1×11 trickles down…

Home Forum Bike Forum 1×11 trickles down…

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 105 total)
  • 1×11 trickles down…
  • Keva
    Member

    crikey I’m still on 9sp using 11-32. I couldn’t imagine having a 10sp 36t sprocket on my back wheel let alone a 42t dinner plate ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    xiphon
    Member

    I’ll pass thanks – more than happy with 1×9 (34, 11-32).

    Surely the extra cogs are going to add some considerable weight?

    messiah
    Member

    Good.

    Looking forward to seeing what Shimano come up with in response…

    … and this ^^^

    Keva
    Member

    exactly xiphon, back wheel like brick

    tarquin
    Member

    No real surprise as they announced the 2×11 road group set a little while back now.

    No real weight gain either I wouldn’t expect.

    A Shimano Dura-ace 9 speed cassette weighs 160g, a 10spd 163g and a 11spd 166g all for 11-23T cassettes (Quoting from Merlins website!).

    traildog
    Member

    I’m excited by this. I like the 1×9 I’m running but find I can be slightly undergeared with the 32×34 bottom gear. I enjoy technical climbs and I often end up walking what I’d otherwise be attacking but on my limit. It’s one thing which *may* make me consider swapping back to SRAM. However, I might just go back to running a granny to stay Shimano. Hmm.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Really surprised Shimano haven’t sorted themselves out yet tbh. XX1’s too high a price for me but assuming Fulcrum make me a freehub, I’ll most likely sign up for X0 (or X9 when it comes).

    Premier Icon justinbieber
    Subscriber

    XT 11-32 cassette is 256gm. XX1 cassette is 265gm, so not massively heavier. Obviously X0 will weigh more, but it’s not as big an increase as you’d expect.

    butterbean
    Member

    At last check, Shimano had no intention of following SRAM into this market.

    That may have since changed, but it won’t be any time soon.

    Premier Icon njee20
    Subscriber

    XD body weighs less too, so actually XX1 is lighter whilst having a far wider range.

    The problem is that the cassette is eye wateringly expensive, and in 10 speed guise an X.0 cassette is still more than ยฃ200 (and more than XTR), so I’m not sure how much more affordable X01 will be!

    I’d buy XX1 if I was building a new bike now for sure! I think it’s even pretty well priced, even the cassette isn’t particularly bad value when you look at the construction.

    Premier Icon Cheezpleez
    Subscriber

    I like the idea of XX1 but not at the silly price for the current top end version.

    For me, the big question is whether they can produce something at a sensible price and a reasonable weight that still provides the wide gear range.

    I suspect not. And TBH I’m quite happy with 9sp.

    What kind of flat trails are people riding that they can use 1×9 in 11 11-32 guise? I tried suffered with 1×10 32 11-36 for ages and it’s not enough for trail centres, climbs aren’t pleasant. 1×11 with 32 11-40/42 will be bob on, I reckons.

    Keva
    Member

    I ride my 1×36/11-32 quite happily round Cwmcarn, Afan and Brechfa. I guess it depends on strength to weight ratio. I don’t weigh very much and I’m quite strong for my size.

    Premier Icon notmyrealname
    Subscriber

    I just knew this would happen once I’d bought XX1 for the bike….just fitted it yesterday as well ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    Premier Icon woody2000
    Subscriber

    I ride most stuff in 1×9 with 11-32 out back. Occasionally give up, but mostly cos I can’t be arsed sometimes rather than a lack of gears ๐Ÿ™‚

    I live in a reasonably steep sided valley too, most rides will give ~1000m of climbing over 20-25 miles.

    What sort of uber-steep trails do you ride LF3 to need a 32/42 bottom gear? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Premier Icon justinbieber
    Subscriber

    Yeah, that’s always confused me – try riding in the Lakes without a granny ring. You’ll be off and pushing on most of the big passes

    I’d also heard mention that Shimano had no intentions of making a 1×11 setup, which seems daft to me, as it’s clearly the future.
    32:36 is as low as I’d ever need to go – 32:42 seems pretty outrageous, but a massive cassette means you can get away with a bigger chainring for less spinning out on really fast stuff.

