Mechs with parallelograms track the size of the sprockets as they shift to them – ensuring as much chain wrap as possible.

It looks like the horizontal action on the SRAM rear mech *doesn’t* do this, so the smaller the sprocket, the less chain wrap, and the less teeth engaged with the chain.

It looks like it’s designed in such a way that the upper jockey wheel isn’t coaxial with the pivot as on normal mechs; the upper jockey wheel tracks the cassette by rotating the whole cage:

Andy

And IIRC you can buy some seperate XX sprockets at the small end as they wear?

You can buy the 11 and the 36, the rest is one machined lump, that’s the point.

wouldn’t a twin ring setup on the front do this? I’ve gone to 26, 36 on my geared bike in a 2×9 (11-32t) setup, and it dos the trick pretty well. Much less hassle than three rings. This isn’t a wind-up – give it a pop.

To answer your question Mr Bent Udder, I worked my way down from three front chainrings to one via two… in my (humble?) experience two chainrings still needs a front mech, and as I stated at the top of my post front mechs are not for me (except on my road bike… which I never use… the road bike that is… and when I did use it I was informed by the club I rode with that using the smaller chainring was a sign of weakness… as soon as you reach for that gear they will attack… that’s cat1 roadies for you 🙄 ).

So, no front mechs for me offroad* (unless I buy a cyclocross bike or take up XC racing again… or things change and I change my mind… oh whatever 😳 😉 ).

* at the moment; I reserve the right to change my mind whenever I choose and generally do whatever I deem appropriate if it so pleases me.

Glad I didn’t upgrade to 1×10, this seems pretty good to me!

From the update on bike rumour.

UPDATE: It’ll work on all of DT Swiss’ Star Ratchet equipped wheels (most of their high-end stuff) and on SRAM’s Rise 60 wheels. It won’t work on the Rise 40 wheels because they use a different driver body. Lalonde says nothing changed inside the driver body compared to a freehub body, just the outer shape was changed to accommodate the 10T cog. Theoretically, it pops on and off a hub the same way a standard freehub body would (depending on hub model, of course), which means it’s not a stretch that we’ll see it offered as an option on other brands. The design is open for other wheel manufacturers to use without licensing.

Please Hope… do this one little thing for me so I don’t need to buy new wheels

Edit… maybe Hope could adapt this system to the cassette thing they are building and give me people 10-36 10 speed cassettes etc…

I’m with Messiah here. We ride similar stuff and I also have a Hammerschizzle for similar reasons. I’m running 1×10 on my big bike and sometimes. like the weekend, its just not low enough, like at the weekend in Wales with steep hills and thick mud after 9hrs riding. Now, I dont mind the walk, a compromise I’m willing to make, but I’d like a lower option (tho it could look minging)
This could well be my one solution and eliminate my need for a hammerschmidt.

The bugger is only DT rear hub compatibility. I run CK and maybe they’ll make a freehub to fit we’ll see. I could of course swop out the hub for a 240s, but I think I’ll wait and see if CK does one of these babies.

All in I think this looks like a great groupset.
The suggested price is an utter joke of course, but then again they always are on new stuff. I’m sure next year we will see a cheaper version.
I really hope shimano do something similar soon…

Shouldn’t it be X1?

They’re X short of gears. like the whole 1x thing but that 42 looks like a big jump – kind of Apex for enduro, cant be ar*ed counting the teeth on the next one in but it doesnt look like an even spread to me – first person to do it wins a prize.

I’ve loved the idea of this since I first saw it.
I’ve often considered going 1×9, but the need for a weird small chainring (the Widgit) to keep my low gears has put me off.

I would probably partner the 10-42 with a 30t chainring (available 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38-teeth). I’ve never been one to use the really high gears anyway.

The whole ground-up development of this is the biggest innovation in gearing for donkey’s years.

I don’t like SRAM as a rule, but this has got me thinking.

I wonder if they will add a Quark power meter to the chainset – the ‘ultimate’ singlespeed option!

I currently run 1×10 with a 30t ring and 12-36 cassette, I can climb pretty much anything with this and after a year or so it feels ridiculous jumping on something with a granny (road runner legs). This system looks cool but the price is laughable, wouldn’t the chain line be stupid too?

I run CK and maybe they’ll make a freehub to fit we’ll see

If they do it won’t be until 2025! I’d get some DTs!

I wonder if they will add a Quark power meter to the chainset – the ‘ultimate’ singlespeed option!

Quarq*, but why would that be the ultimate SS option? You have loads of chainset mounted power meters that will work with SS, can’t see this brings anything new to the party for SS.

Ratherbeintobago and Messiah – thank you for both those answers. I now understand a lot more. 🙂

wouldn’t the chain line be stupid too?

I believe the chain line is no different to a 1×10 or 1×9 setup since the freehub body is the same width.

They’re X short of gears. like the whole 1x thing but that 42 looks like a big jump – kind of Apex for enduro, cant be ar*ed counting the teeth on the next one in but it doesnt look like an even spread to me – first person to do it wins a prize.

They’ll be a fixed (ish) percentage between them. It goes 32-36-42, which makes the last jump 16% (normal gears are 13% give or take a bit, 32->36 is 12.5% for example). So it’ll be slightly spinnier than you’re expecting, but only 3% (1/3rd of a gear) spinnier. And it looks to be intended as a bail out gear for non-compettattive sctions on Enduro’s, leaving a more normal 36t bottom gear for raceing (and giving a few extra top gears for the fast boys at the other end).

Shouldn’t it be X1?

