Any bets on Campy 11?

[Kaboom]

Now that both Campy and Shimano have 10 speed grouppos, how long do you think its gonna take campy to pick up the glove and answer with a 11-speed?
Do you actually think this is possible? wont they get to a point where they cant add any more cogs? i mean there is a physical limit to the number of gears you can fit... After a while chains will be so thin and cogs so weak the thing will have pathetic reliability.

 

[capwater]

I have always wondered who (save for possibly a pro) really needed the 10th gear (let alone another). Sure there are those that have to have the latest and greatest gear that gets used in the TDF, but the other 99.99% of us? Having ridden an 8 speed rear for years before getting a new bike with a 9, I really don't see a huge benefit of the 10. For the most part you're going to only use the inner 6 or 7 gears anyway. It comes down more to a conditioning factor.

Thoughts?

 

[Dura_Ace]

a 10- or (maybe) coming 11-gear is just not needed

 

[GuyStevens]

I've also wondered about the future of gearing. Making the cassette cogs thinner and thinner has its limits so are there alternative methods for increasing the gearing?

As to whether you need 10 (or 11) sprockets? Well no, but having a straight-through block means you can pedal at exactly the cadence you want. When you are very fatigued excessive spinning or grinding, no matter how small, is tiring.

But I'll be sticking to 9-speed until Shimano force me to upgrade.

 

[lodellama]

11s, no. They'd probably go straight to 12s. With electronic shifting. And a carbon-fiber cogset. And a carbon-fiber chain.

Actually, carbon might be a good material for a chain, since carbon fibers are strongest and stiffest under tension. You could bond in wear-plates where the links contact each other and the cogs...

But what I'd love to see is an 8 speed cogset/hub based on Campy 10s spacing.

Since the 10s cogs are 1.7mm thick and spaced 2.42mm apart, if you got rid of the two innermost cogs, you could reduce rear wheel dish 8.24mm. On Campy hubs that would mean more than 40% less dish.

However: blah, blah, blah, chainline, blah, blah, blah, q-factor, blah, blah, blah, have to design a whole new bloody hub, blah. So, unless someone goes down to their local machine shop with some CAD drawings, it probably aint going to happen any time soon.

 

[pj_s]

Originally posted by Kaboom
Now that both Campy and Shimano have 10 speed grouppos, how long do you think its gonna take campy to pick up the glove and answer with a 11-speed?
Do you actually think this is possible? wont they get to a point where they cant add any more cogs? i mean there is a physical limit to the number of gears you can fit... After a while chains will be so thin and cogs so weak the thing will have pathetic reliability.

I for one, hope it stops here. Even with 9 cogs I have all I need. I'm not prepared to keep upgrading every couple of years. I ride 9 speed now because I have really cool 8 speed wheels, which I can throw aways if I switch to 10speed.

And, more cogs is not always better. 10 cogs require more accurate engineering & expensive parts , and is potentially less robust than an 8 or 9 speed setup would be. The extra functionality that even a 10 speed freewheel delivers is not worth it for me.
...off course, eventually I have no choice...
that's my 2 €ct
pj

 

[labicci]

How about a mountain grouppo ? With disc brake ?

BTW Campagnolo had in fact pioneered the development of disc brake and hydraulic brake in cars and motorcycles as early as 1960, so I have read [http://www.velo-retro.com/tline.html].

How great is this Tullio Campagnolo and his inventions.

LB

 

[Hecubus]

Originally posted by Kaboom
Now that both Campy and Shimano have 10 speed grouppos, how long do you think its gonna take campy to pick up the glove and answer with a 11-speed?
Do you actually think this is possible? wont they get to a point where they cant add any more cogs? i mean there is a physical limit to the number of gears you can fit... After a while chains will be so thin and cogs so weak the thing will have pathetic reliability.

