11 speed cassette question

[Rueda Tropical]

Campy's 12-27 11 speed cassette is 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25,27.

Can the 12t sprocket be removed and an 18t added to get a 13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,21,23,25,27 cassette?

[Avispa]

No... The cogs at the lower end (lower gears, big sprockets that is) are attached together and as far I know, you can not buy individual cogs anymore.

..A..

[Rueda Tropical]

I was just looking at the spare parts catalog for 09 and there are 2 sets of triplets with individual cogs for the 5 highest gears. There is no individual 17t cog so there is no way to create the cassette I was hoping to get. Unless the triplets can be disassembled.

Not the end of the world with 11 speeds you can afford to have one cog you seldom use.

[bostondrunk]

Kind of sucks.
I use a 12-23 10 speed cassette.
Can't get that in 11 speed. So if I get 11 speed in the future, all I'll gain is either an 11 or a 25, neither of which I need..
Hopefully the offerings will be expanded.

[palincss]

Not the end of the world with 11 speeds you can afford to have one cog you seldom use.

On the other hand, you pay a huge premium for that 11th sprocket -- a $350 dollar chain tool, for heaven's sake! -- and to think you should pay all that extra and just throw it away on a sprocket that serves as little more than a spacer seems almost insane, does it not? Where's that "new frugality" everybody's talking about these days?

[Rueda Tropical]

On the other hand, you pay a huge premium for that 11th sprocket -- a $350 dollar chain tool, for heaven's sake! -- and to think you should pay all that extra and just throw it away on a sprocket that serves as little more than a spacer seems almost insane, does it not? Where's that "new frugality" everybody's talking about these days?

Everything you say is correct but in just about any build you wind up with some compromise somewhere. I wouldn't be considering 11 for anything but a new frame. It doesn't really make sense as an 'upgrade' from an existing 10 spd set up.

[Dave]

The chain tool does NOT cost $350. I paid $140 for mine and I could have not used it at all. Other options are the SRAM 10 powerloc to join the chain. KMC will have an 11 speed chain available very soon, with a master link.

All the whining is silly. All Campy did was add on cog LARGER to all existing 10 speed cassettes, except the 11-25 and 13-29. If you don't need the larger cog, don't buy 11 speed.

If they eventually offer a medium cage RD, I would expect and 11-27 and perhaps a 12-29, but I'd be surprised to see any cassette starting with a 13. 11 speed in not geared toward the touring crowd (pun intended).

[fiamme red]

11 speed in not geared toward the touring crowd (pun intended).Campagnolo has been distancing itself from the touring crowd lately. No more triple cranksets either.

[Avispa]

Campagnolo has been distancing itself from the touring crowd lately. No more triple cranksets either.

Who needs triples when there are compacts?

..A..

[Dave]

Campy still makes triple cranks, FDs and RDs in 10 speed. I've never liked their triple crank chainring offerings and chose to use FSA cranks with my otherwise Campy 10 triples. I now manage to get by with a compact, but there is no way to get the same total range as a triple. You either give up top end or low end. I have 3 fewer low gears with a 50/34 and 11-25 than I had with my 53/39/28 and 12-25, but about the same top gear.

FWIW, you can make a Campy 11 triple. Use 11 speed shifters, chain and cassette, with a minor modification to the RD and you're good to go.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=55772

[palincss]

And speaking of triples, let's not forget that "compact" means a 110 bolt circle, and the classic touring triple is 110 for the outer two rings, 74mm for the granny. So to the 30ish low gear you get with your smallest 110 inner ring, with a touring triple and a 24T granny ring, you get a low gear down in the low 20s. Not much use for racing, of course; but with 4 loaded panniers, it can be a great help.

[caleb]

Who needs triples when there are compacts?

..A..

If I lived in the Alps or the Dolomites I'd have a triple for sure.

[Ti Designs]

Campy's 12-27 11 speed cassette is 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,25,27.

Can the 12t sprocket be removed and an 18t added to get a 13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,21,23,25,27 cassette?


If someone told you the 18 was in there, would you be able to tell it wasn't? If you answer "no" (and I would put money on it that you can't tell), then I've snuck into your basement and secretly replaced your 12 with an 18. I've also replaced your coffee with instant coffee with flavor crystals, and your wife is really her twin sister.