That’s my main issue with it, pedant that I am, XX1 is 21!!! Other than that I’m not too bothered, internal cable routing has solve many front mech issues for me, I do like single ring set ups, but I’ll wait before jumping up to this, see if it sticks around, or we’re all running XX2 XX11 or whatever in three years time…

I believe the chain line is no different to a 1×10 or 1×9 setup since the freehub body is the same width.

Doesn’t the big cog sit over the spokes, so making the chainline approx 1 cog wider.
I’m sure their chain design and tooth profiles allow for this. They seem to have all bases covered.

Yeah but following SRAM’s naming tradition X1 would be a bottom of the range group! Think of this as single ring XX and XX1 makes more sense, ignore the roman numerals thing!

Or… consider that XX was more X.10 (as opposed to X.5/X.7/X.9 etc) rather than ‘twenty’, and XX1 makes sense.

Over thinking things? Me? Nah!

packer – Member

All in I think this looks like a great groupset.
The suggested price is an utter joke of course, but then again they always are on new stuff. I’m sure next year we will see a cheaper version.

Tricky thing with a cheaper version is the cassette – without the all-singing, all-dancing machining that’s used for the top of the line one, a 10-42 cassette will be a ton weight.

I’m guessing here… but due to this groupset being pretty much focused on those entering super-enduro’s etc SRAM may choose not to release (or even work on) a cheaper version?

Which would be shame as I think it would be good for all sorts of biking… but who knows 😐

Wasn’t the Hope freehub/cassette gonna be 9-36t? It makes more sense to me to make things smaller and lighter, ie sprockets and chainring to achieve the same ratio and better ground clearances. Like the way that mech shifts in the video though. Plenty of RandD going on so the first ride review will be interesting….

In the official video, SRAM talk about starting with a 9t, but eventually settling on a 10t.

I worked it out; my current drive 2×8 36/22 with 11-30 cassette goes from 19.1 to 85.1 gear inches overall.

XX1 using a 32t ring and the 10-42 cassette would give me 19.8 to 83.2 gear inches so almost replicates the gear range I currently use without the ratio duplication or extra components/faff that come with having 2xN…

An 11-43 with a 34t ring would produce 21 – 80.3 Gear inches which wouldn’t be a bad overall range but actually 10-42 seems to offer that little bit more…

Whatever happened to the Hope 9-36t cassette? will it/has it ever come on to the market?

im interested in trying the chain ring in a 1×10 setup – with a shaddow + rear mech…..

More XX1 information dribbling out.

drool

And Spesh fitting it to S-Works Epics for 2013, so they see a market for XC racers.

For my bike (29er), I’m on 2×10 with 22/34 and 11-36 – that’s about 500% range

XX1 has 420% range so not a massive change, particularly as I could definitely live without 22/36

ratherbeintobago – Member

It looks like it’s designed in such a way that the upper jockey wheel isn’t coaxial with the pivot as on normal mechs; the upper jockey wheel tracks the cassette by rotating the whole cage:

Just like shimano then!

Indeed but much more so which means the parallelogram doesn’t need to be slanted (like current mechs) to follow the cassette which in turn, theoretically at least, means it should be less affected by vertical forces

Patiently waiting for the Hope 9-36 cassette here too.
I switched to 11-36 with a hammerschmidt and while it´s great going up
I´m missing an extra push for flat/downhill bits.

As soon as I see Sram & XX I don´t bother reading more, silly prices, it even makes xtr look inexpensive.

With a modicum of fitness 34/36 gets you up most things at a faster than walking pace.

With a modicum of fitness 34/34 gets you up most things at a faster than walking pace .

There I am harder than you .

clubber – Member
Indeed but much more so which means the parallelogram doesn’t need to be slanted (like current mechs) to follow the cassette which in turn, theoretically at least, means it should be less affected by vertical forces

what vertical forces? The same ones dealt with by lateral stiffness and vertical compliance? 😀

It does look really good. Only two downsides for me:-

1) Cost

2) “…SRAM dished the 42T cog (which serves as the backplate) to follow the contour of the spoke angle a bit and take advantage of otherwise wasted space. Brilliant.”

….As something of a specialist at stuffing the rear mech into the spokes I am a bit worried about perilously dangling a £150 rear mech even closer to them – I think I’m gonna need a dinner plate sized dork disc as protection…

what vertical forces? The same ones dealt with by lateral stiffness and vertical compliance

Nah, you hit a bump, the wheel moves up as does the rear mech mounting point. On a slant mech, there’s a vertical force applied to the cage which can move it, causing ghost shifting. In theory… In the real world, I’d like to try the XX1 to see whether it really makes a difference.

😉

Whyte 146 will be available with XX1

Specialized S-Works Enduro, Epic and Stumpy hardtail will be available with XX1

I think we will see a lot of bikes appearing (in brochures and on the interweb) with XX1 over the next few months… the more I see it the more I like it.

Already posted this in the “show me your 1×10” thread but might be of interest here – XX1 on Schurter’s bike:

That is interesting, well done!

As something of a specialist at stuffing the rear mech into the spokes I am a bit worried about perilously dangling a £150 rear mech even closer to them – I think I’m gonna need a dinner plate sized dork disc as protection…

You’ll be lucky, XX jockey wheels are £120, you’ll not get change out of £300 for a mech at retail!

Interesting that Specialized have put on a chain device. Maybe it’s only on the Enduro, but it would be interesting to know if they’ve tested and decided it’s needed, or whether they just took a guess.

oh – and that dinner plate 42t cog looks massive!