Shimano Octalink road BB future

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

This is probably old news to everyone here but me...

This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?

So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
in my own bike).

So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:29:07 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.

Maybe the Ultegra Bottom Bracket Machine wore out because that
item was so popular, and they don't want to replace it :-)

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> in my own bike).
>
> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
all.

Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.

[A Muzi]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> in my own bike).
>
> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.

Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Derk]

> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore.
You can still buy them online in Europe if you really need one. I stock 10
Ital 9s 109.5mm OCtalink Ultegra BB and 3 BSA ones, just in case....

Derk

[mike]

On Sep 12, 8:19 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> > This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> > replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> > war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> > Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> > Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> > distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> > on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> > So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> > manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> > will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> > they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> > and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> > The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> > between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> > something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> > figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> > in my own bike).
>
> > So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> > from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> > doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> > thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> > of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> > around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> all.
>
> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As someone who is going to select the components and frame for his
next bike, is it going to be smarter to choose campy components
instead???

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>> (only
>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>> instead
>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> all.

Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)

> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.

Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on some
of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
forks on 4-year-old bikes.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in
message news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>
>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>> the
>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>> Ultegra
>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>> goes
>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>
>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>> they
>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>> that
>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>> '105
>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>> above.
>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>> diff
>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>> to
>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>> them
>> in my own bike).
>>
>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>> (only
>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>> instead
>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> all.
>
> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 12, 8:13 am, mike <mwe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 8:19 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
>
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> > > This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom bracket
> > > replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through the
> > > war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an Ultegra
> > > Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> > > Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> > > distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light goes
> > > on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> > > So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> > > manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years they
> > > will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd, that
> > > they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the '105
> > > and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one above.
> > > The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price diff
> > > between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> > > something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet to
> > > figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used them
> > > in my own bike).
>
> > > So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> > > from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> > > doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality (only
> > > thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black instead
> > > of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> > > around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> > > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> > Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> > low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> > NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> > now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> > older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> > all.
>
> > Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> > to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> > XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> > 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As someone who is going to select the components and frame for his
> next bike, is it going to be smarter to choose campy components
> instead???

No necessarily altho I will always vote for Campagnolo due to
rebuildable and maintanable levers. Many more compacts, better levers,
true long cage RDers, 29t big cogs, better BB/crank design is why I
would choose Campagnolo.

[RS]

In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
mikej1@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>
>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>> (only
>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>> instead
>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>> all.
>
>Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
>Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
>but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
>do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
>brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
>around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
>dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>
>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
>Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
>they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
>option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
>the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
some
>of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
>mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
>of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
>assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
>mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
>almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
>forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote
in
>message
news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>>
>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
bracket
>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>>> the
>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>>> Ultegra
>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>>> goes
>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>>
>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>>> they
>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>>> that
>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>>> '105
>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>>> above.
>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>>> diff
>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>>> to
>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>>> them
>>> in my own bike).
>>>
>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>> (only
>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>> instead
>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>> all.
>>
>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>
With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
a 9-speed system.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>> (only thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is
>> black instead of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost
>> of a '105 is around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
consider joining that list; lots of good information there.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 12, 6:10 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> >> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >> (only thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is
> >> black instead of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost
> >> of a '105 is around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> > Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> >www.yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
> consider joining that list; lots of good information there.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Not to me but Andy but we used to belong and dern near every bit of
info related to the 'big shop sceanrio' that was
trekspecializedgiantcannondale..didn't really apply, at least to
Vecchio's..I'll let Andy speak for himself, but I wonder how
applkicable NBDA would be for him either.

[jim beam]

RS wrote:
> In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> mikej1@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>> (only
>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>> instead
>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>>
>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>> all.
>> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
>> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
>> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
>> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
>> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
>> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
>> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>>
>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
>> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
>> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
>> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
> some
>> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
>> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
>> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
>> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
>> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
>> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
>> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote
> in
>> message
> news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>>>
>>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
> bracket
>>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>>>> the
>>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>>>> Ultegra
>>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>>>> goes
>>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>>>
>>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>>>> they
>>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>>>> that
>>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>>>> '105
>>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>>>> above.
>>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>>>> diff
>>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>>>> to
>>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>>>> them
>>>> in my own bike).
>>>>
>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>> (only
>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>> instead
>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>>>
>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>>
> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> a 9-speed system.
>
>

compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.

from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

[Larry Dickman]

In article <XN2dnbnkc8bbOXXbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
RS <r_schiller@comcast.net> wrote:

> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard
> to figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't
> cut it, 50-11 is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end
> having the 28 is nice and works fine with modern short-cage
> derailleurs, I'm currently running such a setup w/ a DA7700 front and
> DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is a 9-speed system.

