Bicycle Mechanics - Do we need 11 speed rear clusters???

I question the need for 11 speed rear clusters. Can anyone give logical reasons why we need them? Or is this just another example of newer is supposed to be better. Is this just a move on the part of bike manufacturers to make people think they have old obsolete equiptment. Twenty two or thirty three speeds just seems to be over kill. Higher cost of the cluster and the proper chain also enters into the mix.

And guys, no need for this to get over heated. Just calm reasoned replys are needed.

I have Campy 11 speed. Do I need it? No, I was fine with 8-speed! But, aside from the gearing advantages (more gears, closer ratios, etc), the newer tech that comes with modern groups makes rationalizing the need for more gears easier!

The technology around the cassette and chain has not changed much in decades and I can only see 11 speed as something for people who are riding at highly competitive levels and even then, it is the rider who makes the most difference.

The cost of 11 speed cassettes and chain is also much higher so you need deep pockets to afford this.

I was fine when things hit 8 speeds and run a 9 speed on my mtb because it came that way... my touring bikes run 6 and 7 speed blocks and my vintage racing bike also runs a 7.

11 speeds aren't needed. Will people buy them? Sure. At some point they will be unable to build a chain/cog combo that will go any narrower without them having to be replaced every month.

My old Trek 520 was friction-shifted 6-speed, and it worked just fine, never had issues with it.

Yes, we need 11s to carry us over to the electronic shifting we need cause you know, shifting with cables is so hard on the hands and we need more batteries floating around because electricity is green tech...

however you will ply my 10s from my cold dead hands along with my 6s regina freewheels.

Need? Of course not, but then again do we need internet on our cell phones, or any of a hundred (conservative estimate) things we clutter our lives with?.

In a perfect world, I'd build my next bike using 8 sprockets with 10s spacing, reducing the width of the freehub and the rear wheel dish. But life doesn't work that way.

The economics of the bike industry are driven by OEM needs for features in order to sell new bikes, so we'll always see, more speeds, lighter stuff, gadgets, features, etc.

And the bike biz isn't unique, I'm in the market for a new car. I just want a car, you know 4-wheels with an engine, brakes and steering. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to get one without all kinds of unnecessary and sometimes counter productive crap like electric door locks, GPS, on board computer, back-up TV, and god knows what else.

Ford even has a car that'll read my emails. Do I want a car reading my emails? it's bad enough the government does it? At this rate, the crime of the future will be hackers stealing cars by internet. But I digress....

If you don't want 11s, do as I did, and buy enough spares to keep your existing stuff going for years. Or you can wait a while for 12s.

BTW- this isn't a new question. When I bought my first real bike some 45 years ago, friends asked WTF do you need 10 speeds on a bike for, my car only has 3?

I question the need for 11 speed rear clusters. Can anyone give logical reasons why we need them?


Because people like tight gearing and wide range.

I had that in 1996 with 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 8 speed. Got me up everything in the Colorado Rockies west of Boulder and was still ideal for plains rides east.

Unfortunately bike companies don't want to make and stock the added SKUs which go with triple cranks. Configuring a double with the same range having good overlap between rings and perfect double shift in both directions (one right shifter wiggle with Campagnolo) takes a minimum of

46-36x12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 11 speed

Of course, some people like a smaller starting gear

46-36x11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 12 speed

I most enjoyed the configuration when I was in great shape and weighed 145 pounds. At 180 pounds and the same power I'd want

46-36x11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26-29 13 speed

Obviously the bike companies make more money when they sell us 11 speeds, 12 speeds, and then 13 speeds instead of letting us upgrade once and then be done with it.

OTOH, although I'm definitely less powerful than I'd used to be - where I used to ride centuries with hills in 5:45 I'm taking 6 hours to cover 100 miles split over 4 days. Maybe 14 cogs would do it.



Higher cost of the cluster and the proper chain also enters into the mix.
Campagnolo chains seem to be 4000 mile parts. 11 speed chains (assuming you're smart enough to order on-line from the UK) are $8 more (Veloce vs Chorus). Campagnolo cassettes seem to make it through 4 chains. 11 speed cogs are $75 more (Veloce vs. Chorus). $107 over 16,000 miles is pretty much free.

So, you on a retro binge today? First no need for anything other than downtube shifters, now no one needs more than a few gears. Somebody save us from innovation. I get the distinct feeling that you are not the demographic that combination brake/shifters and 10 and 11 speed clusters are aimed at. For people at the high end of the performance spectrum, tighter gearing and easier shifting make for a nicer ride. And for us that would like to be there, it is fun to work with top end stuff. A lot of cycling has nothing to do with what you actually need.

