Rumors Next Generation Campagnolo Road?

[Yoln]

I've been hoping the new PM chainset would come with backwards-compatibility and allow me to finally use a Campag chainset with Time pedals while having a PM (I don't like all the other available options; not Stages, not SRM spider, not Assioma / Garmin). I've decided to give up and just stick with my EXAKT's. Even they finally figure it out, and even I could swap out USB to CULT myself, the new BCD makes it impossible to work with the existing 52/36 chain rings.

4iii crank-PM with SR12 crankset and time pedals is both very light, very aesthetically pleasing, very reliable, and shifts perfectly

[MarkMcM]

Just an FYI - according to David Arthurs video the 10T only has .1W extra drag. That is inmaterial and basically equivalent to 1psi or so different from optimal tire pressure. No one will ever feel it and it won't be the difference in any race.

I call BS on that. 0.1 W extra drag is similar to the losses one might see between 10 tooth and 11 tooth derailleur pulleys. Drive sprockets have higher loads, and will see greater losses.

Below is a link to test of drivetrain losses, including different sprocket sizes at zero offset (i.e. no cross-chaining). At 175 W, a 52-21 chainring/sprocket combination had an efficiency of 98.2 % (3.15 W loss), a 52-15 combination had an efficiency of 97.5% (4.38 W loss) and a 52-11 combination had an efficiency of 95.5% (7.88 W losses). Given the 3.5 W increase in losses between a 15 and an 11 tooth sprocket, it is completely unreasonable to expect that a 10 tooth sprocket has only a 0.1 W increase in losses. And that is with a straight chain. With the cross-chaining angles at the sprocket position at the end of the cassette, there could be several Watts increases in losses with a 10 tooth sprocket compared to an 11 tooth sprocket. (Also note that this test was at a moderate load of only 175 W. At higher loads, losses will be larger.)

http://www.ihpva.org/hparchive/pdf/hp50-2000.pdf

[NickB]

Just an FYI - according to David Arthurs video the 10T only has .1W extra drag. That is inmaterial and basically equivalent to 1psi or so different from optimal tire pressure. No one will ever feel it and it won't be the difference in any race.

I call BS on that. 0.1 W extra drag is similar to the losses one might see between 10 tooth and 11 tooth derailleur pulleys. Drive sprockets have higher loads, and will see greater losses.

Below is a link to test of drivetrain losses, including different sprocket sizes at zero offset (i.e. no cross-chaining). At 175 W, a 52-21 chainring/sprocket combination had an efficiency of 98.2 % (3.15 W loss), a 52-15 combination had an efficiency of 97.5% (4.38 W loss) and a 52-11 combination had an efficiency of 95.5% (7.88 W losses). Given the 3.5 W increase in losses between a 15 and an 11 tooth sprocket, it is completely unreasonable to expect that a 10 tooth sprocket has only a 0.1 W increase in losses. And that is with a straight chain. With the cross-chaining angles at the sprocket position at the end of the cassette, there could be several Watts increases in losses with a 10 tooth sprocket compared to an 11 tooth sprocket. (Also note that this test was at a moderate load of only 175 W. At higher loads, losses will be larger.)

http://www.ihpva.org/hparchive/pdf/hp50-2000.pdf

I think everyone who has ridden a bike in anger knows full well the drag caused by an 11 never mind a 10. TT boys with big rings to get chainline straight and less wrap know for sure. Campag, Shimano and SRAM know this and all could have achieved better results with 12 up and bigger chainrings, but then that would weigh more and now everything is heavier (discs, batteries) they wont do it. 3/4/5k groupsets that weigh more than 500 quid ones. Crazy world.

[morrisond]

Just an FYI - according to David Arthurs video the 10T only has .1W extra drag. That is inmaterial and basically equivalent to 1psi or so different from optimal tire pressure. No one will ever feel it and it won't be the difference in any race.