It's entirely possible they might do it but at current hub widths they would have to make the chain and cogs thinner and weaker. I don't see it happening without affecting current standards. I suppose the could increase the rear bub spacing to 135mm as in mountain bikes instead of the current 130mm. Of course that would mean frames need to change so basically its not going to happen. I personally don't care if they add more gears as long as they don't sacrifice too much for it. The closer they can keep the cong jumps between cogs the better. Oh and about not being able to use 10 speed stuff on old 8speed wheels, shimano never changed the bub shell sizing in 8 or 9 speed. The 10 speed stuff is very slightly wider but shimano will certify it will fit and work just fine on 8/9 speed hubs. There will be a tiny bit of overhand that does not affect anything. That means you should be able to run 10 speed stuff on any old 8/9 speed wheel. What you can't do is run 8/9 speed stuff on 10 speed specific wheels.

 

[pj_s]

Originally posted by Hecubus
.....Oh and about not being able to use 10 speed stuff on old 8speed wheels, shimano never changed the bub shell sizing in 8 or 9 speed. The 10 speed stuff is very slightly wider but shimano will certify it will fit and work just fine on 8/9 speed hubs. There will be a tiny bit of overhand that does not affect anything. That means you should be able to run 10 speed stuff on any old 8/9 speed wheel. What you can't do is run 8/9 speed stuff on 10 speed specific wheels.

thanks for the tip, but I ride with Campy, according to the old lbs this wouldn't be compatible. To be honest I have'nt checked any technical specs to verify that... All the same, any developments that affect backwards compatibilty are a double edged sword (is that the expression?) for the consumer.

 

[tafi]

It is currently impossible with a traditional chain drive set up to create a durable and reliable 11 speed setup with out widening the hub (and the bike). Squeezing the spokes in is not acceptable from a strength point of view and narrower sprockets will pit and wear much faster. Also take a look at the side plates which hold the chain together, very thin. They already only last about 5000km!

 

[teffo]

Only by changing the rear dropout width spacing to accommodate the extra space, can 12 speeds become a reality.

Carbon chains sound interesting...
Teff

 

[mikeo]

What about a variable speed belt drive?

 

[msrw]

This ever more absurd "upgrading" of rear sprocket numbers is primarily a way to get riders to buy new equipment that they don't yet need.

Yes, it's nice to have a one tooth spread across one's entire gear range, but at the cost of chains that need to be replaced every 1,500 miles or so?

Reliability issues have already significantly increased with the advent of 10 speed gearing. It's hard to imagine that serious enthusiasts will continue to support their own exploitation by equipment manufacturers via buying another, in this case, totally unnecessary upgrade in sprocket numbers by Campy.

 

[Mampara]

What if the UCI have something to say about it? I heard that that they are "forcing" Shimano 10s to be compatible with Campy so that the neutral service vehicles in the tours don’t have a problem with supplying wheels.

 

[mikeo]

Originally posted by Mampara
What if the UCI have something to say about it? I heard that that they are "forcing" Shimano 10s to be compatible with Campy so that the neutral service vehicles in the tours don’t have a problem with supplying wheels.

Hasn't this been a problem before 10 speed?

 

[treebound]

I'll go with the variable ratio aspect, but probably not a belt, or at least not in the current configuration. Maybe an internal hub variable gear drive of some sort. Not sure what the internal mechanisms of the BMX Mini Cooper transmission looks like but something like that might be a possibility. Or possibly a two-speed rear hub, or a two-speed front hub of some sort. There's already been engineering design development of stuff like this, just nothing feasable that would make it in the market.

But, agreed with others above, "why". What would it offer. "They" could reconfigure the way chains are made and start making them with a composite blend of some sort, possibly a ceramic c/f mix with a little titanium thrown in if they could work out the durability issue, but then how many people would want to shell out $150USD for a chain, but then how often to people change their chains now, and how strong does a chain really have to be anyways, and why is there air?

But if they do go past 10 then they'll probably hop directly to 12 or 15 and just skip the 11. But you'll probably see lightweight close-spaced triples up front before you see something more than 10 on the rear. Or how about a 5-wheel front drive, something like 55-51-47-43-39 coupled to a 12x23 10-cog on the rear?

