twisty – Member

But
One’s 1×11 rear wheel will be heavier than 2×9 rear wheel

unless
one pays for an expensive consumable cassette/driver. It looks like a hope 10-44T with it’s special freehub is about the same weight as an XT 11-28 plus a normal freehub.

Though, most people don’t use 11-28s. But, say 11-32 as a more typical choice, that’s about 300g, plus about 20g typical difference in the driver. The cheapest sram 11 speed cassette is £75 and weighs 400g, the second cheapest is 315g but costs a lot more at £160. The cassettes seem to last better but still, you’re trading money for weight, bigtime

(I just picked up a 260g x01 cassette for £120 and they’re still available for £140 but that’s an unfair comparison, that’s the best price I’ve ever seen)

What I was trying to point out (poorly, as it turns out) with my comment about cage length was that longer 1×11 rear mechs are more prone to getting bashed, crashed and trashed as the lower jockey hangs lower and spends time slightly further out from the wheel centreline. As they are quite expensive to replace, that’s a bit of a pain.. plus can ruin a ride. Again, as I tend to ride up large hills that have rocky, bouldery trails, I tend to lose a mech from time to time; not every year, but often enough for me to be aware of the risk constantly. If you’re riding the more natural terrain, squeezing between big boulders will eventually cost you a mech, so I think of this problem when planning kit changes. 2×9 or 10 helps with this, as the lighter, cheaper and shorter mechs survive longer and are easier to replace. I’m not saying 1x is always wrong; it’s just wrong for where I ride and I find the fascination that some folk have with it a bit short sighted.

richardthird – Member
Front mechs are the work of the devil…

And with the experience gained, he developed the rear derailleur. 🙂

This trend away from 3x towards 1x is encouraging.

Now let’s see the same happen with the rear end and chain drop will become past tense. 🙂

Northwind – Member

(I just picked up a 260g x01 cassette for £120 and they’re still available for £140 but that’s an unfair comparison, that’s the best price I’ve ever seen)

Got mine here too, £104 *high five*

lighter, cheaper and shorter mechs

That would make sense except that, as has been pointed out, they are not necessarily lighter, cheaper or shorter.

Lighter- 11s is probably heavier than 10s, yes. But that’s largely regardless of number of chainrings

Cheaper- See ‘lighter’, subbing ‘more expensive’ for ‘heavier’. Old kit is cheaper, yes.

Shorter- Cage length is a function of the amount of chain slack you need to deal with, with relates to the gear range available in your system, regardless of number of chainrings*, so that’s not right either. Case in point, my 1×10 setup has a shorter rear mech than when it was when I ran a triple (because it has a smaller range).

For what it’s worth, if 2×9,10,11 works for you, then keep using it. I never got on with doubles and stuck with triples. On reflection though, if I had really run through logically why I didn’t like it, I might have seen that actually it suited me better. I suppose, by all means use it if it works for you but make sure you’re actually sure the reasoning is sound before telling other people they are fascinated with it!

*unless you deliberately set up a 2x setup with a shorter chain than big to big would need

highlandman – Member

What I was trying to point out (poorly, as it turns out) with my comment about cage length was that longer 1×11 rear mechs are more prone to getting bashed, crashed and trashed as the lower jockey hangs lower and spends time slightly further out from the wheel centreline

As Swanny says, it’s a false assumption- you use literally the same XT mech for both 1x and 2x, their standard/medium cage. For equivalent gear you’re usually 1 tooth further out so that’s certainly correct but it’s not much of a difference

I wonder at what point hubgears will get light enough to become attractive to derailleur users.

Or will it be centrally mounted gearboxes (more logical)?

In fact, given that on a 1x in the lower half of the cassette, you are going to have the mech pulled further forwards for a given gear ratio compared to a 2x, you could argue that 1x is less likely to have a mech in the way when riding up large, rocky hills. I wouldn’t care to argue it, because it’s splitting hairs.

Or will it be centrally mounted gearboxes (more logical)?

Standardised fittings so you can change between brands and better shifting ergonomics (i.e. not gripshift) are as much a bugbear for me at the moment. I am genuinely looking forward to proper low fuss gearbox bikes though.

you use literally the same XT mech for both 1x and 2x, their standard/medium cage.

eh? WTF are you plaffing on about?

