then moved to a different area and hung the bike up on hooks for nearly a decade. I started riding it again, got hooked again, and this time I discovered group rides. I've been having lots of fun, and I met some great friends. I upgraded the bike's saddle, brakes, and pedals. IIRC the bike weighs about 26 lbs / 12 kg with the frame pump, saddle bag and tools, and a full water bottle.

My friends have been gently urging me to consider buying a new road bike with an aluminum frame, or a more recent used one. Maybe I could afford a used bike with a carbon-fiber frame. My bike did stand out in group rides back in the pre-pandemic days, typically being the only one with a horizontal top tube, a triple front chainring, and a quill stem. Now that I'm middle-aged I don't mind if my bike looks old-fashioned. But I am slow, always in the group at the back of the group rides, and my main riding buddy has to wait a few seconds at the top of hills for me, so anything that makes me faster would be welcome.

So what's changed in road bikes in the last 23 years, broadly? My friends say that bikes have improved tremendously since 1998. I know they're lighter, but I could weigh any bike I was thinking of buying and see exactly how much lighter it is compared to my existing bike, so please don't focus only on weight. What improvements would I notice in the saddle of a newer bike, besides just being lighter and faster?

rclocher3
  • 2,651
  • 1
  • 15
  • 23
  • 1
    Carbon frames (even cheap carbon frames) are far more expensive to build than aluminum frames. At your indicated price point, an aluminum frame bike will have better components and you will get a better (and probably lighter) bike than carbon. – mattnz Feb 16 '21 at 21:12
  • 19
    Are any of your friends about your size? If one of them will swap bikes with you for a bit and see the differences. Other rider might be surprised how nice your older bike is. Even a short, 5 minute stretch would be educational. Could even be a "thing" on a group ride - everyone rides someone else's bike for a short time on a quiet side road or side-loop. – Criggie Feb 16 '21 at 21:37
  • That would be a great idea @Criggie, but either my friends aren't the same size or they don't have the same style clipless pedals that I have. – rclocher3 Feb 16 '21 at 22:37
  • 9
    Gently urge one of you mates (whos bike is the size you ride) to upgrade "Yeh, I am thinking an upgrade would be good; Mik, what about you - when are you upgrading?, I could have your bike?" – mattnz Feb 17 '21 at 00:13
  • Were integrated brake/shift levers a thin back then? That might be a huge upgrade for you. – MaplePanda Feb 17 '21 at 01:52
  • 2
    @MaplePanda yes, I have Shimano STI brifters. – rclocher3 Feb 17 '21 at 01:56
  • 1
    Pedals are easy enough to swap out between bikes. – Kibbee Feb 17 '21 at 13:31
  • 6
    The answer to the question depends on what you mean by "improvement". If improvement means a measurable increase in efficiency it will be difficult to argue that there has been any improvement. There is a lot of "bike fashion snobbery" that drives sales of bikes and components. Ride what feels good to you no matter how old it is. – David D Feb 17 '21 at 14:22
  • 5
    You might be interested in an Ars Technica article entitled How bicycles have changed in the last 25 years from November 2018. – Michael come lately Feb 17 '21 at 21:39
  • 1
    This is not enough for an answer, and somehow OT but I found (and was surprised) that single chainrings are becoming the standard: https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/72098/are-single-chainring-mountain-bikes-usual – WoJ Feb 18 '21 at 13:06
  • @WoJ That's for mountain bikes, because mountain bike riders are less concerned with finding the perfect gear ratio, and would rather not mess with changing chainrings. Also some gear combinations with double (or triple) chainrings make the chain slacker and more easily knocked off. None of these factors apply for road bikes, so road bikes will likely keep their multiple chainrings in the foreseeable future. – rclocher3 Feb 18 '21 at 18:59
  • Not so much a road-bike thing specifically, but better internally-geared hubs and belt (rather than chain) drives are my favorite recent improvements. Both need far less maintenance than the equipment they replace, and are generally cleaner (don't need lubrication, don't get a mix of road grime and said lubrication on everything they touch). That said, I'm more a commuter and cargo cyclist than an athletic-focused road type; when I did last go on group rides on a regular basis, the pace was decidedly casual. – Charles Duffy Feb 19 '21 at 17:01
  • (even just a decade ago, though, if you wanted a robust IGH with a wide gearing range that would last for 100km+ you were paying heavily in both price and weight for a Rohloff; today, there are lighter and cheaper alternatives with competitive performance). – Charles Duffy Feb 19 '21 at 17:05
  • Being able to easily find replacement components is a noticeable improvement. I finally replaced my 30 year old steel bike with a carbon one because I got tired of hunting for compatible parts. – AShelly Feb 19 '21 at 20:11

