10 -42 T cassette!

Got a general MTB question that doesn't fit anywhere else? Here's the place.
Darkstalker420
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 14:32 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby Darkstalker420 » Mon Jul 02, 2012 20:41 pm

Hmmm would there be any "technical" reason why you couldn't use a double (say 22/34). Only problem for me is........ It's SRAM!! :roll: :lol:. *Waits for Shimano.

Thanks.

Chunkers1980
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 14:12 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby Chunkers1980 » Mon Jul 02, 2012 20:44 pm

Not really, still in long cage league. It's the mech that would need to go to 42 teeth.

User avatar
lawman
Posts: 7078
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 16:45 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby lawman » Tue Jul 03, 2012 07:14 am

YeehaaMcgee wrote:
MDobs wrote:
supersonic wrote:
lawman wrote:the 42t part is too far, and imo, a 9t cog would better at the bottom end. a 9-38t would be about right i reckon, although tbh, a 9-36 would allow a 32t ring, and then frankly if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.


You wouldn't have a hope in hell of climbing some stuff here on 32.


YeehaaMcgee wrote:
lawman wrote:if you can't climb most things in a 32/36 combo, you shouldn't be on a 1x drivetrain.

Most? Most things are fine. But granny rings are still needed on SOME climbs.



surely he's not arguing that, merely saying if you can't climb 'most' things [which is obviously dependent on your area/route/location/type of riding etc] in a 32 you shouldn't be using a 1x drivetrain, that's a valid point surely as most 1x won't use less than a 32 up front.

But with a 42T at the rear, and say a 34 on the front, you'll get up some pretty damned steep stuff. Maybe negating the need for a granny entirely.
I see the point to this, but... it's SRAM! :lol:


I admit granny rings have their place, their are a few places locally where you could argue you need them. So far whilst at uni I have run out of gears twice, once because I was absolutely knackered and second because it was bloody steep. However I got just as far as anyone else did with a granny ring, and further than some too. It's just most of the time I don't feel the need for it, and I love the weight saving a security of my chain devise too.

User avatar
njee20
Posts: 9491
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 20:06 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby njee20 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 08:12 am

I think it's a shame they're not doing a slightly narrower range block. The 10-42 would add weight and have massive gaps, but a 10-36 or 11-40 or something would be good, just offer a bit more range.

Personally I find 36/36 a low enough gear for everything I ride, but would probably take the wider range if it was available.

User avatar
mrmonkfinger
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 13:44 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby mrmonkfinger » Tue Jul 03, 2012 08:35 am

now if they could only figure out some way of putting 11 gears with about a 400% ratio inside a hub...


nah, that'd never work.



http://road.cc/content/news/13981-shima ... ideo-added

"total range is 409%"

User avatar
njee20
Posts: 9491
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 20:06 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby njee20 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 08:42 am

now if they could only figure out some way of putting 11 gears with about a 400% ratio inside a hub without making it weigh more than a cheaper and less efficient than a dérailleur set up...


FTFY.

User avatar
mrmonkfinger
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 13:44 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby mrmonkfinger » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:16 am

this sram setup is cheaper?

User avatar
njee20
Posts: 9491
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 20:06 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby njee20 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:18 am

Than a Rohloff? I'll say yes considering a Rohloff still needs cranks/cog/chain etc etc, and weighs more than an SLX set up.

User avatar
bennett_346
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 09:47 am

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby bennett_346 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:19 am

I just like the granny ring because i usually mess around seeing what stupid stuff i can try and climb a la trials.

User avatar
YeehaaMcgee
Posts: 5955
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 13:30 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby YeehaaMcgee » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:31 am

lawman wrote:It's just most of the time I don't feel the need for it, and I love the weight saving a security of my chain devise too.

Well, sounds ideal for you then. Weight saving, by only having one ring - and you can still have a chain device, and a cop-out gear for those times you need it.

User avatar
mrmonkfinger
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 13:44 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby mrmonkfinger » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:37 am

njee20 wrote:Than a Rohloff? I'll say yes considering a Rohloff still needs cranks/cog/chain etc etc, and weighs more than an SLX set up.


alfine 11 speed hub is £257 from bike-discount.de

but, + single cranks + chain + rear cog + tensioner + shifter

User avatar
njee20
Posts: 9491
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 20:06 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby njee20 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:42 am

That would still work out cheaper, but doesn't Alfine have a narrower range? And that's definitely heavier.

It's a different solution I say, if they could make hub gears lighter then they'd be more viable for top end stuff I reckon.

User avatar
YeehaaMcgee
Posts: 5955
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 13:30 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby YeehaaMcgee » Tue Jul 03, 2012 09:50 am

Alfine and Rohloff won;t work on a full suss bike either, unless you have, basically, a rear mech.

User avatar
mrmonkfinger
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 13:44 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby mrmonkfinger » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:04 pm

njee20 wrote:That would still work out cheaper, but doesn't Alfine have a narrower range? And that's definitely heavier.


400% for the 11 speed.

A 10-42 cassette is, well, 420%, so not very different.


YeehaaMcgee wrote:Alfine and Rohloff won;t work on a full suss bike either, unless you have, basically, a rear mech.


True... superstars sprung loaded £10 widget? its a good bit simpler than a rear mech.

Image

Chunkers1980
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 14:12 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby Chunkers1980 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:07 pm

That 'basically' provides the function of a rear mech that's needed.

User avatar
njee20
Posts: 9491
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 20:06 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby njee20 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:21 pm

Fair enough, so there's a cheaper, heavier, less efficient solution.

Does that tell us much?

User avatar
supersonic
Lives Here
Posts: 81836
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:50 am

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby supersonic » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:55 pm

I think I'll stick with my 44/32/22 and 32/11 lol.

User avatar
bennett_346
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 09:47 am

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby bennett_346 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 15:00 pm

this ^

User avatar
felix.london
Posts: 3863
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 21:09 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby felix.london » Tue Jul 03, 2012 15:22 pm

yep - seems over the top to me. 22/36 x 11-32 - does me fine
"Why have that extra tooth if you're not using it?" - Brian Lopes

Votec V.SX Enduro 'Alpine Thug' 2012/2013 build

Trek Session 8

User avatar
Thewaylander
Posts: 8689
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 18:05 pm

Re: 10 -42 T cassette!

Postby Thewaylander » Tue Jul 03, 2012 18:07 pm

Really like the idea of a low gear, single ring, Could climb anything I've seen in Wales with that on 36 single ring no issues. And as for the SRAM, Shimano debate, after testing i'm still as SRAM boy it maybe not as slick to change but its far more solid in gear I find.

But horses for courses, think this is a great idea would have it on my bike.


Return to “MTB General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests