|Shimano 11 spead rear cluster?!?||kushogun|
Dec 15, 2002 11:17 PM
|I know that this has been speculated for some time, but a 22-speed Shimano drivetrain may be coming to fruition. Check it out in the tech section of www.cyclingnews.com According to their website nothing is official yet. But the 2004 Dura-Ace line may include 11-cog rear cassette. They claim it may already be on Lance's bike stating that there are seemingly slightly different shifting mechanisms on his bars. Who knows. Note: I am not spreading rumors, or making any assumptions, I'm just acting as the messenger. Fire away if you feel so obliged.|
|I read it too.||Col1|
Dec 16, 2002 12:02 AM
|Its true, and apparently current equipment will be upgradable to the 22 speed. Only thing I wonder is how thin the chain is going to be? Anyway, eat that Campy! Probably see Campy come out with a 24 speed in the not too distant future, c'mon I mean 9 speed suits me fine, how many gears do you really need?|
Dec 16, 2002 1:45 AM
|Armstrong is not running an 11 speed set-up on the SI cover bike or any other. I am 100% sure of this. He is testing some prototype shifters, cassettes and der's on the SI cover bike though. It's just the 11 speed part they have wrong.|
|Better view here||teoteoteo|
Dec 16, 2002 2:22 AM
|For those who haven't seen the shifters you can see them very clearly in this video from CNN/SI. Just scroll down to video box and then use pause feature to freeze frame when they pan across handlebars during photoshoot.
|as a big guy||burdiman|
Dec 16, 2002 1:47 AM
|I worry about my chain now (on a 9 speed drivetrain). don't know if I would go for a thinner chain or more dish in the rear. it is bad enough already.
as one who has popped a chain in mid sprint (cracking helmet and one heck of a sore shoulder later) the reward of more gears vs equipment strength doesn't seem worth it.
|chain width issue||DougSloan|
Dec 16, 2002 6:46 AM
|When chains get thinner, what parts of them actually are thinner or weaker? It seems to me, from looking at them, that the thinness is largely related to the length of the pin where it used to protrude from the outer plate; now, with the Campy 10 speed, the pin is flush with the outer plate, making it easier to pull loose from the plate. Isn't that how these chains fail? If the inner width was reduced, but you still had a decent sized outer plate and pin protrusion, that might allow it to be thinner over all and still strong; of course, then the width of the sprocket teeth would have to be reduced, too, so they'd better be stronger.
Dec 16, 2002 8:47 AM
|never thought it through I guess. Good points. As long at the plates are the same width/strength and the cogs are tough it would be fine.
I am just paranoid and broke two pedal axles last season doing intervals (they were chromo).
|This is all speculation anyway but.....||MB1|
Dec 16, 2002 6:58 AM
|I'c worry about the thickness of chainring and sprocket teeth if you are putting 11 speeds in the space of the current 9. Since we speculate that the chain must be narrower the teeth may have to be thinner too.
Shift into some of the extreme gear combinations (big/big or small/small) and the chain deflection forces may break teeth off.
Still I trust that the Shimano Engineers have spent a whole lot more time thinking about this than we have. Not that they can't get it wrong anyway....
|I wish someone would tell me WHY?||OldEdScott|
Dec 16, 2002 7:40 AM
|Strikes me as madness. With chain deflection/usable gear issues on my 9-speed Ultegra, I have 14 gears -- which is exactly the number of usable gears I had on my old 7-speed, since it didn't have chain deflection problems and every gear was happily usable.
With 11 speeds, I suspect we'll have -- 14 usable gears.
Bikes in their current configuration, with chains/sprockets/derailleurs, pretty much top out at 7, maybe 8, speeds. Beyond that, you really gain nothing but finickiness, fragility, and sacrificed reliability.
Dec 16, 2002 7:50 AM
|Me, too--I was content w/5 speeds and happy with six(nm)||cory|
Dec 16, 2002 7:51 AM
Dec 16, 2002 7:53 AM
|At some point, I suppose you won't even need multiple rings. At least it would make shifting simpler -- just up and down the back.