8 Answers8

30

I coincidentally bought an aluminum road bike (Cannondale) about the same time as you got your Giant and with very similar specs. Mine was 3x8 rather than 3x7, but same size chainrings and similar gear range. I rode it until the frame was cracked in an unfortunate incident and replaced it with a relatively modern Felt aluminum bike with 2x10 gearing with a compact double chainring. I actually still use the 3x8 drivetrain components on a commuter bike.

On the plus side, by 1998, many of the really substantive changes in road bike technology had already happened. Combined brake lever/shifters were standard, as well as dual pivot brake calipers, which have a lot better stopping power than some of the earlier single-pivot side pull calipers.

So what's changed?

Brakes

Although disc brakes are not yet standard technology for road bikes, the trend is certainly in that direction. Disc brakes are not something that can be retrofit on an old frame, so if you want those, you do need to get a newer bike.

The primary advantage of discs in better stopping power in rain and overall slightly more consistent performance. That said, the dual pivot caliper rim brakes that you have now have great stopping power as long as the pads are kept in good condition. The only reason I can imagine switching to discs is if you ride a lot in a group with other riders who have discs and you ride in the rain. In wet conditions, those other riders might stop more quickly than you can with your rim brakes and cause a crash. Or if you ride a lot on dirt roads, disc brakes have the advantage of not being affected if your rim gets muddy going through a puddle.

Wheels/tires

Another major trend in the last 20 years is a shift towards wider tires with lower air pressures, even among pro racers. Whereas most road bikes were equipped with 23mm wide tires or even narrower in 1999, now 25 and 28 mm are very common and many bikes have even wider tires. The high quality wide tires have no greater rolling resistance than the narrow ones, and the lower pressure makes the ride much smoother.

Because narrow tires were standard in the 90's, many frames did not have clearance for anything larger than 25, so if you wanted to try wider tires, you might be limited. You'd have to measure your frame to check. And if you're happy with the narrow tires you're on now, it doesn't matter.

Frame design

As you noted, a big change since 1999 is the ubiquity of sloping top tubes. Frame construction has also changed a bit, so a comparable aluminum frame today would likely be a bit lighter than your current one and feel a bit less stiff, though road feel is generally much more dependent on tire construction and pressure than on frame materials. But unless there's something you don't like about your current frame, I doubt it's worth the investment to replace it just because the newer ones look different.

Drive Train

Better chainring design (ramps and pins) has enabled double chainrings with large differences in size, and the number of cogs in the rear continues to increase (now 11 is standard on expensive bikes). As a result triple chainrings have largely disappeared from even the lower tiers of expensive road bikes. The main benefit of the doubles over triples is weight, though. There isn't a big difference in performance. And counterintuitively, you may find yourself shifting between chainrings more frequently on the double than you did on the triple because the switch point is in the middle range where you ride most. On the triple, I find that I ride a lot on the middle ring and mainly only use the big when descending and the small when climbing.

If you find your current gearing is a bit high for you, you can easily switch to smaller chainrings on the current setup. I've run 26/39/50 on those same Shimano triple cranks that you have that came with 30/42/52 originally. You should still be able to buy 39 and 50t chainrings with ramps and pins to work together properly, since Shimano sold Tiagra and Sora groupsets with 28/39/50 triples using the same BCD as the 30/42/52.

A downside to the new drivetrains is that the narrow cogs and chains wear much more quickly than the thicker ones in a 7-speed set up (and are more expensive to replace).

New cranks are also lighter due to the switch from square taper spindles to hollow spindles and external bearings. If weight isn't a concern for you, there's really no advantage.

And of course, if you want to switch to a 2x11 drive train, all of the components can be put on your existing frame, so you can upgrade without changing the frame.

Conclusion

If weight is not a concern, the primary benefit to a new bike would be the ability to have disc brakes, which aren't even standard on road bikes now.

You might find that wider lower pressure tires and lower gears make your riding more enjoyable, especially now that you're 20 years older than when you bought the Giant. But if you're comfortable on long rides the way it is, there's no need to change just to follow the trends.

