Sods, they could have saved some people some cash by making the chainrings with a standard BCD.

I am not terrible up to speed with all chainring BCD permutations, but this one lets you run a 28t “middle” ring as it were.

Just thinking the same. With my shoes and socks off I make it nearer £3!

Was your tyre £49.50 N?

erm Wouldn’t it be nearer £1800 a mile?

Ah yes, meant per metre! Quick mental tot up based on £50 tyre.

Sods, they could have saved some people some cash by making the chainrings with a standard BCD.

Why would they do that though!? It’s actually pretty neat – can easily be changed without removing the cranks, neat way the bolts thread in, and the profile of the spider means you take the pressure off the bolts as you pedal – less shear force.

I can’t work out if it’s just clever tooth profiling for better shifts, or whether the cassette in bikeradar’s review photos is already really worn. If it’s the latter, that’s a pretty quick way to spend £330…

interesting http://www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-xx1-ride-11-speed-2013.html

Thanks Toons… I’m trying hard not to really want this and you go and post that 🙄

we want to know how well the ring’s radically shaped teeth will function once they start showing some wear. Will the fancy X-Sync technology be for not after half a season of hard use?

That’s my concern as well. My XX big ring lasted about 6 months before it was totally ****, considering it’s a more ‘structural’ part of the group you have to wonder. Fairly intricate machining on the fat teeth too, looks like you’d lose those pretty quickly!

I wouldn’t be too concerned with chainring wear… if you already run 1×9/10 or Hammershcmidt you’ll know that chain and chainring wear is greatly reduced from 2 and 3 chainring set ups. Change the chain when it starts to show wear and the cassette and ring will last for ages.

I have a strong dislike for front mechs and don’t run them anymore on the bikes I currently ride offroad… I realise other people don’t have the same opinions or experiences 😉

The only thing that bugs me is the cost of the replacement cassette. Everything else I can deal with, but a component that I seem to wear out in around 2000km (10spd xt) costing £350 is a bit hard to stomach.

Yes, I love the idea of XX1 and I don’t mind spending for nice non-wearing parts but I’d have to be quite wealthy before I would consider spending £350 on a part that I’d be replacing every year.

Conan257: How about an X9 level 10 speed, 11-42 ish, normal chainring, normal shifter and chain device…

Then I could get the range of gears I need without spending silly money…

Inspired 😀 – I Would totally go for that. Maybe starting at 12t would give less nasty jumps at the dinner plate end…

I wouldn’t be too concerned with chainring wear… if you already run 1×9/10 or Hammershcmidt you’ll know that chain and chainring wear is greatly reduced from 2 and 3 chainring set ups. Change the chain when it starts to show wear and the cassette and ring will last for ages.

Aye, but ‘normal’ rings don’t have anything like such detailed machining of the teeth, and there’s a guide to keep the chain on.

If your tempted by xx1 why not just buy the chainset first (or the chain ring if your already running a 120bcd chandset) – when paired with a shadow+ rear mech it’s going to give you 99% of the chain re
tention advantages. Lots of us are already fine running 1×10 and xx1 still uses a 10 speed chain…..

Just don’t bother with the rear cassette and hassle that goes with it.

Hub gears seem like a good solution. Maybe the weight issue could be solved with more development effort?….What if the UCI made a ruling (and remember, making rules is their favourite hobby) – hub gears only for World Cup races? I think we’d see hub gear weights drop pretty fast.

If your tempted by xx1 why not just buy the chainset first (or the chain ring if your already running a 120bcd chandset)

It’s a 76mm BCD…

As I said previously I’d buy it if starting from scratch, but neither the chainring nor the wider cassette are big enough draws to make me want to upgrade my perfectly good 1×10 XTR! I’d say the wider cassette is the better USP though.

I don’t know about the tooth wear problem…The main wearing surface should still be the front face of each tooth. I don’t think the side would wear down much, so it should still grip the chain well:

I wonder about chainsuck in the mud with the additional friction between the chain and ring though…

Hub gears seem like a good solution. Maybe the weight issue could be solved with more development effort?….What if the UCI made a ruling (and remember, making rules is their favourite hobby) – hub gears only for World Cup races? I think we’d see hub gear weights drop pretty fast.

That’s a pretty daft notion though! What if the UCI made penny farthings compulsory? We’d see weight drop pretty quickly then 😕

Even if you deal with the weight you don’t tackle the lower efficiency of a hub gear system. I’d not want to give away x% of my power for nothing!

If your tempted by xx1 why not just buy the chainset first

I’m thinking this could work very well for me… If I drop to a 28 front ring with an 11-36 10 speed cassette I’ll be able run the considerably cheaper (and stronger looking) dinky Saint rear mech. From a quick look at the gear ratios I currently use I’ll lose a little off the top and bottom which I think I can live with.

