Campy 11 Speed

[Marcus Torino]

Coming in July, along with totally new Ergo levers....

:crap:

[Elefantino]

Who is making the leapmo backmo?

[Dave]

Someone at the weight weenies site swears that 11 speed is not coming out next year, but there will be changes to the ergo levers. If 11 cogs can be accomodated without chain, hub or RD changes, I'll be first in line. With the right cogset, even I can give up the the triple!

I've noted before that Mavic M10 hubs have 3 of the 4mm needed to accomodate 11 cogs with Shimano width and spacing, but not the wider Campy cogs and spacing. Campy's current chain (and all others) are now narrow enough to handle 3.95mm (Shimano/SRAM) cog spacing.

[DRZRM]

Not to be skeptical, but do you have a source for that? I know it's a ways to April 1st, but seriously...

BTW, if it is true, I announce right now that I will be a retro-grouch 10 speeder, I will not be switching to 11 speed. Screw them all, campy, shimano, SRAM, 10 is as far as I need to go.

:crap:

Let me be the first to say "But this one goes to eleven."

[Avispa]

BTW, if it is true, I announce right now that I will be a retro-grouch 10 speeder, I will not be switching to 11 speed. Screw them all, campy, shimano, SRAM, 10 is as far as I need to go.

Bro,

I feel you... But then again, isn't that the same we said about 8, 9 and then 10 speed? :D

..A..

[Bud_E]

For some reason "This is Spinal Tap" comes to mind.

[Erik.Lazdins]

For some reason "This is Spinal Tap" comes to mind.

Yes its gonna be called Campy Black - it will come in a black box and they will ask how much blacker can it get?

none more black!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[davids]

For some reason "This is Spinal Tap" comes to mind.Automatic electronic shifting, too:

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Spinal_Tap/spinal_tap_but_it_goes_to_eleven.jpg

[Big Dan]

I'm looking to upgrade back to 8 spd...

:cool:

[witcombusa]

Give me a wheel with less dish and 7 useful gears and I'm way ahead.
I do not personally need one tooth jumps starting at 12 teeth, nor a 53 tooth
front ring. For those that do, more power to you......

[OperaLover]

Not to be skeptical, but do you have a source for that? I know it's a ways to April 1st, but seriously...

BTW, if it is true, I announce right now that I will be a retro-grouch 10 speeder, I will not be switching to 11 speed. Screw them all, campy, shimano, SRAM, 10 is as far as I need to go.

:crap:

Let me be the first to say "But this one goes to eleven."

Heck, I remember when 10-speed was 5 cogs on a "free wheel." I draw the line here, and will buy up all the 10(9, 8) speed I can find.

Who's with me?!?!?!

[DRZRM]

Yeah, and I'll say it again when they announce 12 speed in five years.

Bro,

I feel you... But then again, isn't that the same we said about 8, 9 and then 10 speed? :D

..A..

[Marcus Torino]

Not to be skeptical, but do you have a source for that? I know it's a ways to April 1st, but seriously...

BTW, if it is true, I announce right now that I will be a retro-grouch 10 speeder, I will not be switching to 11 speed. Screw them all, campy, shimano, SRAM, 10 is as far as I need to go.

:crap:

Let me be the first to say "But this one goes to eleven."

It's not 1st April. I do have a source, but won't say who for good reason.

I won't change, I think it's crazy.

[Elefantino]

It's not 1st April. I do have a source, but won't say who for good reason.
I believe you. You're connected!

[Too Tall]

Will this work ok with friction DT shifters? :rolleyes:

[dirtdigger88]

I'm looking to upgrade back to 8 spd...

:cool:

got that NEW Dura Ace 7410 group just dying for a frame- :D

Jason

[flux]

spy pics?

[Louis]

I'm holding out for 15 speed.

[caleb]

Not cool Campy, not cool.

And, you better not eff with the rear hub. I just had a new set built with the intention to ride them forever, and if you screw with those plans, well, I might just have to dip into the Asian pot :argue:

[caleb]

I'm holding out for 15 speed.

Seriously. Let's respace all rear ends to 140mm, run 15 speeds, and we can have 12-27 with one tooth jumps.

I'd be on board if it meant that they'd leave well enough alone for the next few decades.

[Louis]

Actually that would be 12-26 for 1 tooth difference...

Still, it would be a corn cob

[Blue Jays]

I'm a fan of even numbers, so I'll need to wait for 12-speed. ;)

[caleb]

Actually that would be 12-26 for 1 tooth difference...

Still, it would be a corn cob

Oops, I forgot that subtraction doesn't work when the endpoints are inclusive.

[Grant McLean]

Actually that would be 12-26 for 1 tooth difference...

Still, it would be a corn cob

I'm prepared to sacrifice the 26 tooth.

let's ask for 12-27 :)


-g

[AgilisMerlin]

http://www.productbycanine.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chill-pill.jpg

[palincss]

Someone at the weight weenies site swears that 11 speed is not coming out next year, but there will be changes to the ergo levers. If it can be accomodated without hub or RD changes, I'll be first in line for 11 speed. With the right cogset, even I can give up the the triple!


And what's the liklihood of that? When they went from 9 to 10, did they increase the range? Not at all, they filled in one more sprocket with a 1-tooth jump. You won't escape the need for a triple that way, atmo.

[handsomerob]

Am I the only one giddy about this news.... only because of the potential for 10 speed blowout sales? I hope 11 speed sells like hotcakes, and the cost of 10 speed drops like a rock. :beer:

[Grant McLean]

got that NEW Dura Ace 7410 group just dying for a frame- :D

Jason

what's in this box??

:D

-g

[palincss]

Seriously. Let's respace all rear ends to 140mm, run 15 speeds, and we can have 12-27 with one tooth jumps.

I'd be on board if it meant that they'd leave well enough alone for the next few decades.

What a giant step backwards. 160 is already the standard, just think how many sprockets you could jam in there!

[e-RICHIE]

What a giant step backwards. 160 is already the standard, just think how many sprockets you could jam in there!
let's just ask eliot spitzer atmo -
he's the high rollermo.

