Why don't we have 36 tooth cassettes?

Northwind

Press are getting excited about XX but it seems like it has 2 big advantages... The wider range cassette, and 1:1.5 ratios at the front. (ie, 24/36, 26/39) for cleaner shifting. And close ratios with the 10 speeds of course. Now, it seems to me that 2 of those could be done right now with 9-speed, and that all that's holding us back is the 34T cassette. Is there some reason I'm too daft to see that nobody's making a 36-11 9-speed block already?

ride_whenever

gaps too big, and your mech would need an enormous capacity!

stevet1992

Ive never really needed a 34 cog unless im being lazy ! Just peddle harder :P[/i]

lawman

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=31059

shimano do one at deore level which is 12 - 36, altho obviously you could change the 12t for an 11t easily

stumpyjon

Ive never really needed a 34 cog unless im being lazy !

I love comments like that, I hope it was tongue in cheek.

Northwind

stevet1992 wrote:

Ive never really needed a 34 cog unless im being lazy ! Just peddle harder :P[/i]

The point of the lower cassette gearing is that you can run a bigger little ring and have the same or a similiar low gear. And that means you can run a bigger middle ring, which means 2x9 gets to be a much better option. (it's already a very good one).

ride_whenever wrote:

gaps too big, and your mech would need an enormous capacity!

Same capacity as XX, so obviously not impossible. The gaps wouldn't be massive, 11-32 works fine in 8-speed after all.

stevet1992

stumpyjon wrote:

Ive never really needed a 34 cog unless im being lazy !

I love comments like that, I hope it was tongue in cheek.

Yes it was meant tounge in cheek ! Im probally the first person to hit the granny gears on a climb :oops: ... and the fact that i live on the flatest part of the Kent A mole hill is the biggest hill you'll find down here

bomberesque

iirc there is a company in the US that makes bigger inner ring replacements.

tbh 22/34 is already very low, although I could see the point of running dual ring front a la XX so the lowest was 30/36 or something.

interesting that shimano do have one (12-36T) available in Deore, perhaps there's a strength problem with mounting a ring >34T on the spider they use for the higher range cassettes?

supersonic

Most derailers can't physically clear a 36.

Northwind

I suppose SRAM won't want to do it, since it'd distract from XX, as well.

bomberesque wrote:

tbh 22/34 is already very low, although I could see the point of running dual ring front a la XX so the lowest was 30/36 or something.

22/34 is Kirroughtree Winching Gear

GHill

Some info here on Shimano's 12-36. Seems like it is good for 29ers and the XT shadow long cage has no problem stretching to that 36 teeth cog.

Northwind

Hmm. Wonder what the other cogs are on it.

xtreem

36 teeth = more weight
And you'll be faster by pushing the bike then pedaling.
Or the hill will be steep enough that the tires won't grip at all.

Northwind

Xtreem wrote:

36 teeth = more weight
And you'll be faster by pushing the bike then pedaling.
Or the hill will be steep enough that the tires won't grip at all.

Nah, think you're missing the point, it's not to get lower gears- specifically looking at 2x9 or 1x9 here, so you'd run a higher front cog/cogs.

xtreem

Bigger first ring = + more weight.
But you're loosing the biggest ring as you said, so you actualy gain a
little or no weight considering most big rings are aluminium.

Btw, for what kind of bikes are we talikng about.
1x9 for XC might not be possible. Either you won't be able to pedal on the uphills or on the downhills.

Northwind

Xtreem wrote:

Btw, for what kind of bikes are we talikng about.
1x9 for XC might not be possible. Either you won't be able to pedal on the uphills or on the downhills.

Lots of people already use 1x9 for XC :? Plenty of people singlespeed, even. I wouldn't do it myself, I'm not fit enough and my favourite routes have some evil climbs but it's possible. 2x9 works very well but could be made better.

Losing the big ring isn't just about weight, it's also clearance- I run 2x9 currently because I got fed up of smacking the 44T ring. Done right, the fractionally bigger big ring on the back wouldn't add much weight.

nicklouse

if you go to a 36 design you will be pushing the rear mech design, with there be clearance?
will the mech have the range to cover the total number of teeth?

singlespeedexplosif

x9 for XC might not be possible. Either you won't be able to pedal on the uphills or on the downhills.
mindboggling comment...

Pokerface

Because bikes aren't designed to be ridden up vertical walls.

supersonic

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

x9 for XC might not be possible. Either you won't be able to pedal on the uphills or on the downhills.
mindboggling comment...

It depends on the hills doesn't it? Which is why I run a 44/32/22 and 11-32 to give me maximum flexibilty and options.

Northwind

nicklouse wrote:

if you go to a 36 design you will be pushing the rear mech design, with there be clearance?
will the mech have the range to cover the total number of teeth?

Well, this is the question- and if not, why not I'm not especially keen to try it myself, not with a deore block at least, but it seems odd to me that it's not already a serious, supported option.

nicklouse

Well currently the max cog that will work with a Shimano rear mech is 34T

so a 36T will need a redesign.

ratty2k

Pretty sure the 36T cassette is aimed more at 29ers... Dunno if this would work, but with a longer mech hanger you'd get the clearance?
I know the new GF Rumblefish has the 36T cassette fitted as standard and as far as I know just a standard rear mech..

singlespeedexplosif

It depends on the hills doesn't it?
no, it depends on the rider.

nicklouse

i see that it has a 12T small cog so the range is only one different,

and changing the mech hanger would make sense.

supersonic

"no, it depends on the rider."

In reality it is both, they are not really exclusive of each other. I spin out my 32/11 on some stretches and long hills, and need the winch gear for others. But the original statement made is perfectly true for many average riders with long steep hills. Even pro XC riders, most of who use at least a double chanring.

Northwind

nicklouse wrote:

Well currently the max cog that will work with a Shimano rear mech is 34T

so a 36T will need a redesign.

Not according to Shimano, they say XT works with 36. But, if the mechs can't deal with it then there's an obvious answer.

Point I guess I'm making is that XX is being heralded as the second coming, but none of the advantages I've seen to 2x10 need to be exclusively 2x10. Changing mech hangers or redesigning mechs is less work than a whole new drivetrain standard after all.

nicklouse

TBH i just looked at XTR.

supersonic

How much does the deore cassette weigh? Over a pound I reckon.

One of my thoughts is that if you are going to add the weight of a front shifter, mech, and cabling into the equation, then the extra 70g or so of another chainring is only a little more. Though shifting between gears and chainlines may be better on a 2x9 or 2x10.

Northwind

Yup, but still thinking of ground clearance here.

Nicklouse, fair play, that was a fair assumption. I'd no clue about XT til this thread.

supersonic

Did you know shimano have some hubs with a minimum of 9 teeth?!

32 ring with a 9-40 cassette would be nice lol.