Currently not many options for 28t front rings and even less suitable chain guides or I would probably have gone this route already 😐

I really can’t see the benefit of this system for 98% of riders over 1×10 or 2×9/10.

I just see it as being for sponsored athletes or unfit tarts who would rather spend a gazzilion pounds than admit they need a granny ring.

If it ‘trickles down’ (as if bike tech was ever cutting edge) then maybe it’ll be useful but at that price it’s just ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. How could you happily churn along a muddy/ gritty ride knowing your 3rd of a grand cassette is getting ground down?

That’s a pretty daft notion though!

Why? Production cars have benefitted from similar F1 development constraints – your example of a penny farthing is just fatuous. Let’s have some proper reasoning, please.

Hub gears seem like a good potential succesor to derailleur systems to me. Are they really that inefficent? I don’t like the weight of the current systems but if they could solve that then I’d trade a few watts for reliability, longevity and stickproofness.

I’d trade a few watts for reliability, longevity and stickproofness.

tru dat

Conan257: How about an X9 level 10 speed, 11-42 ish, normal chainring, normal shifter and chain device…

Then I could get the range of gears I need without spending silly money…

Inspired – I Would totally go for that. Maybe starting at 12t would give less nasty jumps at the dinner plate end…

If you’re going to knock 10% off the top then you may as well do it at the chainring. Going from a 33 to a 28 or 29 (~10%) would give the same top gear as a 32/12, but your lowest gear would be 10% higher, 36*1.1= ~40. So a 12-40 cassette would be the same ratios as a 11-36, just weigh more.

Depends where and what you ride though. Down South I’m rarely out of the middle third of the cassette, up north I’m rarely out of the lowest gears as it’s steep up then steep down requiring no pedaling. At GT I was rarely out of the top 3 gears on decents as they’re designed to be fast. So if you want a bike that can do all three* then XX1 would be brilliant, if you want to do one of those at a time you could run a normal 1×10.

I’ll definately buy something similar if Shimano do it, and it’s SLX/XT level, but I’m not paying more than £50 for a chain and cassette!

*Or ride the innerleithern XC with that overly steep climb out the car park followed by a gradual climb then 32-11 spinning out almost all the way round the other side. Having at least 1 lower and 1 higher gear would be ideal on that loop.

Why? Production cars have benefitted from similar F1 development constraints – your example of a penny farthing is just fatuous. Let’s have some proper reasoning, please.

Because the UCI aren’t going to do that, they’re as likely to make penny farthings compulsory, which would also drive huge developments in technology.

Hub gears seem like a good potential succesor to derailleur systems to me. Are they really that inefficent? I don’t like the weight of the current systems but if they could solve that then I’d trade a few watts for reliability, longevity and stickproofness.

No one seems to be able to agree, but 5-10% less efficient seems to be banded about. Personally I think things like this are a better solution, and one I’d be far keener to invest in than a similar weight hub gear. Of course, YMMV!

I don’t like the weight of the current systems but if they could solve that then I’d trade a few watts for reliability, longevity and stickproofness.

think you would have to trade in the reliability, longevity and stickproofness for the lighter weight.

think you would have to trade in the reliability, longevity and stickproofness for the lighter weight.

The Pinion is Deore groupset ballpark weight, Ok so it’s XTR/XX money, but I rekon it’s the future for non XC bikes. XC (and probably most compettative raceing maybe except DH) will stick with mechs as loseing 10% of the power would lose them the race every time (whereas a busted mech will lose them maybe 1in100 races).

The UCI tend to reactive, banning things bike firms are bringing in, rather than proactive and forcing companies to use Penny Farthings/Hub gears etc.

Depends where and what you ride though. Down South I’m rarely out of the middle third of the cassette, up north I’m rarely out of the lowest gears as it’s steep up then steep down requiring no pedaling. At GT I was rarely out of the top 3 gears on decents as they’re designed to be fast. So if you want a bike that can do all three* then XX1 would be brilliant, if you want to do one of those at a time you could run a normal 1×10.

Think I’d rather just spend £100 on three different sized chainrings for those different conditions, spend 5 mins swapping them over and save the other £900…

Is that chainring SRAMs reply to the clutch system on the XTR rear mechs? That supposedly stops chain flying off too.

Whatever happended to that Canyon rear hub that was supposedly light and had a three speed built into it al la Sturmly Archer? I’d certainly be tempted with that and a relatively close ratio (cheapish) cassette.

And didn’t the Olympic rider who was using XX1 have a chain guide on his bike during the ride that funnily ‘disappeared’ on all the promo shots?

Think I’d rather just spend £100 on three different sized chainrings for those different conditions, spend 5 mins swapping them over and save the other £900…

You could, but, there are still climbs at GT where a lower gear might be usefull, the Peaks still involve long road connection sections where 32/11 spins out even if 90% ofthe rest of the ride is in 32/36. And Innerleithen isn’t unique in the brutaly steep climb followed by mellow but flat out decent format.