[Grant McLean]

And what's the liklihood of that? When they went from 9 to 10, did they increase the range? Not at all, they filled in one more sprocket with a 1-tooth jump.

http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/groupsetdetail/item_pignoniRec1_catid_4.jsp


actually, I think they did. 13-26 and 13-29 make more sense
in 10sp versions than in 8 or 9.
Call the small sizes useless in 10sp if you will, but the wider the range,
the more it makes sense to have more cogs..... ymmv....

11-21, 11-23, 11-25, 12-23, 12-25, 13-26, 13-29

-g

[handsomerob]

And what's the liklihood of that? When they went from 9 to 10, did they increase the range? Not at all, they filled in one more sprocket with a 1-tooth jump. You won't escape the need for a triple that way, atmo.

didn't the glorious 13/29 come about with the switch to 10?

I think that is one of the few 10 speed cassettes that really could use 1 more cog... the 12.

[pdxmech13]

11 could be fun as Dave mentioned...

[Grant McLean]

let's just ask eliot spitzer atmo -
he's the high rollermo.

all his wheels lean to the leftmo


-g

[e-RICHIE]

all his wheels lean to the leftmo


-g
and so attests the new-and-improved mayflower madame atmo.

[don compton]

i wpuld love to have a 12-27( 18 tooth added) with my 48-34 front rings. the ultimate century gearing. probably not for you "racer folks".
don compton

[Tobias]

A properly-designed close-ratio triple makes more sense to me.
I'd take a 3X9 over 2X11 if equal shifting.

[erector]

prime numbers scare me, and usually disappear quickly...

However, I do agree that 11 would be fantastic! so long as I can get rearD's and a couple of cassettes at the new and improved close-out prices

[saab2000]

prime numbers scare me

Why



?




Prime numbers are not to be



















feared.

[erector]

I'd like to say I'm really divided on the prime numbers thing; i've tried to factor in the fact that there's only one real way to communicate with them. Usually our fights end with their lowest common denominator, i just wish there was another way to reason them.

[Fivethumbs]

But with all the extra shifting isn't the battery going to die faster?

[3chordwonder]

Am I the only one giddy about this news.... only because of the potential for 10 speed blowout sales?

You are not alone (intoned in serious voiceover)

[Fixed]

bro i just added 8 to what i was riding ..maybe there will be some good deals on 10 sp. now imho
cheers :beer:

[soulspinner]

Chain life will go down to 100 miles at the same time gas goes to 5,00 per. Walking anyone?

[Avispa]

Chain life will go down to 100 miles at the same time gas goes to 5,00 per. Walking anyone?

No... That's why I have a scooter! :D :D

..A..

[Tobias]

I'd like to say I'm really divided on the prime numbers thing; i've tried to factor in the fact that there's only one real way to communicate with them. Usually our fights end with their lowest common denominator, i just wish there was another way to reason them.Should we expect at least 12 years of harmony according to your theory?

[FMS_rider]

As soon as they come out with a silky-smooth-shifting 11 speed with a 34 cog I will switch to Campy.

[znfdl]

If we go by the definition of "Twin Prime Numbers", then the number of cogs will jump from 11 to 13, not 12

[Keith A]

BTW, if it is true, I announce right now that I will be a retro-grouch 10 speeder, I will not be switching to 11 speed.I haven't even switched to 10-speed yet and am still running Dura-Ace 9-speed on the bikes that I ride frequently. I also still have two bikes with 7-speed and one with 8-speed. However, I must confess that my C-50 does have Dura-Ace 10-speed on it and it's almost ready to roll.

[gt6267a]

the incremental benefit of another gear reduces with each effort. maybe its time to start counting by 2?

[tbushnel]

Will this work ok with friction DT shifters? :rolleyes:
Now thats what I want to know!
ted

[Michael Maddox]

Personally, I think we should all follow the Fixed Mantra and convert to singles in protest. This is getting a little bit silly.

Maybe a CVT transmission for bikes...what was that electric, sliding chain-ring called that Schwinn had some years back on their MTB line?

[palincss]

http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/groupsetdetail/item_pignoniRec1_catid_4.jsp


actually, I think they did. 13-26 and 13-29 make more sense
in 10sp versions than in 8 or 9.
Call the small sizes useless in 10sp if you will, but the wider the range,
the more it makes sense to have more cogs..... ymmv....

11-21, 11-23, 11-25, 12-23, 12-25, 13-26, 13-29

-g

I like Sheldon's Century Special 13-30 9-speed. What I think is dumb is taking a 12-27 9speed that was customizable to a 13-30, and adding one sprocket so as to make a =wait for it= 12-27 that cannot be customized. Some improvement! :crap:

[Tobias]

I like Sheldon's Century Special 13-30 9-speed. What I think is dumb is taking a 12-27 9speed that was customizable to a 13-30, and adding one sprocket so as to make a =wait for it= 12-27 that cannot be customized. Some improvement! :crap:I don't get the 13-30. :confused:
What can it do that an 11-25 or 11-26 can't -- provided you have the right size rings to go with them.
BTW; I rode both 12-27 nine and ten speed on back-to-back centuries and found that the 16 made it much better for me. On flats I find myself often in the 15 to 17 range.

[93LegendTG]

Give me a wheel with less dish and 7 useful gears and I'm way ahead.
I do not personally need one tooth jumps starting at 12 teeth, nor a 53 tooth
front ring. For those that do, more power to you......
+1
If some is good, and more is better, than too much is just enough!

[Tobias]

The part I don’t get at all is that in the last few decades we’ve doubled the number of cogs from 5 to 10 while for the most part keeping 2 chainrings.
I understand some/many ride triples, but IMHO the manufacturers haven’t pushed their R&D in that direction enough.
There’s now more opportunity for progress at the front than at the back.
On one of my bikes a 30T ring provides four additional gears. Isn’t that better than one extra cog?
There has to be a better balance between numbers of rings and cogs. Focusing mostly on cassettes seems shortsighted.

[Ahneida Ride]

The part I don’t get at all is that in the last few decades we’ve doubled the number of cogs from 5 to 10 while for the most part keeping 2 chainrings.
I understand some/many ride triples, but IMHO the manufacturers haven’t pushed their R&D in that direction enough.
There’s now more opportunity for progress at the front than at the back.
On one of my bikes a 30T ring provides four additional gears. Isn’t that better than one extra cog?
There has to be a better balance between numbers of rings and cogs. Focusing mostly on cassettes seems shortsighted.


