# climbing gears for ultegra 6700



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Can someone suggest an option for a 6700 set up to lower the cassette to perhaps a 32, 34 or 36. I was told a sram 1070 cassette would do the trick. Can anyone verify this. I have a 11-28 on the bike now. If I was to switch how low could I go without having to change the chain. It would be nice to be able to use both sets of wheels without doing anything else. Any ideas?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't think your Ultegra derailleur will accept a 32t or greater cassette.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Some have used the Ultegra long cage (used on a triple) with a 30 or 32 t cassette before. But YMMV.

If you had Sram instead, you could install a MTB 10 speed Sram rear derailleur like the X0 and run up to a 36t cassette.


----------



## DaveT (Feb 12, 2004)

ski4by said:


> Can someone suggest an option for a 6700 set up to lower the cassette to perhaps a 32, 34 or 36. I was told a sram 1070 cassette would do the trick. Can anyone verify this. I have a 11-28 on the bike now. If I was to switch how low could I go without having to change the chain. It would be nice to be able to use both sets of wheels without doing anything else. Any ideas?


I have used 11-32t cassettes on my 6700 equipped bikes. You most likely you will be able to also. You can use your existing chain but you will need to be very careful about running in the big ring and the larger cogs, the possibility of derailleur damage is high. Ideally you would a correct length spare chain to use when you changed wheels.

A larger cassette cannot be used unless you change to an MTB rear derailleur.


----------



## DaveT (Feb 12, 2004)

frdfandc said:


> Some have used the Ultegra long cage (used on a triple) with a 30 or 32 t cassette before. But YMMV.
> 
> If you had Sram instead, you could install a MTB 10 speed Sram rear derailleur like the X0 and run up to a 36t cassette.


Oddly enough the short-cage 6700 derailleur works far better with a 32t cassette than the long-cage model. I've tried both and have short cage derailleurs on all my bikes.


----------



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Which 11-32 were you using


----------



## DaveT (Feb 12, 2004)

ski4by said:


> Which 11-32 were you using


SRAM PG-1070. You could also use their PG-1050.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

DaveT said:


> Oddly enough the short-cage 6700 derailleur works far better with a 32t cassette than the long-cage model. I've tried both and have short cage derailleurs on all my bikes.


There's something to that. The largest cog limitation on both short- and long cage RD-6700 derailleurs is 28 teeth, so you're exceeding it by 5 teeth regardless of cage length. No idea why the short cage would work _better_, but I take your word for it.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

and if you run larger than a 32 and use a mtb rear derailleur, it needs to be an older "9 speed" derailleur, the new dyna-sys 10 speed derailleurs don't work w/ 10 speed road shifters. done it many times, i know it works.


----------



## robpar (Jan 26, 2008)

wim said:


> There's something to that. The largest cog limitation on both short- and long cage RD-6700 derailleurs is 28 teeth, so you're exceeding it by 5 teeth regardless of cage length. No idea why the short cage would work _better_, but I take your word for it.


the short cage/long cage issue has nothing to do with the actual capacity. The capacity is dictated by the geometry of the cage and the length of the RD hanger. It just helps with chain slack.
some can run 32T due to the hanger length; I can run only up to a 30T in either long cage or short cage (Ultegra)


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

robpar said:


> the short cage/long cage issue has nothing to do with the actual capacity. The capacity is dictated by the geometry of the cage and the length of the RD hanger. It just helps with chain slack.
> some can run 32T due to the hanger length; I can run only up to a 30T in either long cage or short cage (Ultegra)


Someone from SRAM explained to me when they introduced their Alberto Contador-inspired "WiFli" setup (32T cassette on their Apex and Rival setups), they recommended using the medium-cage Apex and Force derailleurs precisely because the big 32T cassette requires a longer chain, hence a derailleur with a longer chain slack take-up capacity (for the situations where you crosschained small-small).