If you want to cut a bit of weight, you can do it by upgrading parts. Perhaps look at nicer wheels or switch to a hollow spindle crank and external bearing BB such as the Tiagra triple from the 3x9 speed era, which would be compatible with all your existing equipment. Just swap on your current chainrings and you're good to go.

Andrew
  • 2,268
  • 9
  • 13
  • 2
    Regarding new stuff wearing out faster: https://cyclingtips.com/2019/12/the-best-bicycle-chain-durability-and-efficiency-tested/#8-9-10-11-12-speed In short, new stuff actually lasts significantly longer. – MaplePanda Feb 17 '21 at 01:55
  • 4
    A switch to 2x11 would require, as well, a different, 11 speed freehub, or, likely, a new, 11 speed rear wheel since there can be difficulty finding compatible replacement 11s freehubs, and some new, after-market freehubs cost as much or more than an entire new, 11s wheel. As there is significant cost involved in replacing the components of a drivetrain--even acquired from the used market--its common to point out that perhaps a newer bike already loaded with the desired drivetrain and built of the "improved," modern geometry and materials would be the most economical route. – Jeff Feb 17 '21 at 02:57
  • 8
    The best way to determine if the modern designs and frills are all that, in comparison, is to somehow be able to get some ride time in the cockpit. If that can't be a friend or willing member of your group rides, a bicycle shop that's worthy of your money will graciously provide you with ample time on any unit of their sale stock. – Jeff Feb 17 '21 at 03:07
13

Generally a good modern road bike will have:

  • more gears (resulting in both smaller gear steps and a wider overall range)
  • less weight
  • disc brakes which brake much better, especially in wet conditions and are easier to control
  • better aerodynamics
  • less rolling resistance due to better tires with the option to go tubeless
  • wider tires for more comfort
  • more compliant carbon frame and carbon seat post for more comfort while at the same time being stiffer where it matters, e.g. due to wider bottom bracket
  • electronic shifting

Of course there are is a wide variance. Some road bikes are made to be extremely light (for “climbing”), others are optimized for aerodynamics, some for comfort (“endurance” bikes), some have only 1x11 gearing, some still have rim brakes (which are nonetheless better than those from 1998) etc.

I think none of those improvements are revolutionary, it’s just a slow evolution. The difference is certainly noticeable but not mind blowing. For example a modern, high end, lightweight road bike is only around 6.5kg in weight. If you are 80kg and your current bike is 11kg it would reduce your overall weight by 5% which would result in an almost equal improvement in speed on steep climbs. The improvements in aerodynamics are probably even greater. But of course this assumes you go for a modern high end bike, not some 1000€ entry level model.

If you have the money and want to buy a new bike: Go ahead, you won’t be disappointed. But don’t expect a miracle.

Personally I’d make sure that the seating positing on your current bike is optimal for power, comfort and aerodynamics. Make sure your shifting works and you are using appropriate gears. Get good tires if you don’t have them already (and make sure they are inflated properly, but don’t overdo it). It’s also a good idea to invest in good clothes, a light&comfortable helmet etc.