[RPS]

If they eventually offer a medium cage RD, I would expect and 11-27 and perhaps a 12-29, but I'd be surprised to see any cassette starting with a 13. 11 speed in not geared toward the touring crowd (pun intended).
I agree, they'd be foolish to offer a 13-27 when the rider can go with a 12-25 or 11-23 or something that makes more technical sense for either racing or touring. The only exception I can think of is if carrying a huge load or a heavy tandem or something out of the norm that Campy isn't going to go after anyway because of limited market.

[oldguy00]

If someone told you the 18 was in there, would you be able to tell it wasn't? If you answer "no" (and I would put money on it that you can't tell), then I've snuck into your basement and secretly replaced your 12 with an 18. I've also replaced your coffee with instant coffee with flavor crystals, and your wife is really her twin sister.

Maybe you should go back to 7 speed and down tube shifters. You won't know the difference.
At least with an 18 it will actually get used, whereas an 11 might not.
I never know exactly what gear I'm in, I just know when I need to shift into an easier or harder gear, and it never hurts to have an extra step in there. Better than having a gear I'd never use..
Your response is pretty typical of someone who must find the negative in everything.

[sg8357]

Campagnolo has been distancing itself from the touring crowd lately. No more triple cranksets either.

Tourists aren't into groupos, all I need from Campy are the shifters.

Ergo is much preferable to Sti for triples, you can shift anything with Campys
micro-ratchet front shifter. Sti likes ramps and pins and a Shimano front derailer. Ergo you can have 10 speed in the back with a Simplex deraileur
and Stronglight 49d with TA rings in front.

[znfdl]

If someone told you the 18 was in there, would you be able to tell it wasn't? If you answer "no" (and I would put money on it that you can't tell), then I've snuck into your basement and secretly replaced your 12 with an 18. I've also replaced your coffee with instant coffee with flavor crystals, and your wife is really her twin sister.

Ed:

I disagree, as my 50x18 is my favorite gear for long distance tempo work. My favorite 10 speed cassette is a 13x26. I dislike the fact that almost most cassettes do not have an 18.

[Dave]

I disagree too. I haven't had an 18T since 2000, when I first switched to 10 speed and never miss it. Of course I don't ride the flatlands.

Even riding the same roads over and over, the same gear is not the best, every day. I might use 3 different cogs on the same stretch of road, depending on the wind conditions.

[Rueda Tropical]

Ergo is much preferable to Sti for triples, you can shift anything with Campys
micro-ratchet front shifter.

I've had non Campy cranks on several Campy 10spd builds. A Ritchey Logic 48/36 on one and on my wife's current bike a 130BCD crank with a chainguard on the outer position and an old Stronglight tripilizer for the double rings with no pins or ramps and they all shifted fine.

[RPS]

At least with an 18 it will actually get used, whereas an 11 might not.
I never know exactly what gear I'm in, I just know when I need to shift into an easier or harder gear, and it never hurts to have an extra step in there. Better than having a gear I'd never use.Oldguy, what you state is completely correct but only if in the context that the 11T is too large a gear to be used regularly. On the other hand, and depending on overall range, if the “new” 15 effectively becomes the “old” 18, then the rider would end up using both the 11T and the new-and-improved 18-equivalent (i.e. – the new 15T). IMHO it’s more about total system integration, not solely cassette cog sizes. The cassette is just one part of it and shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum.

Specifically thinking about what Rueda is asking for as an example (to end up with a 13-27) one could essentially do the same with an 11-23 which has similar range of gearing. Assuming the rider would use a standard 53/39 with the 13-27, he would need to switch to a 45/33 compact to get the same effective gearing.

If that was the case, then the new 45/15 replaces the old cherished 53/18; while the system still maintains equal top and bottom gearing. However, comparing the cassettes side by side you’d find that there are more one-tooth jumps in a row.

13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,25,27 with a 53/39

11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23 with a 45/33

In this case the steps are so small that it doesn’t make much difference anyway, but as you can see above going to equivalent gearing with smaller cassettes and rings leads to more 1-tooth consecutive cogs (closer to a straight block). On wider-ratio cassettes this advantageous factor can become significant.

