This looks interesting, but that huge cassette has to have an impact on weight distribution…

Andy

a 10-42 cassette lol

I would be getting excited if it didn’t involve spending huge wedge on new wheels and drivetrain.

Anybody want to buy a house?

I really like the theory, but I’d rather have a 10-36 or something – I don’t want a heavier cassette with massive gaps, just one extra gear would be nice for the road bits particularly!

I really like the theory, but I’d rather have a 10-36 or something – I don’t want a heavier cassette with massive gaps, just one extra gear would be nice for the road bits particularly!

Surely the 42t is the whole theory? You could always go up 10%-20% on the front chainring with 10-42 to get the same lowest gear as 11-36 but with 2 higher gears (as 12 or 13 would be the same ratio as the old 11).

Although I guess they’ll make XX 11 speed as well with a narrower range for more normal XC, this looks much more aimed at the winch and plop enduro brigade. Also, would it fit on a normal wheel with only a 36t, IIRC the 42 overhangs the spokes, would a 36t clear the spokes especialy with the trend towards 29ers in XC and their straighter spokes?

I won’t be getting it 32-36 get’s me up anything I can be bothered riding up, anything steeper/slower and I’ll walk and goign down I rarely find anything where I can pedal 32-11, and if I do then I’m probably more bothered about why i’m riding down a boring track than my gear choice. And I still think it’s the last throws of the dice for dereilieur gears before that kind of money starts buying you a gearbox instead.

Surely the 42t is the whole theory?

Aye, but they’ve added one extra sprocket, but put the equivalent of one additional small sprocket, and 2 additional larger ones, hence there are now epic gaps, whatever they say.

I would have liked a very slightly wider cassette, but with similar gaps, so 10-36, or 11-40 (for example). The former would weigh less but definitely require their special freehub. Not the end of the world, I’ve got a set of 240s. Not sure if a 12-up would fit, or if you need the integrated lockring so it’s offset appropriately to clear the spokes, as you say.

They said when they did the original launch there were no plans to make XX 11 speed, this was something totally different.

if they did a 11-42 that fitted a standard hub it would be worth a serious look. as it is you need new wheels to fit in the 10t.

Surely if it’s the lockring then it’s more an issue with frame clearance than the freehub, i.e. an 11speed compatible freehub is just a 10speed one with the freehub shifted a few mm further to the center? I know some of my frames/wheels the 11t sits very close to the dropout (i had one frame tht the paint had been rubbed off), othere’s the there’s masses of clearance for an extra sprocket.

As for weight distribution, I don’t think it’d be that much of an issue, the big gears are alloy and it’s still comparable to a mid range cassette (just not an XX).

I agree, that would be great, but I wonder if they’re deeming that too narrow to work with a normal freehub body, and as you’d need new wheels anyway, it’s better to do freehubs that fit existing wheels (costing far less), as opposed to needing entirely new wheels with the associated reduced flange width etc.

As for weight distribution, I don’t think it’d be that much of an issue, the big gears are alloy and it’s still comparable to a mid range cassette

But it is heavier than XX (and that’s the price rival), and a smaller cassette (say 10-36) wouldn’t be. The weight compared to mid-range options is fairly irrelevant IMO, they could have opened it up to the racey set, for whom 1×10 is becoming increasingly popular, with a slightly narrower range (but still wider than 10 speed) lighter block. Seems a bit odd to me.

Are you after 10-36 10speed or 11? Seems to be the 11 that adds the weight so yes you could have a XX weight cassette with a 10t cog, but I still dot think that the 11th overhanging gear would fit if it were a normal size? You could buy a 10-42 cassette and dremmel off the 42 and run with a 10s shifter and mech?

I like the look of this, if it trickles down through their range to the X9 groupset then i’ll be first in line.

It seems made for people like me who cant stay in the middle ring (typically 32T) and crank their 36T rear up a hill….going 32 front with a 42T cassette out back sounds perfect….make it happen SRAM.

Are you after 10-36 10speed or 11? Seems to be the 11 that adds the weight so yes you could have a XX weight cassette with a 10t cog, but I still dot think that the 11th overhanging gear would fit if it were a normal size?

Was meaning 11. Basically just offer some different size options on XX1.

An 11 speed 10-36 would be lighter than a 10-42, have smaller gaps and still cover a wider range than anything 10 speed.

**** me 42t 😯 Where do you guys ride to need that?

I often drop into the granny and the use the 36t for short sharp techy climbs….but at the same time i’d love to ditch the front mech and simplify things but i would end up waking some of the climbs i currently clear and that defeats the point of a ride for me….i can see myself happily running a 32 single ring up front and loving a 42t cassette out back….as somebody else earlier in the thread suggested, it seems made for the AM/Enduro sector with those ratios.

