Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 225
  1. #101
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J
    I imagine you'd have to push the crank outboard with a longer spindle?
    Yes, a longer spindle is required. I went with a 127mm length square taper unit for the old school crank that I'm running. But since the XTR crank had a low q-factor the extra width does not seem to be an issue.
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Or, better 7-speed : 11-13-16-20-25-31-38

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    660
    Any release date to europe?

  4. #104
    PCC
    PCC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by 20.100 FR
    For all you low ratio lovers, or may be also 2*9 ?

    12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36
    425 g
    I'll admit that I'm late to the game and that I have not read all of the posts here, but, why hasn't someone come up with a 12T and a 36T cog that is designed to work with a Deore XT 11-32 cassette where you remove the 11T and 12T and replace them with a 12T with built-in spacer and a 36T large cog? The larger cog can even be made from titanium or 7075 aluminum. Similarly, someone could put together a 13T and 38T cogset for the XT 12-34T cogset.

  5. #105
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,008
    The problem with that idea is that the 36 would not be on a carrier and you would have huge leverage on the 36 and it would dig deep holes into the freehub. Big rings on the back are better on a carrier to distribute the load.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,615
    hey, another thing to think about, is you can go ride the big mountains on your easy days.

    Sometimes I just like to cruise if my legs are fried and would rather go up in the beautiful mountains than cruise around on the flat stuff.

    I cruised nicely up an hour long climb with my 20:34 gear yesterday just putting along. The only problem is these two flies were able to keep up with me which required me swatting at them almost all the way up.

    And for reference, when I do race, I do very well in the expert class. I can't imagine needing a 20:34 on race day.

    It's good to see gearing come down across the board. In the 80s road bikes were so over-geared. I think mainly due to machismo. If you had anything bigger than a 23 you were a wimp, but everyone cried when I passed them seated in my 28 as they were standing up manhandling their handlebars.

  7. #107
    PCC
    PCC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    The problem with that idea is that the 36 would not be on a carrier and you would have huge leverage on the 36 and it would dig deep holes into the freehub. Big rings on the back are better on a carrier to distribute the load.
    What about making a titanium gear mounted onto a small aluminum carrier. Sure, it won't spread the load like a carrier with multiple cogs, but it will spread the load over a 4.35mm wide area instead of the narrower cog by itself.

  8. #108
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,008
    Still not near enough surface area for the leverage a 20-36 provides. Also, very expensive to make a Ti 36 with an aluminum carrier. Retail for just that one gear would probably be $95 or more.

  9. #109
    Old Fart at Play
    Reputation: Titus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    Still not near enough surface area for the leverage a 20-36 provides.
    Is that a fact or an opinion?

    Personally, I find it hard to believe an alloy carrier (or steel for that matter) that wide would dig in at all. But maybe my comprehension of the physics involved is lacking. On the economics, I agree.
    "... displays the social skills of a barrel cactus." - TNC

  10. #110
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,008
    It is an opinion. I guess it would depend on the alloy the freehub was made from, but a 20-36 with a strong rider is a lot of leverage. 4.35 mm is not very wide and I am not sure you could even fit it in. You would basically only move the cassette over 1 cogs worth in effect so how are you going to fit a 4.35mm wide carrier in?

  11. #111
    Old Fart at Play
    Reputation: Titus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    a 20-36 with a strong rider is a lot of leverage.
    It's not simply a matter of leverage, in my opinion. With a gear like that, you are spinning it, more than mashing it. It's more a matter of rpm than torque. So I don't think the force would be greatly higher than say a 22-34 (maybe less?). Your not going to climb a wall with any gear.

    You would basically only move the cassette over 1 cogs worth
    One cogs worth plus a spacer.
    Last edited by Titus Maximus; 06-05-2009 at 06:45 AM.
    "... displays the social skills of a barrel cactus." - TNC

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Titus Maximus
    It's not simply a matter of leverage, in my opinion. With a gear like that, you are spinning it, more than mashing it. It's more a matter of rpm than torque. So I don't think the force would be greatly higher than say a 22-34 (maybe less?). Your not going to climb a wall with any gear.
    Uhh, not quite. Even if you are spinning the cranks like a mouse on crack, the cassette will still be moving slowly. That is the point of such a low gear . Anyway, just pointing that out because rpm isn't the issue. Beyond that I would just be speculating though

  13. #113
    PCC
    PCC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    You would basically only move the cassette over 1 cogs worth in effect so how are you going to fit a 4.35mm wide carrier in?
    4.35mm is the cog spacing. It's effectively the cog with a spacer. Without the spacer the cog would be sitting right next to the next cog leaving no space for the chain.

  14. #114
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,008
    It is still not very wide for the torque. If you guys build one, I will volunteer to mash down on it and see if I can dent the freewheel.