Michael
  • 27,311
  • 1
  • 24
  • 86
  • 3
    With hydroforming, a modern aluminum frame is also far more compliant and than older aluminum. – mattnz Feb 16 '21 at 21:05
  • 3
    He’s got 3x7=21 gears, which is about the same as most high end road bikes sold today which are typically 2x11=22 – Andrew Feb 16 '21 at 21:08
  • 5
    You left out higher prices. – Daniel R Hicks Feb 16 '21 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Andrew: Yes, a 3x7 is usually pretty okay when it comes to range and gear steps. But the triple chainrings have a few disadvantages (more hassle and time lost due to shifting, more weight, worse shifting performance etc.) – Michael Feb 16 '21 at 21:14
  • My aluminum-tubing frame is pretty stiff. Most of the time I like my triple, except when I have to change chainrings, which is probably half again more often than you folks with doubles ;) – rclocher3 Feb 16 '21 at 22:33
  • 3
    @Andrew on a 3x7 you can't use all 21 possible gear combos (and some are repetitive) I think in terms of usable gears there is more like 14-16. – GageMartin Feb 16 '21 at 23:58
  • 2
    I have 14 combinations I actually use @GageMartin; here's a gear chart that shows them graphically on a logarithmic scale. – rclocher3 Feb 17 '21 at 00:33
  • 3
    You could also mention e-bikes, which have evolved a lot over the past decade. If you want a truly futuristic biking experience, that's your best bet :) – JonathanReez Feb 17 '21 at 06:34
  • 1
    @rclocher3: Compare to a typical modern configuration with 50/34 chainrings and 11–32 cassette. You’d have much easier gears for climbs, which would be advantageous if there are steep hills/mountains in your area. Unless you are strong enough to easily climb >10% gradients with 30:23. – Michael Feb 17 '21 at 07:25
  • 1
    @rclocher3 I've got a 3x9 triple (2017 Sora, on a heavy tourer) with 30/39/50 and 11-32. You can have a triple if you want. I like them personally, but live in an area with some short but rather steep climbs – Chris H Feb 17 '21 at 08:57
  • 1
    I would say you'd see a much greater difference at the "low" end of £/$1000 compared to the higher end. The improvements that have made it down to that level from the expensive end are huge - brakes, gears, etc. – awjlogan Feb 17 '21 at 10:40
  • @awjlogan: Yes entry level road bikes have also seen some nice improvement. They’ve gone from ~11kg down to ~9kg and from 7 speed to 10 speed. But you won’t get all the other nice stuff like carbon frame, aero wheels, disc brakes, <7.5kg weight, electronic shifting etc. for that price. – Michael Feb 17 '21 at 10:58
  • 1
    @Michael - disc brakes certainly, carbon sometimes (often at the expense of other parts) - aerowheels, super lightweight, and e-shifters for the majority of people make no (real) difference. The general increase in quality at that price is amazing, more so than at the top end due to dimishing returns. – awjlogan Feb 17 '21 at 11:08
  • Hydraulic disc brakes and carbon frame for 1000€ or less? Where? Up to ~2500€ you really get more performance and features for each unit of currency. Above ~3000€ you primarily pay for small benefits in weight and aerodynamics. – Michael Feb 17 '21 at 11:30
  • 1
    @Michael Have a look at the Decathlon in house for example, unlikely in a "brand". Not disagreeing that you get more for the next $1000 as well, but the quality you can get at 1000 is a different world to 10-15 years ago :) – awjlogan Feb 17 '21 at 11:35
  • @Michael thanks very much for sharing the comparison between my 3x7 and a typical modern "compact" 2x11. I can see that the mid-range (level ground) 2x11 combinations are spaced about as evenly as my combinations in the middle ring, but the lowest gear is much lower (yes!) and the highest gear is higher (meh). I can also estimate when I'd switch chainrings. Very useful information, much appreciated! – rclocher3 Feb 17 '21 at 16:36
6

A difference I would note is about the drive train. I'm not so much into road bikes, so I can be wrong.

Old bikes tend to have bigger chain rings and smaller sprockets on the cassette. As a result, they are less suited for steeper slopes than modern bikes. Clipless pedals are also a noticeable improvement, by allowing to transfer more power to the pedals than toe clips (or nothing).

Rеnаud
  • 19,785
  • 2
  • 32
  • 97
  • 7
    Clipless pedals were already well established technology by 1998, and in any case can be put an any bike young or old. – Andrew Feb 16 '21 at 21:48
  • I did compare my gear ratios to a friend's newer bike; his ratios are wider-spaced, and his lowest gear is lower than mine. I do suffer going up very steep hills, so I'd like a lower low, but on the other hand I do like the closely-spaced ratios on more level ground. I'm not sure which is better, not having experience with the wider spread. – rclocher3 Feb 16 '21 at 22:29
  • 3
    @rclocher3 Neither is obviously better, if you can get up hills at least somehow. Having the exactly right gear also helps increasing your speed. – Nobody Feb 17 '21 at 11:13
  • @rclocher3 unless you're riding the same route over an over and you specifically tune for it, you'll rarely have exactly the right gear. The goal is to get the best grouping you can to be as close as reasonable for the general terrain you ride. To my untrained ear, it sounds like you're in just about the right spot with your ratios. – FreeMan Feb 18 '21 at 12:34
4

One area of improvement has been in tires.
Tire construction and materials as well as tubeless tires.

bicycling.com credits Mavic with the first tubeless tire system for bikes in 1999.
Tire technology has resulted in a drop in rolling resistance.

