105 2x12 - R7170 (R7150) / R7120 (R7100) - di2 / mechanical (MY2024)

[SystemShock]

I really think 48/32 and, eventually, 46/30 are poised to 'take over' road for most riders in the coming years...

Then, why 12-3X cassettes are not popular with compact cranks? 12T/11T ≈ 50T/46T ≈ 52T/48T

11s 12-34T Miche CALP1BS123410 uses same 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30-34 cogs as Shimano 12s 11-34T

Because the big 3, Shimano, SRAM and Campy simply stopped making them.

Pretty much.

Blame ppl who think that 50x12 is a 'weak' top gear... even though most of 'em wouldn't be able to turn it at 90 RPM on the flats without a paceline or a tailwind.

Incidentally, Eddy Merckx set his world hour record using a 52x14, a lower gear than that.


edit- Apparently there's an 11-spd 12-32 cassette in Campy Centaur. That seems to be pretty much the last gasp for 12-30+ cassettes among the major manufacturers.
.

[SystemShock]

I don't see any 12s 4X-3X road fd/cranks with narrow 44.5mm chainline/148mm q-factor

Code: Select all

             2x11-mech 2x11-di2 2x12-mech 2x12-di2
dura-ace fd |. 50-55T | 50-55T | . . . . | 50-54T |
 ultegra fd |. 46-53T | 46-53T | . . . . | 50-52T |
 . . 105 fd |. 46-53T |. . . . |. 50-54T | 50-52T |

Try Campy Chorus, or Praxis. They have 48/32 in 12-spd w/narrow Q-factors.
.

[ricerocket]

I really think 48/32 and, eventually, 46/30 are poised to 'take over' road for most riders in the coming years...
.

On what basis? Have you ever run those?

I ran 46/30 for a month on my gravel bike, the 30T ring essentially makes 2/3s of the cassette useless at road speeds, and I would spin out the 46-11 on descents. No thanks.

I went up to 50/34 and everything sits in a much better place.

[ricerocket]

The bet is that now the industry will move to 48/32 and 46/30 chainrings in conjunction with 10t and maybe 9t cassettes. SRAM has tried, but Shimano and Campy haven't followed for road groups.

I bet you're wrong.

CermaicSpeed tested this and the frictional losses at 10T were quite a bit larger than running to 11T and the correct sized chainring.

9T and 10T are used on 1x to be able to give huge gain ratios on one cassette, but they have no place on 2x. You bit on the SRAM marketing a bit too hard.

[robertbb]

I really think 48/32 and, eventually, 46/30 are poised to 'take over' road for most riders in the coming years...
.

On what basis? Have you ever run those?

I ran 46/30 for a month on my gravel bike, the 30T ring essentially makes 2/3s of the cassette useless at road speeds, and I would spin out the 46-11 on descents. No thanks.

I went up to 50/34 and everything sits in a much better place.

You "spin out" on a 46-11 on descents...... on a gravel bike...... meaning you were reguarly descending at over 50km/h on unpaved gravel roads, pedaling 90+ rpm and wanted more speed?

Lelz. You realise at a certain point it's faster to just tuck down and hang on?

I'm yet to be convinced anyone who is not a very, very talented sprinter or a high-FTP genetic freak needs a cassette starting below 12 (even with a subcompact).

[SystemShock]

I ran 46/30 for a month on my gravel bike, the 30T ring essentially makes 2/3s of the cassette useless at road speeds, and I would spin out the 46-11 on descents. No thanks.

You do know that a good aero tuck w/no pedaling is faster than almost ANY gearing on a steep road descent, right?

Check out major Tour riders (vid below)... they'll do 100+ kph on the big descents, no pedaling, 'cept for a brief moment to get back to tuck speed after a less steep section or after braking hard before a hairpin.

And, at 'road speeds', why weren't you in your 46T rather than your 30T? Inner chainrings are for hills, man.... unless your setup is pretty overgeared.

I've seen those... recreational riders, 53/39, 11-25 cassette. They want 1-tooth jumps on the flats, but can't get 'em in the big ring at the speeds they actually ride in. Wind up being in the 39x14,15, and 16 a lot.

And if they ride compact, they complain because they're 'too cross-chained' in the 34x12,13,14.

Yeah, I don't have much doubt that 48/32 and 46/30 will be pretty common for road within 3-5 years or so. Dominant? Dunno. But common, yep, at the least.