Because officially, Shimano says the max cog size for their road
derailleurs is 27 tooth.

[A Muzi]

>>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>> (only thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is
>>>> black instead of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost
>>>> of a '105 is around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.

>>I (am@yellowjersey.org) whined:
>>> Thanks. I just peed away a good chunk of Tuesday on that same question.

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>> I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
>> consider joining that list; lots of good information there.

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> Not to me but Andy but we used to belong and dern near every bit of
> info related to the 'big shop sceanrio' that was
> trekspecializedgiantcannondale..didn't really apply, at least to
> Vecchio's..I'll let Andy speak for himself, but I wonder how
> applkicable NBDA would be for him either.


I never saw the point either, despite a very close friend's exhortations
for years when he was on their Board.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I guess I ought to post this info on the NBDA dealer e-list. You ought to
>> consider joining that list; lots of good information there.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> Not to me but Andy but we used to belong and dern near every bit of
> info related to the 'big shop sceanrio' that was
> trekspecializedgiantcannondale..didn't really apply, at least to
> Vecchio's..I'll let Andy speak for himself, but I wonder how
> applkicable NBDA would be for him either.

Here are the latest subjects of discussion, in order-

VOIP phone systems
Time to consider a new point-of-sale system?
Backpacks on bikes (how kids can haul all their stuff to school on a bike)
Credit card processing at remote events
Extra long 1" 14ga nipples needed for rebuilding wood rims
Digging yourself into a hole (embarassing conversations with customers)
Hand held wireless inventory management
Giant's "Biking Solutions" program
Folding bike ride in Las Vegas
Need a shop to refer someone to in Tucson
Putting together a consortium to buy "green" shopping bags
One world/Two wheels advocacy
Need 700x28 long-valve SV tubes
Need 18 x 1.75 PV tubes
Revolutons start with small things (trying to move trade show out of Las
Vegas)
Bikes stolen from dealer
Why we don't sell light-colored cycling shorts to guys
Credit card fraud
Need huge road bike
Open or closed on labor day

So as you can see, there are a couple of threads that deal with the
mega-company issues, but the majority do not. Not to say it's terribly
exciting though; we never have discussions like the recent one here on
carbon fiber!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Ben C]

On 2007-09-13, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
[...]
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

What's wrong with 12 & 11?

[Adam Kadlubek]

jim beam napisa (a):

> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.

Questionable. I am using a compact 46-34 on a 14-28 rear. Thank you
very much.

Regards
--
Adam Kadlubek

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> RS wrote:
> > In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> > mik...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>> (only
> >>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>> instead
> >>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>> all.
> >> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
> >> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
> >> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
> >> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
> >> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
> >> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
> >> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>
> >>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
> >> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
> >> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
> >> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
> >> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
> > some
> >> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
> >> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
> >> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
> >> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
> >> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
> >> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
> >> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote
> > in
> >> message
> >news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> >>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
> > wrote:
> >>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> >>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
> > bracket
> >>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
> >>>> the
> >>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
> >>>> Ultegra
> >>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> >>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> >>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
> >>>> goes
> >>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> >>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> >>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
> >>>> they
> >>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
> >>>> that
> >>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
> >>>> '105
> >>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
> >>>> above.
> >>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
> >>>> diff
> >>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> >>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
> >>>> to
> >>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
> >>>> them
> >>>> in my own bike).
>
> >>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>> (only
> >>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>> instead
> >>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>> all.
>
> >>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> > a 9-speed system.
>
> compact makes no sense.

>From a practical standpoint, they don't make much sense. But, they
sell because the wannabes want lower gears without the "stigma" of a
triple, IMO.


> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.

And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.


> if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.

IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
>
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

[A Muzi]

-snip snip snip-
jim beam wrote:
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

??
Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
--
Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Sep 13, 6:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> RS wrote:

> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> > a 9-speed system.
>
> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.

Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.

> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
already a reasonably tall gear.

Ben

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:

> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.

[Adam Kadlubek]

Ben C napisa (a):

> What's wrong with 12 & 11?

A jump between 15 and 14 is about 7%. A jump between 12 and 11 is 9%.
When riding at 12T cog you are at high power levels - so you'd prefer
closer jump (7% or less) to next gear for better inertia management,
and 11 is 9% away, which might knock you out from your pace.

Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
first place.

Regards
--
Adam Kadlubek

[M-gineering]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-13, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> What's wrong with 12 & 11?

You get nasty vibrations as they are dozensided or worse ie not round.
Try the same gear with bigger rings and you'll find it will run a lot
smoother

Stick a 14-25 or something on your bike and unless you're a racer or
extremely fit you might be pleasantly surprised

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

[Derk]

Adam Kadlubek wrote:

> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> first place.
yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
group.

