[Closed] At last 11-40T 10spd cassette

Doesn't open.

blimey, what sort of mech is that - surely not std x9 ?

Ooh, interesting... They make some cool things, worth a wee look around- not that I'm buying any of it but I like that it exists, reminds of the motorbike cottage industry stuff.

http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fresh-goods-friday-126/

I'm not convinced. £100 for half a cassette. So add on £40 for a 1050 cassette. And it's only ~10% lower than a 36t, XX1 get's it's low gears from the smaller front chaining (and reclaims the top end with the 9t)

Interesting....

The price wouldn't be too bad if it was a one time cost, but paying that everytime you have to replace the cassette... I'm not convinced. It is supposed to work with any normal long and medium cage derailleur though IIRC.

Sounds like a lot of hassle when you can achieve the same with a double upfront if your not fit enough to push a single with a stock 11:36.

But you wont look so pro when offloading from your audi.

This just reminds me of megarange - the gearing for kids and fatties

(and reclaims the top end with the 9t)

I thought it was a 10t .

Sounds like a lot of hassle when you can achieve the same with a double upfront if your not fit enough to push a single with a stock 11:36.

Exactly as above if your buying this to make climbing easier, perhaps 1x10 isn't for you......can understand it for racers/enduro racers the 1x11...but I'm fine on a 1x10 with 36 its plenty, again if you feel you need an easier climbing gear for general riding Id consider goibg back to 2/3 x 10

I thought it was a 10t .

Indeed it is, same point though, 30t front chainring and 10t rear is similar to a 32/11. And 30-42 is a smidge over 10% lower (a bit bigger than one more gear) than 32-40.

I like the idea, but for £100 I'd expect a whole cassette even if it's 11-42 (or even 11-46 to give it xx1 range). And then you'd want the lower chainring, which is specific to XX1's BCD And then there's the mech with it's offset pulley to stop the whole thing shifting of it's own accord over bumps with such a steep cassette.

if your buying this to make climbing easier, perhaps 1x10 isn't for you

Can't believe some people are ditching gears to run 1x10 then resorting to stuff like this as they haven't the legs to do the climbing
[IMG] [/IMG]

firestarter, I'm sure you've never made your rides easier or more enjoyable using available products then. I assume you're riding a unicycle without a saddle?

I think I'll get one after all, would surely be worth the money just to leave the haters annoyed and frustrated on their high horses. 🙂

Its the geared equivalent of dinglespeedin

Wants to singlespeed - Legs dont Fits a second gear so he can climb ...... Almost like having gears only more retarded 🙂

40 tooth rear cassette ...... Dinner plate much ..... Good job you have disks or your v brakes might foul the teeth on your cassette 🙂

They're bringing back Megarange?

I think the idea of a wide range cassette is a good one. I don't think its form me but it has its uses

Particularly for people who say need to run a chain device

Its bizarre how people feel the need to be rude about other peoples ratio choices

I think I'll get one after all, would surely be worth the money just to leave the haters annoyed and frustrated on their high horses

people like me could sponsor you!

Plenty of good reasons for running 1x10 so no reason why folk can't choose to run as wide a ratio out back as possible.

Some people may ride on different terrain than you, they may have a bike where front mech is compromised or even not compatible, they may not be as fit as you but none of those are reasons to suggest using this is not "right".

1x10 is nice, but it's a compromise, xx1 is less of a compromise, if you can't deal with the compromise of 1x10 and afford xx1, then 2x10 seems the best solution, this just seems like an expensive way to gain 1 lower gear (it's about 10%) where there's better (xx1) or cheaper (2x10).

This just seems like an expensive way to gain 1 extra gear (xx1 30-42 is about 2.5 gears lower than 32-36)

I think it looks great

well it will be when superstar copy it and are knocking it out for 30 quid 😉

If you need 40 out back then you need two rings, and yes svalgis I do use something to make rides easier its a full range of gears

Oh and I do have a unicycle but its got a seat 😉

Hmmmmmmm...

I have a nice twiddly gear to get me up anything steep, 28x32. With a 40t cog I could get the same gear (near enough) with a 36t chainring. On my double, my big ring is a 38.. So I could switch to a single ring and not lose any range at all really.

However, the jumps between gears must be massive, and it looks proper gash.

If you need a 40 tooth cassette, I think you need to find a new sport.

Its almost as embarassing as road cyclists using compact chainsets.

Giving the sport a bad name.

Its almost as embarassing as road cyclists using compact chainsets.

Giving the sport a bad name.

A man giving the sport a bad name
[img] [/img]

A man using a compact chainset (and a wonky one at that!)
[img] [/img]

😉

The back wheel will end up nearly as heavy as a rohloff one

Actually lighter than the bit of cassette it replaces apparently

Surprised with that, each to their own I just think if your looking at a cassette that big it makes more sense to run two rings up front, I had 22-36and 11\34 allowed for a very low gear and a decent top gear with no real huge gaps like I would think these set ups will.

why does the thought of providing a lower gear for 1x10 use attracts such negativity...

As i think someone else has commented, if you have 32 front 11-36 rear, all this set up really does is get you a single extra lower gear that is roughly the same (not quite as low as) a 24 front 32 rear in a "traditional" 2x10 set-up.

It's not really comparable to 2x10 in that the very low granny gear that 24x36 provides is simply not achievable.

The extra slightly lower gear will have utility to some, myself included to be honest. Whether it is worth EUR123 is at the end of the day a personal decision. The concept appeals but most likely I will wait for the no-doubt-coming versions from other manufacturers.