Bingo

That is why I run a TA Zephyr 48/36/22 rings ....
Got 20 - 100 gear inches

With the Zephyr, one could pick any ring from 20 - 56 ...
Why not let the rider pick the rings ?

Duh !!!!! :crap:

[William]

Bingo

That is why I run a TA Zephyr 48/36/22 rings ....
Got 20 - 100 gear inches

With the Zephyr, one could pick any ring from 20 - 56 ...
Why not let the rider pick the rings ?

Duh !!!!! :crap:


Stop making sense!

You'll reduce the amount of FRN's that Campy is trying to take from us. :no:



William ;) :D :banana:

[handsomerob]

The part I don’t get at all is that in the last few decades we’ve doubled the number of cogs from 5 to 10 while for the most part keeping 2 chainrings.
I understand some/many ride triples, but IMHO the manufacturers haven’t pushed their R&D in that direction enough.
There’s now more opportunity for progress at the front than at the back.
On one of my bikes a 30T ring provides four additional gears. Isn’t that better than one extra cog?
There has to be a better balance between numbers of rings and cogs. Focusing mostly on cassettes seems shortsighted.

I hate to admit it, but the best new technology for triples could probably end up being the new electronic Shimano. I read that it automatically trims the front dérailleur to avoid chain rub (at least on the double as of now), which IMHO is the worst trait of modern triples. Running a compact double seems to be a lot cleaner than a triple, requiring far less trim adjustments while riding.

[SoCalSteve]

I hate to admit it, but the best new technology for triples could probably end up being the new electronic Shimano. I read that it automatically trims the front dérailleur to avoid chain rub (at least on the double as of now), which IMHO is the worst trait of modern triples. Running a compact double seems to be a lot cleaner than a triple, requiring far less trim adjustments while riding.

Actually, when set up correctly, the Dura Ace 7803 triple set up has 3 trim shifts on the left shifter. It's just like trimming your double, only its a triple and again, when set up correctly, works flawlessly as a 53/39 double with a 30 bail out gear.

Best of all worlds!

Compacts are a compromise at best..Unless of course, you can find the gearing that you normaly use with a compact (maybe having to change out the standard 50-34 chain rings for something different).

Just sayin'

Steve

[Orin]

And what's the liklihood of that? When they went from 9 to 10, did they increase the range? Not at all, they filled in one more sprocket with a 1-tooth jump. You won't escape the need for a triple that way, atmo.

Didn't they add the 13-29?

[chrisroph]

didn't the glorious 13/29 come about with the switch to 10?

I think that is one of the few 10 speed cassettes that really could use 1 more cog... the 12.

and the 18; now we're up to 12 speed. :)

[Dave]

Actually, when set up correctly, the Dura Ace 7803 triple set up has 3 trim shifts on the left shifter. It's just like trimming your double, only its a triple and again, when set up correctly, works flawlessly as a 53/39 double with a 30 bail out gear.

Best of all worlds!

Compacts are a compromise at best..Unless of course, you can find the gearing that you normaly use with a compact (maybe having to change out the standard 50-34 chain rings for something different).

Just sayin'

Steve

To really get the best triple FD shifting you need a Campy triple. A Campy triple (or double) FD has no need for a right trim shift on the big ring and the "trim" clicks are the same as all the others. 7 clicks let you put the FD cage anywhere you want it. You'll never accidentally touch that finger lever too hard and shift to the little ring instead of trimming to the left from the middle ring (tell me you've never done that).

There really IS one downside to a triple. The middle ring and largest cog combination has a significantly more extreme chainline and it's not good to use for very long. It almost as bad as the big ring and largest cog on a double. If the grade is going to be that steep for long, you might as well shift to the little ring as soon as the 9th cog isn't sufficient.

Guess what I just ordered? A Chorus UT 50/34 crank, the newly redesigned Chorus FD and an 11-25 Chorus cassette. I've somehow managed to strengthen my legs, so I'm climbing with a least one cog taller gear, even in the early season. A combination of that (foppish) trainer riding, with a high torque and some moderate weight lifting may have been beneficial. I've got this silly idea that I might be able to get by with a 34/25 low gear. Time will tell. If I get really desperate, I can try one of those IRD 11-28 cassettes.

[palincss]

I don't get the 13-30. :confused:
What can it do that an 11-25 or 11-26 can't -- provided you have the right size rings to go with them.
BTW; I rode both 12-27 nine and ten speed on back-to-back centuries and found that the 16 made it much better for me. On flats I find myself often in the 15 to 17 range.

I have no use for an 11-tooth sprocket except on a bike with 17-20" wheels. I don't need a gear higher than 96-100 inches. 13/48 == 14/52 == 12/44 == approximately 100" with a 27" wheel, and if you do use that gear, 48/13 is much more efficient than 44/12 or 40/11.

In fact, I have a bike set up with 22/32/44 rings. I won't do that again. While it does let me use a 12-27 to get the same range as I get with the 13-30 and a 26/36/46, it wears the drivetrain faster and front shifting has been much more troublesome. Besides, the current crop of microdrive cranks are all grotesquely ugly and have far wider tread than I'd care to use, and the previous generation use a bolt circle Shimano has now made obsolete.

All in all, for me the 110/74 bolt circle is ideal, and some truly wonderful cranks have been made for it. I currently own 3 sets of XTR M900s, which I think are among the most attractive cranks ever made. As it happens, to get the range I want (96-100" top gear, low 30s on the middle ring, granny gear down to the low 20s) 24-26, 36, 46-48 depending on the tire size, mated to the 13-30 is the best way to get there.

[palincss]

I hate to admit it, but the best new technology for triples could probably end up being the new electronic Shimano. I read that it automatically trims the front dérailleur to avoid chain rub (at least on the double as of now), which IMHO is the worst trait of modern triples. Running a compact double seems to be a lot cleaner than a triple, requiring far less trim adjustments while riding.


The problem isn't that triples need trimming, it's that most of you are riding with shifters that don't allow for trimming. With bar end shifters or down tube levers, there is no problem trimming the front derailleur.

[Bradford]

There really IS one downside to a triple. The middle ring and largest cog combination has a significantly more extreme chainline and it's not good to use for very long.

Why?

Bicycling magazine covered this a few issues ago. According to Shimano, although this was bad with older, stiffer chains, 10 speed chains are sufficiently flexible that this is no longer a problem.

