Ultegra 6800 Triple?

AlanW

Does anyone know if Shimano have any plans to roll out a 11 speed 6800 triple? Mind you, in asking the question and thinking about it in more detail, the chain alignment must be a real issue?

kayakerchris

I would guess never. I think they would never see a big enough market. However i don't see why you can't match an existing shimano front triple to an 11speed rear derailleur.

The two derailleurs do not need to know anything about each other. You may find that you can't use top and bottom in the middle chain ring but why would you.

Grill

They won't. Mind you, now that they have the option for a 32 cassette it's quite unnecessary.

AlanW

Grill wrote:

They won't. Mind you, now that they have the option for a 32 cassette it's quite unnecessary.

I agree, but not everyone likes great steps in the cassette.

ElectronShepherd

Grill wrote:

now that they have the option for a 32 cassette it's quite unnecessary.

That probably depends on where you cycle and your fitness level.

Having a triple gives you the best of both worlds compared to a double - you can have a close-spaced cassette on the rear for good cadence control, and a wide range of overall gearing for high-speed runs and low-speed steep hills.

marcusjb

As a big lover of triples, I am sad to say that I really can't see them producing a triple crankset, shifter and front mech for this groupset. It's getting niche (touring, audax, tandems etc.), but it's a little cart and horse - they are becoming niche because the manufacturers are pushing wide-range cassettes and compacts.

It is a shame as a triple allows a huge range of gearing with small steps. Even with 11 speed, you're never quite going to manage the range and easy steps with a compact setup.

But the likes of Shimano want to reduce the number of parts they have to tool up for, and making a triple for each groupset is just not going to be in their interest (and screw what is in the interests of the users!).

DiscoBoy

There's nothing* stopping you using a 6700 left hand shifter, chainset and front mech with an otherwise 6800 drivetrain.

*bar aesthetics and marginal differences in the hood shape

AlanW

I have two bikes fitted with compacts 50/34 and a 12/25 10sp cassette, and I love riding them. By the same token, I also have a bike fitted with a triple 30/39/50 with the same 12/25 cassette.

So if its not going to be produced, then I am toying with the idea of getting rid of the triple and fitting a 11sp compact instead, 50/34 and a 12/28 cassette. This combination would give me near the same bottom end as my triple. BUT, when I do riding with panniers I could replace the 30T inner with a 28T and replace the 12/25 cassette for a 12/28.

Proper low gears, while still maintaining a relativity close ratio cassette. I wouldn't be able to do that with a 11sp compact without having huge jumps on the cassette and that's my dilemma.

Bordersroadie

The macho-men triple-haters make me laugh when they scoff about a 30t granny ring when they more often than not ride around with a granny with just 4 teeth more and a cassette the size of a dinner plate.

All such people (and the huge Compact Chainset Marketing Machine) seem to miss the point of triples - it's not about low gears for weak legs, it's about enjoying the close-spaced ratios both front and rear, far better cadence control, far less front changing and usually better chainlines.

Compacts are, for me, the ultimate Emporer's New Clothes. Huge leaps of gearing up front and for many of us the gears we most want to use (on a compact set-up) are small-small or big-big so you spend half the time either crosschaining or changing up and down at the front with corresponding changes out back. Bugger that.

You can't change the rules of the herd, though.....baaaa!

Grill

I certainly don't have that experience with compacts, even on long and hilly rides. Even with 10 speed I only spend time in the 28 when I'm on something really steep and I opted for the 32 on my 6800 setup as a precaution for when I already have a few hundred miles in my legs.
With 11 speed you can get super close ratios (6800 12-25 cassette) and 5800 will bring even more options. And let's not even mention the front shifting, because that's an argument no triple can win.
I'm not saying they don't have their place, but they're fast becoming obsolete from a road perspective (touring is a different matter).

Moonbiker

Compacts are, for me, the ultimate Emporer's New Clothes. Huge leaps of gearing up front and for many of us the gears we most want to use (on a compact set-up) are small-small or big-big so you spend half the time either crosschaining or changing up and down at the front with corresponding changes out back. Bugger that.