Oscillate Wildly - Member

Exactly as above if your buying this to make climbing easier, perhaps 1x10 isn't for you.....

If there was a cheaper 11-40, I'd buy it and probably go up in gearing, not down.

What's interesting about this though is that it proves that 10-speed can provide much of the benefits of 11-speed XX1. So why are Shimano not producing an XT 11-40? Same reason they declined to produce a quality 11-36 for 9-speed I guess (and same reason they insisted 9-speed mechs couldn't do 36 teeth, until they decided to produce one)

Interesting...

I've lashed up a quick comparison to look at extremes of gear range to see if it's particularly advantageous, the yellow highlighted ones are thos that I consider of some interest if you're looking at a 1x10 (11-36 or 11-40) Vs a more "standard" 2x10 type setup.

[img] [/img]

The setup I can see having most appeal with this cassette would be a 34T chainring with the 11-40 Cassette giving 80 inches from the 11t and 22 from the 40 is a fair range Vs 75-23 from a 32t/11-36... a shade more top and bottom end...

24T/36 @ 17.3 inches (the spinniest gear on many current 10 speed doubles and triples) is really about as low as you'd realistically need to go IMO and is rather similar to what you would get from 22t/32 @ 17.9 (The bottom ratio from those "Obsolete" 9 speed drivetrains we no longer need apparently)...

Obviously other chainrings sizes are available but I CBA bashing them all into Excel right now...

surely, if you can't get up hills with a 1x10 cassette, put a smaller chain ring on?

The Leonardi Factory General Lee is made of a softer material and we will be interested to see how it wears

dear manufacturers. IDGAS about weight. please make this out of steel so i dont have to worry about it wearing out. thanks.

one of these days im gonna start my own component company that just makes everything out of steel...

@ cookeaa

Conventional 2x9, 32/22t lowest gear = 17.9"

New 1x10, 40/34 lowest gear = 22.1"

That is still a 23% jump from 2x9 to 1x10 or the same as only having a 26t cassette on a 22t 2x9, I know which one I will be sticking with

I'm wondering, after we've all switched to 1x10, or 1x15 as it probably will be soon, (with an 8-76 cassette) if someone is going to works out that it's easier, cheaper, lighter and more efficient to go back to 2x6 (Yeah, 6 speed) and the whole (Pun alert) cycle of gears will start again as if from 1987.

Just a thought

If you need 40 out back then you need two rings

Turns out deciding what other people "need" is actually fun - I totally understand where you're coming from now. 🙂

@ cookeaa

Conventional 2x9, 32/22t lowest gear = 17.9"

New 1x10, 40/34 lowest gear = 22.1"

That is still a 23% jump from 2x9 to 1x10 or the same as only having a 26t cassette on a 22t 2x9, I know which one I will be sticking with

And guess what I'm still using...

That's right 2x9 - 36/22 + 11-32 Cassette, 85-18 inches in sensible increments, and cheaper than a buying whole new drivetrain...

I can see the appeal of 1xN but current range on offer still isn't quite there for my sparrow legs, 3xN is dead IMO, 2xN still has plenty of useful applications across MTBing...

surely, if you can't get up hills with a 1x10 cassette, put a smaller chain ring on?

Can't go lower than 32t on a normal chainset (you can on XX1 though).

dear manufacturers. IDGAS about weight. please make this out of steel so i dont have to worry about it wearing out. thanks.

A 40t sprocket is not going to wear out, actually thinking about it I reckon it might outlast the rest of the cassette. A 32t chainring lasts a year, so comparably sized sprockets should last longer as they're used 10% of the time rather than 80-90% of the time (assuming most people spend about that proportion int he middle ring).

Can't go lower than 32t on a normal chainset (you can on XX1 though).

Also those MRP Bling Rings that fit on certain SRAM cranks

I can see the appeal of 1xN but current range on offer still isn't quite there for my sparrow legs, 3xN is dead IMO, 2xN still has plenty of useful applications across MTBing...

Same here, can see the aesthetic appeal but can't quite see much of an advantage in the real world of going 1xN, mind you I still revel in the joys of a triple on my road bike so wtf do I know.

Also those MRP Bling Rings that fit on certain SRAM cranks

I'll wait for much much cheaper versions to come out in a few months. I dongle see a lot of point going from 3 to 2 rings, but absolutely understand going from 2 to 1 as it drops the need for left hand shifting which makes things so simple.

Dickyboy - Member

Same here, can see the aesthetic appeal but can't quite see much of an advantage in the real world of going 1xN,

Of my 2 main bikes, 1 is 1x10, the other 2x9. And on the one hand, I'd have struggled with the climbing for the dudes of hazzard enduro last year on 1x10. But on the other, my bloomin chain wouldn't have fallen off mid-stage. The chain management of 1x10 is a pretty nice thing on rougher trails.

float - Member

dear manufacturers. IDGAS about weight. please make this out of steel so i dont have to worry about it wearing out. thanks.

Most likely chosen for ease of manufacture rather than weight loss I reckon.

In fact sod it I may go the whole hog and fit chainrings to the back wheel and a cassette on the crank , I'll have some right gears 😉

If people want to ride round with a dinner plate cog on the back as its so much better goin 1 x 10 than a standard set then who am I to argue

By the way svalgis I don't need two rings I only use one, I do have a bike with an engine and I don't need my seat on the unicycle I just prefer it . Hope I didn't spoil too much of your fun 😉