# Question: 11 speed crank with 10 speed drive train



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

If I were to get a 11 speed Shimano 105 crank set, would it work with my existing 10 speed drive train (Dura Ace 7900)?


----------



## Alfredo2081 (Jul 22, 2016)

Keoki said:


> If I were to get a 11 speed Shimano 105 crank set, would it work with my existing 10 speed drive train (Dura Ace 7900)?


11 speed Shimano RS500 with 10 speed Ultegra 6600 10 speed Rd and Ultegra 6500 9 speed fd.. 
Works flawlessly (configuration is 10 speed cassette)









Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Thanks!!


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

It even works the other way - 10-speed crank with 11-speed drive train.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Awesome!!!


----------



## Lives2Ride (Feb 12, 2017)

Kinda redundant question since it's a matter of the wideth of the chain not the wideth of chainwheels


Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Lives2Ride said:


> Kinda redundant question since it's a matter of the wideth of the chain not the wideth of chainwheels


Not redundant. 

The width between chainrings matters as well. As speeds have increased, chains have narrowed, as has distance between rings. 

6-speed, 7-speed, 8-speed, 9-speed, 10-speed, 11-speed?

There's no problem with the OP's scenario....


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

The spacing between the cogs has decreased, but the spacing between the chainrings hasn't decreased from 10-speed to 11-speed. 

And to split hairs a bit more, the O.D. of the chains has been reducing, but the I.D. is still 3/32" - making chains "reverse compatible", e.g. an 11-speed chain will work on a 10-speed cassette and chainring, but not the other way around.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

OldZaskar said:


> The spacing between the cogs has decreased, but the spacing between the chainrings hasn't decreased from 10-speed to 11-speed.
> 
> And to split hairs a bit more, the O.D. of the chains has been reducing, but the I.D. is still 3/32" - making chains "reverse compatible", e.g. an 11-speed chain will work on a 10-speed cassette and chainring, but not the other way around.


To clarify, I was speaking generally - I agree on both counts. 

My point was that both chain width and chainring spacing matter, so... not redundant.


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> To clarify, I was speaking generally - I agree on both counts.
> 
> My point was that both chain width and chainring spacing matter, so... not redundant.


Yep... meant to say I agreed with you on that. Far from redundant.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PJ352 said:


> Not redundant.
> 
> The width between chainrings matters as well. As speeds have increased, chains have narrowed, as has distance between rings.
> 
> ...




Interesting. I always thought the teeth on the chain rings became narrower as chains got narrower. Apparently not.

And sorry to thread jack, but would a 10-speed chain work with an 7/8-speed crankset?


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

- Chainrings have not gotten closer together as cog count has gone up
- The I.D. (inside dimension) of chains has not gotten narrower
- The O.D. (outside dimension) of chains has gotten narrower - the pins are shorter and, in later (10, 11) chains, the plates are thinner
- You can use a "higher count" chain on a "lower count" drive train - to a point. The outside of the plates are key in shifting. Using an 11-speed chain on a 10-speed drive train will be fine, but using an 11-speed chain on an 9-speed drivetrain, shifting would suffer.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Interesting. I always thought the teeth on the chain rings became narrower as chains got narrower. Apparently not.
> 
> And sorry to thread jack, but would a 10-speed chain work with an 7/8-speed crankset?


I think my wording in the post you reference caused some confusion, so to clarify - as OD of chains has narrowed, chainring teeth have been remachined slightly right to accommodate them. 

The link I posted states "These chainrings have the teeth slightly farther to the right than the older chainrings to work a little better with the narrower chains. There is no difference whatever in the crank spiders."

No difference in spiders means no difference in spacing. 

Similar to what OldZaskar posted and to answer your question, I'd go back one gen on chains (9 spd for 7-8 spd drivetrains/ 10 spd for 9...), so shifting would probably suffer in your scenario. Plus, from a durability/ cost standpoint, I see no payback. 

Here's more info on the history of chains:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bicycles/Maintenance_and_Repair/Chains/Chain_sizes


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PJ352 said:


> I think my wording in the post you reference caused some confusion, so to clarify - as OD of chains has narrowed, chainring teeth have been remachined slightly right too accommodate them.
> 
> The link I posted states "These chainrings have the teeth slightly farther to the right than the older chainrings to work a little better with the narrower chains. There is no difference whatever in the crank spiders."
> 
> ...



OK, thanks PJ352. The reason I am looking into this is that I'm looking for a square taper crankset with touring type gearing to work with a 10-speed drivetrain. The only thing I've come up with is a Sugino crankset which is marketed as 7/8-speed. If front shifting is a little clunky, I can deal with that. If it will mean more frequent chain drops, that's a deal breaker.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Lombard said:


> OK, thanks PJ352. The reason I am looking into this is that I'm looking for a square taper crankset with touring type gearing to work with a 10-speed drivetrain. The only thing I've come up with is a Sugino crankset which is marketed as 7/8-speed. If front shifting is a little clunky, I can deal with that. If it will mean more frequent chain drops, that's a deal breaker.


Just curious why you're staying with square taper. BB's are cheap and assuming the frame has a BSA (or similar) BB shell you have lots of choices... Hollowtech ii for one.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PJ352 said:


> Just curious why you're staying with square taper. BB's are cheap and assuming the frame has a BSA (or similar) BB shell you have lots of choices... Hollowtech ii for one.



I tried a Hollowtech II crankset and BB. I never could get it to play nice. No matter how I experimented with the adapters, shifting was horrible. Dangerous ghost shifting was almost constant.


----------

