New Shimano Dura Ace/Ultegra Releases?

[reuben]

Originally Posted by j.higgins

i'd just love to see shimano make classic silver components available again.

+1

[rice rocket]

Clean them out of the SPD sandals first, maybe they'll note how deep everyone's nostalgia runs.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by bfd

I don’t know, is Campy really marketing its wide gears as “racing?!” One thing about the pro tour is all the teams seem to be using e-shifting. It’s my understanding that currently Campy is only offering its EPS in Super Record form and that the 48/32 and 11-34 combo is only available in Chorus mechanical. So where is the “racing” connection?!

Good Luck!

Well, in 2002 Campag made Record and Chorus triples too..not a lot of pro bubbas using that.

[benb]

I still wish they'd just bring triples back.. maybe it'll require a generational change.

They could make them again with electronic and it'd kill two a bunch of birds with one stone:
- Huge gear range
- Tight spacing
- Solves the "I can't set it up" problem cause electronic
- Can cost a lot for cause electronic which will make a certain class of rider feel good
- Would it actually be heavier to add a 30t ring than it is to have these ridiculous cassettes that have a whole bunch of cogs that are larger than 30t?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

I still wish they'd just bring triples back.. maybe it'll require a generational change.

They could make them again with electronic and it'd kill two a bunch of birds with one stone:
- Huge gear range
- Tight spacing
- Solves the "I can't set it up" problem cause electronic
- Can cost a lot for cause electronic which will make a certain class of rider feel good
- Would it actually be heavier to add a 30t ring than it is to have these ridiculous cassettes that have a whole bunch of cogs that are larger than 30t?

Triples made more sense when there were fewer rear sprockets, but make much less sense now. With multiple chainrings comes overlaps and redundancies in gear combinations. a 3x10 system doesn't have 30 unique and usable gear combinations, it really only has about 15-18. Adding chainrings also produces more geometry and clearance issues than adding rear sprockets: Greater cross chain angles, less tire clearance, larger Q factors, etc.

When you only had 5 to 8 rear sprockets, adding a 3rd chainring could increase unique gear ratios by 30%. But with 11 and 12 rear sprockets, adding a 3rd chainring only adds 10-15% more unique gear combinations. That's not much more than adding extra sprocket or two, and using all the unique gear combinations requires far more shifting than on a single or double chainring setup.

Sure, triples may still make sense in some situations. But those situations are becoming fewer and fewer.

[weiwentg]

Originally Posted by J.Higgins

I'd just love to see Shimano make classic silver components available again.

Or, failing that, something like the DA 9000 finish. That was sweet.

Now, this was discussed on a recent Campy thread as well, and the consensus there was that many people will say they want something in silver finish, but most current new bikes are carbon, and the current fashion is dark components. Would enough people buy a high-end silver group for Campy or Shimano (or SRAM, I suppose) to justify offering that option?

When they had just released R8000, I was thinking about changing my groupset, and I had silver components on the bike previously. I briefly debated 9000 vs 8000, but 9000 was still pricier, and there were some little improvements to 8000 that mattered to me (mainly shorter lever throw). So I went with the latter.

[dddd]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Triples made more sense when there were fewer rear sprockets, but make much less sense now. With multiple chainrings comes overlaps and redundancies in gear combinations. a 3x10 system doesn't have 30 unique and usable gear combinations, it really only has about 15-18. Adding chainrings also produces more geometry and clearance issues than adding rear sprockets: Greater cross chain angles, less tire clearance, larger Q factors, etc.

When you only had 5 to 8 rear sprockets, adding a 3rd chainring could increase unique gear ratios by 30%. But with 11 and 12 rear sprockets, adding a 3rd chainring only adds 10-15% more unique gear combinations. That's not much more than adding extra sprocket or two, and using all the unique gear combinations requires far more shifting than on a single or double chainring setup.

Sure, triples may still make sense in some situations. But those situations are becoming fewer and fewer.

This seems to totally depend on what sort of gearing strategy was used.