I like the look of this, if it trickles down through their range to the X9 groupset then i’ll be first in line.

it might

however an x9 level 10-42 cassette would weigh more than the moon and make baby jesus cry

deviant – try using just a 34T front, instead of 22/36

**** me 42t Where do you guys ride to need that?

Well 36-42 is a higher gear than 22-32, and plenty of people feel they ‘need’ a granny ring, so this still wouldn’t be enough!

Doesn’t this mean stupidly large rear mechs and consequently lots of rock smashing mech bending goodness?

Bashguard for the rear cassette anyone?

xiphon….had a 22/36 double and bash on my hardtail, it was frustrating as i rarely used the 36 ring as it was just too much to push on steep climbs, ended up selling the bike anyway and the current bike has a triple set up with 24/32/42….the 32t middle ring is where i spend most of the time but its still too much even with a 36t cassette on some climbs (for me anyway) so a 42 cassette with a single 32t front ring sounds manageable….weight isnt a concern, the bike is a burly build and used for enduro/AM type riding rather than longer XC type stuff.

bwaarp – Member

Doesn’t this mean stupidly large rear mechs and consequently lots of rock smashing mech bending goodness?

Bashguard for the rear cassette anyone?

The derailleur is mounted magnetically inside the rear spokes, and uses a sonic chain that fires pulses of tension to the cassette between the spokes like the machine gun on a WW1 biplane.

I must admit I find 1×10 not quite a big enough range for Peaks riding.

32/36 is manageable when fresh, but gets hard work after 5 or 6 hours, and even so, I’m not quite fit enough to ride stuff like Oaken Clough in a oner. 32/11 is a bit too low for the DHs – it’s OK on the xc hardtail, but the bigger ones, I want something taller.

10-38 would do the job I reckon.

Personally I’m holding out for the 14speed 9-52 cassette thats due to be announced next week.

With a single 36T ring up front it gives exactly the same range as a standard 3×9 set up did 10 years ago. I call that progress

Agreed. 9-38/32 would be a practical if not perfect setup for me.

people feel they ‘need’ a granny ring

And once again…
Some people actually need a granny ring. As you are not suppose to be in the top rear sprocket and the middle ring. I found for proper mountain bike racing it is nice to have something smaller than a 32/30. But then, what do I know about mountain bike racing do I.

Interesting if they can do 10-42 with a special new cassette profile why not 11-43 keep the top to bottom tooth difference and the old HG spline profile, whats the overall width of this new cassette?

Also how close to the ground is the rear bottom jockey going to be when you’re in that 42t sprocket?

Some people actually need a granny ring. As you are not suppose to be in the top rear sprocket and the middle ring. I found for proper mountain bike racing it is nice to have something smaller than a 32/30

Now it’s just pathetic sniping at me. My comment was in response to Kuco’s surprise that folk feel the need for a low gear. I didn’t say anything other than this doesn’t offer as low a gear as a traditional 3×9.

You say you find use for lower than 32/30, this would potentially give you 32/42, I can see it being really popular for Enduros, it’s just a shame they’ve not gone for a second option to pick up on riders who’d prefer a narrower range with closer spacing.

Interesting if they can do 10-42 with a special new cassette profile why not 11-43 keep the top to bottom tooth difference and the old HG spline profile, whats the overall width of this new cassette?

I imagine that by replacing the locking with the 10 and offsetting the 42 you can keep the spacing between sprockets similar. I doubt you could happily fit an 11 speed MTB block on a standard freehub. Although saying that I seem to recall DT have only made their road hubs 2mm wider for 11 speed.

so which frame manufacturer is going to be first to bring out a new axle width to run all these gears with a fatter chain?

Now it’s just pathetic sniping at me.

Well you’re the one who picked up on people who use the granny. Some of us actually do so climbing 😉

plenty of people feel they ‘need’ a granny ring,

Some of us actually live near steep hills and mountains!

What is your problem Juan? No, Kuco expressed surprise that people needed a 42t sprocket, I just said that plenty of people feel the need for lower. I could have said a 22t sprocket, but now you’re arguing about semantics.

Don’t make stupid comments about the riding you do, you freely admit that a lot of the ‘proper’ bike racing you do involve walking uphill. I am of the opinion that a 32/42 low gear as afforded by XX1 would be low enough for me to ride anything that I’d physically be able to. I know riders who use a 22t chainring around here, I find a 36t fine. We’re not all the same. Thank God.

Not you as well Mike! People ride different things at different fitness levels, on different bikes. Bradley Wiggins lives in Lancashire and rides a 53/39 chainset, doesn’t mean that’ll work for everyone, I’ve not said anything to the contrary!

how much is she going to cost?

