Expander gears now up to 50t

swod1

Just seen that one up components now sell a 50t expander for 11x speed.

This is getting out of hand now as how much range do you need on a bike?

They say you can go up 4 teeth on front chain ring.

http://int.oneupcomponents.com/collecti ... t-18t-1x11

supersonic

If only single ring systems existed, and I wanted to improve range further, I'd invent an extra ring up front and shifting system. Oh, wait a minute...

Though is good to have choice. Their claim of 500% range is wrong - 11-50 has a range of 454%. Compare with a double 36/22 with 32-11 cassette (476%). But what about weight? Well the stock 11-42 XT cassette is 447g, add in your 80g for the cogs and is 527g. My XT 11-32 is 255g (9 speed). XT front mech (751) 135g, shifter 125g, ring and bolts 35g, cabling 20g. You save 335g but add in 272g with just the cassette. You'll need more chain too. Older XT772 rear mechs are some 50g lighter too.

In a nut shell, it works out roughly the same, give a take a few variations in XT models and years. It all depends on your preferences.

But with SRAM... it is going to be a bit lighter if they bring out something similar. Would be a true 500% range (10-50) and their cassettes tend to be lighter than Shimanos efforts.

Myself, I'm sticking with front mechs and 11-32 for now. It's cheap, it works, I have closer ratios, yet a wider range than this OneUp thing, and it isn't any heavier in XT guise. And a triple on my Zaskar LE.

swod1

I've had enough of front mechs so recently dropped it and run an 11-36 with 34t.

Gets me along fine, have taken more interest in these oval rings for better pedalling efficiency up hills.

You can expand the 11x even further it seems add a 10,12,15t to change to 10-50.

The Rookie

swod1 wrote:

have taken more interest in these oval rings for better pedalling efficiency up hills.

That claim always makes me laugh, so you get better pedalling efficiency (they claim) up hills, but not (they don't claim it) on the flat right - so how does that work? On that basis is it less efficient downhill? Its either more efficient or it is not, unless they are saying it's only more efficient when you are out the saddle (vague correlation to uphill then), in which case as I tend to be a sit and spin'er it won't help me uphill anyway despite the claims........ Just to be clear, I think they do offer a benefit, I just think the marketing is woeful! (noting they claim you won't feel the oval; effect at all, yet many users (including those who are happy with them) say you most definitely can.

supersonic wrote:

But what about weight? Well the stock 11-42 XT cassette is 447g, add in your 80g for the cogs and is 527g. My XT 11-32 is 255g (9 speed). XT front mech (751) 135g, shifter 125g, ring and bolts 35g, cabling 20g. You save 335g but add in 272g with just the cassette. You'll need more chain too. Older XT772 rear mechs are some 50g lighter too.

The Sunrace MX3 10s cassettes at 378g (11-40) or 387g (11-42) claimed is very appealing, I'm getting one to team with my XTR 9 speed (196g measured) and 10s road shifter, not quite the gear range but I've not struggled using 1x9 11-34 too much so the range will be fine for me.

swod1

The Rookie wrote:

That claim always makes me laugh, so you get better pedalling efficiency (they claim) up hills, but not (they don't claim it) on the flat right - so how does that work? On that basis is it less efficient downhill? Its either more efficient or it is not, unless they are saying it's only more efficient when you are out the saddle (vague correlation to uphill then), in which case as I tend to be a sit and spin'er it won't help me uphill anyway despite the claims........ Just to be clear, I think they do offer a benefit, I just think the marketing is woeful! (noting they claim you won't feel the oval; effect at all, yet many users (including those who are happy with them) say you most definitely can.

Yes I think it is just the marketing claims they boost up to shift loads of them, to be honest I've not felt that I need to try one out yet as a few hills up around where I live I tend to be able to get up them without any issue and cant say I have had to restore to going into the 36t cog only to test gear indexing

The Rookie wrote:

The Sunrace MX3 10s cassettes at 378g (11-40) or 387g (11-42) claimed is very appealing, I'm getting one to team with my XTR 9 speed (196g measured) and 10s road shifter, not quite the gear range but I've not struggled using 1x9 11-34 too much so the range will be fine for me.

these have got my interest more over fiddling about with oval chain ring shapes and I wonder the ratio of the hope cassette if this has a wide range or sticks to the standard shimano/sram ratios.