If for example a triple or quad-ring was created that spanned little more than the existing 50-34t, then chainline issues related to cross-chaining could actually be reduced by quite a lot.

I find that with today's bikes having a compact double and a fairly wide spread in back, that it's often best staying in the big ring since changing to the small ring is such a huge drop.
But if the chainring ratio gaps were tightened up as on say a 50-42-34t triple, the middle ring could be accessed more seamlessly as the rider experienced changes in grade, improving transmission efficiency.
This would reduce the sort of needed double-shifting that can be a source of cross-chaining in itself.

No doubt any new multi-ring "racing" setup will need to be a clean-slate design, including the frame itself in terms of things like chainring clearance and clearance for sufficient front derailer retraction.
But these adjustments do not have to come at the cost of much frame structure efficiency, or weight gain of the entire bike, since molded frames allow asymmetric wild shaping that is already seen used on very light frames. And the ring-set itself needn't gain much weight, as more similarly-sized rings can be made to share structure. The spacing between more closely-matched chainring sizes would also be considerably less than between existing doubles, making even a quad-ring quite feasible.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by dddd

This seems to totally depend on what sort of gearing strategy was used.

If for example a triple or quad-ring was created that spanned little more than the existing 50-34t, then chainline issues related to cross-chaining could actually be reduced by quite a lot.

I find that with today's bikes having a compact double and a fairly wide spread in back, that it's often best staying in the big ring since changing to the small ring is such a huge drop.
But if the chainring ratio gaps were tightened up as on say a 50-42-34t triple, the middle ring could be accessed more seamlessly as the rider experienced changes in grade, improving transmission efficiency.
This would reduce the sort of needed double-shifting that can be a source of cross-chaining in itself.

No doubt any new multi-ring "racing" setup will need to be a clean-slate design, including the frame itself in terms of things like chainring clearance and clearance for sufficient front derailer retraction.
But these adjustments do not have to come at the cost of much frame structure efficiency, or weight gain of the entire bike, since molded frames allow asymmetric wild shaping that is already seen used on very light frames. And the ring-set itself needn't gain much weight, as more similarly-sized rings can be made to share structure. The spacing between more closely-matched chainring sizes would also be considerably less than between existing doubles, making even a quad-ring quite feasible.

In many ways, the 50-42-34 combination would be worst of all worlds. The small advantages (easier front shifting with less change in cadence when shifting only the front) are more than cancelled out by the disadvantages. The range of gearing is the same as with a 50-34, but taking advantage of the middle ring means far more front shifting. All the gear ratios in the middle ring are redundent. And nearly all the gears when using the middle ring will result in a loss of efficiency.

It was commented earlier that a big jump between chainrings may cause the rider to stay in the big ring even though the same ratio in the small ring has less cross-chaining. That might actually be a good thing, as cross-chaining may result in less efficiency loss than smaller chainrings. Looking at the data in this article in Velonews on drivetrain losses, it can be seen that efficiency losses in the big-big combination (the most extreme cross-chaining in the big chainring) are only slightly more than the losses in a similar ratio when using the small ring. The data shows that riders should spend most of their time in the big ring, and only go to the small ring when approaching the very bottom of the cassette. Introducing a middle ring would only introduce a middle option that was neither as efficient as the big ring, nor have as low a gear as the small ring.

And the answer to the big jump in gear size (and cadence change) when moving between chainrings is simple - shift the rear derailleur simultaneously with the front derailleur. Pushing the right lever 2 or 3 clicks while your pushing the left lever results in very little change in cadence. I've been doing this since I was using down tube levers.

It depends on the rider, but the wider q-factor required by triple rings may also be seen as a disadvantage. I much prefer a narrower stance, and dislike the extra q-factor in all the triples I've ridden. Except if I need a very, very wide range of gearing, I prefer to never use a triple.

[benb]

I thought you were usually all about these giant cassettes with bad chainlines being the the main culprit on driveline losses.

I completely agree 50/42/34 would be pointless. It's gotta have a wide range on the rings to have a benefit.

I hate hate hate 50/34 though. (But still run it on one of my bikes because I don't really have a better solution.)

