2004 Dura-Ace goes all the way to eleven?

I found this on cyclingnews.com <br /><br />

<br /><br />Some photos of this would be pretty cool, does anyone know where there are any?

 

This all sounds very interesting but do we really need 11 speed rears?<br /><br />sure close ratios are nice but having 1 tooth gaps all the way from 11-22 seems a little excessive to me<br /><br />

 

I can tell Duckwah lives where its flat. <br /><br />I have a 12 - 25 as does a lot of my friends, my son has a 12 - 27, and I have other friends with record 10 cassettes that go 11 - 29 at times, depending on the ride route.<br /><br />The wide range is needed at the low end for climbing, but 11 is scary. Some feel 10 is too much, with narrow shift spaces that can be hard to adjust and narrow chains that aren't as robust.

 

I just don't get it either. I live in Colorado (all the climbing one could ask for) and manage to get by without one tooth differences in the back. Most people do. My concern is that in going from 9 to 11 must mean increasingly narrow chains that must eventually go &quot;snap.&quot; I don't have any interest in carrying a spare chain or even the tools to remove links and fix an existing one on the side of the road.<br /><br />There are a lot of advancements that I need to warm up to before I jump on board. Perhaps that's why I recently sold a mid-1980's Basso with downtube mounted friction shifters...<br /><br />God, I miss that bike already...

 

yeah no big mountains for me, i'm far too heavy to enjoy climbing ;D<br /><br />i can see where a big range is useful but if you want to go climb vertical roads why not just get a granny ring on the front? (braces himself for storm of derision)<br /><br />i'm running a 12-25 8 speed rear and a 30-42-52 front and with this combo i can haul my 93kg mass up whatever hills i have to.

 

i'm using 11-23 (10 speed) and i can get up anything, a 25 is as big as anyone who is fit would need to go IMO, otherwise get a granny ;D

 

it would also depend on whether you want to sit and spin up the hill at high cadence or if you back off the RPM and turn a bigger gear....

 

[quote author=Duckwah link=board=20;threadid=2786;start=0#23679 date=1040194861]<br />it would also depend on whether you want to sit and spin up the hill at high cadence or if you back off the RPM and turn a bigger gear....<br />[/quote]<br /><br />yep like I said, get a granny or get fit

 

steve...save this thread, print it out, and read it in 25 years.<br /><br />then see if you think you sound as pompous and immature as I now think you do.

 

[quote author=rv link=board=20;threadid=2786;start=0#23684 date=1040214530]<br />steve...save this thread, print it out, and read it in 25 years.<br /><br />then see if you think you sound as pompous and immature as I now think you do.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Sounds like the 'ol Christmas spirit hasn't arrived in your part of the world mate? Lighten up!

 

[quote author=rv link=board=20;threadid=2786;start=0#23684 date=1040214530]<br />steve...save this thread, print it out, and read it in 25 years.<br /><br />then see if you think you sound as pompous and immature as I now think you do.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Mate, I seriously don't see the point of have a 11-12 to a 27 or 29 tooth cassette. If 'whoever' needs one of these used a 12-23 (21) and got a granny ring, they would have nice close gear ratios and still have access to the little gears they need to get up the climbs IMO. <br />I cant see a person who 'needs' a 29 tooth cog on their cassette being embarrassed by having a triple can you?<br /><br />cheers!

 

