JohnJ80

I presume you are talking about a shimano 11-28. If you go to the SRAM 11-28 - which works just fine in an 11 speed Shimano drive train - you get the 16 and tighter spacing on the top half of the cassette.

SRAM: 11-28: 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,22,25,28
Shimano: 11-28: 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28

I've been using the SRAM 11-28 for most of this summer and like it better than the Shimano version. I had originally put the 11-32 on my 6800 drivetrain when I installed it at the beginning of the season. The big jumps drove me nuts. I felt like I could rarely find the gear that felt right for the cadence I needed at the time. If I were riding in the mountains, maybe I'd use it. But the difference between the 11-32 and the 11-28 is not all that big and I'd been just fine with a 12-27 in the mountains on my 10 speed drive train prior, so I think the 11-28 would be just fine. Overall, I think the 11-28 is much more versatile than the 11-32.

Now, what really looks nice is either the Campy 12-29 (12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29) or the DA 12-28 (12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25-28). The Campy is expensive and would require a free hub change (no big deal other than money on my DT Swiss hubs) and the DA version is just too pricey. The DA 12-28 though extends the tight range in the top half another cog. That would be nice.

J.

gti337

Completely disagree with this statement. I need the 32, and ride a 50/34 11-32 as I like to spin up the hills. Where I live we have sustained 7-10 mile climbs. I can easily spin out to 50 11 on the downhills. I find myself wishing for a 54 11 on many of the descents . . .

bt

I have a 50-34 with an 11-23 and on the flats it seems like I can't decide which ring to be in up front without being somewhat cross chained.

??

BoSoxYacht

How high of a cadence do you use? At 90rpms 15t-18t are good for 19.5-23.5mph. IMO that's perfect for the flats.

Igualmente

Perhaps "somewhat cross chained" could be defined. Also, on a 10 speed cassette, what is "actual damaging cross chaining"? I generally avoid the two most extreme cross chaining cogs, but am I doing damage by allowing use of the 3rd most extreme?

rm -rf

That's interesting. The Sram 11-28 has much better coverage in the 19-25 mph range. But it's not as good in the 15-19 mph range on the 50 chainring. Under 18 mph, the 34 chainring looks good.

So the Sram 11-28 looks better for stronger riders that mostly stay above 18 mph on the flats.

Sram 11-28:


Campagnolo 11 speed is supposed to be compatible with Shimano rear derailleurs. It needs a different free hub, since the splines on the hub are different, but the spacing between cogs is very close to Shimano / Sram cog spacing.

Yeah, the 12-29 is nice. I have 13-29 on my 10-speed Campagnolo bike, and the 11 speed cassette just adds a 12 cog.

BoSoxYacht

Is wear really damage? At extreme angles the drivetrain will wear more rapidly but is it really a big deal to you? For many years I used a 53/39 with a 12-25 cassette, often crosschained for short climbs(1-2 miles). With that type of use, I would typically get about 18k miles out of a cassette, and 40k miles from the big ring, before starting to notice any roughness when installing a new chain.

Igualmente

Sounds like a non-issue. Now back to the next four pages of the regularly scheduled program ("what chainring/cassette combination is best").

bt

probably not high enough, I'm a masher I think.

Leinster

I like to have 1 cassette that can cover as many bases as possible so I don't have to swap wheels out depending on the day of the week. So a 10 that goes straight from 12 to 17 is great for my flat days, and a 27 gets me up 99% of the hills in my area.

When you crest a steep hill, how do you get from your 30/24 to your 52/14 without lots of "whacking" on your shifters? On my 10 group (105) I've got a technique down pretty well of tap-tap-tapping my right shifter as I crest a hill and I'm in the middle of my cassette as quickly as I ever was with downtube shifters. On my other bike (8-speed Mirage, 13-26 with a 39-53) I have multiple shifts on my thumb shifter, so I can go from the 26 to the 15 in 2 or 3 movements. But either way I only have 1 chainring to shift.

BoSoxYacht

@80 rpms the 18t-14t are 17.4-22.3mph. How fast do you ride on the flats?

achoo

Your "big, strong riders" are weaker than "skinny waif ... TDF riders". On an absolute scale. A "waif ... TDF rider" will put out more power for a longer time than any of your "big, strong rider[s]". That's on an absolute scale On a W/kg scale, we're all pathetic.