I did read on the forum someone had one of these cassettes and found that it worn through chains but I haven't read this effecting loads of people, so could be counted as a one off.

The Rookie

RMSC has said that they seemed to wear the chain faster....I'll let you know how I get on once it's up and running!

kajjal

Its become more about personal preference now than weight saving. I prefer 2 x 10 with two closer ranges of gears than a single wider spread with bigger gaps between the gears for my xc riding. If i was doing downhill it may be very different.

poah

I find my 11-42 with a 32t oval up front perfect. If I needed a bigger gear I'd be quicker walking

BigAl

POAH wrote:

I find my 11-42 with a 32t oval up front perfect. If I needed a bigger gear I'd be quicker walking

This ^^^^^^^

rockmonkeysc

That explains why 26" wheels were killed off, to make them bigger than these expanders.

BloggingFit

The 50t seems overkill to me. Seems like it's getting to the point of solving s problem that doesn't really exist. With a 10t cog you can afford to use a smaller chainring if you really need that easy a gear to pedal with as you would be hard pushed to be spinning that out off road on a regular basis for any prolonged length of time.

supersonic

That's the beauty with the 10t - you expand range for less weight. 50t you add in weight.

I know it is not all about weight, but is an often cited reason.

I also like the closer ratios with each ring in a double or triple set up as mentioned by Kajjal.

The smallest gear I am using is 22/32 - and i know some like less than this even. Sometimes it is slow, may be slower than walking - but it is still biking ;-). Sometimes favours very steep and technical climbs with big rocks and slabs to get over, but as mentioned, is all preference. At least there are options for most people. One argument I detest is the 'just pedal harder' brigade. If that were true, then why aren't they running a bigger ring than they are on? Why not just single speed it 44/11 everywhere? Just pedal harder, right?

poah

supersonic wrote:

That's the beauty with the 10t - you expand range for less weight. 50t you add in weight.

10t is pointless for me as I don't even use 11t

Thewaylander

POAH wrote:

supersonic wrote:

That's the beauty with the 10t - you expand range for less weight. 50t you add in weight.

10t is pointless for me as I don't even use 11t

Then use a smaller chainring and save some weight

Steve-XcT

supersonic wrote:

That's the beauty with the 10t - you expand range for less weight. 50t you add in weight.

I know it is not all about weight, but is an often cited reason.

I also like the closer ratios with each ring in a double or triple set up as mentioned by Kajjal.

The smallest gear I am using is 22/32 - and i know some like less than this even. Sometimes it is slow, may be slower than walking - but it is still biking ;-). Sometimes favours very steep and technical climbs with big rocks and slabs to get over, but as mentioned, is all preference. At least there are options for most people. One argument I detest is the 'just pedal harder' brigade. If that were true, then why aren't they running a bigger ring than they are on? Why not just single speed it 44/11 everywhere? Just pedal harder, right?

In my limited experience
There comes a point where its more about obstacles and momentum to get over them and going slower doesn't help.

bigmitch41

BigAl wrote:

POAH wrote:

I find my 11-42 with a 32t oval up front perfect. If I needed a bigger gear I'd be quicker walking

This ^^^^^^^

And me, I occasionally spin out on the road & can get up most climbs pedaling but mostly 11-42 and a 32t front ring works for me..

97th choice

horses for courses, my full suss has 34t and 11-36 for simplicity. My hard tail on the other hand has 3x10 which is perfect for what I do on it.

some of the the stuff I read on here and elsewhere is crazy, people looking for 30t and 11-42t just because they 'have' to go 1 up.

poah

Thewaylander wrote:

POAH wrote:

supersonic wrote:

That's the beauty with the 10t - you expand range for less weight. 50t you add in weight.

10t is pointless for me as I don't even use 11t

Then use a smaller chainring and save some weight

don't need a smaller chainring as I climb fine with my 32t oval. tried a 30t to get a better spread but found the ratios I got were not to my liking. felt I was inbetween the ideal ratio for my cadence. Still didn't use the 11t lol

kajjal

97th choice wrote:

horses for courses, my full suss has 34t and 11-36 for simplicity. My hard tail on the other hand has 3x10 which is perfect for what I do on it.

some of the the stuff I read on here and elsewhere is crazy, people looking for 30t and 11-42t just because they 'have' to go 1 up.