For a while I thought about starting a thread like this, asking: what do you believe is the "perfect" number of speeds? Here are my thoughts.

Racing: 10+ in high levels of competition, every advantage matters no matter how small. Durability is not a concern. Race car drivers may have their engine rebuilt after every race, whereas a normal car can reasonably go 200,000+ miles before needing similar service. I will probably never reach this level, so I categorize myself as:

General Riding: 8 speed. Occasional races, nothing too serious. Commuting, riding for fun, etc. Since 8 speed is the last number without the even-narrower chains, I believe it is the best combination of ratios and durability. Also, parts are much cheaper. The only advantage 7s has over it is less dish in the rear wheel, which brings me to:

Touring: I don't own a touring bike, but if I ever had one, I'd like it to have a 7s Shimano Freehub with 135mm spacing. Less dish, stronger wheel, plentiful spare parts available.

In my opinion it is unfortunate how some features trickle down. I don't need or want 9/10/11s and I bet a lot of others don't either, but now it is standard on even lower end bikes. I really like FB's analogy with car features.

Are you serious? They have 11 speed rear clusters now? I guess I'm behind the times. My mountain bike has a 10 speed cluster and I thought that was stupid (don't get me wrong, I love the bike overall).

Just wait! shimano has a patent for a 14 cog cassette. The chains inner plates are arched to clear the teeth of the cogs.
My road bike has a triple with 8 in the back. My tourer has a triple with half-step seven speed in the back. With that setup I have 18 seperate usable gears with 10% spacing.

I can just imagine a similar question was asked in a forum 150 years ago: "Do we need more than one gear?"

I can just imagine a similar question was asked in a forum 150 years ago: "Do we need more than one gear?"

Not really, unless we need to keep up with people that have more than one gear.

Not really, unless we need to keep up with people that have more than one gear.

Or keeping up with the Joneses...

Cycling is also a heard mentality. If EVERYONE is riding 11 speed, riding 10 speed is passe! If EVERYONE decided to go back to 8 speed, riding anything higher would be out of the loop. Etc.

If nobody bought 11 speed, it would die off, and 10 speed would still be the standard. Since people ARE buying 11 speed, better hoard 10 speed stuff!

rydabent, I'm going to look at the question in a different light. When I cycled many more miles than I do now during the week and worked my way to a B+ level club rider I ran 8S and would switch cassettes depending on the route. The 10S+ cassettes can perhaps do that without swapping. I could be wrong, of course.

Brad

Define the population sample in the "WE"

I adopted the nice German internal gear 14 speed hub instead.

Not much trade show sizzle on those , they designed it well the 1st time,
so no new latest upgrade, and they don't sponsor any Pro Tour teams
to show off their engineers latest gizmo set.

it's as much about component companies in competition, with each other,
as it is the 20~30 year olds racing them ..
marketing and product development..

What's that quote from the Single Speed/Fixed Gear forum, 'it's better to triumph by the force of ones own legs than through the artifice of a derailer' or something like that?

196977 "Put it up to eleven"
Nigel Tufnel

Just wait! shimano has a patent for a 14 cog cassette. The chains inner plates are arched to clear the teeth of the cogs.
Those patents date from the early '90's and were never commercialized so, apparently, there is indeed a limit. Is 11 cogs it? We'll find out.

As to needing 11 cogs, as several posters have pointed out, you certainly don't NEED them and, in fact you don't have to buy them. Five speed freewheels, friction downtube shifters and steel cottered cranks are still available with a little looking. You can be as modern or as retro as your taste and budget permit.

Question for the OP: Based on the two threads you've started recently it would be interesting to know just what bikes you do own and ride. Where in the spectrum of ancient to untramodern are you?

At some point adding an additional cog is a waste. Only you can decide whether or not you're already there.

At the small end of the cassette the cogs are one tooth apart. As you add more teeth, the gear inch spaceing between cogs decreases. If you had an 11/20 10-speed cassette, the ratio change between the 19 and the 20is a lot less than the ratio change between the 11 and the 12. In fact, the ratios are so close that you might be tempted to double shift past the 19 so that you could feel a bit more change. If that's the case, you'd be better off with a 11/20 9-speed that eliminates the unused 19 cog. You might be happier with a cog that fits between the 11 and the 12 but you can't have an 11 1/2 tooth cog. You could always add cogs at the hill climb end of the cassette, but if a 20 is the biggest cog that you actually use, what have you gained?


While the example is an extreme case, a rider's gearing needs are determined by how hard a high gear he can turn, how easy a low gear he needs for the hills and the spaceing he is willing to tolerate between gears.

What's that quote from the Single Speed/Fixed Gear forum, 'it's better to triumph by the force of ones own legs than through the artifice of a derailer' or something like that?The guy who said it got wasted by one of the early developers of the derailleur.