I am using a 32T on my bike with an Ultegra 6700GS derailleur. No problems whatsoever. I heard of some people needing to swap out a longer B-tension screw to make the RD pulley clear the large 32T cog, but I got plenty of length left on my B-tension screw. Perhaps I got a longer RD hanger on my bike or something.


----------



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Thanks for both replies. I plan to go and try a 32. What should I look for on the stand before I go out and possibly break somthing


----------



## DaveT (Feb 12, 2004)

ski4by said:


> Thanks for both replies. I plan to go and try a 32. What should I look for on the stand before I go out and possibly break somthing


Set your chain length for the big/big combo. Adjust upper jockey wheel clearance with B screw. Then you're good to go.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I put a SRAM 12-32 on my wife's bike with Ultegra.
It did work, but even with the B screw all the way in it the jockey wheels rubbed against the 32 tooth cog making a lot of noise. I have heard it depends on how long the derailleur hanger is as to whether it will work or not. I changed the rear derailleur to a longer cage GS which did not help at all because it does not change the position of the top jockey wheel. I ended up putting on a XT derailleur and now it works without the noise.
I would try it first with the standard Ultegra derailleur and if it doesn't work get an XT.


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

Interesting little tidbit I found on Sheldon Brown's section on adjusting derailleurs..

He mentioned if the pulley doesn't clear the largest cog even if the B-tension screw is screwed all the way in, some people got around that by putting the B-tension screw in backwards. (I can't even begin to visualize how that would work!)

(Link to Sheldon Brown's page Derailer Adjustment

Personally, I think swapping out a longer B-tension screw might be the more economical thing to try, before resorting to replacing the derailleur with an MTB one.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> and if you run larger than a 32 and use a mtb rear derailleur, it needs to be an older "9 speed" derailleur, the new dyna-sys 10 speed derailleurs don't work w/ 10 speed road shifters. done it many times, i know it works.


This is your best option IMHO. 9 speed XTR or XT RD

Try 11-32 first. You will start to get much bigger gear jumps after that.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*+1 for the Shimano XT*

I run 11-32 cassettes with a 34/50 in the front on two of my bikes, both with Shimano drive trains. One is 9-speed 105 the other is 10-speed DA. I use a Deore XT RD-771 GS Top Normal rear derailleur on both. The shifting is pretty good on both set-ups, but not quite as good as the road rear derailleur native to the groupset coupled with a narrower range cassette. For me, the slight degradation of shifting is more than offset by having the lower gears. I will occasionally run a 12-27 or 11-27 cassette with the Deore XT set-up and it works just fine.

If I understand it correctly, the RD-771 is no longer in production, but they still come up on eBay. This is where I got both of mine.

Separately, I honestly do not know why Shimano does not make a road group that can be set up like this right out of the box. I find that 11-32 coupled with a 34/50 is a tremendously versatile set-up


----------



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Thanks, Dave


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

I know this is a tad off topic, but where exactly is this gearing necessary? I don't think I've ever used anything bigger than a 25t rear with 39 front chainring. I know spinning a high tempo uphill is all the rage now, but where are the hills so steep and long?


----------



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Little Cottonwood Canyon, Utah. Skinny legs, sore knees


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

dmong2 said:


> I know this is a tad off topic, but where exactly is this gearing necessary? I don't think I've ever used anything bigger than a 25t rear with 39 front chainring. I know spinning a high tempo uphill is all the rage now, but where are the hills so steep and long?


Personal preferences. Some people like lower gearing, some people like higher gearing.

Heck, if the pros are allowed to use 32T cassettes (like here: Giro tech: Contador goes Apex | road.cc | The website for pedal powered people: Road cycling, commuting, leisure cycling and racing. Voted the UK's number 1 cycling website at the 2010 BikeBiz awards. ), why not us mere mortals for climbing smaller hills?


----------



## j.o.e.l (Oct 7, 2009)

11-32 here but with sram apex rd. It allows me to spin up 12%+, 4mile+ hills. I started with MTB so I kinda got used to this gearing.