.

[basilic]

I have 48/32 and 46/30 and like these setups better than 50/34. The (not so)big ring is all purpose, it feels more like a middle ring from the 3x era. One adapts to the shorter top gear pretty quickly.

[Nickldn]

The bet is that now the industry will move to 48/32 and 46/30 chainrings in conjunction with 10t and maybe 9t cassettes. SRAM has tried, but Shimano and Campy haven't followed for road groups.

I bet you're wrong.

CermaicSpeed tested this and the frictional losses at 10T were quite a bit larger than running to 11T and the correct sized chainring.

9T and 10T are used on 1x to be able to give huge gain ratios on one cassette, but they have no place on 2x. You bit on the SRAM marketing a bit too hard.

I hear these arguments about efficiency and they mean absolutely nothing to the average recreational rider. Yes, pros would be concerned, but not the averages customer browsing in a bike shop. It sounds like you've fallen for CeramicSpeed marketing.

Smaller cassette cogs are the best way for the industry to increase range, without forcing heavy, dinner plate sized cassettes onto customers. We'll see if 10t and 9t cogs catch on as the industry moves to 13s and 14s drivetrains. SRAM and Campy Ekar are the first, but probably not the last.

I'd like to hear what you think a 14s cassette will look like. Do you think well be using 11-38 or 11-40 cassettes on the road? Or do you think manufacturers will pack in more ratios and stick to 11-32 or 11-34. Neither option seems appealing.

[Hexsense]

Have you ever run those?

I ran 46/30 for a month on my gravel bike, the 30T ring essentially makes 2/3s of the cassette useless at road speeds, and I would spin out the 46-11 on descents. No thanks.

Yes I tried lower gearing than that.
It is Gearoop 44/28 front ring on my gravel bike.
In fact, it's still on my gravel bike these days.
That 44/28 front ring pair with 11-32 rear cassette to get both low gear and relatively tight jump.

Gravel bike has larger (taller) tire which make each wheel revolution cover more ground than my road bike already. So, 44x11 I have on my gravel bike is plenty. In fact, I think I won't ever spin out that gear ever. I can spin all day long at 105rpm. And 130rpm for a few minutes, 170rpm for a short burst. Lets ignore my especially high cadence and consider a widely achievable 120rpm, that'd be 63.9 km/h using 44/11 gear on 700c x40mm wheel. I definitely won't ride my gravel bike faster than that. And thus, even 44t front ring with 11t in the back is
(plenty) enough on gravel bike.

on the other hand, my climbing efficiency drop sharply if I spin slower than 70rpm. So, having all these low gear is helpful on (relatively) heavier gravel bike which can face really steep gravel path.

[Karvalo]

You "spin out" on a 46-11 on descents...... on a gravel bike...... meaning you were reguarly descending at over 50km/h on unpaved gravel roads, pedaling 90+ rpm and wanted more speed?

Lelz.

Outside of your selective editing he specifically said 'at road speeds'. Perhaps you're unaware but gravel bikes are often ridden on road. Where I live a door to door gravel ride will have a minimum of 30% tarmac simply as a necessity to link up off-road sections. If you are aware of that, you're deliberately misrepresenting his comment so you can be bitchy about it.

I'm yet to be convinced anyone who is not a very, very talented sprinter or a high-FTP genetic freak needs a cassette starting below 12 (even with a subcompact).

'Needs' is a red herring. 'Needs' is completely irrelevant. Most people don't 'need' anything more than a single speed to ride around on, but we prefer something more. Similarly no one needs to sprint, or needs to attack a downhill, or needs to smash along in a tailwind section... but we want to.

[Karvalo]

You do know that a good aero tuck w/no pedaling is faster than almost ANY gearing on a steep road descent, right?

Check out major Tour riders (vid below)... they'll do 100+ kph on the big descents, no pedaling, 'cept for a brief moment to get back to tuck speed after a less steep section or after braking hard before a hairpin.

Cool story bro. Maybe you don't realise but most people don't live in the mountains.

Funnily enough if I lived in the alps and had access to those sustained high speed descents every day I would care a lot less about top end gearing than I do in the much lower altitude hilly areas I mostly ride in.

[SystemShock]

You do know that a good aero tuck w/no pedaling is faster than almost ANY gearing on a steep road descent, right?

