I like Shimano stuff but I think they’re going to struggle to shift that.

Crankset – Not very attractive (certainly not up to current high standards) and no narrow wide ring – it might work 99% but N/W is proven tech people are comfortable with and that looks like a really worn ring – chainsuck anyone? Of course they wouldn’t lower themselves to copying SRAM and they wouldn’t get a license from SRAM for it anyway.

Range – While it’s noble to try and accommodate existing standards and clever to use the inside space around the spokes to get the extra cog in, by not going to 10 and 42 they’re missing a huge amount of capacity to SRAM. 10-42 has 10% more range at the top and 5% at the bottom than 11-40 and that’s huge.

People WANT to go 1×10/11 these days with as little compromise as possible and Shimano just don’t seem to get that. It’s like they’re clinging onto the idea of selling front derailleurs or something. Why else would they be developing new front mech technology and offering a triple in their flagship groupset? Surely no-one has bought one of those things for years? Certainly very few will have done so and not stripped all the rings off and put a single on there.

Too slow and to stuck in their ways – a real shame as it’s beautifully engineered stuff that’s well made and lasts.

Having said that I doubt I’ll be buying just because you have to fit a long age mech to make it work and I think they look sh!t. I’ll stick with my franken 9-speed SRAMano 34/11-34 setup for now and pedal a bit harder or get off and push.

As Njee says 1x seems to be a very uk thing, but the fact is some people just aren’t fit enough for 1x. Yes it has its advantages outside of gear range but if it isn’t for you, it isn’t for you. I see people running 26t chainrings and I think why the hell don’t you just put dual ring on it? I think Shimano are trying to say that in a way, if you don’t have the legs for 1x, don’t use it rather than Sram trying to sell the 1x thing to everyman and his dog.

just to throw into the mix, small sprockets in theory will wear more. You save weight at the expense of durability. Real world not sure how different this will be.

going from an 11 to a 10 sprocket should make for a rougher drivetrain and increase the wear. One of the reasons Shimano changed the chain pitch for there track kit (it failed but hey ho)

Small chainring more wear, small sprockets more wear.
The more you find yourself in small sprockets the more of an issue this becomes.

So the M9000 chainset without BB weighs 640gm ,cost a load and look shite,

My hand polished and slightly modified LX cranks with a Raceface NW chainring and bolts weighs ……………wait for it…………..640gm according to my digital scales and cost a whole lot less.

Pretty certain looking at those pics that the moulded chainring arms are covers on the M9000 2 ring set up, wouldnt surprise me if they use standard chainring bolts that screw in from the rear through the chainrings and then into those covers which act as the nut of a normal chain ring bolt set up(all IMO of course)

I bet the rear mech redesign will work with 42t no problem.

Also, I notice they’ve abandoned 24 spoke wheels.

I like Shimano stuff but I think they’re going to struggle to shift that.

No chance!

People Trail riders in the UK WANT to go 1×10/11 these days with as little compromise as possible and Shimano just don’t seem to get that.

FTFY. Enduro/XC racers will be happy with what’s available, it’s a small minority of people who will truly see this as a downfall. To think that they’ll struggle to sell it purely because there’s a couple of teeth difference on the cassette is laughable IMO!

Yep, our drivetrain desires are pretty niche compared to the rest of the world. Everyone here seems to want to ride 1x if they can afford it for all types of riding whereas most of the rest of the world see it as a very expensive, unnecessary “enduro” thing. Looking at the big picture I doubt Shimano are worried.

11-40 on XTR 1x wouldn’t put me off a Shimano 1x drivetrain in the slightest compared to XX1. Reliability and feel are far bigger deciding factors for me.

I never thought I’d say it but if there was a super smooth front mech with the front entry cable…. or a very well hidden cable…. mmmmm… could be even tempted back to 2x…. uh oh, it sounds like I’m leaning towards Di2 XTR which I repeatedly labelled as pointless in the past 😯 It is the cables, clunkiness and mud collection I despite about front mechs… solve that and I’m happy 😀

So what are the chances of the 11 speed XTR shifters and cassette working with a 10 speed mech?

Guys, it has a Shallow Slant Parallelogram, how could you not want one!?

Personally, I ride 1×10 so obviously 1×11 appeals to me, however justifying the cost is something I could not do yet. 2-3 years down the line when it has trickled down then yes I’d love an extra gear on the block and would upgrade.

I can’t imagine the triple chain set being very popular, double yes but I’m 1×10 now until I splash for the 11 block set up and will continue to run a single chainring then too.

So what are the chances of the 11 speed XTR shifters and cassette working with a 10 speed mech?

Precisely zero I’ll wager.

DanW – Member

Don’t feel 11-40 is a massive difference to most people either compared to 10-42 although it’ll be perceived as such.

40 to 42 is a pretty small difference but 10 to 11 is- it’s almost the difference between a 32 and a 36 chainring and I don’t think anyone’d fail to notice that.

The problem here is basically with doubles and triples. I’m not saying they’re not a good idea- half my bikes are still double. But the truth is, they already work brilliantly, adding an extra ring on the cassette doesn’t add a thing to that, nor does adding a bigger rear cassette to give a wider range- triples, doubles even, already have a huge range. Few people choose 11-36 cassettes on a triple as it stands.

The front mech is nice, and the wider range cassette is nice, and so we can probably look forward to that being an 11-speed exclusive even though they’re completely backwards-compatible, just like clutch mechs and 11-36 cassettes, in order to try and drive us to buy new things.

Oh and is anyone else thinking “that gear cable won’t actually fit my bike”?

The FD was the most interesting thing in the new XTR groupset. Looks promising.

just to throw into the mix, small sprockets in theory will wear more. You save weight at the expense of durability. Real world not sure how different this will be.

A valid point. You save almost sod-all weight really. Larger rings are a bit more efficient for a given ratio.
On one of my bikes I’ve found the best set-up for efficiency in crappy conditions over long rides is 6 on the rear (on a Hope SS hub), 16-32 or 17-34, and a 22-32-44 triple. Can then spend a lot of time in the 44 ring as I can hit big-big w/o issues and it does run smoother, the generally straighter chainline helps a lot. On the other hand I’ve ended up unable to use the 12,13, maybe the 14 of a normal cassette when really filthy. So going down to a 10T cog on the rear has little appeal.

40 to 42 is a pretty small difference but 10 to 11 is- it’s almost the difference between a 32 and a 36 chainring and I don’t think anyone’d fail to notice that.

True but it the overall range that matters. If you run a 36T with the 11-40 to have the same top end speed as a 32T and 10-42 then you are basically giving away one gear on the climbs (equivalent to 32/36). Stick a 34T on XTR and 32T on XX1 and the differences at either end average out and you lose roughly half a gear at each end. In terms of speed, this means 0.5mph quicker (or cadence has to reduce) at 80rpm climbing on XTR vs XX1 and 0.8 mph quicker at the top end on XX1 at 100rpm vs XTR. Minimal differences IMO.

The problem here is basically with doubles and triples. I’m not saying they’re not a good idea- half my bikes are still double. But the truth is, they already work brilliantly, adding an extra ring on the cassette doesn’t add a thing to that, nor does adding a bigger rear cassette to give a wider range- triples, doubles even, already have a huge range. Few people choose 11-36 cassettes on a triple as it stands.

So long as they offer other ratio options then the triple and double users will be well catered for. It would be daft to offer 11-40 only and I’d imagine 11-32/ 34/ 36 will be available.

looks like a missed opportunity to me.

I’ll go back to waiting for SRAM xx1/x01 to drop in price/trickle down, which probably wont happen now there no competition from shimano.

Yep, but what I’m getting at there is that 11-speed isn’t really bringing much new to triples, and certainly nothing that requires 11 speeds. So it feels like change for its own sake from that point of view, if you’re not going big with the 1×11 options like SRAM, it gets harder to justify the change at all when 10-speed can do everything you’re doing with 11.

I think it’ll sell like hotcakes to people who have to have the latest thing, and everyone else in the world will go “Why would I buy this? I only just bought 10 speed”

Still curious about the front mech, is this effectively a new cable routing standard? I don’t think I’ve ever had a bike where the cable route would work well with the front-exit.

A lot of the changes there should make wider range 1x a lot easier. Offset mech cage should mean they can stick an 11-42 mech out with xt. Hell, why not an 11-44? Fingers crossed.

More interested really in if this will play with 11 speed road. This cassette and mech with the new hydraulic\ mechanical shifters on the cross bike? They can take my money

11 speed and triple is just daft, I agree. But then so is anything over 11-32 IMO. To be honest why would you have a triple over a sensibly chosen ratio set on a double? Agree 11 speed is somewhat for the sake of it for doubles too but it makes sense on the 1 by configuration (with only minor concessions to 10-42 in terms of range as above) and, probably most importantly, paves the way for a very slick choice of ratios with pretty small jumps between gears when Di2 XTR hits.