I've always felt like I'm stuck running a wide range cassette with a 50/34 even though the gear ratios are too short. If I run a 50/34 + a 12-25 or 11-23 that would actually be pretty good, the top end I can deal with losing some, the low end is just right, and the spacing is tight.

But the problem with that is I feel like that kind of setup makes me constantly surf between the two rings in rolling terrain way more than running 53/39 + 12-28 or some other similar setup.

The overlap on these subcompact cranks with super wide range cassettes has to be large too doesn't? Overlap has always been there...

The other issue I have with the subcompact stuff is it again seems like everything is going to wear out faster & cost more. SRAM now has a $350 cassette... a wear part. The huge cogs on it might last longer but they're all thinner too aren't they? And the rings are now tiny and will wear out faster too. And they still have giant jumps in the cogs... SRAM is marketing "still has 5 cogs with a 1-tooth jump!" but then they've still got half the block running 3 or even 4 tooth jumps!

[benb]

Yah playing around with gearing calculators I don't really see how these SRAM groups are in any way an improvement in "gear overlap".

A 30/42/52 triple with a 12-23 wouldn't necessarily have such bad overlap compared to SRAM's new groups.

A bunch of the eTap AXS ring/cassette combos end up only having about 2-3 ratios in the low ring that the high ring doesn't have, and they have jumps in the cogs > 15% in the low ranges on the cassette.

A triple setup could have < 10% jumps all the way across the block.

If they're selling 15-20% jumps in the cogs with only 2-3 gears in the low ring that the high ring doesn't have I don't see why you don't just go right to 1X.

I think 1X is a silly idea on the road too but if their 2X group has such a weird setup that it has little benefit over the 1X I don't see why you don't go 1X.

So I guess for me if SRAM was in the picture I'd rather have an eTap 1X setup that ditched the front derailleur completely if I was going to be riding a cassette with lots of 2-3-4 cog jumps in it either way. The 1X should save money/weight/complexity/maintenance, but of course they're not going to want you to save money.

[benb]

Actually if SRAM made a 12-speed 11-26 I would probably like that with their 48/39 setup.

That would be very similar to what I like to run with a 53/39 + 12-28.

It'd be even better if they made a 12-26 and pair that with the 50/37 rings.

The 10s do nothing for me.

I wear out 50/34 rings notably faster than than 53/39 as well.. not sure what would happen with even smaller rings. Gravel bike usage seems really bad on rings for me.

I like a certain amount overlap.. because I don't want to have to shift too many cogs when switching rings. The whole thing with a 50/34 + 12-25 I mentioned has to do with sometimes having to switch 4+ cogs to avoid a huge change in cadence. If you have to shift 4-5 cogs you can't do it in one sweep of the lever. Maybe electronic can do this smoothly/quickly but that is a very expensive solution vs gears that avoid that situation.

[jemdet]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Well, in 2002 Campag made Record and Chorus triples too..not a lot of pro bubbas using that.

1999, but...

[thirdgenbird]

Yep, I recall seeing record and dura ace triples on pro bikes for select events. It was a fairly short window before compacts became the preferred method.

The more interesting thing here is the carbon brake levers with alloy shift blades.

[jemdet]

Originally Posted by thirdgenbird

Yep, I recall seeing record and dura ace triples on pro bikes for select events. It was a fairly short window before compacts became the preferred method.

The more interesting thing here is the carbon brake levers with alloy shift blades.

Ullrich had 10V guts and levers fitted to 8V shifters. He liked the hood shape.

https://www.velonews.com/gear/road-g...-updated-text/

[thirdgenbird]

Originally Posted by jemdet

Ullrich had 10V guts and levers fitted to 8V shifters. He liked the hood shape.

https://www.velonews.com/gear/road-g...-updated-text/

I am completely aware of this. I also have 10v guts in 8v levers. This doesn’t explain the mismatch. Most of his bikes had the carbon shift blade and they are completely interchangeable.

You actually have to modify the 8v body to fit the carbon brake lever but not the carbon shift blade.