I use a nice short cage Ultegra rear mech on my only remaining 2x mtb.
it’s strong, light AND cheap.
by running a 22t granny ring you just don’t need a stupidly big largest sprocket to have a lower ratio than any 1x has.
again Strong, light AND cheap.
Smaller cassette and resulting shorter chain means far less chainslap. That front mech also doubles as a handy top chainguide so there’s little need for a clutch or NW for chain retention.
again Strong, light AND cheap. #SoFKUKB

FWIW – I’m running SS 1×7 2×7 3×7 1×8 2×8 1×9 1×10 2×10 and 1×11 (different bikes obvz) and have zero issues with weight, wear, cost, chain retention or gearing with any of them.

#PickaDrivetrainAndBeAdickAboutIT

I wonder at what point hubgears will get light enough to become attractive to derailleur users.

Or will it be centrally mounted gearboxes (more logical)?

I switched from 3×9 to an Alfine 8 and loved it and didn’t really notice the shift in weight until I had to pick it up, a lower climbing gear would have been nice though.
I’ve recently bought a bike which came with a 1×11 which I do kind of like, but find I have too many gears well too many in-between gears for me, the climb back into where I park my car was a hell of a lot easier!
If only they did an Alfine 8 with a wider range and one that takes a Maxle…. the ability to shift at standstill without rotating the wheel is great!

Cheers, Steve

noncycler – Member

eh? WTF are you plaffing on about?

If you use modern mtb kit, it’s literally the same part. Short cage road kit might work for you but it doesn’t work for all bikes or setups, the medium cage is the setup that reliably works and what comes on bikes so that’s what I’m talking about. Of course there are special cases and exceptions, but there’s no sense in focusing on those.

As for chain retention, I was more or less happy with 2x and no chain device on my xc bikes, it was adequate, but 1x has proved itself much better.

Call it whatever catchy modern “buy me now” term you like dude. I’ve been running a single ring upfront with gears at the back since 1992. funnily enough there was no “‘1x’ shimano mech” then either. 😉

Awww… don’t call yourself a “special case” you’re just a little slow and maybe a little overly keen to buy into everything bike marketing throws at you 😛

If you read my list of drivetrain set-ups you’d have realised I also do #modern now too. although I’ll never exclusively use “latest latest”

Heh. Welcome back btw.

Was kinda Alfine curious (for the Inbred currently SS) so had a look. 1600g+ Crikey!

swanny853 – Member

Standardised fittings…

go on, say that again, you’re hilarious!

Was kinda Alfine curious (for the Inbred currently SS) so had a look. 1600g+ Crikey!

The actual weight difference all in is normally about 400g-600g depending on exact setup and if you’re swapping from 1x or 2/3x

1600g hub + sprocket/CJ + shorter chain
Vs
~300g hub + 300g(+?)cassette + 300g mech + longer chain (+ front shifting gubbins if you have it))

Sure it’s a lump of weight but you don’t really notice it except when lifting it over gates and stuff, when riding it’s invisible after the first 7.6 minutes it takes to get used to it, it’s similar to swapping from a nice light tyre for a dual ply which some people do for various different rides.

It does all add up though and I wouldn’t use it on a race bike, but for general XC and trails I like my Alfine quite a lot for various reasons and the weight is tolerable.

Seriously considering a pinion bike in the near future though if I can save up enough!

If you use modern mtb kit, it’s literally the same part.

If you have a 2x setup then you don’t need a clutch rear mech. The clutch bit adds 50 – 60g as well as being one more thing to wear out.
xx rear mech – 181gr, xx1 rear mech 245 gr.
Might not matter but don’t deny there is a difference.

richardthird – Member
Was kinda Alfine curious (for the Inbred currently SS) so had a look. 1600g+ Crikey!

Be nice if it was lighter, but it’s not really a sporty lightweight hub, more at commuter level, ie robust and not weight weenie.

However when you consider its durability and faff freeness, the little bit extra weight isn’t that bad. What’s the weight of a cassette hub, cassette, and derailleur.? (I did do a weight comparison once but I’ve lost it, but the difference was not enough to put me off.)

You do get to save some weight with its shorter spokes and shorter chain though. 🙂

I have an Alfine on one of my bikes and I like not having to worry about scraping it off on a rock.

I’d be happy if I could have the same range with less gears in a lighter package, eg 5 spd which could be done with 2 trains of epicyclics instead of 3, thus removing some internal drag.

(I have a Sturmey-Archer 5 speed hub which weighs just over 1,000 gms, again with no concession to weight saving. That gives an idea of the weight that could be trimmed, just needs a wider range.)

