10 -42 T cassette!

nicklouse

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/SRAM-XX1-O ... -2012.html



SRAM XX1 One by Eleven Drivetrain is Official

Thewaylander

Looks awesome does it not!

Very possibly my favorite looking product for this year.

nicklouse

more info

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/artic ... 012-34457/

bennett_346

erm. wow. when would you possibly use that??

nevermind just saw its for 1x

robertpb

I can see the bottom of that mech snorkelling through the mire at times.

Chunkers1980

Mech only has to handle 32. X3s are about 45, so shorter cages can be used.

Chunkers1980

I think this is the solution to everything geared externally with chains.

32 up front will cover most things.

bennett_346

It'll still never be enough range for me. I use the 22t+36t loads in my regular areas, as well as the 42t+11t a fair amount on the same rides.

Chunkers1980

Yes, I do sort of agree with that. Just you don't really need that higher gear, you can spin a bit more to compensate. 11t to 10t is a high percentage difference.

YeehaaMcgee

Shame it's SRAM
What the hell is that bollorks they're talking about in the "horizontal parallelogram" section?
Utter gibberish.

lawman

the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

I await a shimano version with electronics and said range cassette (clutching at straws much?)

YeehaaMcgee

lawman wrote:

if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

Most? Most things are fine. But granny rings are still needed on SOME climbs.

supersonic

lawman wrote:

the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

I await a shimano version with electronics and said range cassette (clutching at straws much?)

You wouldn't have a hope in hell of climbing some stuff here on 32.

MDobs

supersonic wrote:

lawman wrote:

the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

You wouldn't have a hope in hell of climbing some stuff here on 32.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

lawman wrote:

if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

Most? Most things are fine. But granny rings are still needed on SOME climbs.

surely he's not arguing that, merely saying if you can't climb 'most' things [which is obviously dependent on your area/route/location/type of riding etc] in a 32 you shouldn't be using a 1x drivetrain, that's a valid point surely as most 1x won't use less than a 32 up front.

oodboo

Something that big with catch on a lot of things but I don't think it'll ever catch on. Might be ok for people who only ride well groomed trail centre stuff.

It's not for me, I'm out.

YeehaaMcgee

MDobs wrote:

supersonic wrote:

lawman wrote:

the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

You wouldn't have a hope in hell of climbing some stuff here on 32.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

lawman wrote:

if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

Most? Most things are fine. But granny rings are still needed on SOME climbs.

surely he's not arguing that, merely saying if you can't climb 'most' things [which is obviously dependent on your area/route/location/type of riding etc] in a 32 you shouldn't be using a 1x drivetrain, that's a valid point surely as most 1x won't use less than a 32 up front.

But with a 42T at the rear, and say a 34 on the front, you'll get up some pretty damned steep stuff. Maybe negating the need for a granny entirely.
I see the point to this, but... it's SRAM!

bails87

MDobs wrote:

supersonic wrote:

lawman wrote:

the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

You wouldn't have a hope in hell of climbing some stuff here on 32.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

lawman wrote:

if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

Most? Most things are fine. But granny rings are still needed on SOME climbs.

surely he's not arguing that, merely saying if you can't climb 'most' things [which is obviously dependent on your area/route/location/type of riding etc] in a 32 you shouldn't be using a 1x drivetrain, that's a valid point surely as most 1x won't use less than a 32 up front.

But isn't that the point? That you can use a 1x11 where you wouldn't be able to use a 1x9 or 10.

As for wanting a higher gear range.....That's a daft comment, just put a bigger chainring on, it'll do the same without having to redesign the freehub 'standard'!
Edit: ah, this uses a special freehub too. But my point still stands.

paul.skibum

oodboo wrote:

Something that big with catch on a lot of things but I don't think it'll ever catch on. Might be ok for people who only ride well groomed trail centre stuff.

It's not for me, I'm out.

Yeah I am hitting my cassette on stuff all the time. They should make that 42 tooth a bash guard instead. :roll:

I reckon a 32/42 setup is the same as a 22/28 set up ratio wise - I currently have 22/32 as my lowest gear so seems like I'd be slightly compromised but it might not kill me I guess especially as I'd save many many 100ths of grams losing one chain ring and my wallet would be lighter too.

supersonic

A 1x10 might work very well though with a lower ring - use a 28 ring, then your low gear would be 28/42 (0.6666), equivalent to a 22/33 set up. Top end would be 28/9, same as a 38/11. Nice range, but not for all. Or even less up front.

bennett_346

Ditto the "it's sram" comments. Ditched my sram X9 10 speed last weekend for some shimano slx and so far its in another league.

Darkstalker420

Hmmm would there be any "technical" reason why you couldn't use a double (say 22/34). Only problem for me is........ It's SRAM!! :roll: . *Waits for Shimano.

Thanks.

Chunkers1980

Not really, still in long cage league. It's the mech that would need to go to 42 teeth.

lawman

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

MDobs wrote:

supersonic wrote:

lawman wrote:

the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

You wouldn't have a hope in hell of climbing some stuff here on 32.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

lawman wrote:

if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

Most? Most things are fine. But granny rings are still needed on SOME climbs.

surely he's not arguing that, merely saying if you can't climb 'most' things [which is obviously dependent on your area/route/location/type of riding etc] in a 32 you shouldn't be using a 1x drivetrain, that's a valid point surely as most 1x won't use less than a 32 up front.

But with a 42T at the rear, and say a 34 on the front, you'll get up some pretty damned steep stuff. Maybe negating the need for a granny entirely.
I see the point to this, but... it's SRAM!

I admit granny rings have their place, their are a few places locally where you could argue you need them. So far whilst at uni I have run out of gears twice, once because I was absolutely knackered and second because it was bloody steep. However I got just as far as anyone else did with a granny ring, and further than some too. It's just most of the time I don't feel the need for it, and I love the weight saving a security of my chain devise too.

njee20

I think it's a shame they're not doing a slightly narrower range block. The 10-42 would add weight and have massive gaps, but a 10-36 or 11-40 or something would be good, just offer a bit more range.

Personally I find 36/36 a low enough gear for everything I ride, but would probably take the wider range if it was available.

mrmonkfinger

now if they could only figure out some way of putting 11 gears with about a 400% ratio inside a hub...


nah, that'd never work.



http://road.cc/content/news/13981-shima ... ideo-added

"total range is 409%"

njee20

now if they could only figure out some way of putting 11 gears with about a 400% ratio inside a hub without making it weigh more than a cheaper and less efficient than a dérailleur set up...

FTFY.

mrmonkfinger

this sram setup is cheaper?

njee20

Than a Rohloff? I'll say yes considering a Rohloff still needs cranks/cog/chain etc etc, and weighs more than an SLX set up.

bennett_346

I just like the granny ring because i usually mess around seeing what stupid stuff i can try and climb a la trials.

YeehaaMcgee

lawman wrote:

It's just most of the time I don't feel the need for it, and I love the weight saving a security of my chain devise too.

Well, sounds ideal for you then. Weight saving, by only having one ring - and you can still have a chain device, and a cop-out gear for those times you need it.

mrmonkfinger

njee20 wrote:

Than a Rohloff? I'll say yes considering a Rohloff still needs cranks/cog/chain etc etc, and weighs more than an SLX set up.

alfine 11 speed hub is £257 from bike-discount.de

but, + single cranks + chain + rear cog + tensioner + shifter