I call BS on that. 0.1 W extra drag is similar to the losses one might see between 10 tooth and 11 tooth derailleur pulleys. Drive sprockets have higher loads, and will see greater losses.

Below is a link to test of drivetrain losses, including different sprocket sizes at zero offset (i.e. no cross-chaining). At 175 W, a 52-21 chainring/sprocket combination had an efficiency of 98.2 % (3.15 W loss), a 52-15 combination had an efficiency of 97.5% (4.38 W loss) and a 52-11 combination had an efficiency of 95.5% (7.88 W losses). Given the 3.5 W increase in losses between a 15 and an 11 tooth sprocket, it is completely unreasonable to expect that a 10 tooth sprocket has only a 0.1 W increase in losses. And that is with a straight chain. With the cross-chaining angles at the sprocket position at the end of the cassette, there could be several Watts increases in losses with a 10 tooth sprocket compared to an 11 tooth sprocket. (Also note that this test was at a moderate load of only 175 W. At higher loads, losses will be larger.)

http://www.ihpva.org/hparchive/pdf/hp50-2000.pdf

It's David Arthur saying that not me.

FYI in that test it was only a 2% loss between 52-11 and 52.15 - call it .4% per tooth or .7w, and there was only a .7% difference between 52-15 and 52-21 or .116% difference or .2W.

And I went and looked up how much resistance changes in a bike tire due to change in Air pressure - it's about 3psi for .1W watts - even with the numbers from this article - it's really marginal losses. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... 00-s-tr-28

[crlincoln]

Being a SRAM user and having a 10tooth sprocket as well as lots and lots of data from every ride that shows exactly how much time I spend in which gear and with what average power... it's really interesting to see the focus on losses...

I'm not a pro, i'm an average rider, reasonably fit and content... but on most rides I'm rarely in the 10 tooth sprocket..

Even on a recent 100mile sportive completed in 5,5 hrs with a normalised power of 270, I spent 6mins in the 10 tooth sprocket.. at an average power of 119w...

I think for the average person, the losses are negligible... especially usually compared to the lump doing the pedalling...

[Vespasianus]

I had a discussion with campagnolo dealer and he confirmed all the rumors.

- Coming in May
- Wireless levers
- Shimano style shifting (no thumb shifter)

So what makes this different than Shimano or SRAM?

I said this in April and it still holds true. I have no idea why people are shocked by this. This is exacly what was expected from every rumor and forum.

...and I don't understand so much attachment to the thumb button.......when you have a good grip on the shifters, not down... it's more uncomfortable to shift than Sram or Shimano, which you can use up to 4 fingers of each hand to shift without having to modify the grip so that the thumb reaches the push button and lower cogs/ chainring

I much prefer the shifting of Campag as compared to the flimsy lever feel of Shimano.

[MarkMcM]

Just an FYI - according to David Arthurs video the 10T only has .1W extra drag. That is inmaterial and basically equivalent to 1psi or so different from optimal tire pressure. No one will ever feel it and it won't be the difference in any race.

I call BS on that. 0.1 W extra drag is similar to the losses one might see between 10 tooth and 11 tooth derailleur pulleys. Drive sprockets have higher loads, and will see greater losses.

Below is a link to test of drivetrain losses, including different sprocket sizes at zero offset (i.e. no cross-chaining). At 175 W, a 52-21 chainring/sprocket combination had an efficiency of 98.2 % (3.15 W loss), a 52-15 combination had an efficiency of 97.5% (4.38 W loss) and a 52-11 combination had an efficiency of 95.5% (7.88 W losses). Given the 3.5 W increase in losses between a 15 and an 11 tooth sprocket, it is completely unreasonable to expect that a 10 tooth sprocket has only a 0.1 W increase in losses. And that is with a straight chain. With the cross-chaining angles at the sprocket position at the end of the cassette, there could be several Watts increases in losses with a 10 tooth sprocket compared to an 11 tooth sprocket. (Also note that this test was at a moderate load of only 175 W. At higher loads, losses will be larger.)

http://www.ihpva.org/hparchive/pdf/hp50-2000.pdf

It's David Arthur saying that not me.

