Hi fellows,

I went to the 100th anniversary Shimano website and I do not see any announcements about a 12-speed, power meter groupos.

DOES ANYONE SEE ANYTHING??

Thank you,

GG

I'm curious, are you riding any proper mountains or sprints? That said, I agree all this does is change the rest of the system. There is nothing to see here with the lack of 10t. Plenty of fine options for all scenarios.

"Proper" is rather subjective depending on where you live. Compared to Florida or Alpe D'Huez? I'm in Korea which is mountainous pretty much everywhere. Unless I ride along rivers there's at least a serious climb or two. Cruising speed in the flats on a typical 100km sunday ride is usually around 35kph, preferred cadence around 85-90. Even with a compact front, the 11t rear gets you to 60+kph before 110rpm. Are you sprinting at that speed? I'm certainly not capable of that. Nor do I feel like putting power down at that speed when I'm going downhill because I'm preoccupied with making sure I make it home in one piece.

Props if you're cruising along at 60kph on your Sunday rides. I can't do that even if I am above average in ability. When I think about the fact that stock bikes come with 11t and a 52t front, I can't reconcile that with the level of the average cyclist +/- 2sigma.

A tool for every job and everybody do their thing.

60kph is 37mph. We've a lot of little junk 6% hills in town here where I use my 56/42 combo. So yeah, downhill I'll do 40mph or so at a nice comfy cadence while making a hair of power.

It also isn't just about "max speed" capability. It's the fact that there's tangible watts lost in those smaller cogs. If you can make the smallest (fastest) cogs a big bigger, you gain efficiency. So usually if I'm racing I won't have an 11t cog on the bike.

There's some pretty "average" British time trial folks who run 56, 58t rings. But they sit with a nice straight chain line in a nice sized rear cog at a comfy cadence.

Higher cadence at higher speed can also feel a bit hairy. I'd rather go downwind or downhill at 90rpm give or take than 110rpm.

"Proper" is rather subjective depending on where you live. Compared to Florida or Alpe D'Huez? I'm in Korea which is mountainous pretty much everywhere. Unless I ride along rivers there's at least a serious climb or two. Cruising speed in the flats on a typical 100km sunday ride is usually around 35kph, preferred cadence around 85-90. Even with a compact front, the 11t rear gets you to 60+kph before 110rpm. Are you sprinting at that speed? I'm certainly not capable of that. Nor do I feel like putting power down at that speed when I'm going downhill because I'm preoccupied with making sure I make it home in one piece.

Props if you're cruising along at 60kph on your Sunday rides. I can't do that even if I am above average in ability. When I think about the fact that stock bikes come with 11t and a 52t front, I can't reconcile that with the level of the average cyclist +/- 2sigma.

A tool for every job and everybody do their thing.

60kph is 37mph. We've a lot of little junk 6% hills in town here where I use my 56/42 combo. So yeah, downhill I'll do 40mph or so at a nice comfy cadence while making a hair of power.

This is debated ad naseum but I'd like to see all the math that shows the added frontal area, chain length/weight, and risk of using components outside of Shimano/SRAM's design intent is any faster. You know "cross chaining" costs fractions of watts on modern chain/chainrings, yea?

-SD

It also isn't just about "max speed" capability. It's the fact that there's tangible watts lost in those smaller cogs. If you can make the smallest (fastest) cogs a big bigger, you gain efficiency. So usually if I'm racing I won't have an 11t cog on the bike.

There's some pretty "average" British time trial folks who run 56, 58t rings. But they sit with a nice straight chain line in a nice sized rear cog at a comfy cadence.

Higher cadence at higher speed can also feel a bit hairy. I'd rather go downwind or downhill at 90rpm give or take than 110rpm.