A good place to check data on tires is bicyclerollingresistance.com

David D
  • 21,204
  • 1
  • 27
  • 87
  • 6
    Just looking at the plot, it looks like the rolling resistance advantage of tubeless advantage over latex tube varies from barely measurable to none at all. Pressure range from 1 to 3.8 bar looks like it's not really about road bikes. – ojs Feb 16 '21 at 20:46
  • @Andrew The original post was road bike oriented. The linked test and the graphic is for mountain bikes so it's not relevant - I'll edit the answer. Thanks – David D Feb 16 '21 at 21:11
  • @ojs Tubeless is arguably less hassle than latex tubes though (no need for daily inflation). The fancy Tubolito tubes actually look like promising latex alternatives though! – MaplePanda Feb 17 '21 at 01:58
  • 3
    The biggest improvement I noticed is the general quality of valves and tires as well as the existence of armoured mantles. 25 years ago, I spent many hours replacing punctured tubes whereas these days I cannot even remember when I last had to adjust the pressure. – Hermann Feb 17 '21 at 11:09
4

I feel I have some useful data to add to this conversation.

I got into riding using a road bike built in 1988, so a decade older than yours. The frame was Tange steel, with a horizontal top tube, and all up weighed about 12kg. It was 2x7 with Shimano Biopace chain rings, and had pretty narrow drop bars on a quill stem. So not super different to yours, but it did have down tube friction shifters.

I then bought a relatively new aluminium framed bike with sloped carbon top tube, 2x11 with the most recent 105 groupset (at the time). The handle bars are much wider, around the standard these days. All up it weighs around 9kg. I had a pretty good seat on the old one, so I took it with me to the new one.

Before I put my old bike to rest, I went up my favourite hill to do as fair a comparison as I could. Time to summit on my old bike 32:10, and on the new bike 1 week later 29:26

The biggest factor that made a difference? Without a doubt it was the shifting. Reaching down to change gears and fine tune the friction shifter slowed me down more than anything else. Having the shifters literally at your finger tips was a total game changer, it made selecting the best gear trivial.

The next biggest factor I think was the right gear ratios. The old bike just didn't have the same range, so I struggled on the really steep bits. And while maybe not a direct factor, the more comfortable position on the new bike helped psychologically. The 3kg difference probably helped, but that only made about 3-4% difference to the total weight of me and the bike.

I won't say going to a newer, lighter bike has no impact (of course it does! why would pro teams spend so much money?), but from my personal experience, smooth easy shifting, and a wide range of gears is where you'll get the best gains.

Bamboo
  • 378
  • 1
  • 7
4

@Andrew already mentioned this, but I think it's worth emphasizing: a modern bike will likely have a "compact double" chainring setup rather than a triple chainring.

When I started riding in the 90's, most double chainring bikes had a "racing double" setup, with 39 teeth on the small ring and 52 or 53 teeth on the big ring. This is great if you are a pro rider in fit shape riding in a race; it's not so great if you live in a hilly area, especially if you are a little bit heavy (like me). A "compact double" will have 34 teeth on the small ring, dropping the lowest gears available by a lot, and usually 50 teeth on the big ring.

A modern bike will have two chainrings in front and 10 or even 11 gears in back. This gives 20 or 22 gear combinations. There are cassettes available with 27, 28, or even 30 teeth on the biggest gear. I live in a hilly area and with these kinds of gears available I can climb all the hills I need to climb.

I used to ride a triple, and our tandem bike is still a triple. When riding a triple, I sometimes encounter roads where the incline is just hard enough that I feel the need to downshift to the smallest chainring; and then the road gets easy enough that the smallest is now too small, so I shift back to the middle chainring... then the road gets harder again... repeat, possibly many times. Much less trouble when riding with a double, where you usually can just use your smaller chainring and shift the rear gears to fine-tune your riding gear. That right there is my main reason for wanting a compact double.

A compact double also is lighter than a triple, although to me that's a very minor benefit.

Also, one of my bikes has an Italian racing frame. I initially had it built with a triple, but the chain rubbed on the frame if I used the lowest gear (because the frame was just not designed for use with a triple). When I switched to the compact double, my lowest gear was about the same as the lowest gear that I could actually use on the triple.

For the reasons I described above, I think a compact double is better than a triple most of the time. But no matter what I think, modern bikes have gone almost exclusively to doubles.