Derk

[jim beam]

Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> Ben C napisa (a):
>
>> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
>
> A jump between 15 and 14 is about 7%. A jump between 12 and 11 is 9%.
> When riding at 12T cog you are at high power levels - so you'd prefer
> closer jump (7% or less) to next gear for better inertia management,
> and 11 is 9% away, which might knock you out from your pace.
>
> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> first place.
>
> Regards
> --
> Adam Kadlubek
>
no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
it'll work, but it's fugly.

[RS]

In article <LDickman-5CE1C0.07401913092007@individual.net>,
LDickman@comcast.net says...
>
>
>In article <XN2dnbnkc8bbOXXbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> RS <r_schiller@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard
>> to figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't
>> cut it, 50-11 is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end
>> having the 28 is nice and works fine with modern short-cage
>> derailleurs, I'm currently running such a setup w/ a DA7700 front and
>> DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is a 9-speed system.
>
>Because officially, Shimano says the max cog size for their road
>derailleurs is 27 tooth.

I suppose Shimano is very conservative. So there is what is "official".
And there is what works. I suspect many people commonly use 28 with a
contemporary Shimano short cage with no problem.

[Michael Press]

In article
<1189695326.434125.40030@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> RS wrote:
>>> In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> mik...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>>>> (only
>>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>>>> all.
>>>> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
>>>> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
>>>> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
>>>> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
>>>> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
>>>> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
>>>> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>>
>>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>>> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
>>>> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
>>>> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
>>>> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
>>> some
>>>> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
>>>> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
>>>> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
>>>> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
>>>> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
>>>> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
>>>> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>>
>>
>>>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote
>>> in
>>>> message
>>>news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>>>>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>>
>>>>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
>>> bracket
>>>>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
>>>>>> Ultegra
>>>>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
>>>>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
>>>>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
>>>>>> goes
>>>>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>>
>>>>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
>>>>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
>>>>>> '105
>>>>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
>>>>>> above.
>>>>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
>>>>>> diff
>>>>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
>>>>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> in my own bike).
>>
>>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
>>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
>>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
>>>>>> (only
>>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
>>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>>
>>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
>>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
>>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
>>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
>>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
>>>>> all.
>>
>>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
>>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
>>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
>>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>>
>>> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>>> figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
>>> is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
>>> works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
>>> setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
>>> a 9-speed system.
>>
>> compact makes no sense.
>
>>From a practical standpoint, they don't make much sense. But, they
>sell because the wannabes want lower gears without the "stigma" of a
>triple, IMO.
>
>
>> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
>
>And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
>"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
>
>
>> if you're not fit enough, or are
>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
>IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
>close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".

That is the course I took, and am happy with the result.
13-23 nine speed gives a 13-19 straight block.

--
Michael Press

[JG]

No, the reason for a 50-34 compact is the 47% jump between rings.
With 10 cogs and cross-over gearing, you are losing a lot of gears due
to reduncancy. The 47% difference allows a bit less overlap.