And exception of course is that if the rider is already using very compact rings and still needs large cogs, then that’s a different issue – maybe one that would point towards the need for a triple. In any case, I don’t see many advantages to using a 13-27 cassette. It’s heavy, more expensive, and requires greater derailleur capacity. There is a valid reason why Campy, Shimano, and Sram are offering more 11T-based cassettes than just a few years ago. And they make even more sense when the cassettes are wider ratio, like 11-25 or 11-28.

Just imagine, to replicate the function of an 11-28, we’d need a 13-33. Smaller rings make more sense most of the time – but not always.

[palincss]

I agree, they'd be foolish to offer a 13-27 when the rider can go with a 12-25 or 11-23 or something that makes more technical sense for either racing or touring. The only exception I can think of is if carrying a huge load or a heavy tandem or something out of the norm that Campy isn't going to go after anyway because of limited market.

a 12-25 or an 11-23 makes more sense for touring than a 13-27? Not in the universe I live in. Perhaps the laws of gravity are different where you live. 23 and 25 "large" sprockets are significantly higher geared than a 27, and an 11 is much higher geared than a 13. When touring, high top gears are absolutely useless: gravity will do it all for you. The issue is stopping, not going faster. And when you're climbing hills with a load, most of us find a lower gear to be more useful than a higher one.

As for racers -- if a 13-29 were all that useless, why does Campagnolo offer it in 10 spd? And why would it become less useful in 11 than in 10? Are you saying those 13-29s are marketed towards tourists and tandemers? Somehow I doubt it highly.

[palincss]

Assuming the rider would use a standard 53/39 with the 13-27, he would need to switch to a 45/33 compact to get the same effective gearing.


Now you're verging on being out of the realm of the "compact" -- i.e., 110 bolt circle -- crank, since 34 is usually the minimum chainring size for that bolt circle, and are descending down into microdrive MTB territory. That might work for some, but those cranks are triples, the Q factor is very large (which works fine for some, not at all for others) and they are painfully ugly.

[palincss]

Just imagine, to replicate the function of an 11-28, we’d need a 13-33. Smaller rings make more sense most of the time – but not always.

Yes, smaller rings are significantly less efficient than larger ones, and they wear faster, too.

[RPS]

a 12-25 or an 11-23 makes more sense for touring than a 13-27? Not in the universe I live in. Perhaps the laws of gravity are different where you live. 23 and 25 "large" sprockets are significantly higher geared than a 27, and an 11 is much higher geared than a 13. When touring, high top gears are absolutely useless: gravity will do it all for you. The issue is stopping, not going faster. And when you're climbing hills with a load, most of us find a lower gear to be more useful than a higher one.
Palincss, if you are going to pick snippets of my writing out of context by choosing only the parts that suit your criticism, I will no longer respond to you at all. To counter after the fact is pointless since you’ve already corrupted the original message and others won’t go back to read it in the total and proper context.

I’ve let it slide in the past, but no more. It’s a waste of my time.

Either take the time to read the entire (albeit very long) post and respond in the right context – which I know you are smart enough to do – or else be satisfied that you can criticize all you want knowing I will not engage.

Sorry, but life it way too short for this kind of nonsense.

With all due respect,
Rick

[Pete Serotta]

Most of us like specific gears based on how we spin, our terrain, and just our likes..... An 11 is becoming more common but I know I can not spin one, except on a downhill.... as to a 17 or an 18, I can adapt to either but my friend BOB likes his 18...

Let me suggest, look at what gears you use most of the time (as well as the one to each side of that cog). Then talk to folks who ride with you and get their input. Finally give as many a try as you can.

Our bodies adapt and also have different "sweet" gears. My buddy is a spinner that I can only wish I could attain, so our gearing likes and not the same.....

Good riding.... :bike:

[Tobias]

Sorry, but life it way too short for this kind of nonsense.Technical correctness and completeness seems to be your Kryptonite as politics is mine. I owe you one so let me give you some unsolicited advice in hopes you won’t repeat my mistakes.

What you are trying to accomplish will likely lead to nothing more than aggravation for the most part because it’s flawed in a couple of ways. First, if you write a technical post in enough detail to be clear and unambiguous, it will be too long for most to read entirely. And if the post is abbreviated for the sake of brevity, it will be taken out of context by at least a few with an ax to grind. Either way can fireworks be far behind?