Check out major Tour riders (vid below)... they'll do 100+ kph on the big descents, no pedaling, 'cept for a brief moment to get back to tuck speed after a less steep section or after braking hard before a hairpin.

Cool story bro. Maybe you don't realise but most people don't live in the mountains.

Funnily enough if I lived in the alps and had access to those sustained high speed descents every day I would care a lot less about top end gearing than I do in the much lower altitude hilly areas I mostly ride in.

What 'story', bro? Do you think ppl can't descend faster via aero tuck? Was that vid all CGI?

Nor do you have to live in the Alps or Rockies to descend fast in that manner. You pick up speed QUICK on anything even halfway steep, believe you me.

And I don't care where you live... most ppl who say they need a 53x11 probably don't, if they want to be real about it they're likely posing and/or getting 'aspirational gearing'.

Which is fine, actually-- it's their money, and they can buy what they like for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all, even.

Just don't ask me to buy into it.
.

[Karvalo]

What 'story', bro? Do you think ppl can't descend faster via aero tuck? Was that vid all CGI?

Not always, no. There are shorter descents where the amount of time it takes to accelerate to tuck speed is important. There are shallower descents where a small rotating pace line with the leader smashing 52 or 53/11 is faster than the best tuck on its own. Mountain descents are one type of riding. There are others.

And I don't care where you live... most ppl who say they need a 53x11 probably don't, if they want to be real about it they're likely posing and/or getting 'aspirational gearing'.

No one needs anything. Again, that's a total red herring. I don't need an 11, just like you don't need a tighter range cassette that starts with a 12 or 13. It'll give you nothing except some tighter ratio jumps that you mildly prefer. It's nowhere near becoming something you need.

[Lina]

You do know that a good aero tuck w/no pedaling is faster than almost ANY gearing on a steep road descent, right?

Check out major Tour riders (vid below)... they'll do 100+ kph on the big descents, no pedaling, 'cept for a brief moment to get back to tuck speed after a less steep section or after braking hard before a hairpin.

Cool story bro. Maybe you don't realise but most people don't live in the mountains.

Funnily enough if I lived in the alps and had access to those sustained high speed descents every day I would care a lot less about top end gearing than I do in the much lower altitude hilly areas I mostly ride in.

What 'story', bro? Do you think ppl can't descend faster via aero tuck? Was that vid all CGI?

Nor do you have to live in the Alps or Rockies to descend fast in that manner. You pick up speed QUICK on anything even halfway steep, believe you me.

And I don't care where you live... most ppl who say they need a 53x11 probably don't, if they want to be real about it they're likely posing and/or getting 'aspirational gearing'.

Which is fine, actually-- it's their money, and they can buy what they like for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all, even.

Just don't ask me to buy into it.
.

Come ride some rolling hills and you'll notice you'll be on your top gear quite a bit in terrain where tucking wouldn't be faster. Big mountains aren't where you need that top gear most of the time, that's where you can just coast in an aero tuck, just as you said. But on rolling hills where the downhills aren't steep enough to coast is where you'll be on that top gear. On most of my rides I hit somewhere between 50 and 60 km/h. And most of my riding is Z2 somewhere between 200 and 250 watts. On any ride that's ridden faster the top speed is going to hit over 60. And you'd be lucky to get to 50 on any of these hills by tucking.

[Nickldn]

Come ride some rolling hills and you'll notice you'll be on your top gear quite a bit in terrain where tucking wouldn't be faster. Big mountains aren't where you need that top gear most of the time, that's where you can just coast in an aero tuck, just as you said. But on rolling hills where the downhills aren't steep enough to coast is where you'll be on that top gear. On most of my rides I hit somewhere between 50 and 60 km/h. And most of my riding is Z2 somewhere between 200 and 250 watts. On any ride that's ridden faster the top speed is going to hit over 60. And you'd be lucky to get to 50 on any of these hills by tucking.

That's exactly why I prefer 52/11 as a top gear. Going down a rolling hill as fast as possible to gain as much momentum as possible for the upcoming uphill needs low gears. Tucking doesn't do it and you lose a lot of time and energy going back up if you don't pedal hard on the down.

Lucky to have 2 bikes with different gearing. Nothing is a one size fits all, until we get even broader cassettes. I think a 11 - 36 cassette in conjunction with a 52/36 chainring (or equivalent) will do me for any terrain that I'm likely to ride.

Roll on 13 speed.....