If the grade is going to be that steep for long, you might as well shift to the little ring as soon as the 9th cog isn't sufficient.

That is what I do, and I'd assume that is what most people do...why is this a downside? Seems to me that this is a logical way to use a triple. If you do run up to that combination, chances are that you are going to reach for the last gear anyway and jump to the small ring in a few seconds. It is rare for that combination to be the perfect gear anyway. In fact, my experience is, that even with the triple, I'd reach for another gear if I had it. Such is the fate of an old man with bad knees.

I can understand the Q argument, although at my size I find larger Qs more comfortable, and I can understand the weight argument, although at my size and the type of riding I do, those grams are the least of my worries. However, what I don't understand is the cool argument, which seems to be underneath most problems people have with triples. Seems to me that utility should override cool, but I guess I lost that argument on the forum a long time ago.

[Simon Q]

Automatic electronic shifting, too:

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Spinal_Tap/spinal_tap_but_it_goes_to_eleven.jpg

That film is just unadulterated and pure genuis. Always enjoy a Tap reference, thanks.

[handsomerob]

The problem isn't that triples need trimming, it's that most of you are riding with shifters that don't allow for trimming. With bar end shifters or down tube levers, there is no problem trimming the front derailleur.

I have a Campy Racing T triple with Record Ergolevers and I am able to trim it as needed just fine. The problem isn't that it can't be trimmed as much as the need to be trimmed with cross chain lines.

If you need a triple for the gearing then it is certainly worth the added attention, but if you can go with a double that requires almost no trimming, the choice is easy.

[Tobias]

I have no use for an 11-tooth sprocket except on a bike with 17-20" wheels. I don't need a gear higher than 96-100 inches. ...snipped....Thanks for sharing your logic. You are somewhat of an exception since few riders would consider an MTB 42/11 too tall a top gear; but you make a strong argument why it works best for you.

[caleb]

24-26, 36, 46-48 depending on the tire size, mated to the 13-30 is the best way to get there.

What does one do with a 24x30? Won't you tip over?

[Tobias]

And what's the liklihood of that? When they went from 9 to 10, did they increase the range? Not at all, they filled in one more sprocket with a 1-tooth jump. You won't escape the need for a triple that way, atmo.It’s not too likely but always possible, as when Shimano went from 8 to 9-speed on MTB.
Did they not keep the same basic gearing for the first 8 cogs and added a larger cog to extend the range?
It seems the 11-28 went to 11-32 and the 11-30 went to 11-34. I’m going from memory so I may have this wrong.
In any case it shows that when there is a need for greater range manufacturers will make it available.
With road gearing I expect riders want closer ratios and those who need more range will go with a triple (while keeping tighter cassette).
For those who don’t need close ratios they can always use MTB cassettes – as often done for touring and tandems.

[Dave]

Bradford - don't believe everything you read in Bicycling Magazine. The only thing that makes a chain "flexible" is side clearance between the inner and outer sideplates. That has not changed over the years. You'll find the same .004-.008 inch clearance on new 10 speed chains and old 7/8 speed chains.

Some people have always ignored the recommendation to avoid the extreme chainlines and some even think it's a proper way to break-in a new chain. Each rider can make his own decision on that one.

The fact that you should shift into the little ring (and three cogs smaller) rather than use middle ring and largest cog is exactly why a triple does NOT work just like a double, with a bailout little ring. It can certainly be a disadvantage on some hills. I'd hate it if I had to shift into the little ring for every short hill, then back to the middle ring at the crest and then on to the big ring for the downhill. Riding in the mountains, this isn't an issue. I can shift into the little ring at the start of a climb and stay in it for a hour at a time, if I choose to.

[gt6267a]

i am surprised rd are still in use. does it not make more sense to go internal? enough with the crazy dishing, cross overs, whatev ... with some r & d, i imagine the internals would not be crazy heavier than a hub + cassette + rd. right now, it seems like the nexus rear hub is about twice the weight of an ultegra setup but the nexus is not exactly designed to be slim with a drum brake... i imagine the nexus products could go on a diet rapidly if shimano cared to give it a whirl. w / electric shifting the cabling for internal gets even easier. i suppose it might make quick wheel changes a b but is there no way around that?

thoughts on going internal?

[Tobias]

thoughts on going internal?One that comes to mind is placing the gear box in the BBKT area, not the wheel. That introduces torque problems but solves cabling and wheel changes.

Geared hubs are not as efficient as a good chain drive, which is even more important than the added weight difference. They also don't have the same number of gears, although gear spacing for what they have is (can be) better.

Long term I think CVT will prevail for non racers. For competition a good chain drive is hard to beat.

[gt6267a]

what is the efficiency loss difference currently? what is the theorhetical?

[Tobias]

We've argued this before, but it's probably within one or two percent. Depends a lot on condition of the equipment and how it is used. A good gear box can be better than a dirty chain running at an angle.
For recreational users it's not a bad option if you are OK with 8 or 14 gears and the available range. It's doubtful you'll see one in a race.

[gt6267a]

hmm, i don't remember going over this before (how sad would it be for me if i participated in a discussion on this topic and don't remember it!). i don't imagine we'll see serious enthusiasts ride anything but what the pros ride. that said, are there other drawbacks to the internal hub? otherwise, i imagine if after a some nice r & d the efficiency loss is less than 1% in optimal conditions and the weight is reasonable (especially as long as the uci weight limit remains where it is and teams are finding toys to add to bikes) ... in races with rain, dirt, monkeys ... like paris r or many of the spring classics ... couldn't a slick internal be more efficient and build a better wheel?

[Bradford]

The fact that you should shift into the little ring (and three cogs smaller) rather than use middle ring and largest cog is exactly why a triple does NOT work just like a double, with a bailout little ring. It can certainly be a disadvantage on some hills. I'd hate it if I had to shift into the little ring for every short hill, then back to the middle ring at the crest and then on to the big ring for the downhill. Riding in the mountains, this isn't an issue. I can shift into the little ring at the start of a climb and stay in it for a hour at a time, if I choose to.

I don’t understand why people who don’t ride triples value their intuition so much more over the experience of people who do ride triples. Those of us who have triples keep telling you that these problems don’t exist, but many who do not ride them keep insisting that these phantom problems do exist.