JG

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Sep 13, 12:26 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1189695326.434125.40...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> RS wrote:
> >>> In article <BWTFi.49960$Um6.26...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>> mik...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>>>> (only
> >>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>>>> instead
> >>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>>>> all.
> >>>> Seems they want to keep the DuraAce option going for quite some time.
> >>>> Shimano doesn't always let you know what they're up to (rarely, in fact),
> >>>> but for the most part, when they said they'd do something, that's what they
> >>>> do. And they say they're going to keep making DuraAce Octalink bottom
> >>>> brackets available for many years. Of course, google will keep this post
> >>>> around until the end of time, so 6 or 7 years from now someone's going to
> >>>> dig this up and either say "I told you so" or "I told you so." :>)
>
> >>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
> >>>> Hard to believe they continue to be slow with the compact crank. You'd think
> >>>> they'd use the carbon option as a way of getting a high-priced compact
> >>>> option to market in a big way. Then again, you would think they'd look at
> >>>> the demand for the 11-28 SRAM 10-speed cassettes and want to get in on
> >>> some
> >>>> of that action! For the other stuff, I'm not quite so concerned about
> >>>> mountain bike replacement parts, because the way they're ridden, well, most
> >>>> of them don't live a very charmed life and replacement of the rest of the
> >>>> assembly happens more often than it does with road components. It will
> >>>> mostly be a pain for that person who doesn't ride much and comes in with an
> >>>> almost-new 10-year-old bike with a problem. As now happens for suspension
> >>>> forks on 4-year-old bikes.
>
> >>>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote
> >>> in
> >>>> message
> >>>news:1189599583.175111.203990@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> >>>>> On Sep 12, 12:29 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> This is probably old news to everyone here but me...
>
> >>>>>> This afternoon we were dealing with a repair that needed a bottom
> >>> bracket
> >>>>>> replacement. First-year 9-speed Octalink Ultegra that had been through
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> war (lots of miles, many of them wet). So we went searching for an
> >>>>>> Ultegra
> >>>>>> Octalink BB for it. None in our Redwood City store, none in Los Altos.
> >>>>>> Checked the usual distributors... none there, either. Including the
> >>>>>> distributor who normally has everything. At that point a little light
> >>>>>> goes
> >>>>>> on and I'm thinking, maybe Shimano isn't making them anymore?
>
> >>>>>> So I call up Shimano and, sure enough, find out that they're no longer
> >>>>>> manufacturing Ultegra Octalink BBs anymore. But for a good many years
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> will continue to manufacture and supply '105 and DuraAce versions. Odd,
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> they'd ditch the BB that came with the Ultegra bikes (which outsold the
> >>>>>> '105
> >>>>>> and DuraAce versions by quite a margin) in favor of one below & one
> >>>>>> above.
> >>>>>> The Shimano guy didn't quite get that either; there's very little price
> >>>>>> diff
> >>>>>> between a '105 and Ultegra, and rarely do customers want to install
> >>>>>> something of "lesser" quality than the original part (although I have yet
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> figure out any way in which the '105 BB is "lesser" and have even used
> >>>>>> them
> >>>>>> in my own bike).
>
> >>>>>> So the reason I'm writing this is that it will hopefully prevent someone
> >>>>>> from spending countless hours trying to run down something that simply
> >>>>>> doesn't exist. The '105 is a suitable alternative of similar quality
> >>>>>> (only
> >>>>>> thing I find different from the Ultegra is that the spindle is black
> >>>>>> instead
> >>>>>> of silver), and the DuraAce version is lighter weight. Cost of a '105 is
> >>>>>> around $50 with the DuraAce running about $80.
>
> >>>>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >>>>> Yep, what we found out recently as well as our stock of 6500 BBs got
> >>>>> low. I am convinced that DA will be the next to go..particularly with
> >>>>> NO Octalink 1 cranks now being made by shimano. The two road cranks
> >>>>> now using spline are the bigger spline, ES version, also found on
> >>>>> older XT/Deore cranks. Interesting run, this design..about 10 years is
> >>>>> all.
>
> >>>>> Second note, I wonder how much the carbon crank will be..and how long
> >>>>> to make a compact version? AND that BB design is different, like
> >>>>> XTR..Ya suppose XT is next, that BB design? Then on down and then
> >>>>> 7800/6600/105 BBs will get scarce..so it goes.
>
> >>> With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
> >>> figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut it, 50-11
> >>> is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is nice and
> >>> works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running such a
> >>> setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine though it is
> >>> a 9-speed system.
>
> >> compact makes no sense.
>
> >>From a practical standpoint, they don't make much sense. But, they
> >sell because the wannabes want lower gears without the "stigma" of a
> >triple, IMO.
>
> >> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> >> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
>
> >And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
> >"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
>
> >> if you're not fit enough, or are
> >> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> >IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
> >close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
>
> That is the course I took, and am happy with the result.
> 13-23 nine speed gives a 13-19 straight block.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Yes. I actually prefer a 13-2* and use such on my own bikes. I
mentioned 12-2* cassettes merely to keep those who think they want
longer gears from having a fit. :)

[Michael Press]

In article
<1189706024.115085.239600@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>
,
JG <jchg@cox.net> wrote:

> No,

What are you talking about?

> the reason for a 50-34 compact is the 47% jump between rings.
> With 10 cogs and cross-over gearing, you are losing a lot of gears due
> to reduncancy. The 47% difference allows a bit less overlap.

--
Michael Press

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:16:49 +0200, Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:

>Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>
>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>> first place.
>yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
>friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
>used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
>group.
>
>Derk

Dear Derk,

I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
low cadence.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Michael Press]

In article
<1189708178.762395.278250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>,
Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

> On Sep 13, 12:26 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1189695326.434125.40...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> > Ozark Bicycle
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >On Sep 13, 8:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:

[...]

> > >> any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> > >> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill.
> >
> > >And, a 39 (or even 38)/30 is usually possible if you put together a
> > >"custom" cassette from Miche, etc.
> >
> > >> if you're not fit enough, or are
> > >> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
> >
> > >IMO, an excellent case can be made for a, say, 50/40/26 triple with a
> > >close ratio 12-23 or 12/25 cassette, even for a "road bike".
> >
> > That is the course I took, and am happy with the result.
> > 13-23 nine speed gives a 13-19 straight block.
>
> Yes. I actually prefer a 13-2* and use such on my own bikes. I
> mentioned 12-2* cassettes merely to keep those who think they want
> longer gears from having a fit. :)

Can't throw a stone at every barking dog.

