hamster

46x36 is not "between" 50x34 and 42x28. By "between" I mean any of the following (I'll assume that it would take too extensive changes in FDs to allow for greater than 16 tooth difference in front):

44x28
42x30
44x30
46x30
44x32
46x32
48x32

banerjek

Very doable with a variable bolt circle crank https://www.whiteind.com/cranks/roadcranks.html

Beats me why these aren't more popular.

Campag4life

Curious why you would want such gearing?
Personally I hate 16t difference between rings...including 50/34. FWIW I ride 50/38 or baby full size.

hamster

It's not a question of "wanting" as much as an observation that manufacturers are illogical.

One analogy I can think of (with which I'm all too familiar) is shoe sizes. In the United States at least, boys shoe sizes stop around size 5 (37 European) and adult men's shoe sizes start around size 8 (41 European). Shoes in between exist in theory, but they are very hard to find in practice. Brick and mortar stores, for the most part, don't even stock those sizes. It's as if all kids miraculously grow from 37 to 41 overnight. Of course, it becomes a problem for an adult whose feet just happen to be shorter than 41.

Likewise, here we have, on one side of the divide, a variety of assorted MTB cranks (42/28, 40/28, 38/26, 39/26, 38/24), on the other, variety of road cranks, but nothing in between. It's like all major manufacturers think that it's impossible for anyone (either on the road side or on the mountain side, or maybe someone in the middle, like a guy on a touring bike) to have uses for a big ring bigger than 42t and a small ring smaller than 34t at the same time.

Campag4life

I don't agree really. I believe manufactures are logical and they basically give the riding public what they ask for and more. If you are looking for very specific gearing, pretty easy to build your own crank. I did. I haven't seen any Campy 50/38's...easy to create one. Also, I have ridden triples and they make a lot of sense if there is serious elevation changes. If I ever make it Europe to ride in the mountains...it will be with a triple...uber short gearing for steep stuff and big ring for serious speed downhill....and nice close gearing in between. The mtb crowd is now morphing toward 2 rings where they were well served with triples for decades. Both are still available. To me all the based are covered and if not, build your own.
The basic reason why a given commodity doesn't exist is because demand isn't there or the gap would be filled. Your needs maybe different however.

banerjek

Finally something we agree on.

If most recreational riders were honest, what would really serve most of them best is a 46-36-26 MTB triple. They'd have serious granny gears as well tight gears with overlapping ranges they'd actually use. If they didn't have any crazy steep hills to deal with and weren't way overweight, the 26 is useless and the 46-36 cyclocross compact becomes highly attractive.

But they want to use the same stuff (or at least stuff that looks the same to them) as elite athletes who put out way more power and race. And that's what they buy.

Whether a 16T difference in rings makes sense depends on riding conditions. It makes sense in areas where you're always in the top or the bottom of your range and don't really need the middle (e.g. very hilly areas). If conditions are such that a 34 is silly, the 50/38 sounds like a combo that would give good spacing and range.

fstshrk

I ride a 52/42/30 triple on my commuter/touring bike. Despite having a much lighter Roubaix, if my ride includes steep hills 14-15%+, I prefer riding the bike with the triple crank.

And yes, I think I could be happy with a 46/36/26 on some days.

R1lee

no 6770 made 7970 obsolete. I believe upgrading to 11spd for 6770'owners will be either shifters or deraillieurs. The whole unit is upgradable in the sense it plugs into and can be updated. 9700 parts all work with 6770.

Bah Humbug

Add the RD-9070 and you're good to go.

grolby

Ugh. Campag4Life is an insufferable blowhard, but he's basically right: 9000 was a huge improvement over 7900, and 6800 will be a similar leap over 6700. "It works" isn't really sufficient to successfully argue that the new Ultegra won't be a major improvement over the old. The fundamentals of 6700 are indeed good: the shifting is reliable, the parts are durable, everything works. But the details are a mess - the shifting effort is higher than in 6600, the lever throw is extremely long, the hood ergonomics aren't great and the shifting is overly sensitive to cable routing. I ride 6700 almost every day, so I'm not just repeating stuff I've read. The need to switch freehub bodies is pretty annoying, but I still plan on upgrading as soon as I can afford to. I'll move the 6700 to my cross bike or something.

redlude97

Maybe its just me but the hood ergonomics are way better than 65/6600 and I don't find the lever throw that particular long. Yes you lose the third upshift on the rear but there is also less slack during the initial throw.

grolby

I didn't ride 6600 and I wasn't comparing it to a previous generation, I was comparing it to the competition. SRAM has better hoods. Campy has WAY better hoods. If you don't find the lever throw long, especially for the inner level, you just aren't paying attention or haven't so much as shifted the competition on a work stand or trainer. Losing that third downshift is annoying, but is really the least of my complaints. I can live with only two downshifts. The absurdly long dead swing to execute rear upshifts is inexcusable. So is the fact that, if you accidentally lightly brush the outer level when going for the inner, the inner lever swings all the way across but does nothing. If you can't avoid a failed shift in this scenario, having the lever not move at all is a better solution. That's what the previous generation did in this scenario. It's what the new generation does, as well. That fix alone makes me want to switch.