That would be my concern, just choose the gearing that suits your riding not what the next fad is. A bit like the current plus sized bikes that are being plugged everywhere. May as well get a motocross bike if you don't want to feel the trail at all

Briggo

97th choice wrote:

some of the the stuff I read on here and elsewhere is crazy, people looking for 30t and 11-42t just because they 'have' to go 1 up.

Keh?

I have 30 and 11-42 setup, its great for what I want and where I ride, its not about the latest fad or being one up its about utilising options available to the consumer. :roll:

97th choice

Briggo wrote:

97th choice wrote:

some of the the stuff I read on here and elsewhere is crazy, people looking for 30t and 11-42t just because they 'have' to go 1 up.

Keh?

I have 30 and 11-42 setup, its great for what I want and where I ride, its not about the latest fad or being one up its about utilising options available to the consumer. :roll:

Good for you. Personally if I needed 30 X 42 for climbing I would have stayed with a 2X or even 3X. But it's only my opinion

Briggo

So if I have to accept your opinion then you should accept others choices on what they use.

If people want to use 1x11 then it's their choice and opinion and isn't 'crazy'.

poah

97th choice wrote:

Briggo wrote:

97th choice wrote:

some of the the stuff I read on here and elsewhere is crazy, people looking for 30t and 11-42t just because they 'have' to go 1 up.

Keh?

I have 30 and 11-42 setup, its great for what I want and where I ride, its not about the latest fad or being one up its about utilising options available to the consumer. :roll:

Good for you. Personally if I needed 30 X 42 for climbing I would have stayed with a 2X or even 3X. But it's only my opinion

that makes no sense though. he can climb everything he wants and doesn't run out of gears with his current set up so why would staying with a 2x or 3x with the added be a better idea?

97th choice

Briggo wrote:

So if I have to accept your opinion then you should accept others choices on what they use.

If people want to use 1x11 then it's their choice and opinion and isn't 'crazy'.

I'm not stopping anyone, I just think it is a bit crazy unless you are using your bike within fairly narrow parameters. My Giant is used for enduro type stuff so the majority of the time the set up works, but even within that there are odd times when I would wish for an easier gear going up and wish I wasn't spinning out going down. If people want to fit a 30t or 28t front ring and a 42 rear ring then good for them.....for me that suggests they would be better off with the 22t on the front that they've removed.

kajjal

97th choice wrote:

Briggo wrote:

So if I have to accept your opinion then you should accept others choices on what they use.

If people want to use 1x11 then it's their choice and opinion and isn't 'crazy'.

I'm not stopping anyone, I just think it is a bit crazy unless you are using your bike within fairly narrow parameters. My Giant is used for enduro type stuff so the majority of the time the set up works, but even within that there are odd times when I would wish for an easier gear going up and wish I wasn't spinning out going down. If people want to fit a 30t or 28t front ring and a 42 rear ring then good for them.....for me that suggests they would be better off with the 22t on the front that they've removed.

That's the same way i see it. 1 x is great for some peoples riding but for others like myself it doesn't give the range of gearing i need with minimal gaps between gears.

rockmonkeysc

It seems SRAMs marketing morons can't understand how basic maths work.
The claim of a 500% gear range is b@llocks. Gears are ratios so the range of gears is lowest ratio to highest ratio. Unless you use a 10t front chain ring you won't get 500% ratio range.

kajjal

RockmonkeySC wrote:

It seems SRAMs marketing morons can't understand how basic maths work.
The claim of a 500% gear range is b@llocks. Gears are ratios so the range of gears is lowest ratio to highest ratio. Unless you use a 10t front chain ring you won't get 500% ratio range.

I was wondering how they worked that out

Seems regurgitating marketing info unchecked is the name of the game.

supersonic

Not sure I follow your thinking or have misread you - the highest gear is 5x the lowest, regardless of the chainring size you use.

kickaxe

Sram also just came out with a 1x12 50t group set as well:

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-eagle ... -2016.html

Angus Young

I love it! Get me up that hill!

rockmonkeysc

supersonic wrote:

Not sure I follow your thinking or have misread you - the highest gear is 5x the lowest, regardless of the chainring size you use.

Work out the final ratios. They are all that matters. Your lowest ratio won't be one fifth of your highest ratio (unless your front ring is 10t).
Simple maffs innit?