This is why i'll stick with a standard.

AlanW

Grill wrote:

I'm not saying they don't have their place, but they're fast becoming obsolete from a road perspective (touring is a different matter).

I think that most of us would agree with that. But for long distance riding and touring then there is certainly a place for them, but Shimano must think otherwise. (assuming that production will cease of course?)

I had standard chainsets on two of my bikes, 39/52 and for years pondered about how I would get on with a compact. The more I read the more opinion seemed to be divided, some loved them, some hated them. So when Merlin had one of their sales on (18 moths ago), I purchased my first compact if nothing else just to satisfy my curiosity. Its fair to say that I instantly fell in love with it, to the point that I then purchased a second one to add to my other bike. If nothing else, but the life of my chains have near enough doubled as the chain alignment is so much better with the compact. I have also found that I spend 95% of my time on the 50T ring, that's with a 12/25 cassette.

Now for the but, if I do a really long hilly event, (100+ miles) then while I have done events on my bikes fitted with compacts, I much prefer to ride it on the triple as IMHO its a much better combination. With tired and heavy legs, with the triple you will also find a ratio that suits you, unlike a compact, it is what it is.

chris_bass

Bordersroadie wrote:

The macho-men triple-haters make me laugh when they scoff about a 30t granny ring when they more often than not ride around with a granny with just 4 teeth more and a cassette the size of a dinner plate.

All such people (and the huge Compact Chainset Marketing Machine) seem to miss the point of triples - it's not about low gears for weak legs, it's about enjoying the close-spaced ratios both front and rear, far better cadence control, far less front changing and usually better chainlines.

Compacts are, for me, the ultimate Emporer's New Clothes. Huge leaps of gearing up front and for many of us the gears we most want to use (on a compact set-up) are small-small or big-big so you spend half the time either crosschaining or changing up and down at the front with corresponding changes out back. Bugger that.

You can't change the rules of the herd, though.....baaaa!

I never find myself using big big or small small combinations switching the front is easy enough, just do both shifts at the same time, i've never really found it an issue.

rafletcher

I guess it's down to fitness - strong riders cope better with a compact as they don't need to change to easier gears that often. Weaker riders (like me at the moment) need the range available for the hills. So I've currently got a 34/50 compact and 12-28 cassette. I also have 36, 39 and 52 tooth rings for when I get stronger - and I'll have another cassette by then too with smaller range :-)

My "all purpose" bike has a 30/39/50 triple and I tend to spend most time in the 39 at the moment.

AlanW

rafletcher wrote:

I guess it's down to fitness - strong riders cope better with a compact as they don't need to change to easier gears that often. Weaker riders (like me at the moment) need the range available for the hills.

Sorry, but I would have to disagree with the fact that it is down to fitness and this IMHO is the misconceptions surrounding triples.

I ride an average of 13k miles per year and I certainly would not consider myself to be a weak rider. The triple is more about maintaining that smooth and progressive cadence in order to conserve energy. For example, I rode a 200km Audax last weekend, and watching people on the climbs with compacts trying to find a suitable gear to match, 1) the incline, 2) the speed and 3) what energy they had left was rather amusing to be honest. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, but has already been said, its the ultimate Emporer's New Clothes.

Grill

AlanW wrote:

rafletcher wrote:

I guess it's down to fitness - strong riders cope better with a compact as they don't need to change to easier gears that often. Weaker riders (like me at the moment) need the range available for the hills.

Sorry, but I would have to disagree with the fact that it is down to fitness and this IMHO is the misconceptions surrounding triples.

I ride an average of 13k miles per year and I certainly would not consider myself to be a weak rider. The triple is more about maintaining that smooth and progressive cadence in order to conserve energy. For example, I rode a 200km Audax last weekend, and watching people on the climbs with compacts trying to find a suitable gear to match, 1) the incline, 2) the speed and 3) what energy they had left was rather amusing to be honest. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, but has already been said, its the ultimate Emporer's New Clothes.