The wide gearing also helps with doing intervals on these hills as I can put it on a faster gear for work interval and then use the grannies during the rest intervals.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Very diplomatically phrased*

Personally, I have this set-up because I am old, fat and slow. But, in my prime I used to blah blah blah....


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Contador used a 32 and/or Apex on grades approaching 24% on a few stages of the Giro, that's it. 

I'm not saying you can't run what you want, be my guest, I just don't understand why the need for such low ratios. I'm hearing old, fat, and bad knees...well, why not just stick to manageable hills and/or get thin and strong?


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

Why should old, fat ugly bad knees stick to "manageable hills" when with the help of the 32T they don't have to?

Maybe you dread seeing fat ugly bad knees passing you on "unmanageable hills?"


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Actually, I dread seeing self described old, (I never said ugly), fat, bad knees, swerving left and right up unmanageable hills because their gear ratio is so slow that it hard to keep balance while riding 2.3 mph. 

It's too hard to pass.


----------



## LongIslandTom (Apr 20, 2011)

LOL, unless you know where Ponce de Leon's fountain of youth is located, all of us will become one of those 2-3mph climbers one day. 

See how you feel then, when some whippersnapper 60 years younger than you makes the same comment about you! :lol:


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Are you saying you're in your 90's? 

I've been riding/racing since I was 17, so I've only been involved in this deal for 20 years or so. I've seen some really fast old dudes and some really slow ones. My point is more about ability. If you need tiny gears to get up a hill, then maybe the hill is too challenging for your current ability. A "standard" gear selection provides a very wide range and the question here was about widening that range even more.


----------



## GFish (Apr 4, 2011)

dmong2 said:


> Actually, I dread seeing self described old, (I never said ugly), fat, bad knees, swerving left and right up unmanageable hills because their gear ratio is so slow that it hard to keep balance while riding 2.3 mph


It's called a learning curve.......people starting out don't instantly become lean with strong climbing legs. Larger gears allow people, like me, to push the limits with smaller gears, then bail out to larger gears just before blowing up. There are slops I manage well in 19T - 27T, but a few slopes really push my limit where it's good insurance to have a few larger gears. 

My story - When I started riding in May, I worked hard on conditioning, speed, cadence and putting in miles on the bike. Then a couple friends talked me into an organized ride; either a metric century or a full century. They also said I could always bail at any time. So why not, I was feeling better by the week. 

During the first 10 miles, there was a series of rollers and 3 short but steep hills. Using a 34 x 25, I couldn't make it up the last 2 without stopping......I was out of breath, heart rate was maxed, legs started to cramp and knew I was in trouble. I managed to ride through to the first sag stop and felt better. Then over the next 20 miles, 3 longer hills wiped me out where I cramped up hard and almost fell over. I was done. I also felt terrible that I couldn't finish and had to leave my friends. 

Fast forward - Front gearing is 50/34, rear cogs 11-34T 10 speed, and now I can climb any hill (at least my local ones). I started working harder on hills using the gearing and remember those earlier hills, I have made that loop twice climbing each hill in nothing larger then a 27T rear cog. In order to climb better and get stronger, you have to start in gears you can manage. And no amount of flat road training could substitute for climbing. Bottom line, the gearing shift helped me accomplish my goals.

Anyone new to road riding shouldn't be afraid to get the gearing they need. Don't worry about how you look or how large the cogs look on the bike, get the gears that you need and climb hills while you work on getting stronger.


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

We all had a learning curve at some point and all went through roughly what you are talking about. 

In my experience, back in the late 80's, there were no options for wide range gearing. Not complaining, but if you were not conditioned then you might have to stay on lower grades until you progressed. 

The experience you describe on your first organized rides sounds like you were unconditioned or riding beyond your abilities. With what you describe, smaller gears probably wouldn't have made much difference. 