    Dave
    Member

    XX1 32×10-42 was pretty bob on for climbing up to the trails in Garda last week.

    traildog
    Member

    Everyone is different, which is why having all these different choices is good. I ride regularly in the lakes with 32×32 bottom (now 34 but it doesn’t make that much difference) and I’m overgeared which just means I have to slow down on most climbs to pace myself. Many climbs are a matter of pushing up – such as Garburn for example, which I’d previously attempted in the granny, but you are not much slower if you jog up pushing the bike. I run a single ring because I like the chain security and put up with the downsides (and I also strangely like not having to worry about shifting with another hand). But generally riding in the lakes with such a setup is not such a big deal if it’s just for a few hours and most trail centers have easy climbs for a strong rider and I would not go in granny when I had one.

    More gears will be great and I’m sure SRAM are onto something with this. I just wish it was Shimano so you didn’t have to mortgage your house for something which lasts 6 months. I guess electronic will be Shimanos big bid for world domination.

    mrmo
    Member

    Yeah, that’s always confused me – try riding in the Lakes without a granny ring. You’ll be off and pushing on most of the big passes

    maybe your unfit?

    i coped in the Alps on a duo with 27×32 bottom gear, slightly bigger hills than the lakes….

    everyone is different, just because one rider can’t cope doesn’t mean others can’t.

    Personally not interested because it is Sram.

    Stevelol
    Member

    Everyone knows that 1×9/1×10 is cool as hell, the fact that (“in some parts of the country and for some people”) you can’t get up all the hills doesn’t matter ๐Ÿ˜€

    For what it’s worth I’ve just gone up to a 32t chainring (after running a 30t for 18 months) and now manage fine with a 36t on the cassette, anyone who rides a couple of times a week should be fine with this. I’d love to go for 1×11 (at a cheaper price) but don’t see the point. People in the alps or I assume parts of Scotland would get more use of it if you’re regularly climbing for a couple of hours.

    butterbean
    Member

    I’d also heard mention that Shimano had no intentions of making a 1×11 setup, which seems daft to me, as it’s clearly the future.
    32:36 is as low as I’d ever need to go – 32:42 seems pretty outrageous, but a massive cassette means you can get away with a bigger chainring for less spinning out on really fast stuff.

    You contradict yourself nicely there. Although your second point was the stance Shimano originally took. Obviously running a 1 x setup requires a certain level of fitness, that not everyone can cope with.

    However They have made it pretty clear to manufacturers they are testing a larger range rear cassette than their current offering, but won’t consider lower than an 11t on the back because of the need to run specific drivers to make it work.

    So unfit fatties can rejoice, they too can still look rad with a 1 x setup whilst maybe standing a small chance of riding up some hills.

    The other advantage is it will work with existing mid & long cage mechs (on the whole, obviously there may be some exceptions).

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Great news, can’t get on with anything less than a 36 up front as my legs work in the slow rather than fast mode better. Will be going 2×10 shortly from 2×9 but watching the 1×11 for a year or so.

    andyrm
    Member

    This is a great thing.

    The tech arms race over the last few years has seen a fantastic advancement – SRAM got to 2×10 first, Shimano’s response was the brilliant new brakes and clutch mechs.

    SRAM came back with 1×11 and clutch mechs – what will Shimano respond with this time?

    Genuinely exciting times in terms of bike tech and the battle to be in the lead – and this means better kit for everyone, and trickle down seems very fast in the last 2 years.

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    Premier Icon justinbieber
    Subscriber

    maybe your unfit?

    Cheeky get ๐Ÿ™‚

    I’m no whippet, but I ain’t a lardy either. Still can’t do without a bailout gear though

    Premier Icon njee20
    Subscriber

    Ok, I can, and plenty of others can too. There are myriad reasons for this, including but not limited to: bike weight, rider weight, fitness, terrain, riding style, stubbornness and propensity to suffer.

    I’ve not used a 22t chainring for 7 years, and would never go back, but I know plenty of people wouldn’t be without them. It’s because we’re not all the same. Weird eh?

    Mackem
    Member

    What we all need. (or rather what I want) is a 10 speed cassette that fits on normal hubs with the same upper and lower gear as the XX1. I dont mind buying a new mech for that. Surely, that’s cheaper and better for everyone?

    svalgis
    Member

    What we all need. (or rather what I want) is a 10 speed cassette that fits on normal hubs with the same upper and lower gear as the XX1. I dont mind buying a new mech for that. Surely, that’s cheaper and better for everyone?

    http://www.pinkbike.com/news/General-Lee-Wide-range-Cassette-Adapter-First-Look-2013.html

    But yeah, a complete decently priced cassette with those ratios would be ideal for me.

