Expander gears now up to 50t

supersonic

Yep, it's 1/5th, always for a given chainring of any size.

32 chainring?
32/10 = 3.2
32/50 = 0.64

0.64 is 1/5 of 3.2. Or 3.2 is 500% more than 0.64.

Herdwick

That is where marketing starts fecking around, this thing will cost a fortune, with the massive of alternatives around it's plain stupid to pay all that money just for posing around the trailhead and showing off you expensive bling, you can pay much less and get pretty much the same range or you can go a bit heavier with a 2x11 and get less jumping between gears that is more important to xc and long haul rides, where in a 1x a gear some times is a bit low and the next one is a bit heavy and can't keep a comfy pace.

I run 1x10 with a 34 oval up front on my hardtail and there are climbs that some times can get up the top, knackered while other times I push, but that's because can't keep up with training and gym,
Last time I tried a big epic on my hardtail I run out of legs halfway, next time brought the occam with 2x10 and although 1.2 kg heavier the same route was much more pleasant for my legs.

I am willing to get an 42T expander or a heavier 2x10 (that I can sort the parts for free) for the hardtail but don't know, paying that much for a fancy 1x12 setup is way to expensive for me and really stupid, even if money no object

FishFish

supersonic wrote:

Yep, it's 1/5th, always for a given chainring of any size.

32 chainring?
32/10 = 3.2
32/50 = 0.64

0.64 is 1/5 of 3.2. Or 3.2 is 500% more than 0.64.

You are right but....

5 times 0.64 or 400% more than 0.64 or 500% of 0.64.

Sorry, I'm only pedantic on Easter Friday in the 5th leap year of a new century.

Angus Young

Herdwick wrote:

this thing will cost a fortune, with the massive of alternatives around it's plain stupid to pay all that money just for posing around the trailhead and showing off you expensive bling

The only 'stupid' thing is making idiot comments like that. Always says more about the person making the comment that it does about the guy with the kit. So what if people want to spend lots of money on their bike - it's a hobby, every single penny you spend is "stupid" so who are you to decide where to draw the line. And let me guess, you draw the line just somewhere north of your level of excess, right? And who are you to decide why people are rocking an expensive piece of kit? Who are you to decide they're all "posers"?

Herdwick

Nobody, and thats why I can judge.

Plain stupid it is, you get draged by the bells from the marketing hype. Either you like it or not. And who ever turns up on blingy expensive bikes, cars, yachts etc are posers and thats obvious.
development of drive trains should evolve from the needs of the sport, solving problems.

Angus Young

Herdwick wrote:

And who ever turns up on blingy expensive bikes, cars, yachts etc are posers and thats obvious.

It's only "obvious" if you come at it with your mind already made up. If you want it to be so.

Envious, much?

JGTR

Herdwick wrote:

Nobody, and thats why I can judge.

Plain stupid it is, you get draged by the bells from the marketing hype. Either you like it or not. And who ever turns up on blingy expensive bikes, cars, yachts etc are posers and thats obvious.
development of drive trains should evolve from the needs of the sport, solving problems.

Yes are all aware of marketing hype thanks for pointing that out but we choose what to spend our money on and some of us like to spend our money on our hobbies, it's great to have the latest bit of bike bling, if you don't then that's your problem, don't get the hump about it, make your own choice and worry less about what others do.

And expensive as it is, eventually it will come down in price, that's how it works, disc brakes originally cost a fortune but are in standard kit on the most basic of bikes now.

Herdwick

You got me wrong here,
I don't have a problem if you go 1x12 or 1x17 thats coming out next year, spend all the money you want, or chop your head off, I don't care, only said it's rediculously expensive, offers way less in return and that is stupid and so who ever buys it,
can I have my opinion?

Herdwick

Angus Young wrote:

It's only "obvious" if you come at it with your mind already made up. If you want it to be so.

Yes it's obvious that some don't understand the difference of what you need and what you want

Angus Young

Herdwick wrote:

You got me wrong here,
I don't have a problem if you go 1x12 or 1x17 thats coming out next year, spend all the money you want, or chop your head off, I don't care, only said it's rediculously expensive, offers way less in return and that is stupid and so who ever buys it,
can I have my opinion?

No, I think we've got you right - your opinion is that anyone who spends more than you is a wankër.

Angus Young

Herdwick wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

It's only "obvious" if you come at it with your mind already made up. If you want it to be so.

Yes it's obvious that some don't understand the difference of what you need and what you want

It's a hobby so the difference between what you 'need' and what you 'want' is irrelevant.

Herdwick

Not a w@nker, stupid,
we are all w@nkers, or where at some point of our lives (for the olders)

don't mind spending more than me, honestly, but this one goes way beyond stupid FOR WHAT YOU GET
read the caps!!!

Herdwick

Angus Young wrote:

It's a hobby so the difference between what you 'need' and what you 'want' is irrelevant.