--
Michael Press

[RS]

In article <pl5je3lk0usmtr62pi17tlahj302futqe9@4ax.com>,
carlfogel@comcast.net says...
>
>
>On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:16:49 +0200, Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>
>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>> first place.
>>yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
>>friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
>>used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>>Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
>>group.
>>
>>Derk
>
>Dear Derk,
>
>I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
>about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
>low cadence.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Well said!

[Derk]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
> about 20 mph.
Pfewww...I use a 42/18 or 42/19 when doing 20 mph.

> Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
> low cadence.
As long as the knees don't object....

I noticed that friends of mine who make many RPM change their BB far less
soften than I do. One of them did 150.000 km with a bike and still has the
same original BB.

Derk

[A Muzi]

>> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>> first place.

> Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>> yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new cassette for a
>> friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he ever
>> used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>> Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding in a
>> group.

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
> about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
> low cadence.

Fine if that's what you like. Riders are each expert on their own taste.

For every 100" top gear guy (me) there's a happy 130" (Carl) rider.
Today we changed a Campagnolo Gunnar to 30-45-56 with a 12~25 (yep, 33"
to 126") and also un-ten-speeded a bike to a single 66" gear. It's all
good but I'm peeved by assertions like "nobody needs a _____" .
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Sep 13, 5:46 pm, Derk <nob...@invalid.org> wrote:
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
> > about 20 mph.
>
> Pfewww...Iuse a 42/18 or 42/19 when doing 20 mph.
>
> > Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
> > low cadence.
>
> As long as the knees don't object....

Note the term "mindlessly happy". It explains alot.

>
> I noticed that friends of mine who make many RPM change their BB far less
> soften than I do. One of them did 150.000 km with a bike and still has the
> same original BB.
>
> Derk

[Michael Press]

In article <13ejjae40qik004@corp.supernews.com>,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> -snip snip snip-
> jim beam wrote:
> > compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
> > can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
> > touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
> >
> > from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> > ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> ??
> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
> --
> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978

What is between 13 and 25?

--
Michael Press

[Peter Cole]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
>>>> Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
>>>> just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
>>>> first place.
>
>> Derk <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>>> yeah right.....by chance I was asked yesterday to order a new
>>> cassette for a
>>> friend. He insisted on ordering an 11-2* cassette. I asked him if he
>>> ever
>>> used it and he told me he uses the 11 in every sprint here in (flat)
>>> Holland. he also uses it when he has the wind in the back when riding
>>> in a
>>> group.
>
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> I'm no racer, but I use my 53x11 for most of my daily 15 mile ride at
>> about 20 mph. Some of us are mindlessly happy just plodding along at a
>> low cadence.
>
> Fine if that's what you like. Riders are each expert on their own taste.
>
> For every 100" top gear guy (me) there's a happy 130" (Carl) rider.
> Today we changed a Campagnolo Gunnar to 30-45-56 with a 12~25 (yep, 33"
> to 126") and also un-ten-speeded a bike to a single 66" gear. It's all
> good but I'm peeved by assertions like "nobody needs a _____" .

Me, too. Gear preference is really a matter of cadence preference. Maybe
it's just my size, but a 20% lower cadence on the flats works for me.
Some people seem to be really sensitive to big jumps, I'm not, I often
shift 2 at a time. I like wide range cassettes (11-28 typically on road,
11-32 MTB), the jumps don't bother me as much as double shifts.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut
>> > it, 50-11
>> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is
>> > nice and
>> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running
>> > such a
>> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine
>> > though it is
>> > a 9-speed system.
>>
>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>
> Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
> You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
> hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
> or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
> Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.
>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
> does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
> already a reasonably tall gear.
>
> Ben

Ben: I live on the SF Peninsula, but I'm not the person making any of the
comments above. I started this thread on an entirely different subject, and
it morphed into a treatise on gear mashers vs crunchers somehow. I think Jim
Beam might have made the remarks you find curious, and maybe he does live in
the SF Bay Area, I don't know.

For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.

And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <13ejjae40qik004@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> -snip snip snip-
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>> ??
>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
>
> What is between 13 and 25?
>
shimano.com? campagnolo.com? rhetoricalquestion.com?
cantbebotheretolook.com? wanttopickafight.com?

[A Muzi]

>> -snip snip snip-
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> ??
>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978

Michael Press wrote:
> What is between 13 and 25?

some cogs, but not an 11!
Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
on rider's taste.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> >
> > Ben C napisa (a):
> >
> >> What's wrong with 12 & 11?
> >>
> > Simply put - a jump between 12 and 11 is so huge, that 11 is usable
> > just for spinning downhill, which makes me not bother with it in the
> > first place.
>
> no, that's not it. there are mechanical meshing issues with # < 13.
> it'll work, but it's fugly.