Flat and rolling terrain actually does provide a lot of endurance conditioning from which you build power on for hills. Hills are important too, but not necessarily if you are brand new to riding. In my base period, I only ride flat and rolling terrain and focus on endurance pace. For me, back when I first started that would have been about 12 mph for about 4 minutes. Now it's 240 watts at 22 mph for 2 to 4 hours at a time. And I still use the same gear ratios more or less. Back then,53/39 7 speeds, 12-24, now 53/39 11-25 or 11-23.


----------



## GFish (Apr 4, 2011)

dmong2 said:


> We all had a learning curve at some point and all went through roughly what you are talking about.
> 
> Flat and rolling terrain actually does provide a lot of endurance conditioning from which you build power on for hills. Hills are important too, but not necessarily if you are brand new to riding. In my base period, I only ride flat and rolling terrain and focus on endurance pace. For me, back when I first started that would have been about 12 mph for about 4 minutes. Now it's 240 watts at 22 mph for 2 to 4 hours at a time. And I still use the same gear ratios more or less. Back then,53/39 7 speeds, 12-24, now 53/39 11-25 or 11-23.


Not 90, I'm 55 and still need to lose another 20 pounds. 

Even though I'm still new to road cycling, I still appreciate a good climb to test my conditioning. Otherwise, I could be miss-lead again. 

Some day, if I'm lucky enough to stay healthy and have enough time, I'd love to have the ability to ride at 22mph for 2 to 4 hours. Must feel good to have legs and lungs to ride like that.


----------



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Fact is I moved from PA to UT a couple of years ago. Used to riding from an altitude of 60' to 1800' . I was basically out of it for the past year as I totaled my bike, tried a couple of fixes to the frame and had to finally trash it and buy a new one. Now the hills are from 5000' to 11000 feet and they are kickin my but. And no DEMONG2 I will not back off, just need a little help untill I get a handle on things. When I don't need the bigger gears any more I won;t use em


----------



## ski4by (Sep 3, 2011)

Hey GFISH what set up are you running


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*can't we all get along?*

There is no reason for a simple discussion of gearing set-up to descend into an increasingly personal debate about various people's worthiness as cyclists. Anyone who is on this board is probably a cut above your average cruise-around-the-neighborhood-with-the-kids kind of cyclist or well on their way to being there. 

To the people who truly can ride major alpine climbs with a 39/25 (or whatever), congratulations you are in a very small select subset of the cycling world. Please try to enjoy that fact without lording it over the rest of us. Is your self-esteem really so low that you have to bully your fellow cyclists on internet discussion boards?

To the people who require a 34/32 (or whatever) to ride those same climbs, congratulations for gutting it out. Pay no attention to those who demean you for not being a member of the climbing elite. My contention is that this really has a lot more to do with their own deep seated demons than it does with anything else. Also consider this, you are on that climb for a lot longer than the elite rider and probably suffering just as much during every minute of it.

This whole thing sounds just like scratch golfers ridiculing the legions of duffers that shoot in the mid 90s. You cannot be on the good end of a statistical distribution without the rest of those data points (and the people they represent).

Let me end this rant on a philosophic note with a couple of quotes:

First:
"To be a cyclist is to be a student of pain....at cycling's core lies pain, hard and bitter as the pit inside a juicy peach. It doesn't matter if you're sprinting for an Olympic medal, a town sign, a trailhead, or the rest stop with the homemade brownies. If you never confront pain, you're missing the essence of the sport. Without pain, there's no adversity. Without adversity, no challenge. Without challenge, no improvement. No improvement, no sense of accomplishment and no deep-down joy. Might as well be playing Tiddly-Winks." - Scott Martin

Put more simply:
"It never gets easier, you just go faster." -Greg Lemond


----------



## GFish (Apr 4, 2011)

ski4by said:


> Hey GFISH what set up are you running


This - 

SHIMANO DEORE XT M771 REAR DERAILLEUR (SGS LONG ) 
SH-CSM771-34 SHIMANO DEORE XT CASSETTE (11-34) 
SH-CN6701 SHIMANO ULTEGRA CHAIN 

The crank is a 50/34 compact. 

