Shimano Octalink road BB future



> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.


A slant parallelogram rear derailleur wouldn't like to see a group of gears
like that. It makes an assumption that each adjacent gear inward is bigger
than the one preceding it.

That doesn't mean that I've never built up a set like that just for fun.
I'll bet many of us have.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


[this message is not suitable for those aged under 18]

everybody gone ?

Junior racers might try to cheat with ..15-14-13-14 , hoping the
commissonair doesn't spot the smaller illegal cog next to last ;)
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
 
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>>> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut
>>> > it, 50-11
>>> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is
>>> > nice and
>>> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running
>>> > such a
>>> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine
>>> > though it is
>>> > a 9-speed system.
>>>
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.

>>
>> Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
>> You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
>> hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
>> or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
>> Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.
>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

>>
>> I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
>> does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
>> already a reasonably tall gear.
>>
>> Ben

>
>Ben: I live on the SF Peninsula, but I'm not the person making any of the
>comments above. I started this thread on an entirely different subject, and
>it morphed into a treatise on gear mashers vs crunchers somehow. I think Jim
>Beam might have made the remarks you find curious, and maybe he does live in
>the SF Bay Area, I don't know.
>
>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.
>
>And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
>haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
>Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).


First, I think that the fact that a former Cat 2 racer, now
"middle-aged", uses and loves 50/34 compact rings is very instructive.
If pros, who TT at over 30 mph and climb the Alps and Pyrenees at,
what 15 or 20?, use 53/39, why would amateurs who, if they are really
strong, might hold 25 mph over a 10 mile TT and get up the same
mountain at 11 mph, need or even want the same gearing?

It would behoove the amateur to gear down to get the rpm's up, because
neither their strength or fitness approaches remotely that of a pro.

Second, the gear ratio of an 11 tooth cog with a 50 tooth ring is
roughly equivalent to 53:12, which is probably the most common high
gear used on the road (at least where I live, where the shops stock
bikes with 53/39 rings and 12-25 cassettes).

If 53:12 is more than you need, then you certainly don't need an 11
if you switch to compact.

Why the 11 is prevalent among compact users is that they ride with
friends who have still have the 53:12 as a high gear. So there are
instances when the compact geared rider is trying to keep pace with
the standard geared riders (downhill), and finds that 50:12 is too
fast and tiring to spin.

Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.
 
jim beam wrote:

> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.


I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.
 
A Muzi wrote:
>>> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>>> first place.

>
>> Derk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new
>>> cassette for a
>>> friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he
>>> ever
>>> used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>>> Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding
>>> in a
>>> group.

>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
>> about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
>> low cadence.

>
> Fine if that's what you like. Riders are each expert on their own taste.
>
> For every 100" top gear guy (me) there's a happy 130" (Carl) rider.
> Today we changed a Campagnolo Gunnar to 30-45-56 with a 12~25 (yep, 33"
> to 126") and also un-ten-speeded a bike to a single 66" gear. It's all
> good but I'm peeved by assertions like "nobody needs a _____" .


Me, too. Gear preference is really a matter of cadence preference. Maybe
it's just my size, but a 20% lower cadence on the flats works for me.
Some people seem to be really sensitive to big jumps, I'm not, I often
shift 2 at a time. I like wide range cassettes (11-28 typically on road,
11-32 MTB), the jumps don't bother me as much as double shifts.
 
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes


I can trump that logic.

I'm a Spinal Tap fan. And yet mine only goes to 12! :>)

More seriously, I have great fear that, if I had an 11, I'd actually use it.
I think it would kill me when sprinting, because I just wouldn't have the
power to attack, recover, and attack again. With a 12 I can handle a fast
downhill charge, sit behind someone's wheel, move around them, hold the
speed, and be able to make a second charge if they pull up alongside. Sure,
if I had an 11, I wouldn't have to use it... but knowing me, I probably
would!

Funny thing is, I climb in relatively-high gears, and do a ton of standing
compared to most.