I really like the idea of a wider range than XX1 via a double chainset but with the shifting electronics configured to shift up or down to the next gear with nearest gain ratio to the current one- even if it means a front mech shift too. Some people have already achieved this on Di2 (and report it is a slick as a rear mech change only) although it would be a nice standard option and the tighter spacing with 11 speed starts to make a little more sense perhaps

I say that knowing it almost certainly won’t.

More interested really in if this will play with 11 speed road. This cassette and mech with the new hydraulic\ mechanical shifters on the cross bike? They can take my money

Doesn’t sound like it since the MTB version works on a standard 9/10 speed freehub whereas the road version (and XX1) requires a wider freehub body to fit the gears in. I’d guess this new XTR has slightly smaller gaps between sprockets in that case but I don’t think there is definitive info on this yet

Doesn’t sound like it since the MTB version works on a standard 9/10 speed freehub whereas the road version (and XX1) requires a wider freehub body to fit the gears in. I’d guess this new XTR has slightly smaller gaps between sprockets in that case but I don’t think there is definitive info on this yet

read the statement, the big sprocket on the cassette is dished, so the same free hub as 10spd but because the sprocket is big it can be “bent” towards the spokes.

Fair enough, there might be hope then!

New brakes and wheels are up

Nothing here to make me rethink my plans for XX1. Having said that I’m a SRAM fan, and would be sticking with XX if it wasn’t for the clutch and narrow/wide.

Oh, and that chainset is really nasty.

That wheelset is such a waste, 275g rims and a 1300g wheelset weight! Should have been at least 100g lighter!

One thing i do expect to see is more and more manufacturers moving to 1x to simplify (and help reduce costs) the design of their suspension platform. Ditching the front mech (no mount/seat tube clearance required), fixing the chain line with regard to the suspension kinematics, and allowing more width for stiffer/stronger main triangle/chain stay interface etc

fixing the chain line with regard to the suspension kinematics

Dave Weagle makes some good points about why doubles or triples can help sus bikes and work well with many bikes that use anti-squat.
http://dw-link.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/single-chainrings-and-detrimental.html

If you’re crap enough to really need a 42t over a 40t, then I’m pretty sure XTR isn’t aimed at your capabilities.

But will it work with a raceface narrow wide ring stuck on my old xt chainset. And can we buy just the rear shifter. If so. Sold. To me

DanW – Member

Fair enough, there might be hope then!

New brakes and wheels are up

Yet another cycle company turning it’s back on 26″

But will it work with a raceface narrow wide ring stuck on my old xt chainset. And can we buy just the rear shifter. If so. Sold. To me

I’d be highly surprised if you couldn’t!

Yet another cycle company turning it’s back on 26″

Carbon tubular is 29 only too. Seems reasonably fair enough although you’d hope to still see 26 at XT level (not that there’s anything about Shimano wheels to make me buy them over a Stans build)

doof_doof – Member
If you’re crap enough to really need a 42t over a 40t, then I’m pretty sure XTR isn’t aimed at your capabilities.

A good chunk of the XTR market is the same as the BMW/Audi one, so long as it has the badge it’s the right one.

Interesting hearing some more thoughts, I don’t think 1x is just a UK think it’s getting very common in Tassie/Oz from what I’m seeing. As 11-40 can be done without all the expense of a full groupset I can’t see it being too popular. The best thing about 1x is no front mech, polishing the turd still doesn’t help, you can make it shift perfectly and it’s still there adding weight. If you can do the range of 2x with 1x then why bother with the front mech. Not going to be lining up for 3×11 either 🙂

A lot of people are talking about a 42t rear but not seen any sign of that anywhere, is it not possible that they couldn’t make it shift right without copying the SRAM rear mech?

I don’t mind the cranks. They don’t look as nice as the ones they’ve replaced but they look better than so e of the Sram cranks.

If I was in the market for a top end groupset, I’d go XX1 but I’m one of the rare Sram fans on here (my stuff lasts well and I like the clunky shift…the modern XT stuff I’ve tried is too vague). The main reason for XX1 in my eyes is that’s its a dedicated 1x set up. I rarely miss the front mech and I like the extra room fir a Reverb lever under the bars where my shifter would have been. I think it is a missed opportunity because more and more bikes seem to be getting spec’d with XO1 and XX1.

The likes of Santa Cruz have just released a bike that can’t be run with a front mech. If they’ve judged this right like they did with 650b, I’m guessing it won’t be long before more companies do it because it helps with packaging which is important with bigger wheels.

I think that’ll be people comparing with the OneUp 42T 10-speed option, which shifts pretty damn well- maybe not quite as good as standard, but not far off. Mostly it’s just a pain in the arris to set up.

I though that was the case, not launching with 42t is a clear intent not to do it, add in the 3x options and Shimano are dedicated to smaller range rear cassettes and multiple chain rings. I wonder how long it will take for someone to do some NW chain rings in the special BCD (wonder if Sram will do some for a laugh)

Part of the reason SRAM gave up on front mechs is that they’re rubbish at making them.. New DA or ultegra pretty much teleports the chain from one ring to the next. I’d expect this to be as good.
It’s nice to see the return of the Ti chainring teeth.. I’ve still got a 970 chainset which has been through at least 10 chains (obsessively changed!) and still works well.
2x and 3x systems are always going to be more durable. More sprockets driving, and less time in the favourites due to the smaller jumps.
Front mechs aren’t cool, but Shimano are Japanese.. They run to a different cool to you lot anyway.

sort of touched on above couple of people mentioned CX’s
(AKA drop bar hybrid/gravel racer)

interested in the ST-RS685 hydraulic STI’s just announced as my current STI’s are getting past their best – currently running 9speed triple MTB stuff so going to 11 speed road would mean 2 new wheel sets(1 for wide tyres stuff, 1 for all road) and one reason for going to disk’s was to avoid wearing out rims and having to rebuild wheels!

so do you think the pull ratios for the new XTR mech will work with the new 11speed road hydraulic shifters?

I guess then there is a capacity issue to run a compact on the front with say a 48-34 still I’m enthusing that I may not have to buy new wheels to upgrade to 11speed compact

maxtorque – Member
One thing i do expect to see is more and more manufacturers moving to 1x to simplify (and help reduce costs) the design of their suspension platform. Ditching the front mech (no mount/seat tube clearance required), fixing the chain line with regard to the suspension kinematics, and allowing more width for stiffer/stronger main triangle/chain stay interface etc

And therefore limiting the bikes appeal to the enduro/competitive XC/ wanna-be market as previously mentioned, can’t see it myself.

Back on topic, I rather like the new stuff

And therefore limiting the bikes appeal to the enduro/competitive XC/ wanna-be market as previously mentioned, can’t see it myself.

What seems to be the problem for SRAM and 10-42 is letting people know it just about the same range as 2×10

Unless your a die hard triple rider then 1×11 (10-42) covers the bases that 2×10 used to.

^ narrower, but a good range for those that know their fitness or terrain. And for people debating whether 1×11 is ok for them on longer or more hilly rides, 2×11 with a 40T rear has a greater range. Choice is good )

It’s so personal to rider, terrain etc. Shimano’s assumption is that people want to stay in a 60-90rpm cadence, but there are both strong out-of-saddle SS-type climbers and spinners so many tend to gear based on that. Given a long enough ride or steep, techy enough hills (esp at altitude) we all become spinners eventually and pushing a slightly too-high gear uphill wears you out faster.

^ I don’t think many people would be running 24/36 with an 11-36 cassette though.

A better comparison is probably the 28/42 (max range you can get away with without shifting getting iffy) with an 11-36 cassette.

28-36 is pretty much identical to 32-42, so the easy gears stay the same. 32-10 is 83 gear inches, 42-11 is 99. So what you gain is another 5mph at the top end at 100rpm.

With an 11-40 cassette you could run a 30-44 double and keep the same easy gear but not spin out until around 30mph instead.

The only real question is do you often pedal at 24mph and feel the need to be able pedal beyond that to 29-30+mph? Probably not in fairness although what got me thinking about a double was being overtaken by a lot of people on a long, non-technical descent as I’d spun out on XX1 in a recent race. Rare that this kind of situation arises though and by and large the XX1 range is adequate.

The only real question is do you often pedal at 24mph and feel the need to be able pedal beyond that to 29-30+mph? Probably not in fairness although what got me thinking about a double was being overtaken by a lot of people on a long, non-technical descent as I’d spun out on XX1 in a recent race. Rare that this kind of situation arises though and by and large the XX1 range is adequate.

comes down to whether you have to ride on the road IMO, if you never ride fire roads, tarmac etc then a low high gear isn’t an issue, if you do then it soon becomes one. Other thing to mention, on rough ground i tend to slow the cadence, and push a bigger gear, and find the 40×11 i have on the low side.