These parts are all available new through on-line retailers. The chain was replaced since the large to large gear combination with the longer rear cage derailleur needed a few more links. It would have been very tight staying with the original chain used with the 12-25T rear cog. 

Yup, that 34 / 34 combination really is incredible to have in reserve when the lactic buildup starts burning really bad on those long steep climbs. 

Originally, I was concerned with losing the tight shifting that a 12-25 cog set has with a one tooth spacing between gears. The 11-34 cog has a two tooth spacing between gears except for the last three larger gears. I thought the difference would actually be a liability on the flats. I was pleasantly surprised and really prefer the new gearing, of course I'm still new to this sport. Now, instead of shifting up or down twice, which I found myself doing a lot before to find the right gear to maintain either cadence or speed, I shift once. Of course, I'm probably doing this all wrong since I don't mind if my cadence fluctuates between 85 - 100rpm.


----------



## GFish (Apr 4, 2011)

Stogaguy said:


> There is no reason for a simple discussion of gearing set-up and to descend into an increasingly personal debate about various people's worthiness as cyclists. Anyone who is on this board is probably a cut above your average cruise-around-the-neighborhood-with-the-kids kind of cyclist or well on their way to being there.
> 
> To the people who truly can ride major alpine climbs with a 39/25 (or whatever), congratulations you are in a very small select subset of the cycling world. Please try to enjoy that fact without lording it over the rest of us. Is your self-esteem really so low that you have to bully your fellow cyclists on internet discussion boards?
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:

Excellent post, agree with you 100%!!


----------



## EastCoast (Apr 15, 2007)

So if I can't get up a hill at 39/25 I should get 'thin and strong'? Why? To appease some Internet bozo who's had the time to ride and race since the age of 17? What if I have some steep hills on my commute home? Maybe move, sell my house to someone who's earned it, I dunno. Stogaguy is more diplomatic than I am about total-lol nonsense.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

dmong2 said:


> Contador used a 32 and/or Apex on grades approaching 24% on a few stages of the Giro, that's it.
> 
> I'm not saying you can't run what you want, be my guest, I just don't understand why the need for such low ratios. I'm hearing old, fat, and bad knees...well, why not just stick to manageable hills and/or get thin and strong?


What is wrong with you?



> "To be a cyclist is to be a student of pain....at cycling's core lies pain, hard and bitter as the pit inside a juicy peach. It doesn't matter if you're sprinting for an Olympic medal, a town sign, a trailhead, or the rest stop with the homemade brownies. If you never confront pain, you're missing the essence of the sport. Without pain, there's no adversity. Without adversity, no challenge. Without challenge, no improvement. No improvement, no sense of accomplishment and no deep-down joy. Might as well be playing Tiddly-Winks." - Scott Martin


This is flat wrong. Cycling is about fun, enjoying the oudoors, getting exercize, enjoying the ride and the machine.


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

What is wrong with you? 

Cycling is what you want it to be, that's your narrow minded definition. Around the world cycling is basic transportation or even a means of work?


----------



## Barry in GA (Jan 19, 2009)

Any thread about gearing seems to bring out at least one poster who ignores the question that was asked, claims they can climb anything with a 39/23 and fails to grasp the fact that most riders are not young, flat bellied, limber backed, full kit, racer wannabes.


----------



## savechief (Apr 16, 2009)

cxwrench said:


> and if you run larger than a 32 and use a mtb rear derailleur, it needs to be an older "9 speed" derailleur, the new dyna-sys 10 speed derailleurs don't work w/ 10 speed road shifters. done it many times, i know it works.


I'm trying to figure out if this is true or not, based on what GFish is running:



GFish said:


> This -
> 
> SHIMANO DEORE XT M771 REAR DERAILLEUR (SGS LONG )
> SH-CSM771-34 SHIMANO DEORE XT CASSETTE (11-34)
> SH-CN6701 SHIMANO ULTEGRA CHAIN


He's got an MTB rear derailleur paired with an 11-34T Dyna-Sys 10-speed cassette.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

dmong2 said:


> I know this is a tad off topic, but where exactly is this gearing necessary? I don't think I've ever used anything bigger than a 25t rear with 39 front chainring. I know spinning a high tempo uphill is all the rage now, but where are the hills so steep and long?