Keep in mind that people have been arguing about more gears since the invention of more than one gear. It's going to be a perpetual argument, at least until someone comes up with an efficient infinitely variable mechanism.
More gears allow you to carry a wider selection, and still have decent spacing. Currently, with a Campy 10 speed and triple, you can go from about 34 gear inches to 128, and still have the close spacing of an 11-23 (10 speed) cassette. Sure, there are lots of duplicates, but when you are climbing hard in a particular ring, you don't have to go searching around for the right next step on other rings.
|More the merrier||OldEdScott|
Dec 16, 2002 8:18 AM
|I'm not really arguing about more gears. More gears is fine. I rarely use more than 5 gears personally (Real low, pretty low, middling, pretty high, real high) because I learned to ride in an era when 10-speed didn't mean Campy, and my Simplex front derailleur throught its purpose in life was to fling chains completely off chainrings -- you forgot about shifting up front, and just left the chain on one ring or another and muddled through.
But sure, more gears is good. I'd take 50 gears if I could get 'em. Only problem is, with bikes as currently designed, you're going to end up with wispy chains deflected at impossible angles, fragile cogs, a zillion duplications, and Shimano's website saying disingenuously "Oh, you can USE all the combinations, but we don't, ah, RECOMMEND certain ones, including these ten ..."
Seems to me if the search for more gears is to contiue, the engineers need to admit that beyond 8 speeds max, the chain/derailleur/cogset/chainwheel bike is a dead end.
|not more deflection, though||DougSloan|
Dec 16, 2002 8:31 AM
|I understand that the total width of the cassette will be the same; therefore, deflection will not increase. If the chain gets more flexible, too, then it might be less of an issue. Of course, chain technology is probably driving this. Remember the tech news of the 14 speed Shimano chain a couple years back that had no outer plates on the inboard side of the chain? I guess that wasn't quite ready.
If we could have it reliable and efficient, I'd take an 11-34 cassette with no jumps, plus a 53/30 up front. That's about close to infinitely variable as you could get.
|You said it...watch them give us a 10 and a 9 cog...||OffTheBack|
Dec 16, 2002 8:29 AM
|in addition to the already useless (for me anyway) 11 and 12.|
|I wish someone would tell me WHY?||commuterguy|
Dec 16, 2002 8:43 AM
|Why would you still only have 7 usable gears if the cassette grows from 9 to 11 cogs? Wouldn't you expect to gain at least one, and possibly two usable gears?
I ride at a fairly high cadence, and I need a 25 tooth cogs to make it up some of the "walls" I encounter (for DC/MD riders: Brickyard Road, Park Mills Road, etc.). A 12-25 cassette has too many 2-tooth gaps (5 of the 8 jumps from cog to cog span 2-teeth gaps). So I would welcome the chance to have the same high and low cogs with some of the missing ratios filled in.
Dec 16, 2002 8:52 AM
|Shim are narked that 10 is so popular, even with those who don't really want more gears per se, but like having that 16 in without losing out somewhere else. It's part of their plan for total gruppo domination of the cycling universe.|
|I believe you hve it! n.m.||koala|
Dec 16, 2002 10:01 AM
|I wish someone would tell me WHY?||tarwheel|
Dec 16, 2002 9:26 AM
|I have 9 usable gears with my Campy 10 group with no chain rub, but can only use 6 with my Shimano 9 group with no rub. I don't know why, but lots of other cyclists have reported problems with chain ring rub using Shimano 9 groups. On the other hand, my 10-speed chains wear out much faster than the 9-speed.|
|I use 16 out of 18 with my D-A, NO rub. (nm)||Chen2|
Dec 16, 2002 10:49 AM
|progress nm||Bruno S|
Dec 16, 2002 4:01 PM
Dec 16, 2002 8:50 PM
|19 of 20 on my DA no rub, you might need a tune up.|
|20 speeds on DA? nm||DougSloan|
Dec 17, 2002 7:32 AM