Shimano 105 goes 11-speed

Dave Atkinson wrote:

having been using 11spd ultegra over the winter, i'm interested to know why an 11spd groupset is 'more hassle' - it's been no more hassle than a 10spd or a 9spd groupset, that I have on other bikes. no harder to set up, no harder to maintain.

As for 'expensive', 11spd Ultegra was cheaper than 10spd Ultegra. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true here. As of now, we don't know, so the point is kind of moot.

Pointless? If you like. I don't think innovation is pointless, because I see groupsets getting better and better for less and less money. I kind of like that. Your mileage may vary.

I don't really consider adding an extra cog to be "innovation". Would a 12-speed cassette be even better? Would a 15 or 20-speed cassette send you into raptures? 'More' is not always 'better'. In this case it just adds weight and fragility for no real gain, at least from my point of view.

Personally, having come back into cycling after a few decades out, I'm astonished to find that I now have to replace my chain every 1500 miles or so (and have been recommended to replace the cassette at the same time too!). That's on a supposedly rugged 'cyclo-cross' bike. Honestly, in the 70's, running a 5-speed cassette with a double chain-ring I would barely even inspect the chain before 5000 miles were up. Cassettes were good for 10K at least.

Having been delighted to buy an amazing "27-speed" bike a few years ago I'd now happily trade some of those gears for more robustness, less maintenance (and less weight too).

Joeinpoole wrote:

I don't really consider adding an extra cog to be "innovation". Would a 12-speed cassette be even better? Would a 15 or 20-speed cassette send you into raptures? 'More' is not always 'better'. In this case it just adds weight and fragility for no real gain, at least from my point of view.

Personally, having come back into cycling after a few decades out, I'm astonished to find that I now have to replace my chain every 1500 miles or so (and have been recommended to replace the cassette at the same time too!). That's on a supposedly rugged 'cyclo-cross' bike. Honestly, in the 70's, running a 5-speed cassette with a double chain-ring I would barely even inspect the chain before 5000 miles were up. Cassettes were good for 10K at least.

Having been delighted to buy an amazing "27-speed" bike a few years ago I'd now happily trade some of those gears for more robustness, less maintenance (and less weight too).

certainly i think there's a bit of the 'more is better' mentality about it, the same way there is with resolution in digital cameras. there's a limit to what's useful.

but to hark back to the 'golden' days of five speed cassettes? would you trade the precision and ease of use of a modern groupset for the longevity of a five-speed setup? because I sure wouldn't. you can still get five-speed stuff easily, and it's cheap as chips. I'm guessing you're not running it on any of your bikes though, even though you could. I've got a five speed, down-tube-shifter bike in the shed. It's fun to ride, and it looks nice. but every day? when i can use STIs? not on your life.

When i say innovation, i'm not really talking about the number of cogs. i've written at length about Ultegra at the launch (http://road.cc/content/news/82237-updated-prices-shimano-unveil-ultegra-...) and in the review (http://road.cc/content/review/114669-shimano-ultegra-6800-groupset) and i'll reiterate what i said there: the eleventh cog is pretty incidental in the great scheme of things but the improvements in shifting and braking are immediately noticeable and very welcome. and they're coming to 105 too, so that's a good thing in my book. plus now you can have hydraulic discs. happy days.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

but to hark back to the 'golden' days of five speed cassettes? would you trade the precision and ease of use of a modern groupset for the longevity of a five-speed setup? because I sure wouldn't. you can still get five-speed stuff easily, and it's cheap as chips.

When I started riding my bikes had 5 or 6 speed freewheels; I still remember the first time I had a bike with a cassette and freehub, thinking wow this is the future!