That's why you invoke gravity.

If follows then that we mortals don't need - and can't effectively use - gearing anywhere near as big as the 53/39 and whatever cassettes that TdF riders use.

A 52-14 at a mere 80 RPM is 24 mph. You cruise that fast?

Wut?

You coast down hills that steep - tuck, get as aero as you can, and coast.

seypat

The same way. But I have two on the left and less on the right. Over a long ride it adds up. The bikes with less than 7 cogs have barcons. If the whole ride is up and down, friction mode in enacted. Then it's just sliding a lever. And if the descents have any grade at all, there is no reason to pedal. I weigh 200lbs and gravity takes over. Just sit back and grin as I blow past the skinnys. They are always in front because that same gravity makes me climb like a snail.

Bear in mind that most of my are in the 50 mile+ range and some with loading touring. So I am looking for efficiency over outright speed in shifting.

I don't understand why people despise shifting the front rings. It must be the 9-11 groups with the narrow cogs and chains. Someone needs to explain it to me. Everything I have has triples including my wifes 8 speed 105 and they all shift flawlessly.

BoSoxYacht

It's not that we hate using the front derailleur, it's just no longer as necessary. Front shifting is smooth as silk on 6800, it's just easier to use the 11 cogs in the rear. A 12-25 11 speed cassette gives you a 12-19 corncob, and 21-23-25 when it gets a little hilly.

Leinster

You do realise that with friction barcons you could just throw a 10 speed 12-32 in there and have more range than you have with your 14-28, and more close spacing than your 14-24?

I agree that if I were doing loaded touring like you, I'd definitely ride a triple. I prefer to travel light(ish) for my riding, though. Couple of sandwiches and clif bars and fill up my water bottles regularly along the route and I can do 100 miles no problem. Panniers to my mind are if you're planning on overnighting.

I don't hate shifting the front rings, I think it's something that a lot of people overblow; from the way some here go on about it, you wonder how they can drink out of their water bottle without stopping. But, a front shift is worth 2 or 3, or even 4, rear shifts, in terms of gear inches and cable pull, and it does take that fraction of a second longer for the rings to engage than the sprockets, so it's definitely worth treating as a bigger deal. So to say your 3x7 involves less shifts (2 front, 6 rear) than my 2x10 (1 front, 9 rear) to get from top gear to bottom isn't really comparing like with like.

seypat

I see your post came out before my response above. So.......

Your first point is correct. But I didn't say the TDF riders were weak. I said they were skinny and waifs. And they are compared to any other type of athlete out there except for the other endurance athletes.

Yes, I cruise on the 52-14 a lot.........if it is flat. But I don't live in Florida. I live in VA. If is one of those flat century rides on the coast, then I can do it solo in 5 hours. But if it is one of the climbing ones in the mountains then it will take me over 9 hours. I came to cycling in my 40's because I got too old to continue playing basketball. 5'8-5'9" and 200lbs. Think Mark Cavendish with about 40 more lbs of muscle and 10lbs of fat. And that muscle is mostly in the upper legs. Track cyclist build. Enough to run a 40 in under 5 seconds and dunk a basketball with ease. And I was still dunking it in my late 30s when I was around 190lbs. So lots of power in the legs. But not good power to weight ratio at all. In fact if it is a descent climb at all, I spend most of the ride on the small ring and the big cog. So yeah while I cruise on the 52-14, as soon as it turns upward, those people in my draft leave me behind quickly. And I will not see them again until it flattens out again, if at all until the end of the ride. That's life.

seypat

I ride old steel lugged bikes. They are 120 or 126 spaced. I would have to cold set the rears to go above 7. Plus, I couldn't use the wider, common chains and switch parts between them. I do have a mountain bike with more but I prefer the other way. I only do 1 or 2 hard climbing rides each year. So I only have the wider ratios on on them. The triples give me the ability to run corncobs(or near corncobs) most of the time. I still get the close ratios with less cogs.