I think rv might have been commenting that it isn't neccessarily an option: get fit OR a third chainring. I think Old Timer could be excused for it, no matter how fit, and I wouldn't be suprised if a third chainring becomes part of every cyclists arsenal in a few years time (once the weight penalty is minimal), why not have a complete extra set of gears if the weight penalty comes down to 80 grams? Road cyclists appear to be a little too worried about looks when they cycle. I carry a third chainring wherever I go even though I don't need it and I regularly get ripped off for this. Come the Tour de Gold I was the only one cycling up the 23 % gradient hill (new race, no-one knew about it) amongst my (admittedly unfit) group, due to that much maligned third chainring.<br /><br />I don't mind that people feel they don't need the third chainring but I (and rv obviously) do mind when people assume that you carry the third chainring because you are unfit. If I manage to cycle with those 2 chainring people through an entire race then surely I am as fit as them? Or maybe I'm not as fit, but instead manage my effort better (i.e. spin up hills in the third chainring), am I not racing a better race then? As I mentioned I don't use the third chainring (partly because I have a touring setup at the back as well, which I would like to change to closer ratios to take advantage of Steve's mentioned advantage of a third chainring) but there have been times when I have sat in the middle chainring out of mistaken pride and, as could be expected, have ended up with sore knees.<br /><br />I don't know particularly many people who don't need something bigger than a 23 at the back, and I agree that these people shouldn't feel more embarrased at carrying a third chainring instead of a 26 or 29. What I do complain at is that they should feel embarassed about any gear choices. What on earth do these choices have to do with your ability. Hell, what does ability have to do with being embarrased? I admire immensely the guys who do the long races here on an old MTB and spend 5 hours in the sun slogging through 100 km's with no training. They shouldn't have to feel embarrased. I think the people who should feel embarrased are the ones who have the larny bikes and all the equipment and a racing setup and end up being passed by some poor oke on a MTB with slicks and then after the race have to go to the chiro because their knees hurt from pushing too big a gear and their back hurts from not being used to a racy setup. I know not many people here are in that category and the guys with good equipment and race set-ups use those.<br /><br />Sorry for the essay, but this whole image thing is what put me off one of my previous favourite sports and so far I have seen very little of this behaviour in cycling and don't like seeing it (admittedly I'm only a middling cyclist and most of the people in those categories just enjoy beating their personal bests and/or keeping at their current level as age creeps up on them) <br /><br />p.s. This isn't an attack on you steve, I know your comments weren't aimed in that direction given your character in the rest of the forum, but even unintentional pressure could cause someone to feel embarrasment where they feel none

 

[quote author=Rhodent link=board=20;threadid=2786;start=0#23700 date=1040285327]<br />I think rv might have been commenting that it isn't neccessarily an option: get fit OR a third chainring. I think Old Timer could be excused for it, no matter how fit, and I wouldn't be suprised if a third chainring becomes part of every cyclists arsenal in a few years time (once the weight penalty is minimal), why not have a complete extra set of gears if the weight penalty comes down to 80 grams? Road cyclists appear to be a little too worried about looks when they cycle. I carry a third chainring wherever I go even though I don't need it and I regularly get ripped off for this. Come the Tour de Gold I was the only one cycling up the 23 % gradient hill (new race, no-one knew about it) amongst my (admittedly unfit) group, due to that much maligned third chainring.<br /><br />I don't mind that people feel they don't need the third chainring but I (and rv obviously) do mind when people assume that you carry the third chainring because you are unfit. If I manage to cycle with those 2 chainring people through an entire race then surely I am as fit as them? Or maybe I'm not as fit, but instead manage my effort better (i.e. spin up hills in the third chainring), am I not racing a better race then? As I mentioned I don't use the third chainring (partly because I have a touring setup at the back as well, which I would like to change to closer ratios to take advantage of Steve's mentioned advantage of a third chainring) but there have been times when I have sat in the middle chainring out of mistaken pride and, as could be expected, have ended up with sore knees.<br /><br />I don't know particularly many people who don't need something bigger than a 23 at the back, and I agree that these people shouldn't feel more embarrased at carrying a third chainring instead of a 26 or 29. What I do complain at is that they should feel embarassed about any gear choices. What on earth do these choices have to do with your ability. Hell, what does ability have to do with being embarrased? I admire immensely the guys who do the long races here on an old MTB and spend 5 hours in the sun slogging through 100 km's with no training. They shouldn't have to feel embarrased. I think the people who should feel embarrased are the ones who have the larny bikes and all the equipment and a racing setup and end up being passed by some poor oke on a MTB with slicks and then after the race have to go to the chiro because their knees hurt from pushing too big a gear and their back hurts from not being used to a racy setup. I know not many people here are in that category and the guys with good equipment and race set-ups use those.<br /><br />Sorry for the essay, but this whole image thing is what put me off one of my previous favourite sports and so far I have seen very little of this behaviour in cycling and don't like seeing it (admittedly I'm only a middling cyclist and most of the people in those categories just enjoy beating their personal bests and/or keeping at their current level as age creeps up on them) <br /><br />p.s. This isn't an attack on you steve, I know your comments weren't aimed in that direction given your character in the rest of the forum, but even unintentional pressure could cause someone to feel embarrasment where they feel none<br />[/quote]<br /><br />ummm dude...i'm all for the grany ring, it makes more sence than a cassette that goes from 11 or 12 upto 29+ teeth <br />I'd use a granny ring teamed with a 12-23 (10speed) cassette anyday over a bloody 12-29+.....which is just stupid in comparison IMO.<br /><br />cheers!