What works for me, works for me. I can't pretend it's what everybody else
should be doing. Besides, cycling isn't all about technique and one right
way to do something. That's one of the things that makes it so great. You
can be riding in a big group and yet you're still an individual, with your
own style (providing that style isn't wobbling around too much, or, worse
yet, being the guy who, on a climb, stands up and instantly drops 1 or 2
mph, putting your front wheel into his rear).

On the other hand, as a retailer of bicycles, you have no idea, or maybe you
do, how many people come into the store complaining that their hybrid's
gearing of 48x11 isn't big enough, and that they could go faster (on flat
land) if they just had a higher gear. That's a 118" high gear!!! And they're
claiming they could ride 30 mph on the flats if only their gear was higher.
Seriously, we get this more often than you would think. As soon as they see
that the large chainring is smaller than a 53 they demand something larger.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:02:48 +0200, M-gineering
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
>[this message is not suitable for those aged under 18]
>
>everybody gone ?
>
>Junior racers might try to cheat with ..15-14-13-14 , hoping the
>commissonair doesn't spot the smaller illegal cog next to last ;)


Dear Marten,

I love your idea about turning a 10-speed into a more useful 9-speed.

There's a future for you as a NASCAR mechanic!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:57:56 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.

>
>A slant parallelogram rear derailleur wouldn't like to see a group of gears
>like that. It makes an assumption that each adjacent gear inward is bigger
>than the one preceding it.
>
>That doesn't mean that I've never built up a set like that just for fun.
>I'll bet many of us have.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Dear Mike,

So the first step (well, all the steps) is to use a Cyclo Standard
derailleur:

http://i12.tinypic.com/4umulhl.jpg

http://members.aol.com/SatoruMas/brands/cyclo.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
>>>> -snip snip snip-
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.


>>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ??
>>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978


>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> What is between 13 and 25?


> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> some cogs, but not an 11!
>> Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>> on rider's taste.


[email protected] wrote:
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.


When Suntour began shipping cog boards and freewheel bodies, every shop
had a 17-17-17-17-17-17 on display. Often next to the drilled-out TA
water bottle.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:49:26 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>>> -snip snip snip-
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

>
>>>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ??
>>>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978

>
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> What is between 13 and 25?

>
>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> some cogs, but not an 11!
>>> Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>>> on rider's taste.

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.

>
>When Suntour began shipping cog boards and freewheel bodies, every shop
>had a 17-17-17-17-17-17 on display. Often next to the drilled-out TA
>water bottle.


Dear Andrew,

I like the true corncob 17! Eliminate those pesky half steps! No need
to wonder what gear you're in!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.


That's a slippery slope.
Soon you will be running a 13-23.

--
Michael Press

Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes

>
> I can trump that logic.
>
> I'm a Spinal Tap fan. And yet mine only goes to 12! :>)
>
> More seriously, I have great fear that, if I had an 11, I'd actually use it.
> I think it would kill me when sprinting, because I just wouldn't have the
> power to attack, recover, and attack again. With a 12 I can handle a fast
> downhill charge, sit behind someone's wheel, move around them, hold the
> speed, and be able to make a second charge if they pull up alongside. Sure,
> if I had an 11, I wouldn't have to use it... but knowing me, I probably
> would!
>
> Funny thing is, I climb in relatively-high gears, and do a ton of standing
> compared to most.
>
> What works for me, works for me. I can't pretend it's what everybody else
> should be doing. Besides, cycling isn't all about technique and one right
> way to do something. That's one of the things that makes it so great. You
> can be riding in a big group and yet you're still an individual, with your
> own style (providing that style isn't wobbling around too much, or, worse
> yet, being the guy who, on a climb, stands up and instantly drops 1 or 2
> mph, putting your front wheel into his rear).
>
> On the other hand, as a retailer of bicycles, you have no idea, or maybe you
> do, how many people come into the store complaining that their hybrid's
> gearing of 48x11 isn't big enough, and that they could go faster (on flat
> land) if they just had a higher gear. That's a 118" high gear!!! And they're
> claiming they could ride 30 mph on the flats if only their gear was higher.
> Seriously, we get this more often than you would think. As soon as they see
> that the large chainring is smaller than a 53 they demand something larger.