It’s all comprimise through, you could go back to 3×10, always have the right gear, but reliability was hit and miss and it ate into ground clerance. You could go double and gain a little ground clerance and reliability, but it’s still fallible. Or 1×10, loads of ground clearance, as reliable as can be but gear range is comprimised. Or XX1, all the advantages of 1×10 with less comprimise (appart from your bank ballance).

I’ll have it, but only once it’s filtered down. I can’t see anything there that can’t be made to work at a lower level, the big cassette can just be a normal 11-36 with a 42 alloy sprocket riveted to the back. The shifter, chain, dereillieur are all no more complicated than the existing cheep ones.

Is that chainring SRAMs reply to the clutch system on the XTR rear mechs? That supposedly stops chain flying off too.

SRAM came out with a clutch first IIRC? Although they seem to be taking longer to get it into the shops.

And didn’t the Olympic rider who was using XX1 have a chain guide on his bike during the ride that funnily ‘disappeared’ on all the promo shots?

No, that was Enduro rider Jerome Clementz, the Olympic riders didn’t have one. We also don’t know if folk (like JC) are fitting one as an extra precaution, not like weight is as big an issue in Enduro.

SRAM came out with a clutch first IIRC? Although they seem to be taking longer to get it into the shops.

Nah, I think Shimano were first with Shadow Plus, not a huge amount in it admittedly.

No, that was Enduro rider Jerome Clementz, the Olympic riders didn’t have one. We also don’t know if folk (like JC) are fitting one as an extra precaution, not like weight is as big an issue in Enduro.

If weight isn’t the issue for trail riders then why are we all discussing a £1000 ‘miracle’ upgrade 😉

If weight isn’t the issue for trail riders then why are we all discussing a £1000 ‘miracle’ upgrade

Because it has more gears? It’s always going to be heavier than XX so it’s not a weight-loss upgrade.

I’m waiting on the £200 version (i.e. normal discounted XT money).

Well I’ve said it before, but I think the whole concept is fantastic.

Yes, this first iteration is expensive, but tbh the price of a chainset is likely to be under £300 which compared to XT+chain guard isn’t too bad.

I think the price is a reasonable reflection of the advantages compared to other groupsets combined with the costs of developing a ground-up solution.

Hopefully there will be a X-9 level groups at some point (or even better a response from Shimano).

I’m probably going to lob an x0 crank on with an MRP Bling ring of 28t and and mrp micro SL chainguide.
I am already 1×10 32/11-36 on my 29 but sometimes would like a little lower. I could cope with slightly less top end I think.

I also like the concept of xx1 BUT I don’t like the idea of a £220 rear mech (disposable item) and I have CK hubs and don’t want to change them ta!

This way I get to keep my shadow plus XT mech at £70, with the advantages of the lower gearing. I’d run a chain device anyway in the terrain I like..

Quick work from Hope… a few months ago they said via email they had no plans for an XX1 compatible freehub body… but here it is…

Ooooooh 8)

EDIT – Yes, I know this is one of those plastic or whatever solid model things but it shows they are working on it.

That’s pretty good actually, got to be a good step in the right direction. Once they do an X.0 level cassette I’d definitely consider an upgrade.

heres a really long vid about it all……….

http://dirt.mpora.com/news/new-cogs-on-the-block-sram-xx1.html

njee20 – Member

Nah, I think Shimano were first with Shadow Plus, not a huge amount in it admittedly.

That was pretty interesting actually… As soon as the Shimano stuff was public, SRAM had their spy shots out, and just a few months later it was in full production… which tells you they already had the product good to go before Shimano announced theirs, but were keeping schtum. Makes you wonder how long they’d have waited

I’m a huge fan of single front rings for my mtbs.
But only just got a xx group at the start of the year so be a while before I can justify a upgrade

Just hoping there is a xo level one on the way.

Going to see if the new trick chainring fits my xx cranks though

There’s such a limited market for drivetrain systems that cost in excess of £1100 that it would be ridiculous to develop such a system if you had no intention of trickling the technology down to lower level groups sets.

For sure we will see 11 speed X7, X9 and X0 systems in the near future.

For sure we will see 11 speed X7, X9 and X0 systems in the near future.

and no doubt xtr then xt, slx etc

We had a look at it in Whistler during Crankworx, they had a bike on a desk in the SRAM ‘shop’.

The R wheel was fixed in a stand so we couldn’t pedal it and the chain was on the largest sprocket, (can’t remember what bike it was), and whilst we initially thought ‘yeh that’s good’, we then back pedaled it and the chain came off the rear sprocket a couple of gears and locked up, so there are Def chainline problems with the system.