I have triples on all three of my bikes right now, but I had a double on my legend until last year (both DA). So, speaking from about 20,000 miles of experience, here is what I’ve learned. Chain angles are no big deal. One of my bikes is a tandem, and tandems put a little more stress on the drive train then half bikes. Another is a touring bike, which I’ve ridden fully loaded for over 3,000 miles, which once again puts a more stress on the bike than a road bike. The problems you describe would pop up on these bikes if they existed…they don’t.

I weigh well over 200 lbs and ride hard, so I put a lot more stress on a bike than most people. I've broken seat posts, headsets, and more spokes than I can count…and yes, chains. But chains don’t break any more on a triple than a double. In fact, I’ve had three chain issues over the last 10 years, all three have been on my doubles.

You don’t move down to the low ring on small hills because you don’t have to. On small hills you run it just like a double. And since the chain angle issue is not an issue at all, there is no big deal. On big hills, you do bail out to the small ring, and that is when you really appreciate you triple.

Perhaps you really believe that Bicycling magazine fabricated a quotation from a Shimano representative about chain flexibility. Perhaps you believe that Shimano’s research is so poor they don’t know what they are talking about, or perhaps you believe Shimano is lying to us for some marketing reason. But, don’t you agree that if you were right about chainlines and chains that you would get support, perhaps even overwhelming support, from the people who actually put real miles on triples? But, if you go back and re-read all of the threads about this subject, you will see those of us who have chosen to ride triples talking about how well they work and those of you who have chosen to ride doubles talking about how they don’t. Hmmm, if you were an outside observer in this debate, which side would you believe is the most likely to be correct?

If you don’t like triples for Q factor reasons or weight then that is fine, but you really need to let go of your misperceptions about the rest.

[Dave]

I don’t understand why people who don’t ride triples value their intuition so much more over the experience of people who do ride triples. Those of us who have triples keep telling you that these problems don’t exist, but many who do not ride them keep insisting that these phantom problems do exist.

I have triples on all three of my bikes right now, but I had a double on my legend until last year (both DA). So, speaking from about 20,000 miles of experience, here is what I’ve learned. Chain angles are no big deal. One of my bikes is a tandem, and tandems put a little more stress on the drive train then half bikes. Another is a touring bike, which I’ve ridden fully loaded for over 3,000 miles, which once again puts a more stress on the bike than a road bike. The problems you describe would pop up on these bikes if they existed…they don’t.

I weigh well over 200 lbs and ride hard, so I put a lot more stress on a bike than most people. I've broken seat posts, headsets, and more spokes than I can count…and yes, chains. But chains don’t break any more on a triple than a double. In fact, I’ve had three chain issues over the last 10 years, all three have been on my doubles.

You don’t move down to the low ring on small hills because you don’t have to. On small hills you run it just like a double. And since the chain angle issue is not an issue at all, there is no big deal. On big hills, you do bail out to the small ring, and that is when you really appreciate you triple.

Perhaps you really believe that Bicycling magazine fabricated a quotation from a Shimano representative about chain flexibility. Perhaps you believe that Shimano’s research is so poor they don’t know what they are talking about, or perhaps you believe Shimano is lying to us for some marketing reason. But, don’t you agree that if you were right about chainlines and chains that you would get support, perhaps even overwhelming support, from the people who actually put real miles on triples? But, if you go back and re-read all of the threads about this subject, you will see those of us who have chosen to ride triples talking about how well they work and those of you who have chosen to ride doubles talking about how they don’t. Hmmm, if you were an outside observer in this debate, which side would you believe is the most likely to be correct?

If you don’t like triples for Q factor reasons or weight then that is fine, but you really need to let go of your misperceptions about the rest.

I'm also an experienced triple user! I've had nothing else on my bikes for the last five seasons, since I moved to Colorado and ride in the mountains. I often try, unsuccessfully, to convince people to try a Campy triple, wiht it;s easily controlled FD. I'm just won't exaggerate how well they work and advise anyone to use extreme chainlines.

How well an extreme chainlines work depends on the bike's chainstay length (the longer the better). I built up a Cervelo R3 which has 399mm chainstays, with a triple crank and it didn't work well at all. There was more noise than usual, even in the 9th cog and really awful sounds in the middle ring and largest cog. This bike also had a nasty habit of dropping the chain off the little ring if the shift to the little ring was made in any cog larger than the 8th. A chainwatcher wouldn't fit on this frame either. I tore it down and sold it after 200 miles.

Sure, I'll use the middle ring and largest cog for a very short while, if I think it will get me over the top of a short hill, but I won't stay in that combination because I'm too lazy to shift into the little ring.

About the chain flexibility issue, I've measured the side clearance of Shimano 10, KMC 10, Campy 10 and some cutoffs from old 7/8 speed chains and I can assure you that the clearance hasn't changed over the years. There are some differences between brands and I've found the KMC to have the most side clearance when new. As a mechanical engineer, I value my own measurements over something written in Bicycling Magazine. If that article explained how the chains were made "more flexible", maybe I'd believe them. Perhaps they did increase their side clearance, but that doesn't mean that all other brands did the same. Shimano engineers have also been quoted as saying that flipping a chain from side to side or end to end will double chain life. I've never read a more complete explanation of why this would be true or how "chain life" is defined. Shimano chains have soft pins that wear quickly, while Campy chains don't, so you can't necessarily take one companie's statements and apply them to other brands.

I was incorrect about Shimano warning of extreme chainlines. I see nothing in their current literature, except warnings about the chain rubbing the FD. I guess it's up to the user to decide if the extreme angles are concerning. I do find the opposite angle, the middle ring and smallest cog quite useable on my bikes, but once again, I don't use it except briefly.

[Tobias]

If you gear a bike with similar gear range, the triple can usually provide a better chainline for any given gear than a double.
The published difference is only about 1.5 MM (less than one cog), and when combined with an additional chainring option the rider can keep his/her chain straighter when climbing. Given the willingness to shift into the best ring, there is less need to cross the chain.
When in my 42/21 the chain angle is far greater than in the 30/15. Obviously the smaller ring causes additional chain tension, but for most that's not much of a problem.

[musgravecycles]

to bring this back on topic :rolleyes: A source across the hall who's seen the '09 offerings says no to 11 speed, and yes to major a redesign of the levers.

btw, I really heart SRAM for 1: Being innovative and 2: Forcing the big 2 off their laurels...