I’d be happy if I could have the same range with less gears in a lighter package, eg 5 spd which could be done with 2 trains of epicyclics instead of 3, thus removing some internal drag.

Say 90% of people with an Alfine 😆

I only went from an A8 to A11 to get the extra range, I don’t much care about the steps in between as the kind of riding I use that bike for it doesn’t matter much how close they are.

If only someone would listen and build it!!!!!

I bet in a couple of years 2x drivetrains are being pushed again – sold on the basis of smaller gaps between gears and better chainline

Shorter- Cage length is a function of the amount of chain slack you need to deal with, with relates to the gear range available in your system, regardless of number of chainrings*, so that’s not right either. Case in point, my 1×10 setup has a shorter rear mech than when it was when I ran a triple (because it has a smaller range).

It is not quite as simple as that.
If covering the same total range a 2x system would need a shorter cage than a 1x system.[1]
In reality the 2x system will generally have a larger range than a 1×11 system so the two pretty much even out to requiring a similar medium cage mech.
3X MTB drivechains only need a long cage mech because the range is massive.

[1] new fangled 9T little cogs could be an exception to this. Although i am sure the wraparound drivechain losses would be terribke for such a tiny cog anyway.

Stevet1 – Member

If you have a 2x setup then you don’t need a clutch rear mech.

You don’t for 1x either 😕 I’d rather have the clutch personally, on either setup, but the narrow/wide chainring is doing all the heavy lifting so even without a clutch, chain retention on single is still good (better than double ime). (source: my old xt mech’s clutch fell apart, I just took it out and carried on)

Stevet1 – Member

xx rear mech – 181gr, xx1 rear mech 245 gr.
Might not matter but don’t deny there is a difference.

What’s stopping you using the XX rear mech with 1x? You’re choosing a heavier part then complaining that it’s heavier.

amedias – Member
…I only went from an A8 to A11 to get the extra range, I don’t much care about the steps in between as the kind of riding I use that bike for it doesn’t matter much how close they are.

Same here, I usually jump 2 gears at once – which is why I reckon a 5 speed would do the job.

ahwiles – Member
swanny853 – Member
Standardised fittings…
go on, say that again, you’re hilarious!

I can dream, can’t I?

If covering the same total range a 2x system would need a shorter cage than a 1x system

Why?

Having to do all the thinking for the 1x ers, what was that about sheepoids 😛

When you have a pair of meshing gears (via a chain) changing ratio by varying both elements provides a compounding advantage so results in less change to drivechain size vs varying just a single element.

An example

2X: 34/21T front with 11-28, 420% range, tooth difference = 30T

1X 34T front with 11-46, 420% range, tooth difference = 35T

So for same range a 2x needs 5T less capacity, furthermore 21/11,12,13,14 are silly combinations that will never get used so it doesn’t matter if the chain is slack for those – can size the mech for 21/16 = 25T difference, a whopping 10T (35%) less than with the 1x setup.

Thats where the clever bods at SRAM came in, rather than going big they went small. 10t is a good gear over 11t 10-42 vs 11-46

Yes, I’m aware of how the maths works, thank you for the lesson. Did they teach you that when they taught you to be badass at rearspeeding school?

Fair enough on that example, the numbers I’d run put them within a pretty close band i.e. one or two t either way.

For the same range 1x needs less capacity if the overall gearing is higher. 2x gets the advantage lower down. Exact crossover point depends on the cassette (that 9t being a case in point, but that’s at least as likely as the average person running a 21t ring). I would argue that across most of the typical mtb range it’s close enough that once you allow capacity for suspension movement and the fact that they don’t make mech cages in 1t increments, it’s pretty much a non-deciding issue. Which i think was my original point.

So, taking my XX-1 cassette off yesterday, the big sprocket speedster from the rest of the cassette. Never had this before – any ideas why? Removed using the approved method with sufficient engagement of removal tool and chain whip had sufficient puurchase.

Separates not ‘speedster’!

swanny853 – Member
Yes, I’m aware of how the maths works, thank you for the lesson. Did they teach you that when they taught you to be badass at rearspeeding school?

If you were aware of how the math works then why did you why a 2x system covering the same range as a 1x system could have a shorter cage than a 1x system. Trolling?

the numbers I’d run put them within a pretty close band i.e. one or two t either way.

The bottom line is that if one is keen to run a short cage on their MTB then they can do this on a 2x system with ~400% total range if prepared for the chain to be slack with small-small selected. For a 1x system one is limited to a much shorter range if you want to run a short cage mech.
This isn’t particularly important in the grand scheme of things though, bear in mind I have not stated any 1x is pants type opinions. If you are familiar with my rearspeeding thread then you would be aware that I was bodging together 1x type setups on MTBikes many years ago.