 

Its my bike and I can have whatever I want.<br /><br />Nothing wrong with a third ring...if you already have one. If not, change the cassette, and maybe the inside chainring, to whatever is needed. Fitness has nothing to do with it. Changing a double crankset to a triple is trouble and expensive...new BB, crankset, front derailleur.<br /><br />Heras and other Posties rode a triple and a 12-25 cassette up Angliru during the Vuelta. Simoni rode a 38 x 30, but STEVE wouldn't like that...its bigger than a 23! Shame on poor little Gilberto...he needs to get fit. And even though Heras isn't fit either - after all, he rode a triple - he went over first. And that's what counts. Heras went over first on his triple while STEVE, evidently, would be content to simply &quot;...get up anything...&quot;. I'm sure any embarrassment Roberto felt at having to ride a triple, since he wasn't fit, was erased later while on the podium. <br /><br />Steve...the ability to &quot;get up anything&quot; is not the point. The point is to get up fast. Remember...know-it-alls like you used to criticize Lance for his small gears and high cadence.<br /><br />Hey Everybody! Its my bike, and as long as I pay for it, I'll ride it tricked out anyway I want it! So, (insert verb and pronoun here)!

 

A little harsh big ring. I think we should probably ignore mention of 20 km out of category climbs in this case, as they are no doubt not encountered by Steve in his everyday cycling (or any of us for that sake). Still, do agree that no-one should be embarrased when using a triple ring

 

Guys, c'mon! There is no need to get personal. Flaming and personal attacks do not belong on this BB.

 

Exactly!<br /><br />But when one criticizes another because of his gear ratio, crankset, or the direction his stem is pointed, IT IS personal to the guy on the other end. I sometimes harshly ridecule a couple of my riding buddies, but only when they do or say something stupid and bring it on themselves. And we know each other well. <br /><br />A lot of people enjoy these forums and they shouldn't feel intimidated or insulted by someone, who most likely has never seen them, evaluating their equipment choices, position on the bike, or fitness level. <br /><br />Everyone is not as confident and self-assured as moi!

 

Point(s) taken.<br /><br />IMO is an abbreviation for In (it's) My Opinion, which was stated as such in all of Steve's replies. General rule of this BB states that if, for whatever reason, you don't agree with someone's opinion, you reply in a manner which inspires thoughful debate (even if you are angry). Name-calling will not be tolerated.

 

Whenever I (or anyone else, I would think) writes something, its understood its IMO. Who else's opinion would I be stating?<br /><br />nuff said...

 

There is a difference between an opinion and a fact.<br /><br />&quot;Lance won the 2002 TdF&quot; is a fact...no debate required.<br />&quot;Get fit or get a granny&quot; is an opinion...you either agree with it or you don't. Debate required.<br /><br />The problem is not the opinion or the debate around it, but the manner in which the debate is conducted...<br /><br />Enough already.