Yes, there is an efficiency and wear penalty for 11t and 12t
sprockets. There is for 13t sprockets too, for that matter; it just
seems like a good place to draw the line for diminishing returns.

I use 11-34 freewheels and cassettes for almost all my derailleur
bikes now. The range they offer makes it easy for me to settle for a
single ring, which in turn makes it easy to use a strong and cost-
effective 3-piece BMX crank. I can keep low gears for hill climbing
and load carrying without unduly truncating top speed. But I've
switched to 11-34 even on my bikes with front changers. The benefits
there are a smaller big ring (e.g. 49t) and deeper overlap between
ranges. For the relative infrequency and modest power levels with
which I use the small sprocket, I'm not too concerned about excessive
losses and wear.

Note that BMX/freestyle bikes are increasingly equipped with 9 tooth
rear drivers on their single-speed cassette hubs. 25/9 is the typical
gear combination. I recently saw an 8 tooth driver for the first
time. You can get a 9 tooth driver made from 7075 aluminum! I
imagine that this fad will pass before too long, but in the meantime,
manufacturers are going to make a bundle on replacement drivers (which
are specific to the hub and cost a lot more than freewheels).

Chalo

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:58:08 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>>> -snip snip snip-
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>
>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> ??
>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978
>
>Michael Press wrote:
>> What is between 13 and 25?
>
>some cogs, but not an 11!
>Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>on rider's taste.

Dear Andrew,

Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.

A slant parallelogram rear derailleur wouldn't like to see a group of gears
like that. It makes an assumption that each adjacent gear inward is bigger
than the one preceding it.

That doesn't mean that I've never built up a set like that just for fun.
I'll bet many of us have.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[M-gineering]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

[this message is not suitable for those aged under 18]

everybody gone ?

Junior racers might try to cheat with ..15-14-13-14 , hoping the
commissonair doesn't spot the smaller illegal cog next to last ;)
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

[A Muzi]

>>>> -snip snip snip-
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.

>>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> ??
>>>> Would you want to rephrase that maybe?
>>>> Andrew Muzi, 36/48 with 13~25 since 1978

>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> What is between 13 and 25?

> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> some cogs, but not an 11!
>> Compacts are perfectly sensible without cogs smaller than 13 depending
>> on rider's taste.

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.

When Suntour began shipping cog boards and freewheel bodies, every shop
had a 17-17-17-17-17-17 on display. Often next to the drilled-out TA
water bottle.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Doug Taylor]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>> > With 50/34 compact cranks the 11-28 makes so much sense. It is hard to
>>> > figure why Shimano would not go this route. 50-12 really doesn't cut
>>> > it, 50-11
>>> > is higher then 53-12 and works fine. On the low end having the 28 is
>>> > nice and
>>> > works fine with modern short-cage derailleurs, I'm currently running
>>> > such a
>>> > setup w/ a DA7700 front and DA7800 short-cage RD . . . works fine
>>> > though it is
>>> > a 9-speed system.
>>>
>>> compact makes no sense. any reasonably fit rider on a reasonable bike
>>> can push 39-27 up virtually any hill. if you're not fit enough, or are
>>> touring or mountaineering, you should be using a triple.
>>
>> Who made you the arbiter of everyone's gearing?
>> You live on the SF peninsula, right? There are plenty of
>> hills that are challenging in a 39/27 for anyone but Jobst
>> or a Cat 1/2 rider. In Santa Cruz County, Jamison Creek
>> Road and Alba Road come to mind. Try them sometime.
>>
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>>
>> I don't own a compact (except on my cross bike), or an 11, but how
>> does using a compact crank force you to use an 11? 50/12 is
>> already a reasonably tall gear.
>>
>> Ben
>
>Ben: I live on the SF Peninsula, but I'm not the person making any of the
>comments above. I started this thread on an entirely different subject, and
>it morphed into a treatise on gear mashers vs crunchers somehow. I think Jim
>Beam might have made the remarks you find curious, and maybe he does live in
>the SF Bay Area, I don't know.
>
>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.
>
>And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
>haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
>Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).

First, I think that the fact that a former Cat 2 racer, now
"middle-aged", uses and loves 50/34 compact rings is very instructive.
If pros, who TT at over 30 mph and climb the Alps and Pyrenees at,
what 15 or 20?, use 53/39, why would amateurs who, if they are really
strong, might hold 25 mph over a 10 mile TT and get up the same
mountain at 11 mph, need or even want the same gearing?