But I never saw a 5 speed cassette

Pedantry over - last time i bought a 6 speed road freewheel (to get a higher gear on a small wheeled bike) it certainly wasn't easy - it was a lucky ebay find, in fact. But wider spaced freewheels are indeed cheap as chips.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

When i say innovation, i'm not really talking about the number of cogs. i've written at length about Ultegra at the launch (http://road.cc/content/news/82237-updated-prices-shimano-unveil-ultegra-...) and in the review (http://road.cc/content/review/114669-shimano-ultegra-6800-groupset) and i'll reiterate what i said there: the eleventh cog is pretty incidental in the great scheme of things but the improvements in shifting and braking are immediately noticeable and very welcome. and they're coming to 105 too, so that's a good thing in my book. plus now you can have hydraulic discs. happy days.

Dave, I am pretty sure that most people with 10 speed drivetrains would be comfortable with all of this - as long as Shimano said that there would also be a 10 speed groupset with some of the same benefits.

Hopefully the recent introduction of Claris means Shimano is still looking to trickle some of the benefits down as far as the perfectly serviceable and inexpensive 8 and 9 speed drivetrains.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Dave Atkinson wrote:

having been using 11spd ultegra over the winter, i'm interested to know why an 11spd groupset is 'more hassle' - it's been no more hassle than a 10spd or a 9spd groupset, that I have on other bikes. no harder to set up, no harder to maintain.

As for 'expensive', 11spd Ultegra was cheaper than 10spd Ultegra. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true here. As of now, we don't know, so the point is kind of moot.

Pointless? If you like. I don't think innovation is pointless, because I see groupsets getting better and better for less and less money. I kind of like that. Your mileage may vary.

I don't really consider adding an extra cog to be "innovation". Would a 12-speed cassette be even better? Would a 15 or 20-speed cassette send you into raptures? 'More' is not always 'better'. In this case it just adds weight and fragility for no real gain, at least from my point of view.

Personally, having come back into cycling after a few decades out, I'm astonished to find that I now have to replace my chain every 1500 miles or so (and have been recommended to replace the cassette at the same time too!). That's on a supposedly rugged 'cyclo-cross' bike. Honestly, in the 70's, running a 5-speed cassette with a double chain-ring I would barely even inspect the chain before 5000 miles were up. Cassettes were good for 10K at least.

Having been delighted to buy an amazing "27-speed" bike a few years ago I'd now happily trade some of those gears for more robustness, less maintenance (and less weight too).

Well Shimano's engineers must have worked really hard to manage to add "more weight and fragility"; those Japanese really don't know what they're doing.

Why, when reading these comments, am I reminded of the "What have the Romans ever done for us" scene from The Life Of Brian?!!

Dave Atkinson wrote:

Triple chainset: we've had no indication that there will be one, in terms of range a compact and wide-range cassette is the same, i know some people prefer a triple for the closer ratios. We'll ask.

I now have a double compact with a wide ranging cassette and it can be difficult finding the right gear sometimes. It's generally easier to find the sweet spot using the small ring and the high gears on the cassette. But thats cross-chaining.

If I wanted a wide range of gears I would go for a triple with a narrow ranging cassette.

earth wrote:

Dave Atkinson wrote:

Triple chainset: we've had no indication that there will be one, in terms of range a compact and wide-range cassette is the same, i know some people prefer a triple for the closer ratios. We'll ask.

I now have a double compact with a wide ranging cassette and it can be difficult finding the right gear sometimes. It's generally easier to find the sweet spot using the small ring and the high gears on the cassette. But thats cross-chaining.

If I wanted a wide range of gears I would go for a triple with a narrow ranging cassette.

Yeah, i like triples (esp 52/42/30) with a 12-25 too. But Shimano - and everyone else - are obviously just pushing compacts now. Hence the 11 tooth cassettes. I can see the logic that the same overall gear range is covered, but the 34 ring is very (too) small for general riding. And it takes some effort pushing a 50 tooth up a rise.

I see Dave's comment above about pros leaving 42 tooth rings behind years ago, but it is a shame as that is a great size for general riding. Also, the old 52/42 had a manageable gap between chain rings. 16 teeth is a bit of a big change for my liking.