    Premier Icon njee20
    Subscriber

    What we all need. (or rather what I want) is a 10 speed cassette that fits on normal hubs with the same upper and lower gear as the XX1. I dont mind buying a new mech for that. Surely, that’s cheaper and better for everyone?

    Except you can’t fit smaller than an 11t on a normal freehub body, so you have to go bigger at the other end to replicate XX1, so you’re looking at an 11-46 cassette!

    Premier Icon mrhoppy
    Subscriber

    A 40-11 10sp cassette would be fine, even for the most hideous hilly it’d be ok paired with a 36t ring which would give a 36-11 top end which is all I use at the moment.

    Keva
    Member

    there’s going have to be some reshaping of the gears to go from a 36 bottom gear to a 42. There’s either going to a massive gap between the bottom 3 gears (largest sprockets) or bigger spaces between them all which I reckon would make for awkward gear changes.

    I’ll be sticking with 9sp 11-32 for now.

    http://faqload.com/faqs/bicycle-components/drivetrain/10-speed-9-speed-gearing-comparisons

    Edric 64
    Member

    Isnt everything just going to wear quicker with 10/11 speed as components get thinner? The cost of chains and cassettes is really high ! I will stay with 7,8 ,9 speed its cheaper

    Premier Icon justinbieber
    Subscriber

    Apparently, component wear is less on a single front ring. Makes no sense to me though

    Yeah, that’s always confused me – try riding in the Lakes without a granny ring. You’ll be off and pushing on most of the big passes

    [quote]maybe your unfit?

    i coped in the Alps on a duo with 27×32 bottom gear, slightly bigger hills than the lakes….

    everyone is different, just because one rider can’t cope doesn’t mean others can’t.

    Personally not interested because it is Sram.
    [/quote]

    +1 for the response.

    My bottom gears 32-36 and it’s enough for anything I’ve pointed it up. Yes I walk up some things, but that’s ballanced against the fact the bike in question weighs 32lb + and really doesn’t have the geometry for asteep climbs!

    A 40-11 10sp cassette would be fine, even for the most hideous hilly it’d be ok paired with a 36t ring which would give a 36-11 top end which is all I use at the moment.

    That’s only 1 gear lower (~10%) than a 36t though.

    XX1 is 10-42, so not only is the low gear half a gear lower than your proposed 11-40, it’s also got one gear (~10%) higher. Run that with the smaller XX1 chainring (say the 29t for 10% below a 32t) and you’ve got two or three lower gears than a normal 32-36t bottom gear. Without dropping the top gear at all.

    The problem is SRAM will have patented the mech with the flat parralelogram and offset upper jockey wheel which prevents ghost shifting on the much steeper cassette, Shimano will have to come up with something to acomplish that. Maybe they’ll use their patens which allowed for tiny rear sprockets to reduce the need for bigger ones?

    Maybe they’ll throw money at a 12 speed (as in n+1, where n is your compettitiors number of gears) gearbox instead?

    JCL
    Member

    The front mech is dead.

    well, I’m STILL waiting for the cassette to turn up allowing me to run my XX1…….

    4 months of anticipation ๐Ÿ™

    Isnt everything just going to wear quicker with 10/11 speed as components get thinner? The cost of chains and cassettes is really high ! I will stay with 7,8 ,9 speed its cheaper

    MTBR did some fairly rigarous (3 bikes on 9s 3 on 10s) in comparable conditions with comparable riders all using Shimano. 10s lasted about twice as long as 9s.

    Shimano claimed it was bacause they don’t just ‘make it thinner’ each time, the chains got redesigned with tighter tolerances which meant less wear. Additionaly you’ve got 10% (ish) less wear on each sprocket.

    And the only chain to snap was 9s!

    jimification
    Member

    I find the 2×10 hard work at times (26/36 lowest gear on a 29er)

    I don’t think I’d ever go back to a triple, though – really hated that “click…..whirrr..thunk…spin like crazy” drop into the granny ring (and yes, I did used to shift the front and back at the same time to try to compensate a bit).

    Looking forward to getting rid of the bloody front mech altogether. Though the cassette is expensive, the overall price for a top end drivetrain isn’t *that* bad.

    Shimano will surely lose out if they don’t develop an answer to XX1 fairly swiftly – it seems like everyone is gradually dumping their front rings and it’s something that you can sell to people that already have a perfectly fine drivetrain too…

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Subscriber

    Ahh… when you said tickle down, I thought you meant affordable cassettes.

    That’s 2015 then?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 105 total)

The topic ‘1×11 trickles down…’ is closed to new replies.