You can still get a triple chainring on a tandem bike. But a few years ago we had to replace our STI chainring shift lever on our tandem, and our bike shop told us that Shimano no longer sells any kind of triple-shift STI lever in Ultegra. The bike was built with Ultegra but we had to put a 105 shifter on as the replacement part.

steveha
  • 141
  • 2
  • Welcome to bicycles.SE, and thanks for sharing your experience! I too live in a hilly area and am a little bit heavy, so we're probably similar riders. I looked at the gear ratios for a typical modern 2x11, and it looks like for that bike at a 90 rpm cadence one would shift up to the big chainring at about 37 km/h (23 mph), or shift down to the small chainring at about 20 km/h (12 mph). Do you find yourself switching chainrings often? – rclocher3 Feb 19 '21 at 20:52
  • 1
    @rclocher3 I do almost all my riding in the smaller chainring. I rarely reach speeds of 37 kph or 23 mph. After I climb a hill I'm usually happy to just coast down it, so I don't shift up to the big ring and pedal; and for level to uphill the little ring works for me. I have a 10-speed cassette and the gears on it are working for me with a 34-tooth chainring. – steveha Feb 20 '21 at 00:39
3

To keep it short, specifically to your bike, the biggest improvements would be a bigger cassette (larger gear and/or more gears) on the back, and maybe new wheels.

The cassette would greatly help, you are probably pushing too much (pedalling at low frequency), or spinning too fast, missing the optimal cadence that would propel you uphill as fast as your riding buddies. A cassette with more gears (9/10) would help you, but it would likely require a change of the crank, of the front derailleur and maybe even the wheel itself (so you upgrade them) ... you may find good deals on second-hand or New old stock (NOS) components, so costs involved may be reasonable.

EarlGrey
  • 3,533
  • 7
  • 27
  • Thanks! I'm wary of changing just the cassette, because that would also change the spacing of ratios in the middle of the range where I spend most of my time. I have thought about changing chainrings as suggested by @Andrew. I should play with the gear calculator to see how these proposed changes work out. I will keep my eyes open for components and wheels... – rclocher3 Feb 18 '21 at 19:18
  • @rclocher3 if it is a good quality cassette, you may be able to change the individual cogs, not all the pack altogether. You may then change only the bigger 2 gears, with even bigger gears,(check that the derailleur still work with bigger cogs) or you may change the smaller cog on the crankset only (again, if it is possible with your components). You may have some luck by searching in ebay, too. Maybe look for a "Megarange" Shimano cassette? – EarlGrey Feb 18 '21 at 22:54
0

Improvements Last 23 years? premium dynohubs and LED lights - big win. Click'r pedals and shoes with recessed cleats. Now you can walk to the barrista without scratching the linoleum. Tires do seem much more puncture resistant, but maybe I'm not riding as much anymore. Road triple from 1995 with 8 speed cassette seems ideal for 95% of riders. Negligibly heavier than a full touring double, oops forgive me, a full "compact" setup with more durability, reliability, and shifting ease. Merino - making wool jerseys available again. Quicklinks.

Downgrades Disk brakes? a heavy, ugly, complex, physically limited solution to problems no one noticed before. Similarly, outboard bb bearings, electronic shifting, proprietary anything. Sloping top tubes and aheadsets? solving manufactures expense issues.

Criggie
  • 124,066
  • 14
  • 180
  • 423
Dan Gao
  • 356
  • 4
  • More shifting ease with a triple? Maybe you you are not just riding much anymore. – Vladimir F Героям слава Aug 13 '23 at 06:01
  • Closer spacing of the rings on a triple creates more overlap, allowing more choice of when to make a less jarring front shift. – Dan Gao Aug 13 '23 at 15:17
  • It does make more choice. This choise makes it more confusing. Also it is a major PITA when you are in a different chainring than you think and end up riding big-big. All MTB did not happily convert to 1x to satisfy some need of some companies to make money. It is simply so much easier to just shift up and down without checking the chainrings. – Vladimir F Героям слава Aug 13 '23 at 15:20
  • 1x and programmed electronic both have their virtues. – Dan Gao Aug 14 '23 at 15:32
  • I do not get the downvotes. Experienced riders already know what they want, but for the rest triples are actually just fine. Rings for up-down-flat and smaller gaps at the rear makes sense (only racers will shift both front and rear to get the gearing "just right"). – A.G. Jan 17 '24 at 23:51
  • (continued) Disk brakes may not be such an improvement except in particular uses, mainly under the rain (for those who do ride in the rain or mud, not all of us), and still, rim brakes work OK in the rain as long as you are not racing. I could consider discs for a city bike, though. Threadless forks I found a real improvement when I needed to remove the fork for the plane, but that's about it. – A.G. Jan 17 '24 at 23:51