What's that quote from the Single Speed/Fixed Gear forum, 'it's better to triumph by the force of ones own legs than through the artifice of a derailer' or something like that?

Some people have to depend totally on muscle power, some also have brain power that they can tap. Whatever works for you.

Some people have to depend totally on muscle power, some also have brain power that they can tap. Whatever works for you.

Some of us have a little tiny bit of each and do the best we can. Are we having fun yet?

And guys, no need for this to get over heated. Just calm reasoned replys are needed.

:popcorn

Yeah, right.


I don't anyone NEEDS more than about 6 or 7. More than that is just ludicrous.

:popcorn

Yeah, right.


I don't <?> anyone NEEDS more than about 6 or 7. More than that is just ludicrous.

You're missing something there.

In any case, the World's Fastest Bicycle® only has 4 gears: http://www.ohpv.org/events/albums/bm2004/varnas/pages/varnas16.htm .

...but just imagine how fast you'll go with that tiny 17th sprocket!

I really wish IRD would re-introduce their wide-range 5sp freewheel. 12-32 with a triple crank up front, and you have nice chainlines and billygoat range. I dunno what I'm gonna do once mine wears out on the Skinny Bike.

Do we need an 11sp? Of course not, but stuff like that is what drives the business. How long do you think bike companies would be around if they didn't create demand for new products? If everyone was content with what they have and made it last as long as possible how quickly would the manufacturers and component makers fold up shop?

I see it as being like the megapixel wars in cameras. When the first 10mp camera came out, a ton of people said no one needs more than 6mp. But demand for the 10mp made the 6mp cheaper and then when 12 and 14mp cameras came out, the 10mp dropped in price. Playing on our innate desire to have the newest, shiniest toy is what keeps things moving forward and forces the manufacturers to spend money on R&D to constantly improve their products and offerings.

Currently I’m sticking with 8 speed gear trains (no IGH) on the bikes that I build because of cost. I just purchased a front and read derailleur, chain, cassette and crank set for less than $100.00, all mid range items brand new. Am I behind the times? YES! If I need more gears I will add an IGH to the mix. I feel that the future of bike gearing with be a wider range NuVinci, quite possibly both at the cranks and on the wheel, a dual CV type setup.

What's that quote from the Single Speed/Fixed Gear forum, 'it's better to triumph by the force of ones own legs than through the artifice of a derailer' or something like that?

Yesterday I easily pulled past a kid riding a single speed on a small hill. He prolly was in better shape than 50 year old me, but thanks to multiple sprockets, he ended up looking a chump. If there was anybody to see us. I love having just the right gear combination. A 33 speed drivetrain on my MTB/all purpose bike would be great. 12-28 in the rear, 46-34-22 up front.

I'm sticking with 8 speed and a triple. The law of diminishing returns kicks in.

I really wish IRD would re-introduce their wide-range 5sp freewheel. 12-32 with a triple crank up front, and you have nice chainlines and billygoat range. I dunno what I'm gonna do once mine wears out on the Skinny Bike.

I have an nos Shimano 5 speed with a 14-34 if you are interested... cogs lower than 14 tend to wear out too fast and there is some considerable loss in efficiency.

I really wish IRD would re-introduce their wide-range 5sp freewheel. 12-32 with a triple crank up front, and you have nice chainlines and billygoat range. I dunno what I'm gonna do once mine wears out on the Skinny Bike.

I replaced the 5 speed OEM uniglide on my Peugot mixte with a 6 speed IRD (34T max), no problems. It was a completely smooth swap, with just a little adjustment of the derailleur screws.

I really wish IRD would re-introduce their wide-range 5sp freewheel. 12-32 with a triple crank up front, and you have nice chainlines and billygoat range. I dunno what I'm gonna do once mine wears out on the Skinny Bike.

I was just looking, and it seems IRD still makes a 13-32 5 speed. Not sure if you were aware, or if you just really wanted that 12T high gear.

I don't think these are sincere posts, but rather meant to be inflammatory.

I ride 7 speed with downtube shifters on my surly LHT because I prefer the option to friction shift easily if I choose, but don't give a **** what other people choose to use. Why do you care what other cyclists are doing?

i am content with the 6 and 7 gearsets on my mtb and road bikes

why don't manufactuers add a 4th chainring instead of making skinnier rear cogs?

i am content with the 6 and 7 gearsets on my mtb and road bikes

why don't manufactuers add a 4th chainring instead of making skinnier rear cogs?

Oh, man...please don't give them that idea. 3 chainrings are bad enough. Front deraileur shifting is so much better with just 2 chainrings, which is why I prefer compacts or doubles on road or hybrid bikes. I put up with a triple on my mountain bike because it does come in handy from time to time, but mainly because it's not worth the trouble of changing it out.