I can't help but feel that the chain ring and cassette combos still aren't right. 53/39 is only really suitable for flat runs or racing, 52/36 is a decent all rounder (with a big ish casette out back) but suffers from a 16 tooth gap at the front and a 52/11 is an enormous gear most mortals would barely ever use, 50/34 is a bit pants for rolling terrain as you basically have the choice of pushing the 50 or riding in what is effectively a granny ring.

Maybe the 46/36 cyclocross chainset is the most useful of them all?

I agree. I like triples because of the 39 ring, which is good for rolling terrain and when it's windy. I still need the bail out ring though as I can't do everything in the 39. 50 to 34 is a bit of a jump
I'm thinking maybe 50/36 with a 32 cassette, but then you lose out on nice closely spaced ratios of a 12-25...
However, triples seem to be going the way of the dodo, so I'm just going to have to get use to it.

Also 50/36 doesn't seem to be offered by Shimano, although of course you can buy a separate 36 ring and fit it to a compact, but it drives up the cost.

Chris James wrote:

Also 50/36 doesn't seem to be offered by Shimano, although of course you can buy a separate 36 ring and fit it to a compact, but it drives up the cost.

yeah, that does seem odd when it's a simple option to add

Chris James wrote:

Maybe the 46/36 cyclocross chainset is the most useful of them all?

Have come to a similar conclusion myself.

Like MrC I like my triple because I find the 39t middle ring ideal for steady riding.

For those asking: Sora dropped the thumbshifter when it went 9 speed (Tiagra with a new badge?)
http://road.cc/content/review/100555-shimano-sora-3500-groupset
and in 2013 Shimano announced the same has happened to 8 speed with the Claris groupset.
http://road.cc/content/news/77271-shimano-unveil-new-claris-groupset

Yes, most of us who used to use a road triple misses the sensible gearing. From my 80s era 6203 with its 30, 45, 50 gearing to 6500s 30, 42, 52 they were immensely useful to us non professional riders. I went to the compact set up as "everybody can't be wrong" in this choice of gearing; and have found myself really missing that 42, 44, or 45 tooth up front. And it is noteworthy-when single speed road riders have to pick ONE single ring up front, they inevitably pick a 44 or 46 tooth!

5700 bits should still be floating around for a fair old while, not least because new bikes with 5800 fitted won't really be out until late in the year. Ultegra 6800 has been out for almost a year, but there's still plenty of 6700 bits to be had. Indeed, it means that the prices have dropped.

About time Shimano. Funny how the mighty Shimano make you wait for top end refinements yet Campagnolo can introduce up dates across the whole range at once.

Perfect timing by Shimano so this up grade misses all the new 2014 bike. I bet also that 105 cassettes are not compatiable with current 10 speed cassette bodies so you have to fork out for new wheels.

No triple chainset proposed?

At launch, it was suggested Ultegra would have one later. But looks like that's not going to happen now. 52/36 and an 11–32 appears to be the solution.

Perhaps the non-series chainset will include a triple? It's a good idea anyway, for customers who want 11-speed but don't want the new groupset's appearance.

john.berry wrote:

Why?

The best geared bike I ever had was 7 speed, my 10 speed stuff has no great advantage, wears quicker, is more expensive to maintain and needs finer setting up, 11 speed I assume will just wear out even quicker for no real advantage, other than showing off!

I agree. I'd consider an 11-speed 105 to be a retrograde step for all the reasons you state. Pointless, expensive and more hassle.

Joeinpoole wrote:

john.berry wrote:

Why?

The best geared bike I ever had was 7 speed, my 10 speed stuff has no great advantage, wears quicker, is more expensive to maintain and needs finer setting up, 11 speed I assume will just wear out even quicker for no real advantage, other than showing off!

I agree. I'd consider an 11-speed 105 to be a retrograde step for all the reasons you state. Pointless, expensive and more hassle.

Lay off man, we wants to spend our moneys!