You have to get over the what you want, get on with what you need and enjoy

Angus Young

Herdwick wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

It's a hobby so the difference between what you 'need' and what you 'want' is irrelevant.

You have to get over the what you want, get on with what you need and enjoy

Err... the whole point of a hobby is you get to do what you want, not what you need. The dullest people in the world are those who think you have to be sensible over something as absurd as mountain biking.

Chunkers1980

I'm happy with my triple, middle for most and either way if needed. Currently using a borrowed Epic, good bike really, doubles suck, no where near the range especially as I like to stomp. Eagle seems like a good product, it'll find its purpose. Use what you need. But a triple is perfect for me.

Angus Young

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I'm happy with my triple, middle for most and either way if needed. Currently using a borrowed Epic, good bike really, doubles suck, no where near the range especially as I like to stomp. Eagle seems like a good product, it'll find its purpose. Use what you need. But a triple is perfect for me.

Can see me ever going back to multiple rings upfront. It's so liberating to be rid of them. Until they're gone you don't realise how much brain space they take up.

kickaxe

Angus Young wrote:

Can see me ever going back to multiple rings upfront. It's so liberating to be rid of them. Until they're gone you don't realise how much brain space they take up.

When I got my new bike, it had a double instead of the triple on my previous bike, and even that switch did make everything much simpler and even more fun tbh

supersonic

Is always the same - they take a chainring off, convince us (some/many) that doubles can provide all the range... then realise that they don't for all, so they expand the cassette to compensate. Do the same again, convince us that a single ring is all we need - expand the cassette again to compensate. Anyway, a few musings...

To some 1x is all they need. However I think there is still a place for the front mech but sadly it will now be dropped from SRAMs top end range. Maybe from Shimano's too eventually. 0r will they relaunch it? In a superlight, wide ranging double format? Shimanos MTB mechs got bulky with the multi pull/band stuff, a dedicated unit could drop them below 100g. Maybe an 11-32 cassette with the lightweight treatment too, 20/36 rings. I'd be interested, but I don't think it would happen because more rear cogs is simply seen as better by most (and their Dynasis system was meant to reduce 'recovery' shifts). I could go custom - some 11-32 ti cassettes out there for less than SRAMs new Eagle cassette, and of course lighter, some 20t front cogs too. The new Eagle chainset though has dropped some serious weight off the old unit, but again, there are alternatively some very light units out there and rings.

Either way Shimano need to respond to this, and the new NX budget range. The 11t small cog limits range compared to SRAMs XD, though Shimano does have something similar called Capreo. Problem is when you drop to 9t cogs, the current pitch (1/2 inch) of the chain winds around at an extreme angle and doesn't particularly engage well or uniformly - this causes an odd sensation whilst pedaling hard and is also less efficient. Also axle type/size may be an issue. A radical idea might be to decrease the chain pitch and introduce an entirely new format.

BigAl

Angus Young wrote:

Can see me ever going back to multiple rings upfront. It's so liberating to be rid of them. Until they're gone you don't realise how much brain space they take up.

What ?!?!?!!!?!!??!!?

Your brain space is consumed by triple rings and front mechs?

I find actually riding my bike to be liberating.

Too many folk more interested in bicycles rather than bicycling

BigAl

supersonic wrote:

A radical idea might be to decrease the chain pitch and introduce an entirely new format.

Yes, but shorter chain pitch would increase cost and (likely) reduce reliability.

To be fair to SRAM the 50T sprocket is, perversely, about increasing the higher gear by allowing a larger chainring.

Be interesting to see how Shimano respond and how all this settles down.

Personally I don't need 10T or 50T. I run a 1x10 set-up with a 34T chainring and an 11/36 cassette and it does me fine

Steve-XcT

Herdwick wrote:

That is where marketing starts ******* .......

I am willing to get an 42T expander or a heavier 2x10 (that I can sort the parts for free) for the hardtail but don't know, paying that much for a fancy 1x12 setup is way to expensive for me and really stupid, even if money no object

I simply can't understand where/how it would be used.... where there isn't a far better option.

As it happens I put a 40T expander onto my kids 24er last night.... (in preparation for some cycling in the Peaks) ... He already had a 30/36 so its an 4 extra teeth... but this necessitated me putting 3 links back in the chain. (Luckily they were still in the garage... and I had a extra KMC link)

I expect he will use the 40T on the steepest climbs.... but its gotta be slower than walking!
I'm already wondering if this is a practical set-up... which of the other gears really get used at all?

It seems initially (at least to me) that a redesigned 1x10 would do everything.... split into 3 small gears, 3 medium and 3 large then a bigger for "jeez that's steep" and if that doesn't do then a 2x10 surely would and I can't see serious racers in any discipline using the range of a 11 speed 50T.. The biggest would be good for dedicated DHers who might then ride up....

I guess the only places you'd want no gaps in the ratio's might be offroad cycle touring carrying tents and stuff???

So it seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist...