Secondly, Internet forums are not suited for teaching or lecturing in one’s pet field…..it’s better suited for arguing (call it debating if you want to be civil). This problem is compounded in technical fields because not everyone has the prerequisite training or experience to comprehend the material at the same level. Many will but some won’t. For a few it’d be like jumping from algebra to differential equations….doomed to fail. To make matters worse, most hanging out on forums haven’t signed up for a class, so anything that resembles a technical lecture will be seen as condescending. As my girlfriend often reminds me – it’s best to keep unsolicited advice to oneself (made an exception here :rolleyes: ).

As I mentioned in the other threads on this very same subject, it’s pointless to pursue this gearing issue because for some inexplicable reason non-technical people grasp the idea of sizes better than ratios. Just look at Pete’s post above and read between the lines to see what I mean.

May I suggest that rather than getting angry as I often do, it’s best to take a break? I’m going to take a forum sabbatical because in all honesty I don’t want to be pulled into a conflict by those who resort to character assassination in order to discredit those with different political views. Like you said, life is too short for such nonsense.


P.S. – Keep your cool, and thanks again for your help with the custom triple.

[fiamme red]

May I suggest that rather than getting angry as I often do, it’s best to take a break? I’m going to take a forum sabbatical because in all honesty I don’t want to be pulled into a conflict by those who resort to character assassination in order to discredit those with different political views. Like you said, life is too short for such nonsense.Wow. Character assassination? :rolleyes:

Yes, I do think you need a break from this place. Maybe you'd better avoid all forums where "liberals" and "socialists" hang out. :argue:

[znfdl]

Most of us like specific gears based on how we spin, our terrain, and just our likes..... An 11 is becoming more common but I know I can not spin one, except on a downhill.... as to a 17 or an 18, I can adapt to either but my friend BOB likes his 18...

Let me suggest, look at what gears you use most of the time (as well as the one to each side of that cog). Then talk to folks who ride with you and get their input. Finally give as many a try as you can.

Our bodies adapt and also have different "sweet" gears. My buddy is a spinner that I can only wish I could attain, so our gearing likes and not the same.....

Good riding.... :bike:

Pete: This is sound advice. For me, on flat to rolling roads, I mostly use a 50 X 16,17,18,19.

Climbing I use a 38 X 17,18, 19 21,23,26

In fact, my 18 tooth cog is the first one to wear out.

[RPS]

As my girlfriend often reminds me – it’s best to keep unsolicited advice to oneself (made an exception here :rolleyes: ).Cute and smart. ;)

Great suggestion, but then on the other hand, if we limit forum communication to answering the original question, this place would be pretty dead without unsolicited advice and opinions.

As an example, this thread would have ended after the first reply. Then again maybe that would have been a good thing for all.

P.S. -- My wife says I should try teaching to get it out of my system. She's probably right too.

[Rueda Tropical]

TA is now making a 48T 11spd chainring so I can get very very close to what I want by swapping the 50 for a 48 up front and leaving the 12-27 in back.

The TA rings will be available for both 135 and 110. More info here:
http://ruedatropical.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/specialites-ta-11-speed-chainrings/

[RPS]

Wow. Character assassination? :rolleyes:

Yes, I do think you need a break from this place. Maybe you'd better avoid all forums where "liberals" and "socialists" hang out. :argue:
Flamme, do you think it’s OK to suggest that someone is racist to discredit his political views? Isn’t that what’s happening here – again? It’s déjà vu all over again; and a repeat of what happened last year prior to the election.

A FEW “liberals and socialist” as you call them seem to pull the race card pretty quickly IMHO. Furthermore, where were the moderators when the thread drifted to “character assassination” of Palin by painting her as a pig, and then suggesting that she should be a stripper? Is it OK to go after Obama in the same manner? What would happen if one of the conservative guys made fun of his race? Is that different than making fun of Palin’s gender?

And finally, why hasn’t the Race Police surfaced in the Michael Jackson ticket thread? Many are critical of MJ but no one is screaming bigotry, yet the minute Tobias is critical of Obama the race card is pulled. Isn’t that a dual standard based on political opposition?

[Rueda Tropical]

How the hell did a gearing discussion turn into a rant about politics?