[Dave]

If you gear a bike with similar gear range, the triple can usually provide a better chainline for any given gear than a double.
The published difference is only about 1.5 MM (less than one cog), and when combined with an additional chainring option the rider can keep his/her chain straighter when climbing. Given the willingness to shift into the best ring, there is less need to cross the chain.
When in my 42/21 the chain angle is far greater than in the 30/15. Obviously the smaller ring causes additional chain tension, but for most that's not much of a problem.

The chainline difference is more a lot more than 1.5mm, since the definition is different. Triple chainlines are measured to the tip of a tooth (center) of the middle ring. The chain line on Shimano cranks is one of the lowest, at 45mm. FSA is 46mm and Campy varies from 45 to 47.5 depending on the exact model of crank and the seat tube diameter. Record and Chorus triples have a 46.5mm chainline.

Although a double crank chainline is listed as 43.5mm, it's measured to the midpoint between the rings, not to the middle ring. With chainring spacing at 7.0mm, the little ring is about 40mm from the center of the BB and the big ring about 47mm.

That makes the triple middle ring 5-7.5mm further to the right than a double. With modern cog spacing of 4mm (3.95 or 4.12 to be exact), a double's big ring should be about 47mm from the centerline of the frame. Thus, some triple's have the middle ring as far right as the big ring on a double. That's the reason I discourage the use of the middle ring and largest cog.

[Tobias]

Dave, I agree with your recommendation. However, a rider shouldn’t be there in the first place since it’s not the most efficient combination. I use it occasionally out of convenience but won’t stay in it very long.

The details you’ve provided confirms my supposition that it’s easier to keep a straighter chainline with a triple provided the rider is willing to use the shifters.

Let’s assume Shimano triple versus double since they are more common and that’s what I ride most of the time. On the double the chainrings are at 40 and 47 MM. Likewise on the Shimano triple the chainrings are at about 38, 45, and 52 MM.

Since the cogs are about 4 MM apart and the chainring-to-cog ratios are usually duplicated after no more than 3 cogs at most, it follows that the triple comes out the winner almost every time. When climbing in the largest cogs you have a 2 MM advantage and when motoring in the smallest cogs a 5 MM advantage (roughly one cog’s worth of improvement in chain alignment). In the middle of the cassette it’s mostly a wash – a non-issue.

Bottom line for me is that if we compare two drivetrains with similar gear ranges (like a triple with an 11-21 and a double with a 12-27) the triple will not only have much tighter gear selection but will allow the rider to maintain a better chainline. And in my opinion these two efficiency improvements can more than offset the weight differences. For me the negatives come down to the added Q-factor and shifting performance which I can deal with.

[Dave]

Dave, I agree with your recommendation. However, a rider shouldn’t be there in the first place since it’s not the most efficient combination. I use it occasionally out of convenience but won’t stay in it very long.

Bottom line for me is that if we compare two drivetrains with similar gear ranges (like a triple with an 11-21 and a double with a 12-27) the triple will not only have much tighter gear selection but will allow the rider to maintain a better chainline. And in my opinion these two efficiency improvements can more than offset the weight differences. For me the negatives come down to the added Q-factor and shifting performance which I can deal with.

I agree that using the extreme chainlines isn't wise, and the reason a triple is NOT exactly like a double with a bailout.

The problem with your suggestion to use a triple with an 11-21 or 12-23, tight-spaced cassette, is most users would complain about the frequent shifts to the little ring in order to get a low gear ratio. If the largest cog is a 21, then a 39/19 is the lowest ratio prior to shifting into the little ring. A 42 middle ring would be even worse and it's why I don't use a Campy crank - no 39T middle ring. The shift into the little ring is always quick, but can be a bit sluggish shifting back to the middle. Today's riders seem to be very picky about shifting quickness and most would gripe about it, if done frequently.

I posted comments in a thread just the other day, trying to convince the builder of a new touring bike, with fat tires and fenders, to use a triple, but the decision was to use a 50/34 crank with an awful wide-spaced MTB cassette to get the same range. Made no sense to me. I'd rather have 17 distinctly different ratios rather than 12 to cover a large range. I get a very wide range with a 53/39/28 triple and a 12-25 cassette. Works great for the mountains, but I almost never use it when I'm out of the mountains.

[Keith A]

to bring this back on topic :rolleyes: A source across the hall who's seen the '09 offerings says no to 11 speed, and yes to major a redesign of the levers.Any idea what the redesign is like?

[Tobias]

Dave, one of my triples is an older 9-speed with a 42 in the middle (which I prefer over a 39), and I run an 11-21 most of the time. When using this close-ratio cassette I try to anticipate if I'm going to need a lower gear than the 42/19, and if so I'll drop into the 30 while still in the 16 or 17 as I slow on the approach. The 30/16 or 30/17 has excellent chainline which I prefer because of the higher chain tension.

I don't see a triple all that different than a double. Granted the 30 to 42 shifts are rougher; which is why I'd like to try a 34 small ring to see if it improves shifting a little.

[musgravecycles]

not a clue, haven't seen anything myself.

But somebody did out DA 7900, looks like it'll be a single lever ala SRAM (fixed brake lever)...

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/download.php?id=24676
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/download.php?id=24675

[Dave]

Tobias:

Your description explains exactly why most people would hate such a setup. You get through half the cogs, then have to remember to shift down to the little ring and a do another couple of cog shifts. Kind of a pain.

I you find that a 34T little ring is adequate, you might as well change to a 50/34 compact. It would make life a lot simpler. As I mentioned, I'm going to try one with an 11-25, but the lowest gear is not nearly as low as I'm used to with my triple. It would not produce the all-around setup that I've got now, where I never have to worry about a lack of low gearing. It will be a setup that I might find tolerate in the mountains, only when I'm in top form.

What many people fail to realize is that a compact only extends the gearing range by 7%, which is less than a typical 1-cog shift. Any additional gains in range must be done with wide cog spacing. A triple extends the gearing range by 3-4 cogs worth of normal 8% shifts. A compact is really not a substitute for triple, just a way to add 1-2 cogs worth of range.

[crossjunkee]

not a clue, haven't seen anything myself.