Speaking of wide ratios and triples, it is a slow day at work today. So I think I will finish a bike I am fixing up for my son. He is 12 and it will be his first road bike. I had to search Craigslist for a while to find something in his size. I am putting a triple and 7 speed 105 on it. It will have barcons instead of downtube shifters and a 13-30 cassette. Hopefully I will get it finished this afternoon and start a thread in the C & V forum.

seypat

Just measured the quads according to the method in this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/sp...anted=all&_r=0

25 1/2 inches. And that's with no weightlifting to beef them up. Yep, lots of power in those legs. But I still get smoked on the climbs.

megalowmatt

I ride a 50/34 11-32 combination. With my riding style and the hills around here I am much less concerned about spinning out on a downhill than I am about being able to comfortably spin uphill.

superslomo

Interesting to me, I ride a triple, but my basic process is to just stay in the middle 39 almost all the time, using the full 9 at the rear. When things get going steeply upwards, I work my way down the small ring until I can't shift anymore, and when I get going downhill, I go up the big ring pedaling slowly until I can't shift anymore. Basically, though, 39/12-27 covers almost all the riding I need to be concerned with.

I weigh over 2 bills, but I don't know how big my guads are. I can take a photo with a $5 bill if it helps, though.

WheresWaldo

There is no such damaging cross chaining with modern chains, it's noisy that's all. When chains were super stiff in the 5-8 speed era, when you cross chained it did put a lot of stress on the side plates of the chain. Chains are much more flexible now and do not suffer damage from occasional cross chaining. This is now myth and should be taken as such. Cross chaining would be the least of my concerns with modern drivetrains, not that I am concerned at all.

headloss 

Honestly, I think that the problem has to do with poor component matching. There are a lot of problems that can pop up that will cause a triple to not work properly. Some triple FD's can handle a half-step difference up to a 10 tooth difference. Some need an 11t difference minimum. Some need a 13t difference minimum. Use the wrong FD with the wrong middle to big ring jump, and shifting sucks. Then there is the fact that Shimano triple FD's don't actually push the chain onto the big chain ring, but rather, they drop the chains on the pins by design. So, if you use a Shimano FD with anything other than Shimano chainrings, you won't have very good shifting on a triple. Even then, the chainrings have to match up. Shimano has multiple different chainring sets, A and B being most prominent (one for a 42t middle and one for a 39t middle ring), fail to match them, and shifting suffers with a Shimano FD (less of a problem with a triple FD that isn't made by Shimano). On top of all that, you have people trying to run mountain bike FD's with road shifters or people trying to run road FD's with mountain chainrings... all of which cause poor shifting.

It's chaotic out there, and no surprise that triples have gotten such a bad wrap seeing how many potential pitfalls there are.

There's also an issue of wear and tear. A worn chain won't hurt a shift in the back, it will just wear down the cogs. A worn chain and chainring on the front, and you have chain-suck, a much bigger problem. A mal-adjusted derailleur in the rear, and you jump and skip gears and create noise. A mal-adjusted FD and the chain falls off the crank entirely. There things create the criticism, but it all comes back to proper setup, matching, and tuning. Sadly, you can't even count on the majority of bike shops to get that right, I've seen some awful tuneups over the years when adjusting someone's bike on the road.

Dunbar

I'm using the SRAM 11-28 cassette as well on 5800 (50/34 crank.) I like it although the 22-19 jump when you're climbing is noticeable. I came from a 10sp 12-27 and the 21-19 jump is preferable but you do adapt. I spend most of my time on the flats so I'll take the 16T over the 21T cog. My ideal 11sp cassette would be a Shimano 11-27 but they don't make one. I really would miss the 11T cog when I'm descending so the 12-28 or 12-29 aren't really options for me.

bt

I rolled today between 80-90 rpm

JohnJ80

SRAM seems to set the cassettes up for a cadence section and then for a climbing section. On the 11 speed, there is a tight grouping and then a break and then an even grouping in the larger cogs. Shimano's is more consistent across the range in spacing but not having that 16 tooth cog in there limits the ability to tune cadence on flatter rides.

Anyhow, the SRAM cassette has worked out surprisingly well for me. Where I ride, there are a lot of short choppy but steep climbs. So that bifurcated spacing makes a lot of sense for me. Rarely do I wind up being surprised by the gap in the middle. It's pretty cool that now back at 11 speed, all three are compatible cassettes in terms chain compatibility and gear spacing. Makes for a lot of options that way.

J.