How Does Cadence Improve with 11 Speed Gearing

[Splash]

Hi all.

Would like to know how cadence improves with 11 speed gearing compared to 10 speed gearing?


Splash

[stien]

Well more gear selection. It depends what you choose. I normally ride 12-27 53/39 on 10s. With 11 I have 11-28 with 52/36. Bigger range on both ends and similar gaps. Ymmv with what setup you choose. I love to spin but that's not really a function of gears but how you use them.

[MattTuck]

I don't understand, what do you mean 'cadence improve'? Cadence is a number, like age. It isn't good or bad.

In theory, you could have closer spacing between some sprockets, and thus achieve the ability to spin at a 'more optimal' cadence. That sounds suspiciously like marketing talk.

[kramnnim]

Well, it's nice to have smaller gaps between the sprockets.

[Dead Man]

It doesn't

[Splash]

Thanks guys.

Perhaps I should re-word this question to :

How and why does cadence change when comparing 10 speed to 11 speed - assuming same chain ring and rear cassette min / max sprockets?


Splash

[Formulasaab]

Again, as The B said, it doesn't.

You aren't going to pedal any faster or slower because you have more gears. The engine in a car doesn't turn more RPMs because it has 6 gears instead of 5. Redline is redline and idle is idle.

[bigbill]

When I rode 10 speed, I used a 13-26 and a standard crankset. All of the cogs were used on most rides. On 11 speed, I ride 12-27 with a standard crankset. The 12 rarely sees any use and I certainly don't need an 11. All I really got besides new stuff was the 27. Cadence is cadence, you still find the same gears, you just have one more.

[MattTuck]

Thanks guys.

Perhaps I should re-word this question to :

How and why does cadence change when comparing 10 speed to 11 speed - assuming same chain ring and rear cassette min / max sprockets?


Splash

It doesn't

You just get one more gear which can give you one more choice of sprocket size.

The following things all inter-relate to one another.

Watts - Speed AND cadence - gear inches

If you are going along at 20mph in some gear, at 90rpm, and decide you want to go faster. You can increase your speed by increasing your power. You can do that by either, increasing the cadence (spinning the pedals faster) or selecting a harder gear and maintaining your current cadence.

Now, since gears are discrete (They have a certain number of teeth), there is a step function when moving between them. You cannot move continuously from a 14 tooth cog to a 15 tooth cog... it is a discontinuity. That means (in our example of increasing power, keeping cadence the same and selecting a new gear) if the jump in gear inches does not correspond to the increase in power output, then because of the inter-relation, your cadence will change.

The smaller the jump between cogs (as can be achieved by 11 speed vs. 10 speed, in theory), the more finely you can manage this inter-relation.

[shovelhd]

It doesn't. Cadence is entirely dependent on the rider.

[Louis]

I can't imagine going from 10 to 11 cogs (assuming the same range in teeth between the smallest and biggest) would make any significant change. Maybe because I ride mostly rolling routes, but very rarely do I shift just one gear at a time, most of the time I'm shifting 2 gears, if not more, and I'm still riding 9-spd cassettes.

Personally, I would not go from 10 to 11 spd unless I were changing the drivetrain anyway, or if I were riding lots of flat time trials and found myself often unable to get in that "perfect gear" for a given set of conditions.

[ergott]

You are able to run closer ratios and therefore keep within a given cadence easier through small variations in terrain or wind.

[jr59]

why would you think it does?

rpms are rpms # of gears does not and will not change this

[sitzmark]

The only way you could begin to compare would be to keep range limits the same -low to high. Average cadence might change slightly in a very specific situation that repeatedly causes a rider to "hunt" for gearing over a 2T gapped 10s cassette that has that gap covered with a 1T jump in a 11s cassette. Otherwise the majority of gear options are identical (in a typical road cassette).

"Improvement" would depend on whether the narrower range change around that specific combination allowed a cyclist to ride their optimal natural cadence.

[Ti Designs]

Haven't you ever seen Spinal Tap?

[oddsaabs]

https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc

[Dead Man]

You are able to run closer ratios and therefore keep within a given cadence easier through small variations in terrain or wind.

Not exactly, though... you're only filling in one gap, top and bottom equal. If you've got 12-25 vs. 12-25, you're going to add one cog, an 18t, but none of the other gears are going to be any closer, since you can't have a fractional tooth

[berserk87]

Haven't you ever seen Spinal Tap?

Fine work! You stole my thunder.

[fuzzalow]

No, cadence does not improve with 11 speed gearing.