All of my Audaxes (including 300, 400 and 600k) have been done on a compact and 11-28 with no trouble. I have an 11-32 for the 6800 on my Ritchey which I'll be using for the Transcontinental, but I won't be surprised if I only hit the 32 twice. I see more doubles on audaxes these days and expect that trend to continue.

marcusjb

Grill wrote:

I see more doubles on audaxes these days and expect that trend to continue.

Indeed - because no fecker can buy them any more since Shimano have stopped making triples in their latest groupsets!

Compacts/doubles are different to triples no matter which way you look at it. However, the availability of quality road triples will become slowly less (and more expensive/specialist). That's nothing to do with which is better or worse.

It's cheaper for Shimano to not tool up for a triple crankset for each of the latest groupsets and spend a bit of the money saved on marketting to convince everyone that compacts and wide-range cassettes are just as good as a triple.

sbbefc

AlanW wrote:

rafletcher wrote:

I guess it's down to fitness - strong riders cope better with a compact as they don't need to change to easier gears that often. Weaker riders (like me at the moment) need the range available for the hills.

Sorry, but I would have to disagree with the fact that it is down to fitness and this IMHO is the misconceptions surrounding triples.

I ride an average of 13k miles per year and I certainly would not consider myself to be a weak rider. The triple is more about maintaining that smooth and progressive cadence in order to conserve energy. For example, I rode a 200km Audax last weekend, and watching people on the climbs with compacts trying to find a suitable gear to match, 1) the incline, 2) the speed and 3) what energy they had left was rather amusing to be honest. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, but has already been said, its the ultimate Emporer's New Clothes.

This. I got shot down the other day for having a triple, yet on a 2.5km climb at 11.5% (some sections 20%+) my record is 2 minutes faster than that person despite using the "granny gear". I'm guessing this is because I can still keep up a reasonable cadence.

My bike is used all year round for sprotive's and touring. I also like the 52 big ring which I wouldn't get with a compact.

Grill

marcusjb wrote:

Grill wrote:

I see more doubles on audaxes these days and expect that trend to continue.

Indeed - because no fecker can buy them any more since Shimano have stopped making triples in their latest groupsets!

Compacts/doubles are different to triples no matter which way you look at it. However, the availability of quality road triples will become slowly less (and more expensive/specialist). That's nothing to do with which is better or worse.

It's cheaper for Shimano to not tool up for a triple crankset for each of the latest groupsets and spend a bit of the money saved on marketting to convince everyone that compacts and wide-range cassettes are just as good as a triple.

I expect to see DA7800 triples skyrocket in the within the next year. :P

de_sisti

sbbefc wrote:

AlanW wrote:

rafletcher wrote:

I got shot down the other day for having a triple, ...

Next time, tell the individual to f%%% %%f!

Father Faff

I currently have a 9-soeed triple and certainly use it on the 20% or more hills round here in the Dales - I've no idea what the gear ratios are but I can go slow uphill when I need to or pretty quick on the flat with the big ring. My new bike on order has a 50/34 compact and I have run scared and am getting an 11-32T cassette put on it because I am not good on very steep stuff but really don't want the ignomony of pushing up a climb at the end of a long sportive. Whether or not I'll get on with the gearing on the wide-spaced cassette I'm not sure but as I have never attempted to keep a constant cadence in the past I wouldn't think it will bother me.

964cup

I'm running 6870 with a compact up front and an 11-32 at the back. I can't really imagine needing anything shorter than that (34/32 is a slightly shorter gear than 30/28), and if I did, I suppose I could use an MTB cassette with a 34T cog. If it's about cadence, I also don't really get it. I prefer to spin, and run a 90 average, but I can't say it much bothers me, or that I notice, if I'm turning at 85 or 95 instead. In the inner ring, that 10rpm difference covers the 18, 19 and 20T options at 20kph. The 11-32 lacks the 19T cog, so I can choose 84 or 93rpm, but not 89.

Triples made obvious sense when the cassette had 6 or 7 ratios, as the gaps in a 7-speed compact would be much more significant; a cassette with a 28 or 32T largest ring would be very compromised, with 4 or 5T gaps between most rings. The Ultegra 6800 11-speed 11-32 though is 11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32, so the big jumps are only in the bailout gears.