FYI in that test it was only a 2% loss between 52-11 and 52.15 - call it .4% per tooth or .7w, and there was only a .7% difference between 52-15 and 52-21 or .116% difference or .2W.

And I went and looked up how much resistance changes in a bike tire due to change in Air pressure - it's about 3psi for .1W watts - even with the numbers from this article - it's really marginal losses. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... 00-s-tr-28

I found the David Arthur video, and according to him, he said that he isn't claiming that the 10 tooth sprocket only has 0.1 W extra loss, he said that is what a Campagnolo rep. told him. Maybe the Campagnolo rep. misunderstood the question, or maybe David Arther misunderstood the answer, but it any case, the claim is not reasonable, based on what we know from other drivetrain efficiency tests.

As far as the marginal increase in losses per tooth - as shown in the data in the linked article, and from other tests, the extra losses per each tooth removed from the sprocket is not linear, and increases with each tooth reduction. While the average extra losses as the sprocket reduces from 15 to 11 teeth may be 0.7 W per tooth, the losses from the 15 to the 14th will be less than 0.7 W, and the losses from the 12 to the 11 will be more than 0.7 W. And the losses from the 11 to the 10 tooth will be every larger still - most likely between 1 - 2% of total power.

Some may argue that a percent or two of extra power loss is meaningless to the average cyclist, and only matters to elite athletes. Perhaps so. But another aspect of smaller sprockets (and chainrings) is that they wear out faster - this is something that doesn't matter to elite athletes, but does matter to the average cyclist. So the smaller drivetrain sprockets are a lose-lose proposition all around.

[Lina]

Sure, the 10t has a marginally worse efficiency. But starting from a 10t also means that you get a more usable gearing that is marginally lighter.

[wooger]

GCN got the exclusive ride review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM8QIeBy-Z0

I find it odd that for this promo the groupset and chain both look grubby.

And then putting it on a bike with a paint job that looks like oil smudged white.

[TobinHatesYou]

Being a SRAM user and having a 10tooth sprocket as well as lots and lots of data from every ride that shows exactly how much time I spend in which gear and with what average power... it's really interesting to see the focus on losses...

I'm not a pro, i'm an average rider, reasonably fit and content... but on most rides I'm rarely in the 10 tooth sprocket..

Even on a recent 100mile sportive completed in 5,5 hrs with a normalised power of 270, I spent 6mins in the 10 tooth sprocket.. at an average power of 119w...

I think for the average person, the losses are negligible... especially usually compared to the lump doing the pedalling...

Exactly this. In a flat race with a 50t big ring I won’t even touch the 10t and barely even touch the 11t. In a hilly race, I’ll spend some time in those cogs, but mostly just to put some resistance on the pedals during descents.

A hilly P/1/2 RR

A flat P/1/2 RR

With 12 speed drivetrains, it’s nice to have both a bailout gear and an overdrive gear. This far outweighs the negatives associated with the 10t cog and I’m not surprised Campagnolo went this direction. It’s only a matter of time before Shimano falls in line too.

[MarkMcM]

Sure, the 10t has a marginally worse efficiency. But starting from a 10t also means that you get a more usable gearing that is marginally lighter.

You don't get more usable gearing if the chainring sizes has been decreased in proportion (which they have). And the reduced weight is a false economy, as the percent weight loss is smaller than the percent power loss. If the entire system mass (bike + rider) was 70 kg, you'd need a 0.7 kg loss of mass to make up for a 1% loss in drivetrain efficiency - the combined weight of a "standard" size Super Record cassette + 2 chainrings is less that, so even if the new cassette and chainrings were massless there's still be net loss in performance.