So, taking my XX-1 cassette off yesterday, the big sprocket speedster from the rest of the cassette.

Never had had a big sprocket speedster – I think. Genuinely confused as to what this is supposed to mean though.

Small small ? Do people do that?

Hi – see my correction.

The smaller the tooth count, the less efficient the drivetrain – that’s why Shimano stop at 11T (except in the Capreo folding bike group set which uses a 9T to get gear ratios required while using teeny wheels on folding bikes). 11T is significantly less efficient that 12, but as with all things, it’s a compromise, and 11T is the smallest you can beneficially go in their eyes in terms of efficiency, effective ratios, ground clearance of the associated chainrings etc etc.
10T is significantly less efficient again. Throw in UK filth, and you’ve got a pretty lumpy transmission.

See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf for some info re efficiency.

he smaller the tooth count, the less efficient the drivetrain – that’s why Shimano stop at 11T (except in the Capreo folding bike group set which uses a 9T to get gear ratios required while using teeny wheels on folding bikes). 11T is significantly less efficient that 12, but as with all things, it’s a compromise, and 11T is the smallest you can beneficially go in their eyes in terms of efficiency, effective ratios, ground clearance of the associated chainrings etc etc.
10T is significantly less efficient again. Throw in UK filth, and you’ve got a pretty lumpy transmission.

Not sure I understand where you are coming from. The 9t on my e-13 TRS+ works fine with a SRAM X1 mech and I get a noticeably higher gear than my mates with 10/11t small cogs.

As for 1×11, I’ve been a late adopter. I dragged my heels when all and sundry were proclaiming it to be the holy grail and stuck to my 3×9. I bought a Capra with 1×11 and after struggling a bit with 32/42, I’m coping fine with a 44t. Not messing about with a front mech/shifter is worth losing a bit off the top and bottom ranges. Not dropped a chain once, which I did loads with a 3x. The big issue for me and it’s quite obviously chain line, is that back pedalling in the largest sprocket forces the chain down the cassette

Not sure I understand where you are coming from. The 9t on my e-13 TRS+ works fine with a SRAM X1 mech and I get a noticeably higher gear than my mates with 10/11t small cogs.

The 9T works but significantly less power makes it to the ground than with a larger cog.
A majority of the drivechain friction ocurrs as the last 3 links of the chain peel off the rear sprocket, here the chain is under tension and articulating, the combination of load and movement creates friction. The amount of articulation under load increases exponentially as cog size reduces, it is pretty efficient down to 13T but drivechain loss exponentially increases from there. It is pretty easy to see just by looking at the chain sitting on the cogs, for a 15T the loaded links might articulate through 30deg or so, for a 9T it is 180deg.

It isn’t a problem when riding for fun and just want a system to apply drive in the faster sections, but if racing XC you want to be applying drive efficiently on the faster less technical sections as it all adds up to the final lap times.

It’s why I run 12-25 and a large front chainring when racing my TT bike, much better to have a bit of extra weight even if it is only increasing drive efficiency by 0.5%

I wonder how long it will be before one of the major manufactures tries a smaller chain pitch size in order to reduce the size of the dinner plate without creating too much wraparound loss of the high gear.

You mean like Dura ace 10?
Been, done, given up on. I think any road system will likely meet the same fate unless all manufacturers (especially of chains) can be brought on board. The 1/2″ chain pitch has been useful in that respect.

And as for big rings/ big cassette, that’s not uncommon. I’ve run a 55/42 paired with a 12 up cassette. No intention of ever running 55×12. But you get a really nice chain line with the “useful” gears around the mid teens. And I’ve seen lots of others doing it through the years.

The big beasts these days would probably need a 60T ring to do the same thing, quite a few actually use gears as big as 55×11……..

What’s the SRAM XG 1150 cassette like in comparison to the XT offering?

I’m my mate Martin would like a black cassette on his new build and usually runs XT stuff. He realises he will need the XD hub.

And does he need the X12 spacer or 12mm spacer for a 142×12 Hope Pro4 hub/frame?

The SRAM cassette is better in pretty much every way I would say.

He’d need the X12 spacer.

Cheers Ben, he’s very appreciative of your help.

Will he need any other tools apart from the usual stuff to put the SRAM cassette on the XD hub?