AlanW

964Cup wrote:

Triples made obvious sense when the cassette had 6 or 7 ratios, as the gaps in a 7-speed compact would be much more significant;

I would certainly agree that back then the triple was indeed the only way to go if you wanted low gearing.

964Cup wrote:

...a cassette with a 28 or 32T largest ring would be very compromised, with 4 or 5T gaps between most rings. The Ultegra 6800 11-speed 11-32 though is 11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32, so the big jumps are only in the bailout gears.

Yes, but a 11-32 is still a huge range on one cassette isn't it, even with 11 speed, don't you think? Plus, you only have the first four sprockets that are straight thru with one tooth jumps, after that the real gaps start, till the very last one with a four tooth jump, thats a whopper of a jump and quite how you would control your heart rate Lord only knows, no matter how good you are at spinning (spinning being the right word too)

It just makes sense to have a 30T up front and a closer ratio at the back, or am I missing something? (again usually?)

My MTB has a triple and that came with a 9 speed, 11-34 cassette, which I think is the standard? But I just simply couldnt ride it, as for me the steps were to just to great. So I dumped the 11/34 and put a 14-25 road cassette on it instead, it utterly transformed the bike and the ride. I have ridden the Hell of the North Cotswolds MTB event on at least ten occasions and nothing has beaten me yet?

Grill

No real issue with the gaps on an 11s 11-32 as there max jump is 4t and even 3t is in bailout range. No issue controlling heart rate or power and I can't really understand how an extra 1t or 2t jump is going to affect it to the point of being unrideable. I'd estimate that most of us don't use the 28 until it's well over 10%, and the 32 is really just a safety net that see use once in a blue moon.

What cassette are you using on your triple?

AlanW

Grill wrote:

What cassette are you using on your triple?

12-25 which if I went to a compact its near the same as a 34T front and a 28 on the rear would give me, so 31.5" vs 31.9" So no great shakes really and I could probably live with that without any problems.

However, on the odd occasion when I have loaded panniers, then I may (depending on the terrain) replace the front 30T inner ring for a 28T and maybe drop a 13-27 cassette to give me 27.3".

964cup

Grill wrote:

No real issue with the gaps on an 11s 11-32 as there max jump is 4t and even 3t is in bailout range. No issue controlling heart rate or power and I can't really understand how an extra 1t or 2t jump is going to affect it to the point of being unrideable. I'd estimate that most of us don't use the 28 until it's well over 10%, and the 32 is really just a safety net that see use once in a blue moon.

This, although I find I use the 32 more than you'd think - mostly cross-chained, to save a change to the inner ring if I find I've overestimated my ability to get up something in a more normal big ring combination - and with the inner ring on properly steep bits like Swains Lane. I was doing Swains repeats this morning and found I could comfortably stay with clubmates who were out of the saddle and grinding while staying seated and spinning.

timothyw

I've got a 9 speed triple and a 10 speed compact with an 11-28 cassette, giving a similar overall range- I definitely prefer the triple. First and foremost, it gives closer gear ratios and so is easier to find my cadence. Secondly, I find the middle chainring gives me a more useful range most of the time - more punch up climbs than the 34 ring on the compact, and good for pulling away at the lights.

I had to replace the 50 tooth ring on my compact within 6 months as it was worn out from crosschaining with the stop start on my commute.

I think the way I look at it is the triple gives you the 52 & 39 that the pros use, but with the granny ring thrown in so us mere mortals can get up the big climbs.

mrushton

Why not create your own triple using Middleburn or TA components?

paul_smith_srcc

I am still able to back order 6703 from the UK distributor, out of stock items have an ETA, that doesn't normally happen when they update a group. Personally even though the 34/32 effectively equates to the same as their 6703 30/28 I would still like to have seen it offered as a triple with 30/32

ForumNewbie

I have an Audax bike with a triple (52-42-30) and a 12-27 105 cassette, and a also have a much lighter carbon bike with a compact (50-34) and an 11-28 ultegra cassette. Overall I prefer the audax gearing as I get a smoother ride and despite being a lot heavier it seems easier on steep hills.