[fiamme red]

How the hell did a gearing discussion turn into a rant about politics?Republican = micro-drive
Democrat = macro-drive

;)

[palincss]

Palincss, if you are going to pick snippets of my writing out of context by choosing only the parts that suit your criticism, I will no longer respond to you at all. To counter after the fact is pointless since you’ve already corrupted the original message and others won’t go back to read it in the total and proper context.

I’ve let it slide in the past, but no more. It’s a waste of my time.

Either take the time to read the entire (albeit very long) post and respond in the right context – which I know you are smart enough to do – or else be satisfied that you can criticize all you want knowing I will not engage.

Sorry, but life it way too short for this kind of nonsense.

With all due respect,
Rick

You know, Rick, I read your entire post. You seem to believe that those advocating larger sprockets in back are wedded to using larger chain rings in front, and don't seem to understand that by changing to smaller chain rings in front you can use smaller rings in back to get the equivalent gears.

That's old news to me. I expect I have considerably more experience with small chainring sets than you do. I've had a 22-32-44 triple on my Spectrum road bike since 1995, and for more than 10 years I used a touring bike built by Bruce Gordon (who knows more about setting up touring bikes than you and I and most folks on this forum put together) that bike came with a 22-32-44 triple and a 12-32 cassette.

You seem to think that I'm being perversely stupid and selectively quoting you -- even though you didn't mention chainrings in the post I quoted. My point is that tourists wouldn't consider big chain rings. They'd be using small rings with that 13. 100" is plenty big for a tourist, and your 45x11, 107-113", makes absolutely no sense for a tourist at all. None. Given the larger size tires you'd typically use on a touring bike, a 44x12 is about the biggest gear that makes any sense at all on a touring bike... unless, as I said, the laws of gravity operate differently in your neighborhood than they do in mine.

I addressed the part of your argument where I think you went totally off the rails, where whatever your frame of reference -- constant size chain rings, smaller rings, larger rings, whatever -- made no difference, you were IMHO simply wrong..

Now you can engage or not engage. Either way's fine with me. I'm sorry if you take umbrage at my quoting the relevant portions of your message rather than quoting several of your messages concatenated together in their entirety, but that's simply not how discourse is conducted and I think you're being perverse in insisting upon it. The part of your text I omitted about smaller vs larger rings wasn't even in the message I was responding to.

As for "all due respect" -- I think that's rather lacking in your post, don't you?

[allegretto]

Republican = micro-drive
Democrat = macro-drive

;)

en sus suenos... poco hombre

but this does get back to what RPS and the others are saying. whether it's writ large or small, Libs constantly and consistently go straight to the ad hominem. while sometimes i agree with the Lib perspective, i admit to usually agreeing with the Conservative one. but either way, i tend to stick to issues. folks as yourself OTOH start calling names and attacking personally instead of making the point (presuming there is a defensible one).

is your POV such a tiny base that it cannot stand on it's own and one must get personal to distract?

and the ironic part, is that the Libs are the ones always saying they are more "sensitive" or more "learned" or some other balderdash, when the truth is exactly opposite in many many cases.

[palincss]

en sus suenos... poco hombre

but this does get back to what RPS and the others are saying. whether it's writ large or small, Libs constantly and consistently go straight to the ad hominem. while sometimes i agree with the Lib perspective, i admit to usually agreeing with the Conservative one. but either way, i tend to stick to issues. folks as yourself OTOH start calling names and attacking personally instead of making the point (presuming there is a defensible one).

is your POV such a tiny base that it cannot stand on it's own and one must get personal to distract?

and the ironic part, is that the Libs are the ones always saying they are more "sensitive" or more "learned" or some other balderdash, when the truth is exactly opposite in many many cases.

As if you weren't engaging in ad hominem arguments yourself. So what's that make you?

[allegretto]

As if you weren't engaging in ad hominem arguments yourself. So what's that make you?

i assume you're referring to my Spanish?

the difference was, that i was responding to him in kind. not in the initiation. i was probing to see if he could take what he gave.

silly me, wasn't aware that he was capable of ventriloquism ;)

[Ti Designs]

Your response is pretty typical of someone who must find the negative in everything.


Do not!!!


OK, that may have been just a little childish, even for me. I just hate that bike equipment keeps getting better and riders keep getting worse. My point was that so few people can tell which gear they're in, yet people whine about not having one gear in a stack of 10.

[Pete Serotta]

This one is slipping into the :crap: :butt: