[Closed] Sram XX - is 2 x 10 the future?

What are the cog sizes on the cassette?

Makes plenty of sense to racers and the weights are looking competitive.

mmm.... The 'groupset' idea doesn't work quite as well for SRAM (in its current state) as for Shimano - SRAM as a brand is just one small part of the whole range, with most riders knowing the brakes better as Avid, the cranks as Truvativ, the forks as Rockshox etc. Does this mark a move towards a single unified brand structure for SRAM?

As for the 10 speed, what does it mean for wheel building? And what's the spread of sprockets?
Personally I'm unconvinced; you would think that the tolerances involved have to reach a logical limit when it comes to wet mud. Plus I reckon that the majority of those going for 2x10 will have come from 2x9 setups, as it's less of a mental shift.
But I'm far from an expert, and interested to see how it flies!

Bearing in mind who this is aimed at, the mud coping qualities are probably assuming a complete strip and rebuild every ride anyway so will likely be fine. Sure this will end up consumer bikes but fools are they...

its more gear that can't be used without servicing every 12 hours of riding

unless you are racing its pretty pointless

why not "crisp and easy shifting" and 9 speed?

Is the gear range different to 3x9? or is it just an extra sprocket?

what sizes are the chainrings/ casette?

doh, read the first page and answered my question!

11-32 and 11-36 cassettes, chain rings are 26-39/ 28-42 or 30-45, it's all on the article now.

It doesn't mention the hydraulic lockout on the forks though, the button appears to be there, but there's shots of the forks around too:

[img] http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/download.php?id=30731 [/img]

Hi Dave

So how does a 26 x 32 cope with proper grinding climbs? I would REALLY have struggled to have gotten up Skiddaw on Saturday using that combination. My 20 x 32 meant that I was able to spin up the climb whereas a 26 would definitely have meant a push. If you are into racing, I can accept that it may make sense but for big mountain rides, it's surely a non starter? It's kind of like the Vauxhall Signum in that it answers a question that no one has asked. It seems daft to potentially limit your enjoyment of a ride by reducing the available spread of gear ratios. Even singlespeeding makes sense but 2 x 10 just doesn't!!!!!!

While I'm ranting, just why is it that 20 tooth inners never caught on? They make sense especially in the world of the 29er and can make the vital difference between riding and walking on long steep climbs. Perhaps now is the time for a comeback? 😀

Cheers

Sanny

2x10 makes a lot of sense for racers, which is what this is aimed at!

I think 26 is a wee bit low, I'd sooner have the 28, particularly paired with the 11-36 cassette.

2x10 makes perfect sense, you can actual get your lowest gears on a climb under reasonable load, something that doesn't happen when using 3 rings.

as for the gear not being low enough? how low do you want it to be? it isn't that long ago that 24x28 was the normal bottom gear, and to be blunt, most people seemed to cope with it.

If the gears aren't low enough MTFU and get fit and stop blaming the bike for your inability to ride up a climb.

Ive been using 2x9 28,42 with a 11x32 cassette on my race bike this year and i have to say its great. I havent needed a lower gear though the climb at the gorrick enduro was as steep enough any more and i would need a 11x34 to be comfortable so 2x10 will be a good thing.

Nowt wrong with 2 x 9 or infact 2 x 8. I'd take 2 x 7 if it worked more reliably than current setups.

I think there is a trend moving away from weight reduction and fancy technology to simplicity and durability. Look how poular rigid singlespeeds are becoming as winter bikes and how people praise single pivot full suss.

Cranks - 694g

Mrmo, don't talk arse.

While there are still climbs out there that I can't ride up, I will stick with my 22 x 34 lowest thanks.

Sure I could get fitter, but that just means I'll be able to try steeper and sillier climbs with my nice low gear. Also, try touring with a trailer up and over scottish hills and then decry the low gears.

Horses for courses, if you don't need low gears, try riding harder trails! 😉

XX is designed for racing, not touring with a trailer.

XX is designed for racing, not touring with a trailer

Good Point

Really? 🙄

I wasn't trying to imply it was, i was responding to the suggestion that low gears are just a fitness substitute.

13thFloorMonk, Touring is a very very different world to what 99% of riders do. If your shifting loads then it helps. Though i could point out that the first circumnavigation by bike was on an ordinary, one fixed gear...

from my experience 22x34 is actually too low for a lot of climbs too easy to loose traction. Climbs are easier in a slightly bigger gear.

and if you actually look at what is being offered, 26x36 bottom gear... sit down and work out what they translates to...22x30... you loose one maybe two sprockets?

Hows the change up from 29 to 36? I mean is it quick, because that was IMO the big problem with the Duo set up.
Imagine you were racing along a flat section using every gear you had, then you came upon a total switchback and climb. Would it bang up quick or are you going to seriously preempt it?