 

[retrogeek]

I use a triple chainring to get a more even spread across the gearing range, rather than only using it for beating big hills. 90% of the time I will just use an 12-21 rear cog-set and adjust the gearing range by swaping out various combinations of front chainrings.

For the flats and rolling hills I will use a 50-42-32 front chainring setup for a close and even spread of gears, at 44 I can no longer push a 53/12 for any great length of time so I don't even bother to try any more, and a 32/21 is plenty low enough for this purpose.

For bigger hills I will use a 53-39-30 front chainring setup (53 for the downhills only), as a 30/21 is approximately equal to a 39/27-28. If I need anything lower geared than this (which I seldom do) I will then put on an 12-23 rear cogset, as a 30-23 is approximately equal to a 39/30.

Therefore, I really see no practicle need for more cogs in the rear, which necessitates greater wheel dish, or weaker setups in general, 9 or 10 is enough. And, using my setup the gearing is already very closely spaced anyway. I use a bar-end shifter for the front derailier since I have never felt comfortable with Ergopower or Dual Control front shifters, it's just a personal preference.

What I would like to see is a setup that uses the same 9-10 speed cogset but with less wheel dish. In other words, more refinement of the existing setups available.

But, marketing is what it is, and companies need new toys in order to get us to part with our hard earned cash, so I would forsee more changes and new designs. Not so bad for us technogeeks anyway! Even for a retroactive geek like myself. I don't mind new technology, just as long as it solves an existing problem.

 

[labicci]

Great thoughts. Couldn't agree with you more.

BTW I don't think Campagnolo would include triple in their prestigious Record group for no good reason. Better chainline efficiency, closer ratio etc. But consumers seem to be more interested in the numbers at the rear than at the front, so the trend will probably continue for a while, until adverse effects from overdoing it surfaced.

L.B.

Originally posted by retrogeek
I use a triple chainring to get a more even spread across the gearing range, rather than only using it for beating big hills. 90% of the time I will just use an 12-21 rear cog-set and adjust the gearing range by swaping out various combinations of front chainrings.

For the flats and rolling hills I will use a 50-42-32 front chainring setup for a close and even spread of gears, at 44 I can no longer push a 53/12 for any great length of time so I don't even bother to try any more, and a 32/21 is plenty low enough for this purpose.

For bigger hills I will use a 53-39-30 front chainring setup (53 for the downhills only), as a 30/21 is approximately equal to a 39/27-28. If I need anything lower geared than this (which I seldom do) I will then put on an 12-23 rear cogset, as a 30-23 is approximately equal to a 39/30.

Therefore, I really see no practicle need for more cogs in the rear, which necessitates greater wheel dish, or weaker setups in general, 9 or 10 is enough. And, using my setup the gearing is already very closely spaced anyway. I use a bar-end shifter for the front derailier since I have never felt comfortable with Ergopower or Dual Control front shifters, it's just a personal preference.

What I would like to see is a setup that uses the same 9-10 speed cogset but with less wheel dish. In other words, more refinement of the existing setups available.

But, marketing is what it is, and companies need new toys in order to get us to part with our hard earned cash, so I would forsee more changes and new designs. Not so bad for us technogeeks anyway! Even for a retroactive geek like myself. I don't mind new technology, just as long as it solves an existing problem.

 

[Mampara]

Record do come in triple http://www.campagnolo.com/groupsets.php?gid=1&cid=7&pid=16

 

[labicci]

Yes, and I have already got one cyclo/touring/expedition bike set up with Record 3 x 10.

Actually what I want to say is that if Campy include a triple in their top range product, triple must be good. Their attitude towards triple seem to have change a bit recently because not long ago their top triple drivetrain is the Racing Triple which is said to be about the level of Athena (then called Daytona, now Centaur).

L.B.

Originally posted by Mampara
Record do come in triple http://www.campagnolo.com/groupsets.php?gid=1&cid=7&pid=16