As always the ability to turn over revs with souplesse is a function of

rider skills,
fit & position within the ergonomic geometry capable in a given frame chassis and
the available gearing range/available fitness level of the rider.

Rider skills as in the ability to fire sequence the pedal stroke correctly under a variety of revs and muscle loadings.

Fit & position in that the rider spinal structure is balanced correctly inside the frame's adjustment envelope so that no support core is utilized in maintaining the riding posture and therefore the legs can spin freely.

Available gearing range (via additional cogs of 11 vs. 10 speeds) and rider fitness represent the identical capability for revs but each achieved by different means - essentially the same result as output in form (revs) although of course different as output in net power.

With correct gearing a rider does not need fitness to spin revs correctly - because if a rider knows how to ride then that skill exists irrespective as to current form.

[cachagua]

The cadence of the manufacturers and the marketers improves substantially, as they sprint all the way to the bank. Dancing on the pedals, baby!

The consumer's cadence, however, is not improved at all.

[oldpotatoe]

No, cadence does not improve with 11 speed gearing.

As always the ability to turn over revs with souplesse is a function of

rider skills,
fit & position within the ergonomic geometry capable in a given frame chassis and
the available gearing range/available fitness level of the rider.

Rider skills as in the ability to fire sequence the pedal stroke correctly under a variety of revs and muscle loadings.

Fit & position in that the rider spinal structure is balanced correctly inside the frame's adjustment envelope so that no support core is utilized in maintaining the riding posture and therefore the legs can spin freely.

Available gearing range (via additional cogs of 11 vs. 10 speeds) and rider fitness represent the identical capability for revs but each achieved by different means - essentially the same result as output in form (revs) although of course different as output in net power.


With correct gearing a rider does not need fitness to spin revs correctly - because if a rider knows how to ride then that skill exists irrespective as to current form.

Along with pelOton and palmares, one of the great cycling 'words'.

[ergott]

Not exactly, though... you're only filling in one gap, top and bottom equal. If you've got 12-25 vs. 12-25, you're going to add one cog, an 18t, but none of the other gears are going to be any closer, since you can't have a fractional tooth

That 18 can come in real handy.

As with anything it's easy to write off one extra gear, until you look down and your still riding 5 gears out back.

Improve? No. Helps keep you in your power band? It can.

:beer:

[unterhausen]

Helps keep you in your power band? It can.

:beer:I always wonder when one gear is too big and the next is too small if having the intermediate gear would really help. If you have it, at least there is no point in wondering. I've been working on spinning instead of mashing, which I figure is just as good as having more gears

[Ralph]

No improvement in cadence for most of us.

For my riding, I see no reason to go from 10 to 11. If that extra cog were to go in the middle somewhere, in theory you might see some improvement on mostly level riding, but mostly that extra cog is stuck on one side or another of a 10's cassette to make a 11's cassette.

I personally think a 9's cassette was a big improvement over a 8's, a 10's a little improvement over a 9's, and a 11's is even less improvement over 10's. More cogs seem to have a diminishing return as improvement.

When my 10's stuff wears out, I will go to whatever is selling then.

[bikerider888]

I prefer the 11spd cassettes for the following:

For flat training rides, a 11x23 gives nice 1-tooth jumps which is awesome when you are doing intervals and are suffering, is nice to find that ideal cadence to finish out the set.

For hilly rides an 11x28 instead of 11x25 is great. That is probably the biggest advantage of 11s to get that extra bail out gear without giving up the others.

[Bstone]

No more need be said.
Fine work! You stole my thunder.

[sg8357]

That 18 can come in real handy.

I've heard the 18 is important,
What rings up front 53/42 or 51/47 ?

Me, I look for a 65in and 70in in mid cassette.

[Splash]

I prefer the 11spd cassettes for the following:

For flat training rides, a 11x23 gives nice 1-tooth jumps which is awesome when you are doing intervals and are suffering, is nice to find that ideal cadence to finish out the set.

For hilly rides an 11x28 instead of 11x25 is great. That is probably the biggest advantage of 11s to get that extra bail out gear without giving up the others.

many riders will say the 11 cog is not necessary.

keen to understand why you like the 11 cog in your setups....


Splash

[bikerider888]

sprints, slightly downhill. 11 is the right gear for me.

coming off a large climb, the 11 works we there too.

Clearly you have to be strong enough to turn it over, but once you can it is useful for me at least.

[ergott]

many riders will say the 11 cog is not necessary.

keen to understand why you like the 11 cog in your setups....


