like the look of this, and the 11 - 32 cassette at the back might even tempt me away from a triple. Any word on a price yet?

More interestingly, it means a cheaper 10sp cassette for MTB use

I like having more gearing options, so in that respect this is a good option. However, wide gear spacing is not a good way to achieve a wide range of gears.

My ideal gearing is 28 &46 tooth chainrings (a setup known as a super-compact) with an 11-26 cassette. That achieves the same range as 34 & 50 tooth rings with an 11-32 cassette except I don't have the very top gear, yet I retain tight gear spacing on the back and it is lighter (because the rings, cogs, and chain are smaller); shifting on the front is a bit of a jump but if you know what you're doing then this is OK.

To have 28 and 46 tooth chainrings, I use the inner and middle positions on a triple crankset, so the demise of the road triple crankset really bothers me. I already didn't like the fact that SRAM don't offer a triple option on their higher end groups, and so I'm now really disappointed that their entry-level group still doesn't give the option.

I think I prefer my triple with 12-27 to the ratios on this. It's nicer to have the little jumps on the cassette so you can go just ever so slightly easier when you need to not big old jumps.

TBH I really don't care how much lighter this is than 105, it could weigh 1kg less, it's never EVER in a million years going to work as well as 105..... PERIOD!

I'm just thinking, cos I do like my Campag brake levers on my single speed, but I may be tempted to change....mmmm, could I do it? At least I wouldn't have ugly crappy Shimano rubbish on there!

p.s. I'm proud to have no Shimano on my bikes. Campy on one, SRAM on the other ;)

So I can just buy the new 11-32 cassette and fit with my Shimano groupset right? Would have preferred an 11-30 with slightly smaller jumps

@ bermudasteve - the 11-32 probably won't work with most other road rear derailleurs because the largest cog they can officially handle is 27-29 teeth (it depends a little on brand and model of the RD and on your derailleur hanger). A road RD may sometimes work with a 32 tooth ring, but often not, which is what makes the SRAM Apex RD a bit special. To use the 11-32 cassette, if you have a SRAM shifter, you could use the SRAM Apex or SRAM XX RD (but not the other SRAM MTB RDs); if you have Shimano shifters then you could use any 9-speed MTB RD.

Also, if you haven't had a chance to try the SRAM Double-Tap shifters, then certainly try before you buy - some people hate the feel of them.

The weight savings SRAM is advertising not purely due to using a double instead of a triple. The comparison is between a full SRAM Apex groupset and a full Shimano 105 groupset (I'm assuming the 5600 series, which will be replaced with the slightly lighter 5700 series by the summer). There are weight differences in many of the components that are not purely related to this being a wide-range compact instead of a standard triple.

Do they have cheaper 10 speed Flat bar shifters as the the only ones SRAM do are extortionate?

I replaced the stock triple on my Trek 1.2 with 50/34~11-32 gearing & dig it. All Shimano componets except for cassette (SRAM PG-980). I did use a mountain bike rear derailleur (LX-M581) although the stock Sora GS was shifting fine with the 32t cassette.

I think it's a pity SRAM still doesn't do road triples. They have good use for many touring and trekking bikes, where you need the range of a mountainbike, but with larger ratios. The combination of a road triple and a mountainbike cassette is good solution for these bicycles.

But alas, not with SRAM. So my trekking bike has a funny combination of SRAM, FSA and Shimano.

Could possibly have an application on cyclo x bikes, especialy as shimano's 105 is quite dominant in that market.

"The leap across such a wide range of gears is achieved by some rapid progressions at the lower end of the cassette (11-12-13-15-16-17-22-25-28-32)." - surely that's not right?

11-12-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32 sounds more likely.

34-32 ??????!!!!!! does anyone really need so low a gear on a road bike, will anyone use it; or am I missing something here.

@ fireballxl5 - you obviously don't live near anywhere with some decent climbs. Come over here to Switzerland and you'll be using a gear like that for km after km on our gorgeous Alpine roads (or torturing your knees by using a bigger gear - its your choice).

@ fireballxl5 'Road bike' is broader than a clean UCI-compliant piece of carbon, and not every cyclist is a 27-year old athlete. Some people like to use their bike for travelling, others are in their seventies and still won't give up cycling.

I tried using a compact chain set for nearly a year before I gave up you can end up having to change front and rear mech in sequence to get a smooth cadence, with a triple and a closer cassett you can stay on the same ring for a lot longer and enjoy more subtle changes in cadence only needing to change rings when the topography changes in dramatic fashion cant say that the weight of a third chain ring ever held me back in the a Alps. For me the perfect set up on a bike for going places ie a touring bike is 28/38/48 and a road bike 38/50.

A solution to Srams inability to produce a left hand lever that can handle a triple would be to just buy the right hand lever and carry on using a left hand campag or shimano lever,

As it is my humble opinion is that Sram looks a better bet on a mountain bike

And and and just a passing thought as depending on the length of the (rear) gear hanger on your bike the rear mech might even just about handle a 34 tooth cog.

I appreciate this new 11-32 T cassette. In fact, I would like 12-32 T or even 13-32 T more since I seldom use this gear 50/11.

@Fireballx15 I think you missed the part where Contador, one of the best cyclists in the world used a 34 x 30 up some serious mountains.

I ride a compact Truvative myself w/a 34/50 on one of my bikes and it works well for me. "SRAM is the MAN!''

The peak grade in the Vuelta this year is 23.6 percent. Coincidently, this is close to the peak grade I ride to get from the train to home during my commute each evening. No problem with a 34/23 when I have my cycling shoes on, but in walking shoes, I'm walking. A 34/32 and no problem in my walking shoes: I could make it home on two wheels.

There's so many situations where less than a 34/26 makes sense. Put 40 lb of panniers on a bike, and 34/26 isn't looking so small. Or in the San Francisco Bay Area. Or climbing out of Big Creek in the Climb to Kaiser (I still need to traverse in a 34/26). Or on a lot of climbs if you're a bad, bad person because you can't sustain 5 W / kg.

The "nobody needs small gears" attitude is elitist. Or else you live somewhere where the roads never exceed 6%. If you do, I feel bad for you: you're missing out on a lot.

I think Pseudocyclic is right with the tooth sizes from what I could read on the blown-up picture on Sram's site. I wish they'd just list the tooth sizes so we didn't have to guess! Shimano do so.

I agree with others that triples have a place. For audax it's often useful to have a wide range of close ratios, and to be able to have *all* the normal flat road gears on one ring. With 50x34 these are right in the crossover range for me, but that's not an issue in the Alps. Elsewhere, something like 46x36x26 + 12-23 is much more useful for me, and the 11-32 cassette means I won't have to make custom ones any more for touring.

Off-road I can banish the MTB triple to the scrapheap where it belongs. For me, MTB triples are a pain with higher Q, but more importantly, slower downshifting plus chainsuck. Doubles fix these problems provided I don't mind losing one or two high gears I only use on the road.

My question on the SRAM Apex GXP crankset:

Would a 39 - 53 crank would be compatible with a SRAM Force front derailleur, a SRAM X9 rear derailleur long cage and a flat bar 9 speed SRAM X.7 X7 X-7

my cassette is a 11/34.

To who ever could help me, THANKS. Louis