Campagnolo 12-Speed

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
c60rider
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:12 pm

by c60rider

themidge wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:49 pm
Fair enough, maths is the answer! :D
I can appreciate that people's cycling abilities vary greatly, although I haven't spent 10k on my bike. Obviously some people do need/want very easy gears, after all, we've all seen a MAMIL grinding up a hill, haven't we.
I think my grievance is with the current (and future) state of affairs in the industry, which seems to be pushing all this 1x, super low geared, decidedly un-race-like stuff, which many people (especially on this site) don't want or need.
According to Graeme the Campag rep who writes on here who I spoke to at Bespoked 1x is purely being driven by the industry to do away with a front mech to enable different frame design. Personally I don't think 1x should have any existence on a road bike and it's questionable on a gravel bike. The way a front mech changes from big to small ring and vice versa is sublime on properly adjusted bikes. It's slick and silent under load on my campag SR 2009 11 speed as it is on my new one I bought last year with post 2015 SR. So we just have to keep pushing 2x and demanding that. I can't believe the pros will accept 1x on anything other than flat to rolling terrain I've not kept track of the Aqua blue sport team I think they were riding all the classics and which bikes they were using in the Ardennes races.


2lo8
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

I do think in this case it was actually what the pros were asking for. Some people have noted wide range lets them drop a little lower staying in the big ring, since racers hate shifting the front, and pros were asking for 16t, as opposed to 18t that some people here want. 18t puts you are a nice respectable (for a MAMIL at least) ~20mph pace (although maybe not respectable for 6w/kg power monsters). 1t jumps at 20mph, probably not what pros were asking for.
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

basilic
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

gearing: everyone has to figure it out for themselves., dont they?
I think that the estimation that a reasonably fit mamil will produce half the W/kg of a pro is about right. So the mamil needs half the rollout. If pros use 39/27 as a low gear, just getting a compact doesn't get you there, and neither does a 1:1. It's more like 30/34. I am awaiting the 46/30 supercompacts from the major brands.

ginofausto
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:24 pm

by ginofausto

According to german Eurosport commentator, Aqua blue sport went in the Ardennes races Front 44t, Rear 11-42t.
They didn't get in the final sprint for victory in Amstel, so it was no problem to have no bigger gear...

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6964
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

I am sure that they will try to persuade us that you do not need the 53-11 in a sprint. You can have the same performance with 44-11... and 200rpm cadence
lol

jih
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:54 pm

by jih

Also to remember - racing on hilly courses that aren’t very steep, it’s sometimes better to have a wide range cassette to avoid front shifting.

I’ve done the same course on 12-25 and 11-30. 11-30 was better because I could stay in the big ring all the way round.

Maybe this wouldn’t matter on a mountain, but on smaller local races with a medium-sharp hill I find it easier to just forget about front shifting.

jih
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:54 pm

by jih

kgt wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:54 am
I am sure that they will try to persuade us that you do not need the 53-11 in a sprint. You can have the same performance with 44-11... and 200rpm cadence
lol
More likely it’ll be 44-9, using SRAM’s special freehub body standard for small top sprockets

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6964
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

A 9 teeth sprocket is also a bad idea, for other reasons.

jih
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:54 pm

by jih

kgt wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:38 pm
A 9 teeth sprocket is also a bad idea, for other reasons.
I don’t disagree, although for the time most people spend actually applying power in 52-11, having an inefficient 44-9 might not be a major issue.

You can still have a 50-11 top gear in 1x if you use something like an 11-44 rear cassette

jih
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:54 pm

by jih

Calnago wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:05 pm
jih wrote:I quite like how large cassettes look on disc wheel bikes. I think it looks neat if the cassette is about the same size as the rotor.
The only plus to that scenario is that regardless of which side you look at it from, half the ugliness is hidden by the other.
Ha that’s pretty funny.

As disc brakes have gotten more popular I’ve started to like as well the clean look of a fork and seat cluster without a brake hanging off them.