[raggedtrousers]

I'm going to suggest that anyone who is legitimately concerned about a 10t smallest cog rather than an 11t is good enough not to be buying their own gear, or is at least a pretty high level time triallist. For everyone else, they're in that cog for 1-2% of their total riding time, and they're going down a significant hill when they are. Even allowing for the smaller front ring and smaller chainring combos (eg 48-16, say, rather than 52-17) the inefficiency and wear arguments are complete red herrings for >99% of riders. On the other hand, the greater range afforded by starting at a 10 has real value to lots of cyclists, and (as a side note) AXS stuff is pretty durable.

Back on topic, I have a number of concerns with SR WL, but a 10t cog isn't one of them.

[MarkMcM]

Being a SRAM user and having a 10tooth sprocket as well as lots and lots of data from every ride that shows exactly how much time I spend in which gear and with what average power... it's really interesting to see the focus on losses...

I'm not a pro, i'm an average rider, reasonably fit and content... but on most rides I'm rarely in the 10 tooth sprocket..

Even on a recent 100mile sportive completed in 5,5 hrs with a normalised power of 270, I spent 6mins in the 10 tooth sprocket.. at an average power of 119w...

I think for the average person, the losses are negligible... especially usually compared to the lump doing the pedalling...

In this particular example, you are using a standard compact crankset, so you are treating the drivetrain like it had an 11spd cassette starting with a 11 tooth sprocket, with an extranous 10 tooth sprocket tacked on the end. So, you're getting essentially the same performance as if you didn't have the the 10 tooth at all. On the other hand, if you tried to get full use of all the sprocket (including the 10 tooth), you could use smaller chainrings (such as the new 45/29 on the WRL group). In this case, to compensate for the smaller chainrings you'd spend more time on the smaller sprockets, and suffer higher drivetrain losses for a longer period of time.

The 10 tooth sprocket is a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't feature. If you use chainrings to small enough to take advantage of it, you suffer greater drive train losses all the time. But if you use larger chainrings to reduce drivetrain losses, the 10 tooth sprocket is superfluous.

[Nickldn]

Some may argue that a percent or two of extra power loss is meaningless to the average cyclist, and only matters to elite athletes. Perhaps so. But another aspect of smaller sprockets (and chainrings) is that they wear out faster - this is something that doesn't matter to elite athletes, but does matter to the average cyclist. So the smaller drivetrain sprockets are a lose-lose proposition all around.

Look, this argument was lost when the industry moved away from cassettes with 12t smallest sprockets matched to 53/39 chainrings. I guess this really happened when 11 speed drivetrains came into being and 52/36 & 50/34 chainrings were popularised.

SRAM simply took the next step with 10t. Now Campy are following.

So what would the world look like if we stayed with 12s small sprockets? I guess we would need 12t to 39t cassettes on road bikes to get a 1:1 range. Not sure that would be a good thing on a road bike.

So yes 10t helps road bikes keep looking like road bikes, just as the UCI intended and weighing less than 10kg. Disadvantages are fairly minimal, unless you TT and then you need Shimano 55t chainrings and a 10kg bike.

[TobinHatesYou]

I'm going to suggest that anyone who is legitimately concerned about a 10t smallest cog rather than an 11t is good enough not to be buying their own gear, or is at least a pretty high level time triallist. For everyone else, they're in that cog for 1-2% of their total riding time, and they're going down a significant hill when they are. Even allowing for the smaller front ring and smaller chainring combos (eg 48-16, say, rather than 52-17) the inefficiency and wear arguments are complete red herrings for >99% of riders. On the other hand, the greater range afforded by starting at a 10 has real value to lots of cyclists, and (as a side note) AXS stuff is pretty durable.

Back on topic, I have a number of concerns with SR WL, but a 10t cog isn't one of them.

Time trialists are frankly the least likely individuals to use a 10t cog or even a 13t cog. They want to be in the middle of whatever cassette they choose, and will select chainrings to suit.