redlude97

I've ridden an APEX bike long enough to decide sram shifting ergonomics weren't for me, and have talked to enough people to feel like it is a person preference thing. To say which ones are better doesn't seem to possible considering that. There are way more people on 5700/6700/7900 than the competition yet the complaints don't seem to be that universal...

grolby

I think we're talking past each other. I'm talking about the shape of the levers and hoods, not how the shifting works. As for the number of people on it, Shimano retains its OEM dominance, but SRAM has taken a huge bite out of the OEM market, so it's not like Shimano can afford to just turn out crummier products. And let's be honest, most people don't have a basis for comparison. No question 6700 works well. I'm not trying to say it doesn't. But it does have shortcomings that can be addressed.

RobertL

Well it's very obvious that there is one person here who thinks that you are a genius with vast knowledge unknown to anyone else... YOU.

My Shimano 6700 group works wonderfully and is very comfortable as well. Will the 6800 group be even better, I hope so.

jaltone

Campag4life, I've known you before from the bottom bracket thread, and I know you have a good mechanical engineering background. I respect you a lot, so don't take this question as flippant, okay? So, assuming (and if mistakenly then correct me) that the 5700 is the same as 6700 mechanically, and assuming that I have it on my bike (which I do), I would be "in trouble" except for the fact that my bike has external cable routing. Is this a safe assumption? (And can I assume that under the bar tape routing doesn't effect the shifting problem you spoke of as much as internal cabling in the frame does?) In other words, bikes with external cable routing can rest easy with 5700 or 6700 components?

P.S. I'm not really worried, I've had no problem with my bike at all. But knowing the answer gives me more knowledge about my bike, or some other bike. You know, some new lesson learned or knowledge gained today.

jaltone

Why, thank you for saying this, banerjek. This is the first time I've ever read something that affirms what I've done. I get funny looks at times for my CX crankset on my Scott CR1, but it's honestly what suits my middle-aged recreational riding purposes.

Campag4life

Hi Jaltone,
Fair question. There is no black and white when it comes to 7900/6700...just shades of grey. This was the objective of Shimano's change...to remove shades of grey and make their new mech groupsets functional in 'all bike environments'.

For example. Many suffered with 9000/6700 on internal routed Specialized SL3 bikes with internal cable routing. Specialized in fact changed their specification and the way their bikes came from the factory. Initially they had same side cable routing and revised this to 'California Cross' which is what I run on my Roubaix with Campy. Cables cross one another inside the downtube. This cable routing is lower friction and works better for all groupsets and Ultegra 6700/7900 in particular...Specialized sold a lot of bikes with both.
If rating the relative contribution of internal cable friction due to under bar tape routing versus internal frame cable routing....under bar tape routing is more problematic. But for example, this doesn' affect Campy or Sram groupsets. Campy has had underbar routing for years and its design is robust enough to not be affected. Same with Sram. Some may not like the higher paddle forces of Sram, but most that have ridden it know it is perhaps the least sensitive groupset to set up. High derailleur spring tension wins the battle...but at the cost of higher efforts. So Shimano missed the boat with their first under bar tape effort. They wanted their cake and eat it too. Very low efforts but solid shifting. Didn't happen in 'all bike scenarios'. Some will say it is OK on their bike but others won't based upon:
Handlebar width
Type of bar tape
Tension of bar tape
Frame size and corresponding cable radii
Internal routing...and how cables are routed. Some frames like the Cervelo S2 with unusual routing add more friction due to tighter radii.

So the objective is to create a groupset design that will work for 'all different bike permutations'.

It is quite possible that new DA9000/Ultegra 6800 will be best in class or right up there.
HTH.

Campag4life

Fixed it for you.

Hiro11

I assume that they left the rear hub at 130MM? Requiring new cassette bodies is annoying, but less annoying than requiring new bikes.

I'll probably end up getting 6800 at some point, but not soon. I'm still on 6600 and it seems like unless you crash it, it's basically indestructible. It also still works just fine.

Also, lots of C&D going on out there on the interwebs. Almost every article on 6800 has been pulled.

grolby

LOL. Exactly what an insufferable blowhard would do.

Seattle Forrest

What flavor of crack are you smoking?

Campag4life

Yes you are. I have to laugh at what you wrote. You start with an insult in violation of forum rules..name calling is forbidden....and then you go to agree with me...only are much more inarticulate in doing so. All you can do is parrot what somebody else (me) explained in more substantive terms.
So...you may follow me if you wish....but only if you promise to clean my bike...lol.

grolby

*shrug* If your feelings are hurt, report my post. If acknowledging your self-aggrandizing puffery is against forum rules, so be it, I'll take a warning for the sake of pointing out that you're an overly self-impressed jackass. You're just as guilty of the violations though, since you can't restrain yourself from calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot.

Incorrect.

coasting 

Surely hood ergo is a personal preference. I like it just fine compared to 5600 which I had before I got 6700. Others might disagree because they have funny hands.