But somebody did out DA 7900, looks like it'll be a single lever ala SRAM (fixed brake lever)...



Thanks for posting that pic. The DA hood still looks very uncomfortable (to me). At least they finally got the cables right.

[Tobias]

Tobias:

Your description explains exactly why most people would hate such a setup. You get through half the cogs, then have to remember to shift down to the little ring and a do another couple of cog shifts. Kind of a pain.Dave, all I can say is that it works great for me and I have no need whatsoever for an 11th cog. Ten is more than enough. If anything I'd want manufacturers to offer close ratio triple cranks in lieu of more cogs.

[palincss]

What does one do with a 24x30? Won't you tip over?

Certainly not, not if you are pedalling against resistance. A 14% grade will certainly provide that.

However, you don't even have to be climbing a steep hill to make use of this. A neat tandem trick taught me many years ago by Bill McCready to make doing U-turns easier is to drop into the granny, apply the rear drum brake, and make the U-turn by pedalling against the resistance of the brake.

[palincss]

One that comes to mind is placing the gear box in the BBKT area, not the wheel. That introduces torque problems but solves cabling and wheel changes.

Geared hubs are not as efficient as a good chain drive, which is even more important than the added weight difference. They also don't have the same number of gears, although gear spacing for what they have is (can be) better.


Every internal geared hub I'm aware of uses chain drive, and has done so for the past century and more. :confused:

[Keith A]

not a clue, haven't seen anything myself.

But somebody did out DA 7900, looks like it'll be a single lever ala SRAM (fixed brake lever)...Thanks for the picture. SRAMs entry into the road market certainly hasn't gone unnoticed and it appears that both Shimano and Campy will be releasing products in response to SRAM.

[palincss]

About the chain flexibility issue, I've measured the side clearance of Shimano 10, KMC 10, Campy 10 and some cutoffs from old 7/8 speed chains and I can assure you that the clearance hasn't changed over the years. There are some differences between brands and I've found the KMC to have the most side clearance when new. As a mechanical engineer, I value my own measurements over something written in Bicycling Magazine. If that article explained how the chains were made "more flexible", maybe I'd believe them. Perhaps they did increase their side clearance, but that doesn't mean that all other brands did the same. Shimano engineers have also been quoted as saying that flipping a chain from side to side or end to end will double chain life. I've never read a more complete explanation of why this would be true or how "chain life" is defined. Shimano chains have soft pins that wear quickly, while Campy chains don't, so you can't necessarily take one companie's statements and apply them to other brands.


If all you looked at were 10, 9 and 8 speed chains you haven't seen an inflexible chain. All chains from 7spd on up are flexiblecompared with the chains we used back in the 5-speed era, chains like the Regina Oro, for example. Today, you can take a chain right out of the package and bend it like this: ) but back then, if a you could bend a chain sideways it was time to replace it. And today we all routinely violate the stern injunctions of the 5-speed era against cross-chaining, and suffer no ill effects as a result of doing so.

[Tobias]

Every internal geared hub I'm aware of uses chain drive, and has done so for the past century and more. :confused:I was comparing a geared hub (or box) driven by (or driving) a chain versus a multi-chainring/cassette drivetrain with derailleurs. You can also use a belt or driveshaft but it doesn't change much. The derailleur system is still incrementally more efficient and will dominate racing for a while.

[palincss]

Dave, I agree with your recommendation. However, a rider shouldn’t be there in the first place since it’s not the most efficient combination.

I think people are making assumptions regarding drivetrain efficiency. Is there in fact empiric evidence that chainline has a large negative impact on efficiency?

Research conducted at Johns Hopkins University, reported on here:
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1199/et1199s13.html
found:


The researchers found two factors that seemed to affect the bicycle chain drive's efficiency. Surprisingly, lubrication was not one of them.

"The first factor was sprocket size," Spicer says. "The larger the sprocket, the higher the efficiency we recorded." The sprocket is the circular plate whose teeth catch the chain links and move them along. Between the front and rear sprockets, the chain links line up straight. But when the links reach the sprocket, they bend slightly as they curl around the gear. "When the sprocket is larger, the links bend at a smaller angle," Spicer explains. "There's less frictional work, and as a result, less energy is lost."

The second factor that affected efficiency was tension in the chain. The higher the chain tension, Spicer says, the higher the efficiency score. "This is actually not in the direction you'd expect, based simply on friction," he says. "It's not clear to us at this time why this occurs."

[palincss]

I was comparing a geared hub (or box) driven by (or driving) a chain versus a multi-chainring/cassette drivetrain with derailleurs. You can also use a belt or driveshaft but it doesn't change much.

Now there I think you are wrong. Drive shafts are shockingly inefficient compared to chain drive. If memory serves, the best you can get with a drive shaft is something like low 80s, which chain drives can have efficiencies as high as 97% or more.

[Tobias]

I think people are making assumptions regarding drivetrain efficiency. Is there in fact empiric evidence that chainline has a large negative impact on efficiency?You don't find the following disturbing? Says a lot to me.

The second factor that affected efficiency was tension in the chain. The higher the chain tension, Spicer says, the higher the efficiency score. "This is actually not in the direction you'd expect, based simply on friction," he says. "It's not clear to us at this time why this occurs."

[Tobias]

Now there I think you are wrong. Drive shafts are shockingly inefficient compared to chain drive. If memory serves, the best you can get with a drive shaft is something like low 80s, which chain drives can have efficiencies as high as 97% or more.How can I be wrong when I'm saying that a derailleur system remains more efficient than a driveshaft/gearbox system. Isn't that what you are saying also?

By the way, your number for driveshaft efficiency is completely wrong but it doesn't matter in this case. The gearbox (or geared hub) has enough inefficiency by itself to lose this battle regardless of how it is used -- whether with chain, belt, or driveshaft.

[Grant McLean]

Research conducted at Johns Hopkins University, reported on here:
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1199/et1199s13.html
found:

"The first factor was sprocket size," Spicer says. "The larger the sprocket, the higher the efficiency we recorded." The sprocket is the circular plate whose teeth catch the chain links and move them along. Between the front and rear sprockets, the chain links line up straight. But when the links reach the sprocket, they bend slightly as they curl around the gear. "When the sprocket is larger, the links bend at a smaller angle," Spicer explains. "There's less frictional work, and as a result, less energy is lost."