I use the 11 on my MTB because I often need to ride the road to the
woods or between park sections.

On my road bikes I have a 53 on one and a 55 on the other. I use the 11
on time trials for slight descents or tailwinds on the flats. My fastest
cadence is probably a lot lower than most because of my size.

On club rides, I found that I could never climb as fast as guys that I
could out ride on the flats (size again). After trying to improving my
climbing for years, with only limited success, I found I was better off
getting faster on the flats to catch up after being dropped. That's when
I added the 11 & the clip-on aerobars. Soon after that, I found that, if
I could get a jump off the top of a hill, I could break away on some of
the descents and stay away if I had a tail wind and a flat section.
These were the only conditions I ever could get a breakaway on, and it
finally got to the point where everyone would anticipate my move and
grab my wheel when I jumped. I still managed the occasional breakaway,
but that involved pedaling hard down a fairly good slope and counting on
my power to drag advantage, and my 11, to shake them off. Silly perhaps,
but fun. Nothing like the adrenaline rush of seeing a whole pack bearing
down trying to reel you in. If I could hold a gap and get lucky at a
traffic light, I might stay out for a few miles.
 
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
>> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
>> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
>> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
>> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.

>
> That's a slippery slope.
> Soon you will be running a 13-23.
>
> --
> Michael Press
>
> Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.


Campagnolo Centaur Compact Crank 50/46
Shimano ultegra 9sp (with downtube shifters)
Cassette: 11-23 Racing Wheel (30% of the time)
Cassette: 12-25 Training Wheel (70% of the time)
-tom
 
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:21:28 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
>> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
>> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
>> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
>> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.

>
>That's a slippery slope.
>Soon you will be running a 13-23.


I'll kill myself before I get that old :)
 
On Sep 14, 2:21 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
> > 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
> > light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
> > even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
> > absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.

>
> That's a slippery slope.
> Soon you will be running a 13-23.
>
> --
> Michael Press
>
> Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.


13-23 9 speed cassette works very well with a 53-42.

I do use a 12-23 or 12-25 10 speed with the compact crankset with
either 48-40 or 46-30 rings. Or 13-29 when going for mountain riding.
 
jim beam wrote:
>
> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> >
> > Ben C napisa (a):
> >
> >> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
> >>

> > Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> > just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> > first place.

>
> no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
> it'll work, but it's fugly.


Yes, there is an efficiency and wear penalty for 11t and 12t
sprockets. There is for 13t sprockets too, for that matter; it just
seems like a good place to draw the line for diminishing returns.

I use 11-34 freewheels and cassettes for almost all my derailleur
bikes now. The range they offer makes it easy for me to settle for a
single ring, which in turn makes it easy to use a strong and cost-
effective 3-piece BMX crank. I can keep low gears for hill climbing
and load carrying without unduly truncating top speed. But I've
switched to 11-34 even on my bikes with front changers. The benefits
there are a smaller big ring (e.g. 49t) and deeper overlap between
ranges. For the relative infrequency and modest power levels with
which I use the small sprocket, I'm not too concerned about excessive
losses and wear.

Note that BMX/freestyle bikes are increasingly equipped with 9 tooth
rear drivers on their single-speed cassette hubs. 25/9 is the typical
gear combination. I recently saw an 8 tooth driver for the first
time. You can get a 9 tooth driver made from 7075 aluminum! I
imagine that this fad will pass before too long, but in the meantime,
manufacturers are going to make a bundle on replacement drivers (which
are specific to the hub and cost a lot more than freewheels).

Chalo
 
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:21:28 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
>> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
>> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
>> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
>> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.

>
>That's a slippery slope.
>Soon you will be running a 13-23.


Maybe I'm on the way down the slope...48-34 / 14-25. The 48/14 is good
for 30mph without outrageous spinning, any faster than that and I'll
enjoy the freewheeling.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.


like that's a logical connection?

and i see little to support this "engineer" claim. after all, you also
confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a pretty fundamental error
for a real engineer to make. unless you were deliberately bullshitting
of course...
 

Similar threads

G
Replies
4
Views
1K
G