It's true that it's all personal preference, and if someone wants an 11 speed rear cluster and truly enjoys the variety it offers, then nothing against that person. I just hate to see newbie cyclists sold crap they don't need because it happens to be the current marketing fad.

i'm not saying i want 4 rings up front.. just seems like 4x10 gives you more gears than 3x11

i'm not saying i want 4 rings up front.. just seems like 4x10 gives you more gears than 3x11

Probably a lot more overlap, which wouldn't effectively be more gears per se. And the more cogs you have up front, the crazier the chainline can get. Of course that can be true in the rear, too, but when you've got a bunch in the front and the back, you can get some wild angles on your chainline.

i am content with the 6 and 7 gearsets on my mtb and road bikes

why don't manufactuers add a 4th chainring instead of making skinnier rear cogs?

The "great granny gear". It's been done. There's a reason why it never became popular.

There's always "bragging rights" but in general having more gears that you never use isn't an advantage. The great granny gear bikes tended to have some seriously low hill climb gears. So how slow can you go uphill and still keep your bike vertical? Is this even something that you want to do?

I meant 13-32, sorry... and I missed it in the cog breakdown! Good to see it's still available. The one I have is smooth rolling, smooth shifting and built to last - the teeth are still sharp enough to hurt if you hold it wrong. Looking seriously at their retro-triple crank for a project bike, too.

I meant 13-32, sorry... and I missed it in the cog breakdown! Good to see it's still available. The one I have is smooth rolling, smooth shifting and built to last - the teeth are still sharp enough to hurt if you hold it wrong. Looking seriously at their retro-triple crank for a project bike, too.

IRD's are great. I don't know why everyone doesn't replace their old non-ramped freewheels with 'em. As for that 5 speed freewheel, that's quite a jump from 24 to 32. If you ever replace it, you might just go with the 6 speed. It'll probably swap out without a hitch.

It will get to a point where you can only run a floating front crank system, so the chainline is actually usuable. I am certain of it!,,,,BD

i am content with the 6 and 7 gearsets on my mtb and road bikes

why don't manufactuers add a 4th chainring instead of making skinnier rear cogs?

It's been done.

The Mountain Tamer Quad Plus (http://www.abundantadventures.com/quads.html) mounts a pair of Suntour freewheel cogs (16-34T) to the 74mm inner position of a triple crank.

The daVinci Drive (http://www.davincitandems.com/dv2.html) is a tandem setup which connects captain and stoker cranks to an intermediate shaft (with separate freewheels for each) on which four hyperglide cogs are mounted with shifting via a front derailleur. It's generally setup with a 2:1 ratio on the cranks so 12/18/24/30 cogs act like 24/36/48/60 rings. I'd get one if my wife and I ever get a tandem.

Oh, man...please don't give them that idea. 3 chainrings are bad enough. Front deraileur shifting is so much better with just 2 chainrings, which is why I prefer compacts or doubles on road or hybrid bikes. I put up with a triple on my mountain bike because it does come in handy from time to time, but mainly because it's not worth the trouble of changing it out.


My compact double (50-34x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23) doesn't shift as well as the triple with the same gear range it replaced (50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21).

I think it is bad news when these systems trickle down. Soon Tiagra will go 10spd then there will be no option for tourists who want STI but dont want ultra-thin chains and cogs. Tourists really need quality components but NOT cuttting edge technology. I ride 9 spd but cant see the gain over 8spd.

I think that thin cogs work best in the high-end systems when carved from solid billet. The stamped steel low-end systems using larger cog sizes get too flexy to work with precision.

Tourists really need quality components but NOT cuttting edge technology.

i think this is true of the general public as well.. i mean i have a range of bikes that span 20 years and the oldest bike still functions basically like the newest one.. the only significant difference is in shifter technology, and the newest sti 'brifters' are the most problematic of all of my shifters. All of the friction shifters work fine because the technology is simple

only racers and others at the top of the sport really need to concern themselves with the cutting edge tech.. they can afford the time and money to tear down their bike and replace everything after every race if they have to.. but the average bike rider wants something durable that doesn't require inspections and maintenance after every single ride

The best thing about this is it will make 7-10 speed systems cheaper... ;). For my uses road bike and mountain bike wise, 7 or 8 speeds in the rear is all I care for. Heck, I'm plenty happy with my old 70s 10 -2x5- speed bike. It's got more than enough gear for what I can do haha.

I have 52/42 - 13/21 7sp and that's more than I need for flatland rides.

My tandem has a 32 speed drive with a 4 by 8... :)