Which Groupset?

ribble are doing 105 for tree fitty. and 6800 for a smidgeon over 500
you must of got the email?
right ?

^^ this

Wish i'd have known before; but we all have but we all have our JB Panasonic moments

^ fuck ribble

^^ Good value. But amey only needs to spend £137 to rectify the mistake.

^^ Good value. But amey only needs to spend £27 to rectify the mistake.

ftfy

Never said I was paying full/mentioned price ;)

You're buying 6800 for £27?

Did you give the staff of your LBS gold teeth on the NHS?

thats the diff i'll be paying

You're buying 6800 for £27?

Did you give the staff of your LBS gold teeth on the NHS?

wait .. NHS do teeth?! Why am I going to India then ??

thats the diff i'll be paying

Depends how much you get for the 6700 stuff, though, doesn't it? And I'm assuming the price of second-hand 6700 gear will be affected by the swathes of 6800 running around at bargain prices.

Amey, there is a difference between selling a bike that doesn't fit and swapping out an entire group set because you can't handle 53/39 and need to HARDEN THE FUCK UP!

He doesn't need to HTFU, just run 50/34.

Really don't get the obsession of needing to have a standard crankset, almost borderlining MAMIL.

Rather than compact I'm going standard with a 12-30 block, makes more sense for my riding style and the terrain I ride... Not as aesthetically pleasing but doesn't bother me.

Pretty much like amey then, while I like the advantage of the huge MTB range of the 12-30 (11-28 in my case), I often find that the gap on the four biggest cog a massive jump and couldn't find a useable gearing in between (21-24-27-30) compare to a 12-25 (19-21-23-25) with a compact that allowed you to use a slightly smaller sprocket for a similar ratio with a much smaller jump.

It's perfectly ok to run a compact, even BMMF run a super-compact (46t) and he's not slow.

Your touring cassette gives the same bottom ratios as a 34 with an 11-25 will do anyway. Just with bigger jumps. That said - there's nothing wrong with a compact (people talking about aesthetics need a reality check and to ride more). Although you could just buy a 6800 chainset and run 10 spd on it. Or get a deal on a 6700 compact.

Depends what you want I guess- just seems a bit crazy considering you don't do your own wrenching (so will be paying another £100 in workshop fees) and you've barely ridden this bike.

Will you need to change your hubs for 11spd? I really hope not.

Considering its no problem to get a 53/38 chainring set for a 110bcd. Why get anything other than compact?

My quick calcs show for mountain useage, looking at the low end:

53/38 + 12-29 = 52/36 + 12-27 = 50/34 + 11-25

All of which are doable with a compact.

In my experiance those running lower gearing are often faster for longer. Wish I could maintain cadence like that.

All this big gears for big men stuff is bollocks.

Which is exactly why I'm buying bigger chainrings.

Your touring cassette gives the same bottom ratios as a 34 with an 11-25 will do anyway.

I should have gone for 11-28!

Didn't realise that tooth made such a difference, I wanted to go for the standard chainset to keep as higher gear as possible at the top end... I like going down hills fast.

I'm planning on having 2 sets of wheels so will probably go for an 11-28 for the other set.

I don't think the UK have hill that long to warrant a larger chainring with the 11t (or 12t) sprocket.

Having spun out on my way to 57mph, I've found otherwise.

Let have a look.

For 57mph;

50x11 = 160 rpm.
52x11 = 153 rpm.
53x11 = 150 rpm.

Having spun out on my way to 57mph, I've found otherwise.

Wow. Much rpm. Very speed.

Very hill. Much weight. Wow.

If your body weight can enable you to descent quicker, then you don't need to spin surely?

My girlfriend, whom is a petite 5'4 52kg person, struggle on the descent by trying to spin, tucking in the drop being as aero as possible, whether I simply get faster while on the hood with no effort whatsoever.

body weight = speed.

In which case why, in a vacuum, will a feather fall at the same rate as a lead ball?

It won't (assuming the lead ball has a much greater mass), because

[Edit] More clearly

It's a very small lead ball.

Of course I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember this from GCSE Physics- the teacher seemed very keen on the demo.

Which part have I got wrong?

TW2, in a vacuum?