It would behoove the amateur to gear down to get the rpm's up, because
neither their strength or fitness approaches remotely that of a pro.

Second, the gear ratio of an 11 tooth cog with a 50 tooth ring is
roughly equivalent to 53:12, which is probably the most common high
gear used on the road (at least where I live, where the shops stock
bikes with 53/39 rings and 12-25 cassettes).

If 53:12 is more than you need, then you certainly don't need an 11
if you switch to compact.

Why the 11 is prevalent among compact users is that they ride with
friends who have still have the 53:12 as a high gear. So there are
instances when the compact geared rider is trying to keep pace with
the standard geared riders (downhill), and finds that 50:12 is too
fast and tiring to spin.

Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.

[Paul Kopit]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:07 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>For what it's worth, I ride a 50/34 with a 12-27 rear. I *love* that setup.
>Gives me gears for everything I need, including Sonora Pass. Sonora Pass was
>actually the driving force to my move to compact. It was either that or a
>triple, as I just don't have the raw horsepower I used to. The compact
>allowed use of everything I already have, with the exception of needing a
>new crank. A few years down the road, don't be surprised if you see me with
>a triple. But for now, I can handle what comes my way with my current setup.

That's what I run as well. I am an Ergo 10 person. My hubs are
ShimaNO. I use 12/27 x 9sp and a current 10sp rear derailleur and it
shifts aOK. That's my all around bike, a Soma Smoothine with small
rack and 700x28 tires. On another bike, Colnago Ti/CF, I run 12/27 x
10sp but I shift it with an 8sp Record rear derailleur. And the 3rd
bike, Cannondale CAAD 9, Campy all around with a made up 12/29. Made
up with 1st 4 cogs from 12/29 and 17-19, 21-3/26-29. It's actually
better than the Shimano 12/27s. On worn cassettes, the 12/13/14/15
are usually ok. The 17,19,21 are usually the cogs that wear first.
An IRD 12/28 works ok for Campy too.

If you are already running a Campy Middle cage rear derailleur, you
can also run 12/32. You can do it with a standard cage by changing
out the 10 sp derailleur pulley with an 8sp pulley, which has a
smaller diameter. Most often, but not always, you need to add a link,
1" of chain.

PS: I have a 48/36/26 Sugino Crank on the bench ready to go for the
Soma and I'd consider running 11/25. Why shouldn't I have any gear I
want for anyplace I go?

[Scott G.]

> And even though I'm more of a grinder than a spinner, and love to sprint, I
> haven't found a need for an 11 back there. The 12 works just fine, for me.
> Besides, it's a taller gear than I used to race with (52x13).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicyclesc

Eddy used a 52/13, Rando types used 46-28 with a 13-26 in back.
The English all raced Sturmey FMs, 4 speed medium ratio.
Either everybody was a lot slower in the old days or people have
gotten a lot stronger, must be the drugs. ;-)

11 & 12 are less efficient than a 13 cog, according to Frank Bertos
tests.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:57:56 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>
>A slant parallelogram rear derailleur wouldn't like to see a group of gears
>like that. It makes an assumption that each adjacent gear inward is bigger
>than the one preceding it.
>
>That doesn't mean that I've never built up a set like that just for fun.
>I'll bet many of us have.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Dear Mike,

So the first step (well, all the steps) is to use a Cyclo Standard
derailleur:

http://i12.tinypic.com/4umulhl.jpg

http://members.aol.com/SatoruMas/brands/cyclo.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:02:48 +0200, M-gineering
<ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Now you've got me wondering if any bicycles have ever used a rear
>> cluster with gears in a random or non-standard size order--say a
>> 15-12-14-17-21. I can't think of any reason for such a strange
>> cluster, but countless inventors have come up with weirder stuff.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>[this message is not suitable for those aged under 18]
>
>everybody gone ?
>
>Junior racers might try to cheat with ..15-14-13-14 , hoping the
>commissonair doesn't spot the smaller illegal cog next to last ;)

Dear Marten,

I love your idea about turning a 10-speed into a more useful 9-speed.

There's a future for you as a NASCAR mechanic!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Michael Press]

In article
<7luke310t97ck0suklcsehm4s3snmtp98h@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> Tell you what, though. In my prime I was a few light years below Cat
> 2, and have to ponder whether my choice of an 11 is too much gear in
> light of Mike's experience. One drawback with the 11-28 cassette,
> even a 10 speed, is the number of 2 tooth jumps in the block and the
> absence of a 16. Opting for a 12-27 could solve that problem.

That's a slippery slope.
Soon you will be running a 13-23.

--
Michael Press

Also running a 46-50 and 14-32 seven speed.