The second factor that affected efficiency was tension in the chain. The higher the chain tension, Spicer says, the higher the efficiency score. "This is actually not in the direction you'd expect, based simply on friction," he says. "It's not clear to us at this time why this occurs."

without some data, i don't see what conclusions you can take from these statements.
It doesn't point out the obvious fact that smaller chainrings = higher chain tension!

so what's more important to reducing friction, larger sprockets or higher chain tension?

-g

[jerk]

old stupid time-trial trick and proven about a million times out on the road....big/big feels smoother. small/small spins up faster.

jerk

[Tobias]

so what's more important to reducing friction, larger sprockets or higher chain tension?Grant, I’ll put my money on the higher tension.

As you stated the report makes reference to competing variables, but if we isolate on one at a time – like chain tension – it is clear that the more tension the greater the efficiency because friction is less as a percent of the power being transmitted. This is particularly the case on a bicycle because of the way the rear derailleur wraps the chain around on the slack side.

If a rider maintains the same cadence using the same chainring size and all of a sudden increases power from 100 watts to 200 watts to climb a hill, the friction in the chain does not double along with the tension. Tension on the slack side of the chain remains near constant so parasitic friction caused by flexing the links around the rear derailleur is pretty much the same – yet twice as much power is being transmitted. The result is higher efficiency.

I don’t understand why they didn’t anticipate this since it’s been covered in text books for a long time.

[Tobias]

old stupid time-trial trick and proven about a million times out on the road....big/big feels smoother. small/small spins up faster.

jerkBig-big feels smoother because it is. There was a thread about a year ago on this as I recall. It has to do with sprocket geometry.

[Dave]

If all you looked at were 10, 9 and 8 speed chains you haven't seen an inflexible chain. All chains from 7spd on up are flexiblecompared with the chains we used back in the 5-speed era, chains like the Regina Oro, for example. Today, you can take a chain right out of the package and bend it like this: ) but back then, if a you could bend a chain sideways it was time to replace it. And today we all routinely violate the stern injunctions of the 5-speed era against cross-chaining, and suffer no ill effects as a result of doing so.

I don't have any chain remanants from 25 years ago, so I've got no way to check that statement. Seems kind of irrelevant. So now you're saying that it's been OK to use any chain line combination, since 7 speed came out?

I assume you've done some real world tests to prove that side clearance, roller wear and pin/bushing wear (elongation) are all unaffected by cross chaining? If not, it would seem to be an opinion, not a fact. I guess it's up to the owner to decide what is or isn't a tolerable chainline. I sure don't use the big/big combo.

I have read complaints from people who claim that their chains are too flexible and shift poorly, with only about 2,000 miles of use, so they change the chain, even if it's not otherwise worn out. My guess is those riders cross chain a lot. I've actually measured the side clearance on a chain with 6,000 miles on it and found it to be about .013 inch or nearly twice the original amount. I didn't think that it shifted poorly at that point.

[Grant McLean]

Grant, I’ll put my money on the higher tension.

As you stated the report makes reference to competing variables, but if we isolate on one at a time – like chain tension – it is clear that the more tension the greater the efficiency because friction is less as a percent of the power being transmitted. This is particularly the case on a bicycle because of the way the rear derailleur wraps the chain around on the slack side.



If you take the same size in gear inches, the combination with the
smaller chainring will have higher chain tension than the same gear inch combo
with the larger chainring. I'm still not clear on how much more friction a
42 tooth ring has than a 53. I'm guessing the whole thing is moot.

-g

[Dave]

If you take the same size in gear inches, the combination with the
smaller chainring will have higher chain tension than the same gear inch combo
with the larger chainring. I'm still not clear on how much more friction a
42 tooth ring has than a 53. I'm guessing the whole thing is moot.

-g

What hasn't been mentioned is the effect of the extra chain tension on cogs, hub bearings and BB bearings. If you've got a choice, it's wiser to use the bigger chainring and larger cog rather than a small chain ring and cog combination.

On the other hand, no one's going to convince me to use the big/big combo. That's nasty! The noise that I hear is enough to convince me to shift to the next smaller ring and 2-3 cogs smaller.

[palincss]

"The first factor was sprocket size," Spicer says. "The larger the sprocket, the higher the efficiency we recorded." The sprocket is the circular plate whose teeth catch the chain links and move them along. Between the front and rear sprockets, the chain links line up straight. But when the links reach the sprocket, they bend slightly as they curl around the gear. "When the sprocket is larger, the links bend at a smaller angle," Spicer explains. "There's less frictional work, and as a result, less energy is lost."

The second factor that affected efficiency was tension in the chain. The higher the chain tension, Spicer says, the higher the efficiency score. "This is actually not in the direction you'd expect, based simply on friction," he says. "It's not clear to us at this time why this occurs."

without some data, i don't see what conclusions you can take from these statements.
It doesn't point out the obvious fact that smaller chainrings = higher chain tension!

so what's more important to reducing friction, larger sprockets or higher chain tension?

-g

It's simply a case of the dog in the night. What was not on the list? Angularity!

[Tobias]

If you take the same size in gear inches, the combination with the
smaller chainring will have higher chain tension than the same gear inch combo
with the larger chainring. I'm still not clear on how much more friction a
42 tooth ring has than a 53. I'm guessing the whole thing is moot.

-gFor normal ridiing chain tension is completely a moot point.
However, assuming the same chain angle, in "theory" a 39-13 or 42-14 would be incrementally more efficient than a 54-18 (all with 3:1 ratio).

As the sprockets get smaller and the chain tension goes up, the chain speed goes down -- fewer links per minute. That means fewer links have to be flexed around the rear derailleur.

Differences are (or must be) so minor I would never consider it.

[musgravecycles]

Keith, here's a bad shot of the new DA 7900 brakes from across the hall. Second pic you can just see a DA 7900 STI on the far right of the pic...

http://www.bettiniphoto.net/image/2_0024215_1_thumb2.jpg
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/mar08/tirreno08/tirreno082/bettiniphoto_0024379_1_full.jpg

[Keith A]

Thanks for the pics...although you can't tell much from those shots. Any idea when this is supposed to be available?

[dookie]

you heard it here first!

[Marcus Torino]

See, it wasn't April 1st!

[Vancouverdave]

Is the first group reserved for Nigel Tufnel?