It seems to give you a pretty decent range without sacrificing too much…
For comparison vs a triple with an 11-32 cassette (on a 26″ wheel bike):-

Low Gear:
22 front / 32 rear = 17.8 gear inches
22 front / 28 rear = 20.4 gear inches
32 front / 42 rear = 19.8 gear inches

High Gear:
42 front / 11 rear = 99.2 gear inches
42 front / 12 rear = 91.0 gear inches
32 front / 10 rear = 83.2 gear inches
34 front / 10 rear = 88 gear inches

You’re not missing that much range. If you’re used to a granny ring it can seem like you couldn’t possibly do without one but it’s surprising what your legs will get used to.

how much is she going to cost?

I really like the idea but ^ this…..

Well it’s XX equivalent, so I reckon it’ll be be c£300 for a cassette, about the same for the cranks and the rear mech, £150 for the shifter and the front mech.

I’m not too sure we’ll see all that much of it OEM either, it’ll be interesting to see how far reaching it is!

I wonder how much skipping will take place in the smaller sprockets once the whole thing wears.

The rear mech moves horizontally, so there’s less chain wrap the smaller the sprocket you’re in.

Mechs with parallelograms track the size of the sprockets as they shift to them – ensuring as much chain wrap as possible.

It looks like the horizontal action on the SRAM rear mech *doesn’t* do this, so the smaller the sprocket, the less chain wrap, and the less teeth engaged with the chain.

I know 1x<i>n</i> drivetrains wear slower, but I do wonder what the realistic working life of a cassette and chain might be.

Some of us have no problem riding hills on 32:16 SS……

And a 10t sprocket will wear quicker anyway, so I suspect the answer, in British grit, is measurable in minutes.

I don’t like front mechs for the way I ride offroad, trouble looking for somewhere to happen IMHO… the more chain guides you add the worse the mud problems become.

For the last year I’ve not had a front mech on any of my bikes, my hardtail is 1×9 and my big bike is Hammerschmidt. I can live with the 1×9 on the hardtail as it’s a light enough build (28lbs) and I use it mostly for the local forest stuff which is short sharp climbs and techy fun descents. I’m not racing or riding the road much so I don’t need a big ring. Nothing I can usually ride has defeated me on it yet but it is more condition dependent; when it’s really muddy I’ll probably fail on a few climbs I might have managed with lower gears.

For the big bike I take to the mountains I need the lower gears due to the weight (33lbs) and the mountains. I don’t take my bike for a walk; if I can ride up something then I will give it my best effort. I like my Hammerschmidt but if I could replace it with a lighter and simpler bit of kit which gives me the same gear range I probably would. I’ve looked at 1×10 with a 28 or 30 tooth up front which would almost give me low enough gears, but I would lose a bit off the top which would be a pain come any road sections. I also like the Hammerschmidt for how I can dump a load of gears swiftly, but that’s a habit I’m sure I can relearn. Prior to this I had a Rohloff equipped big bike; which had it’s own problems and I’m in no hurry to look at gearboxes again.

XX1 is looking good for my big bike; it almost has the range of the Hammerschmidt and I’m willing to lose a gear off either end to simplify. Cost is an issue and I can’t see XX1 being a cheap option, but neither was a Hammerschmidt 🙄

For my hardtail I’d not bother as for where and how I ride it the 1×9 gears on it are perfectly adequate.

Edit – I also have a singlespeed… it has it’s place but it’s not suitable as an every day bike for where and how I ride

Messiah, this isn’t a wind-up, but when you say:

I like my Hammerschmidt but if I could replace it with a lighter and simpler bit of kit which gives me the same gear range I probably would

wouldn’t a twin ring setup on the front do this? I’ve gone to 26, 36 on my geared bike in a 2×9 (11-32t) setup, and it dos the trick pretty well. Much less hassle than three rings. This isn’t a wind-up – give it a pop.

Incidentally, mention of Hammerschmidt has made me realise – SRAM are trying lots of really interesting stuff these days with drivetrains. Good for them for giving it a go.

Interesting if they can do 10-42 with a special new cassette profile why not 11-43 keep the top to bottom tooth difference and the old HG spline profile, whats the overall width of this new cassette?

Because gears are a percntage not number of teath, so 10 to 11 is 10%, 42 to 43 is 2.3%, to keep the 11t and have the same range you’d need a 11-47t, which would weigh more as every cog would also need one to three extra teeth, so over 11 gears thats the weight of an extra sprocket, plus bigger sporckets need more material to keep them stiff.

Also how close to the ground is the rear bottom jockey going to be when you’re in that 42t sprocket?

Lower than in anormal 36t, but not by much, chain tension lifts up the lower wheel rememebr.

I wonder how much skipping will take place in the smaller sprockets once the whole thing wears.

Given the costs I suspect it’ll be used by people who dont wear it out and replace chains regulalry. And IIRC you can buy some seperate XX sprockets at the small end as they wear?