Dave
I would like to know if the cassette is compatible with standard 9 speed freehubs...

FWIW, I would go for it as a 1x10 setup and be grateful of the 11-36 option.

Also is there a shifter only setup so you dont need the matching brakes?

OK, forget the touring thing, i was just using that as one example of why low gears were good (circumnavigating the globe on a fixed gear, do you honestly believe they climbed every steep off road climb they came to? I like to ride my bike, not push it).

Everyone will have a gear setup that works for them, but low gears are totally valid, however fit or otherwise you are.

well, myself I'm thinking of using the new 11 speed Campag road cassette with the matching rr deraileur, but to overcome the problem of not having a suitable 11 speed indexing shifter, i was thinking of using an old friction shift thumbshifter, should do the trick, i only ever use a single front chainring, so it'll be a 1x11, should have a big enough spread for the trails round essex.

Have campag not come up with a bar mount shifter yet - they're bound to soon with the new Athena groupset

Anyway, you can already do 2x10 - Dura Ace (and possibly other groupsets) do flat bar shifters...

I've just checked on the Campag site, only flat bar shifters up to 10 speed at the moment, and they seem to be incorporated into the brake levers, so it's back to good old Canti's I suppose.

Cassettes will be compatible with existing freehubs.

Oldgit: why wouldn't the shift up to the 36 be smooth? It's not a massive leap from the previous cog, like a mega-range 7 speed cassette. It is aluminium though, so it may be very flexy! IIRC it goes 32-36 at the top of the block.

10 speed works fine off road as shown by various mate's cx bikes coping absolutely fine with some horrendous conditions...

njee20 you sure its an ally 36t on the cassette?

oldgit is talking chainrings, no?

njee20, just that the front mech strained to shift between rings on the Middleburn Duo, though that set up might have had a bigger difference between chainrings.

oldgit might have been but njee20 is talking cassette's

if its front rings oldgits got the numbers wrong its 26-39/ 28-42

If its cassettes I would like to know if it really is ally for the 36t..or Ti, it does look a different shade of, er, metal colour.

Apologies, I thought you meant on the back!

Tinsy, I'm not totally sure, but it looks like it:

[img] http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/download.php?id=30721 [/img]

I've got another shot on my computer from the back, but it's not hosted anywhere, so I can't link to it.

email me the pic and I'll host it.

I'm at work, it's at home!

Yep sure is a different colour, could be Ti?

So the shifter pods can bought on there own then no need for the brake lever etc?

10 speed works fine off road as shown by various mate's cx bikes coping absolutely fine with some horrendous conditions...

In terms of hours of use, even a season of CX races ain't that much though is it?

Tyre-kicking aside, I'd be interested to know how the front mech works on a setup that's designed from the ground up for dual ring use. I run 2x9 (but with no big ring) and the chain always seems to be dragging against the front mech if I shift up or down a few gears.

But the real question is, out of all the staff the mag could have sent to preview the latest top-end race groupset, why the one who rides a singlespeed and sings the praises of cheapness? 😉

I found the pic, clubber: YGM.

It doesn't look like ti, too 'white'. Middle chainrings work perfect well in alu, and considering the cassette weighs less than a 9 speed XTR one I think it's likely.

I'm not talking about cx racing but rather cx riding through the winter.

This is no different to 8 to 9 (or 7 to 8 or 6 to 7 or 5 to 6) - there are always (still...) people who say it'll be a disaster and never work and the reality never actually reflects that.

[url= http://sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/index.html ]nanodrive[/url]

Here we go (njee's pic)
[img] [/img]

Get a lot more crap at the back, it wouldnt last like an alloy front ring, but I guess thats not its main priority as you say its damn light, think I would realistically be more interested in a lower in the range 10 speed setup that weighs more and lasts a bit longer.

But I fully understand why you would do the bling flagship model first.

But an alloy middle ring gets used 50% of the time (all things equal), whilst an alloy cassette sprocket gets used 10% of the time.

Obviously it doesn't work anything like that, but you know what I mean!

Fair point, something in my head doesnt like the sound of an ally ring in the cassette... Or surely someone would have done super light cassettes on the cheap before? Like the racer only ally discs.

Could just be me though... 😕

26/39 on the front with the 36T rear sprocket gives pretty similiar bottom gearing to 22T on the front and a 32T rear sprocket. 1.45 vs 1.38. I don't see that as a dealbreaker personally. Obviously you also lose a little top gear with that setup, but who cares?

If it's reliable, and once the prices are sane, I'd consider it myself I guess. We do carry around an awful lot of overlapping gears as it stands.

Also, alloy sprockets in the middle gears (eg 16 to 20ish) have a lot fewer teeth than 36 which is a big part in considering wear.