Maybe it’s because I mountain bike as well, but I always liked the look of large cassettes and rotors together. A lot more than I like the look of a skinny tubed traditional steel road bike.

MiddMan
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:54 pm

by MiddMan

Well said @themidge. (And excellent math @2lo8)

I’ve never done the math myself, but I do feel it simply by listening to my body. Those gap roads I could do 15 years ago with 39x25 (standing in the 20%+ parts) I could not do today with the same ratios. (Though maybe in August after a summer of riding?)

Anyway, I love cycling, and I love that others love cycling. I want more and more people to get into it because it’s fun and healthy and more numbers equal safer roads. When I hit the other side of 40, I’m sure I’ll be happy to have a 29 tooth cog in the back or even lower if I’m in a place with steep mountains and hills.

But I do echo themidge’s sentiment here re: the industry. There’s also an element of psychology. When I was a kid I was a mountain biker, so I was used to spinning in low gears. The road bike ratios took some getting used to, but they also made me stronger and faster. Eventually I found myself able to maintain a high cadence on fairly consistent grades even in 21 or 23 and I would look down thinking I was in the easiest gear, but pleased to find that I had another 1 or 2 lower gears. Just knowing that gave me a little boost of energy and put a smile on my face.

All I’m saying is: I’m all for new toys and expanded possibilities, but I’m also a little old school and enjoy the psychology of muscle, mind and bike working together to conquer the hills.

themidge wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:49 pm
Fair enough, maths is the answer! :D
I can appreciate that people's cycling abilities vary greatly, although I haven't spent 10k on my bike. Obviously some people do need/want very easy gears, after all, we've all seen a MAMIL grinding up a hill, haven't we.
I think my grievance is with the current (and future) state of affairs in the industry, which seems to be pushing all this 1x, super low geared, decidedly un-race-like stuff, which many people (especially on this site) don't want or need.

JoO
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:30 am

by JoO

I am very interested in the cables. The most underestimated part of the shifting system.
Any news on those cables and housing?
Would they have a coating of be super polished?
Would the outers be more compressionless?

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6545
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I claim dibs on expressing high interest in the cables some pages ago. You’re so right, way underestimated in importance by those that haven’t actually built up the bike and tuned it. I also like that they are backwards compatible, so you can use them with pre 12sp systems.

Oh, I’m just stopped for lunch right now, out on a ride. But rolling in on the flats at my comfortable cadence range ~85-90 while cruising around ~20-22mph... I decided to pull over and check what cog I’m in. I kind of thought I knew but just wanted to verify... and drumroll.... yup... lucky 16. No road rider can be without. 15 was too high. 17 was too low. But 16 was jussst right. And that’s just by myself. Even more important in a group.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 4037
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

I have put another road bike on 1x11 and I like it alot. A third road bike will be converted next week but 1x10 this time (as the record 10 speed groupset being used lacks a record 10 speed FD) . All campag drive trains. 52T, 46T and 42T rings are being used. I just like it. It has a place on road bikes for some but you dont have to use it. For gravel and MTB use (gravel is old fashioned XC) 1x is very useful as in the mud that inner chain ring just gets clogged anyway so is useless. Also when riding off road it is alot easier to shift with one hand.

I still use doubles though on many bikes and not every bike will become 1x. I will stick with these three for now.

Having talked to Graeme in person he is old school not even liking disc brakes. Thats fine I dont agree with him but thats fine too. there is no right and wrong so long as you like turning pedals.


wingguy
Posts: 4193
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

themidge wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:49 pm
I think my grievance is with the current (and future) state of affairs in the industry, which seems to be pushing all this 1x, super low geared, decidedly un-race-like stuff, which many people (especially on this site) don't want or need.
Out of interest what road bikes are there being pushed by the industry with "super low geared" 1x setups?

Not gravel bikes, or crossovers with space for 35c tyres, but genuine road bikes?

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post