Splash

Going really fast. I use it frequently drafting, descents, etc.

https://www.strava.com/segments/2455059

https://www.strava.com/segments/1656588

https://www.strava.com/segments/7379617

https://www.strava.com/segments/1539509

[Bostic]

The move to 11 speed has been very nice for me when using 11-28 cassettes with a 50/34 crankset. With the Shimano cassette I now have on the low end 21-23-25-28 where as in the past it was 19-21-24-28 (10 speed Shimano) or 19-22-25-28 (10 speed Sram). There's been plenty of times during the last 40 miles of a double century where the 22 or 24 cogs have been either just a bit too high or low and it would screw with my climbing cadence. I used to use 11-26 cassettes but then would suffer on the double digit grades late in the day with a cadence of 50 or less in the lowest gear.

[Dead Man]

many riders will say the 11 cog is not necessary.

keen to understand why you like the 11 cog in your setups....


Splash

Outside of competition, it's not necessary. Outside of competition, what IS necessary, though?

As a little guy, I crest early.. but as a little guy, gravity doesn't pull me down the descent as fast.. so I have to pedal where most guys are tucked out. Without enough gear, I can actually pretty easily lose the time I made on the climb on the descent. With a 12:50, I spin out around 40-41mph. With an 11:50, I don't spin out till around 44-45mph... huge difference.

[Jgrooms]

https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc


It goes to eleven deserves a bump. Everyone should know it, learn it, live it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpTg45k38o




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zap]

Going really fast. I use it frequently drafting, descents, etc.

Additionally, riding with fast tandem(s). Fifty mph is not unusual on short descents so a 53/11 comes in handy.

Also, my system doesn't like riding at a high cadence.

[ergott]

Not to mention, I like using the 11 just to stretch out and stand on the pedals. Typically I do this with a low cadence just for chance of scenery, also great interval work.

I have 0 complaints with more gearing options.

Necessary? That word is a bit drastic considering non of us even need a bicycle. Want? You bet.

Just guessing, but I don't think the OP really thought it "improved" cadence, just improves your options to keep a given cadence.

[Splash]

Thank you again people. Great input.

How does shorter crank length impact on cadence and pedal stroke?


Splash

[saab2000]

Thank you again people. Great input.

How does shorter crank length impact on cadence and pedal stroke?


Splash

When I started riding my bike came with a 170mm crank and everywhere I read it seemed to imply that longer was better, to a point of course. I went to 172.5 and it seemed marginally 'better'. Then I tried 175 and I was OK with that too.

Then a few years ago I did a ride with 172.5 cranks and it seemed much nicer than the 175s and I was able to maintain a much smoother spin, especially on group rides in a paceline situation.

Given that where I currently live it's as flat as a pancake I've thought about transitioning a bike or two to 170s.

This is a much more complicated question than more gears, which don't help spin. More gears just provides more options and that's never a bad thing. Crank length is much more interesting a discussion and it seems that shorter cranks are coming into vogue more nowadays after years of longer cranks.

[Splash]

Thanks Saab.

Interesting to understand how the shorter crank affects cadence.

I will look into it...

Splash

[Dead Man]

Meh.. despite all the recent testing showing shorter cranks and commensurate increase in cadence being "better," I hated 170s from my usual 175s. I already have a decent cadence on the 175s, between 85-95, depending on factors, for a comfortably hard effort... and yea, my cadence increased with the shorter cranks - but only because it had to, to achieve the same power. I'd been reading all this smack about increasing cadence increasing efficiency, but it just wore me out to have to spin at 100+ rpm just to maintain the same wattage. loss of mechanical advantage, was all I got from it. Hated that I couldn't "cheat" over little rises by just pressing harder, hated the anemic feel out of the saddle, and really hated seeing my climb times balloon... ack. Nope, went right back to my 175s.

[MattTuck]

Meh.. despite all the recent testing showing shorter cranks and commensurate increase in cadence being "better," I hated 170s from my usual 175s. I already have a decent cadence on the 175s, between 85-95, depending on factors, for a comfortably hard effort... and yea, my cadence increased with the shorter cranks - but only because it had to, to achieve the same power. I'd been reading all this smack about increasing cadence increasing efficiency, but it just wore me out to have to spin at 100+ rpm just to maintain the same wattage. loss of mechanical advantage, was all I got from it. Hated that I couldn't "cheat" over little rises by just pressing harder, hated the anemic feel out of the saddle, and really hated seeing my climb times balloon... ack. Nope, went right back to my 175s.

The question is: What is the optimal cadence. Books could be written on the subject

Thanks Saab.

Interesting to understand how the shorter crank affects cadence.

I will look into it...

Splash

Splash, don't just consider the length of your cranks, But also their shape.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/zXcIM.jpg