Future tech, could 12 spd solve the touring cassette problem

[pwa]

I use Rohloff on a tandem and it is great for that because changing is simple and predictable, and probably also for off-road oriented touring where its ability to function in dirt is useful. But normal external gears are still best when you are trying to keep a 700c wheeled touring bike and its baggage as (relatively) light as you can to get you over the Stelvio Pass. Rohloff is also still limited (as far as I know) to 32 spokes, which is fine on a 26" wheel, but a 26" wheel is not ideal on the reasonably well surfaced lanes I tour on.

On the subject of chain reliability, I never broke an 8sp chain but I have had snapped links on three 9sp chains and I have heard it is worse for 11sp. Just my experience, not scientific fact.

[andrewjoseph]

I used 8 spd chain on my mtb for the first two years, then went to 9 13 years ago. I used 9 spd chains on my road/tourer then went to 10 4 years ago.

I have never snapped any chain in use. a side plate cracked on the 9spd chain on my week old boardman several years ago, and I mangled a 9 spd chain whilst touring but it didn't snap.

my wife snapped a relatively new 8 spd chain while climbing on her mtb.

[Mick F]

Bike chains stopped being reliable when we went from 8sp to 9sp, and the higher that number gets the worse the problem. You really don't want paper thin chains and cassettes when you are in the back of beyond.

I don't find 9sp chains any less reliable than 8sp.and use 9sp chains on my 8sp bikes out of choice.

.......... and I don't find my 10sp chains (or sprockets) any less reliable than any other speed I've used 5sp onwards. Not tried 11sp yet.

[Tacascarow]

I use Rohloff on a tandem and it is great for that because changing is simple and predictable, and probably also for off-road oriented touring where its ability to function in dirt is useful. But normal external gears are still best when you are trying to keep a 700c wheeled touring bike and its baggage as (relatively) light as you can to get you over the Stelvio Pass. Rohloff is also still limited (as far as I know) to 32 spokes, which is fine on a 26" wheel, but a 26" wheel is not ideal on the reasonably well surfaced lanes I tour on.

On the subject of chain reliability, I never broke an 8sp chain but I have had snapped links on three 9sp chains and I have heard it is worse for 11sp. Just my experience, not scientific fact.

Yes but 32 spokes on an un-dished Rohloff are probably going to be a lot more resilient than 36 on a dished 9/10/11/12/13.

[Mick F]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

The thing is, how resilient do you want your rear wheel?
My 10sp Campag is resilient enough for me for the use I put it to.

Same as chains and transmission. Horses for courses.

[pwa]

Tacascarow

You're right to point out the lack of dishing on a Rohloff wheel. That does increase reliability.

[Tigerbiten]

Rohloff do make 36 hole hubs.
It's just that they are difficult to find in this country.

[pwa]

On the original point, I don't think the current difficulty in getting low enough gears for touring is due to a lack of sprockets. It is due to extra sprockets being used to fill gaps I never noticed I had, rather than extending the range. We need Shimano to extend the gear range, not fill gaps.

[beardy]

I thought they were already doing a pretty good job of that.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/shim ... -prod31059

[Mick F]

11-34 is enough for anyone on an upwrong.
How about a 50/39/28(or similar) triple with it?

[reohn2]

11-34 is enough for anyone on an upwrong.
How about a 50/39/28(or similar) triple with it?

That range would be too high for me.
The reason is because you and me ride such different cadences and because not all humans pedal at the same cadence cassettes that start at 13 or 14t would be a useful tool.
If such cassettes went to 34t or 36t and triple chainsets with 110/74 BCD spiders the range could be extended to cover almost all rider cadence differences,add to that a 105/68 BCD c/set(with and acceptable Q) and you've got all bases covered.
As only of average fitness I don't have any difficulty with two tooth progressions in the cruising /most used gears and three tooth in the climbing gears,outside of racing,I don't see a need for straight through cassettes.
The big three see the answer to be double chainsets and stuffing as many cogs on the back wheel as is humanly possible with ever narrower chains.
Which is IMHO an answer that's frankly a stupid one when an answer already exists in the form of a 3x9sp range,which is why I wrote such a long and protracted answer on page one.
Over 9sp is getting silly and doesn't fulfil any needs that's not already been fulfilled,but marketing needs to offer a carrot to the Rapha wearing donkey .