Skaggs Spring to Tin Barn in Sonoma County gets steep. I know some strong riders that have done it with a 39 x 25, but don't like it. I have done it with a 30 (triple) x 27 and next year will have a 34 x 32. 700' over .89 miles and some pitches over 20%. When starting at Lake Sonoma,that stretch comes 35 miles into a ride where you have already done 6,000 feet of climb and have 67 miles to go. One only has so many matches to burn. 









to the OP, 3 guys on our trip ran Ultegra GS derailleurs with 32t cogs. Some were smooth as silk, one was iffy due to a shorter hanger.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

dmong2 said:


> What is wrong with you?
> 
> Cycling is what you want it to be, that's your narrow minded definition. Around the world cycling is basic transportation or even a means of work?


You're right. To my personal definition I should add transportation and other utilitarian purposes. I totally agree with that. But pain, "challenge", "improvement" etc. is such a small part of cycling, and irrelevant to most cyclists, except racers or fitness buffs.

But you probably know that since you know what gears everyone should need or what riding they should do based on your in depth experience..... of yourself.


----------



## khaizlip (Aug 21, 2008)

dmong2 said:


> What is wrong with you?
> 
> Cycling is what you want it to be, that's your narrow minded definition. Around the world cycling is basic transportation or even a means of work?


]I find it laughable that someone who suggests that those not fit enough to make it up every local hill in a 39-25 should just find easier rides is calling someone else narrow-minded. 

It seems pretty clear that for the vast majority of this site's audience, his definition would hold true.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

LongIslandTom said:


> Why should old, fat ugly bad knees stick to "manageable hills" when with the help of the 32T they don't have to?
> 
> Maybe you dread seeing fat ugly bad knees passing you on "unmanageable hills?"


lets define old..........................at 47 I past 6 youngins going up a 7% grade for 7 miles this weekend..................How do I know they were so young? They were discussing old time rock as the Scorpions...:mad2:


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

by the way,
I have my 32t cassette and I find that 32 real nice on the ride up 4.5 mi and 10% grade............Just sayin...

Oh and that's avg, not peak grade on that 10%


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Rancheria wall?*

Is this the stretch referred to as the "Rancheria Wall"? If yes, I know exactly where this is. You go across that rickety bridge and then just hit it for about a mile.


----------



## DaveT (Feb 12, 2004)

savechief said:


> I'm trying to figure out if this is true or not, based on what GFish is running:
> 
> 
> 
> He's got an MTB rear derailleur paired with an 11-34T Dyna-Sys 10-speed cassette.


The 10-speed MTB cassette is OK to run with 10-speedroad shifters but not the 10-speed Dyna-Sys derailleurs. His rear derailleur is a 9-speed.


----------



## GFish (Apr 4, 2011)

DaveT said:


> The 10-speed MTB cassette is OK to run with 10-speedroad shifters but not the 10-speed Dyna-Sys derailleurs. His rear derailleur is a 9-speed.


Correct. The key is getting the right derailleur and the 9 speed MTB (SHIMANO DEORE XT M771 REAR DERAILLEUR SGS LONG ) works excellent with 10 speed 105 (or Ultegra etc...) shifters. If you're worried that the derailleur is listed as 9-speed, don't be. The derailleur has plenty of range to cover a 10 speed road cassette and works perfectly, the shifting is smooth and quick. Although, when shifting between 27T and 32T, I believe there is a slight pause (but not always) before the chain settles in, but it's pretty minor to me. 

Before buying this setup, I searched all the forums, read all the information I could find, then consulted with people who understood what I needed. This derailleur, cassette and chain all work to perfection with the Shimano 5600 105 10 speed shifters and runs just as quite and smooth as the original 105 components. 

Whatever you do, hope it all works out.


----------