[Paul Kopit]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:17 -0400, Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

>Why the 11 is prevalent among compact users is that they ride with
>friends who have still have the 53:12 as a high gear. So there are
>instances when the compact geared rider is trying to keep pace with
>the standard geared riders (downhill), and finds that 50:12 is too
>fast and tiring to spin.

I've had little trouble with a compact and a 12 w/o an 11. I've
rarely lost contact with some fast pacelines. I do have to spin it up
but not much. The times I've missed an 11 is when drafting a tandem
on a downgrade and they are spinning and not coasting. Downgrade, by
myself, I'm scared to spin up the 50/11 anyway.

A good friend and a former 10 year, European pro, claims that going up
the hill quickly is the glory and coming down fast is crazy. You
only need to go down fast when keeping up with a pack of riders so
that you are in contact when they get to the flat or uphill grade.
The thrills of descending quickly are overcome by touching down on the
pavement of going off road a couple of times.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes

I can trump that logic.

I'm a Spinal Tap fan. And yet mine only goes to 12! :>)

More seriously, I have great fear that, if I had an 11, I'd actually use it.
I think it would kill me when sprinting, because I just wouldn't have the
power to attack, recover, and attack again. With a 12 I can handle a fast
downhill charge, sit behind someone's wheel, move around them, hold the
speed, and be able to make a second charge if they pull up alongside. Sure,
if I had an 11, I wouldn't have to use it... but knowing me, I probably
would!

Funny thing is, I climb in relatively-high gears, and do a ton of standing
compared to most.

What works for me, works for me. I can't pretend it's what everybody else
should be doing. Besides, cycling isn't all about technique and one right
way to do something. That's one of the things that makes it so great. You
can be riding in a big group and yet you're still an individual, with your
own style (providing that style isn't wobbling around too much, or, worse
yet, being the guy who, on a climb, stands up and instantly drops 1 or 2
mph, putting your front wheel into his rear).

On the other hand, as a retailer of bicycles, you have no idea, or maybe you
do, how many people come into the store complaining that their hybrid's
gearing of 48x11 isn't big enough, and that they could go faster (on flat
land) if they just had a higher gear. That's a 118" high gear!!! And they're
claiming they could ride 30 mph on the flats if only their gear was higher.
Seriously, we get this more often than you would think. As soon as they see
that the large chainring is smaller than a 53 they demand something larger.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.

like that's a logical connection?

and i see little to support this "engineer" claim. after all, you also
confuse plasticity with elasticity - that's a pretty fundamental error
for a real engineer to make. unless you were deliberately bull****ting
of course...

[Larry Dickman]

In article <xvydnfTUD4pTEHfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
>
> > from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
> > ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>
> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes.

Ever hear of chordal action? That's one good reason not to use 11 tooth
sprockets.

[JG]

But! it's an 11.

JG - obligatory Spinal Tap joke.

[Peter Cole]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> from an engineers viewpoint, any cog less than 13 is ugly. compacts
>>> ensure you use 12 & 11 regularly - cringe.
>> I'm an engineer. I have 11's on all my bikes
>
> I can trump that logic.
>
> I'm a Spinal Tap fan. And yet mine only goes to 12! :>)
>
> More seriously, I have great fear that, if I had an 11, I'd actually use it.
> I think it would kill me when sprinting, because I just wouldn't have the
> power to attack, recover, and attack again. With a 12 I can handle a fast
> downhill charge, sit behind someone's wheel, move around them, hold the
> speed, and be able to make a second charge if they pull up alongside. Sure,
> if I had an 11, I wouldn't have to use it... but knowing me, I probably
> would!
>
> Funny thing is, I climb in relatively-high gears, and do a ton of standing
> compared to most.
>
> What works for me, works for me. I can't pretend it's what everybody else
> should be doing. Besides, cycling isn't all about technique and one right
> way to do something. That's one of the things that makes it so great. You
> can be riding in a big group and yet you're still an individual, with your
> own style (providing that style isn't wobbling around too much, or, worse
> yet, being the guy who, on a climb, stands up and instantly drops 1 or 2
> mph, putting your front wheel into his rear).
>
> On the other hand, as a retailer of bicycles, you have no idea, or maybe you
> do, how many people come into the store complaining that their hybrid's
> gearing of 48x11 isn't big enough, and that they could go faster (on flat
> land) if they just had a higher gear. That's a 118" high gear!!! And they're
> claiming they could ride 30 mph on the flats if only their gear was higher.
> Seriously, we get this more often than you would think. As soon as they see
> that the large chainring is smaller than a 53 they demand something larger.

I use the 11 on my MTB because I often need to ride the road to the
woods or between park sections.

On my road bikes I have a 53 on one and a 55 on the other. I use the 11
on time trials for slight descents or tailwinds on the flats. My fastest
cadence is probably a lot