Edited for typos

[Brucey]

er, which touring cassette problem is that then...?

The one that many have spoken about on here plenty , where cassettes (shimano AND Campagnolo) do not always have the best of all worlds when it comes to everyday, audax & tourists use alike. the problem of not having cassettes with too big jumps between sprockets to achieve a certain gearing.
This is as useful for tourists as it is for those competing, or do you not understand about keeping a cadence or about the effects of having relatively big jumps between gear ratios?

well I don't need gears that are 10% apart for touring on, and I'd venture to suggest that no-one does, not for touring. In previous discussions on this point, we've seen logged cadence data from real cyclists who were trying to keep a constant cadence (just to prove a point) and even they couldn't manage it.

If you think that you need gears 10% apart, (say) then you are really claiming that you can't vary your cadence by more than +/- 5% and/or that there is some kind of huge advantage by restricting your cadence range within this narrow band.

Well I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble here, but both of these things are just nonsense, plain and simple.

So 'the touring cassette problem' is a non-problem, or an imaginary problem.

If you look at the many posts on this site about gearing, the most usual gripe is that the gears (for touring) are not low enough and a wider range is required. And invariably this isn't because this isn't possible with the available technology, just that the manufacturer hasn't fitted the right bits. In point of fact I don't remember hardly anyone saying that 'their gears were too far apart' with an 8s or 9s cassette in use.

BTW I'd sooner have an undished 32 spoke wheel than a heavily dished 36 spoke wheel, but Rohloff users don't have to choose, you can get 36 spoke Rohloffs.

In a similar vein my touring bikes are already equipped with fewer sprockets at the back than I could have which allows me to have a stronger rear wheel etc. This is a more intelligent choice for many tourists; it isn't a major strain to the grey matter (or the legs) to work out that you can manage a cadence variation of +/- 7 or 8% without any trouble.

cheers

[reohn2]

Brucey

[keyboardmonkey]

On my 80s touring bike (down tube shifters) I have a 9sp cassette with the smallest sprocket removed to make an 8-from-9 12-32 cassette combined with a square taper Deore LX chainset 44/32/22.

On my 'Audax' bike I have an 10sp 11-34 Deore XT cassette (with the 11T sprocket replaced with a 12T from a discarded 10sp Tiagra cassette) combined with a Shimano 105 5703 chainset 50/39/30. I understand that I can source a smaller inner chainring, but I haven't felt the need just yet.

I also have a road bike with Olde Worlde 6700 10sp Ultegra, but I really don't think I want to 'upgrade' to 11sp.

My touring bike has an early 90s Deore DX hub with a 7sp freehub body. The 8-from-9 idea is to maintain compatibility with the rest of the Deore/Deore LX 9sp mix that makes up the drive train with jumps not too wide between sprockets, and otherwise keep the cost down - and wheel strength up - by sticking with the early 90s wheel.

I do worry about the extra dishing associated with 11sp+. IMHO the problem - such as it is for touring bike gearing - is not at the cassette end, but in being able to use small enough chainrings - to avoid being overgeared - if you don't want to go down the down tube or bar end shifter route.

If I had a modern touring bike (one not made for 126mm OLN wheels) - with STIs that don't foul my bar bag - I reckon I could get by with a 10sp 12-36 cassette and, say, a replacement 26T inner chainring. That would give me a gear below 20" without overly worrying about the rear wheel collapsing beneath me. Or I could just carry on using my old tourer...

[beardy]

we've seen logged cadence data from real cyclists who were trying to keep a constant cadence (just to prove a point) and even they couldn't manage it.

Wasnt that because the steps in their gearing were too large?