The Rookie

supersonic wrote:

, a dedicated unit could drop them below 100g

I had a not particularly fancy Sora on my commuter, 103g.

Angus Young

BigAl wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

Can see me ever going back to multiple rings upfront. It's so liberating to be rid of them. Until they're gone you don't realise how much brain space they take up.

What ?!?!?!!!?!!??!!?

Your brain space is consumed by triple rings and front mechs?

I find actually riding my bike to be liberating.

Too many folk more interested in bicycles rather than bicycling

It's about the riding not the bike. I don't mean thinking about the kit, I mean thinking about where you are in the range when you have to do that little mental sum of which front ring times the gears. Of course, in itself it's not such a big deal, but it's kind of like working in an office with a photocopier in the corner. You don't notice it all day. The, when someone switches it off at the end of the day, you realise how much that quite hum that you thought you couldn't hear was actually bugging you all day.

The Rookie

I must admit to being a fan of 1x, my MTB, my commuter and my town hack bike (1x7) are all single chainring. Only my 1997 retro is multi ring as it wouldn't be retro with a single!

BloggingFit

For many it's just as much about the kit as it is just riding the bike. There is this romantic picture painted of riders enjoying their riding on whatever outdated tech they can get their hands on but I don't buy that for a second. Sure, it's good for a laugh once in a while but week in, week out? It's a little like the classic car scene - ok for a weekend drive but you wouldn't do your daily work commute in one.

Modern tech can enhance the riding experience in so may positive ways, just as much as outdated tech can do the same but in a different sort of way. If people are to dismiss the tech side completely and say it's just about the riding then go take a bone shaker or hobby horse for a spin and see how you feel after that... there will always be a balance and compromise beteen riding expereince and riding tech.

Back to 12 speed, there is possibly less of a need for the majority of needs compared to 11 speed but it's an option that uses current standards so it's hardly the hooha that 10 speed SRAM users experienced. With 12 speed it's allows use of a bigger chaninring which does push the spread back towards multiple chainrings but if we have moved back to almost equal ground in terms of usabilty but with less mechanical means of operation then surely this is a positive thing?

Of the back of this we can allow designers more freedom for frame design without the need of a front mech so the posibilities of what this new found freedom can offer could be pretty exciting.

roger_merriman

Thing that strikes me for both the expander cog and scram eagle. is the jump in Teeth and thus its something of a bailout gear like you get on some very cheap bikes.

If you've ever ridden bikes with such bailout gear on the cassette/freewheel it's a fairly uncomfortable jump.

My bikes are 3X9 and 2X10 the 1X12 is very close to the 2X10 range though the 2X9 has a few extra gears either low or high depending on the chainring.

Chunkers1980

It's not that bad. 42 - 50 is less than 20%, 10 - 12 is 20%

roger_merriman

Chunkers1980 wrote:

It's not that bad. 42 - 50 is less than 20%, 10 - 12 is 20%

MTB cassettes do tend to have a 17/18% jump at the smallest cog, but the largest cog down/up is normally a much less of a jump, on my bikes it's 13% for 10 speed double and the 9speed triple.

for it's intended use, ie to get up steep hills or what not, shifting back or fore with a closer range cassette over the last few cogs all else being equal is much better system.

cycleclinic

My problem with 1x11 (and I ride with folk who use it) is I currently use a XTR 40/28T double with 11-32T cassette on a 29er. Now while I dont ride in hills of england we do in suffolk have some steep off road climbs that are rutted e.t.c. I hardly ever use the inner ring though. I cant get a 40T narrow wide chainring.

Now the 1x11 SRAM 10-42T with a 38T chainring would be enough for me but the jumps in cadance would be too big for me. I dont use a 11-36T cassette for this reason one I dont use the 36T and the jumps in cadance at the top end of the cassette are not that comfortable. It is not like I am some die hard for the old times either. It is just that with 1x11 there is a lack of choice for cassettes. The new 12 speed 1x12 10-50T or an expander cassette is even more pointless.

I struggle with the whole idea. It seams to be a way of restricting choice rather than increasing it. Not everyone rides off road in the lake district, does enduro or whatever the latest niche is. What happened to catering for the XC market.

I might switch to shimano 1x10 if I could have a 40T chainring. Surely there are more people like me who are comfortable in a big gear.

Oh by the way I would consider a 10-12T start on a cassette too much of a jump. I like 11-12-13T.

Also if SRAM want range and I have nothing against that why are they persisting in trying to cram as many sprockets on a freehub as possible. Why not do a gearbox or a hub gear box.

BloggingFit

The jumps for 1x10, 11, 12 aren't as bad as they look. There is the occasion where you can feel in between gears but I've even experienced this with a 2x set up. When I first considered moving to a 1x system I simply spend a few rides sticking to my middle ring to see how it felt overall. This initally felt a bit odd as I would use my 42t and push gears at any opportunity I could get where as now I really don't miss by 2x set up. For me the simplicity out weighs the odd occasion of not quite having the right ratio.