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    The problem with that idea is that the 36 would not be on a carrier and you would have huge leverage on the 36 and it would dig deep holes into the freehub. Big rings on the back are better on a carrier to distribute the load.
    That is not an issue with steel freehubs.

  16. #116
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,008
    I agree and when I ordered my HopeProII build I specified steel freehub because the extra weight is worth the durability.

  17. #117
    TNO
    TNO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TNO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by AuntieAPE
    Count me as another old weak guy who wants one for the 1*9 - any info about price and when it's coming out?
    If you run a 1x9, this cassette is NOT what you need. As mentioned by someone else in this posting, your gear range will decrease.
    An 11-34 cassette gives you a range of 309%
    A 12-36 cassette gives you a range of 300%
    If you want a lower low with a 1x9, than run a smaller ring up front with an 11-34 cassette.
    This will be lighter and give you a larger gear range (plus, you have more cassette options).

    [SIZE="5"][SIZE="4"]The ONLY benefit of getting this new 12-36 cassette would be if you want a lower low gear and want to keep your current triple ring crank as is.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

    A better option would be to put on smaller rings (ex. 20-30-42) as this would give your a bigger gear range and would be lighter with a 11-34 cassette. However, you may need to go with an older style 5-bolt 94 BCD crank.

    Now someone else mentioned that you could likely put on an 11 tooth to replace the 12 but than you have a HUGE jump from 11 to 14.
    The jump from 12 to 14 is already one of the biggest jumps on the cassette at 16.7%. The jump on a 11-34 cassette from 11 to 13 is the largest at 18.2%.
    The jump from 11 to 14 would be 27.2%!!!
    If you're not having fun, you must be doing something wrong...

  18. #118
    Glorified Hybrid Owner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,096
    You're making a lot of assumptions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by TNO
    If you want a lower low with a 1x9, than run a smaller ring up front with an 11-34 cassette.
    This will be lighter and give you a larger gear range (plus, you have more cassette options).
    Some people can't run a smaller chainring than what they already have (without swapping cranks or using a granny instead).
    Quote Originally Posted by TNO
    [SIZE="5"][SIZE="4"]The ONLY benefit of getting this new 12-36 cassette would be if you want a lower low gear and want to keep your current triple ring crank as is.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
    Or if you HAVE to keep your current single ring or your smallest of your double rings in front.

    Quote Originally Posted by TNO
    A better option would be to put on smaller rings (ex. 20-30-42) as this would give your a bigger gear range and would be lighter with a 11-34 cassette.
    Yep, that was the premise of microdrive in the 90's (which is considered "standard" now).

    Even those with 94/58bcd cranks may not be able to get smaller rings. Some of my 94/58 5-bolt cranks don't have provisons for a granny, so the smallest I can get is a 29.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    660
    I would happly use a 11-34 with a smaller ring, but that's not realistic for someone who uses a 104mm crankset.

    You can use a 11t cog with it, but only if you take out 1mm of the built-in spacer of the cog (using a lathe or a milling machine).
    About the gear ratio gaps, that's true, there is a big jump, but I guess most people using 1x9's aren't very worried with cadence mantainance.

  20. #120
    TNO
    TNO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TNO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by rockhound
    You're making a lot of assumptions here...


    Some people can't run a smaller chainring than what they already have (without swapping cranks or using a granny instead).


    Or if you HAVE to keep your current single ring or your smallest of your double rings in front.



    Yep, that was the premise of microdrive in the 90's (which is considered "standard" now).

    Even those with 94/58bcd cranks may not be able to get smaller rings. Some of my 94/58 5-bolt cranks don't have provisons for a granny, so the smallest I can get is a 29.
    Yeah, hearing some other comments on this, there are a lot of exceptions and yes, this cassette would fill the void for these needs. However, I think most people looking at using this cassette are running standard 104 BCD cranks and are talking about having a lower low gear; so, why not just shrink your granny by a tooth? A 21 will give you about the same ratio as the 36 out back. If you hate running the granny and want a lower low in the mid ring, moving to a 94 BCD crank would be the best solution although buying a new crank may not be the cheapest option (and they are not so readily available anymore with the 104 being the new standard).

    I guess for me, the reduced range leaves something to be desired especially since I run a 1x9. Make an XT with 11-36 (11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32-36) and I'd probably get it.
    If you're not having fun, you must be doing something wrong...

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tigerwah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    432
    gee, what a surprise. with the popularity increasing for 29ers and given the typical lazy sloth who is attracted to 29ers, I am shocked they stopped at 36t
    Typically, racers are not going to want a 36T out back
    So I guess I'm a lazy sloth atypical racer type. I'll be running one of these as soon as I can get my hands on one.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dancruz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    383

    Smile

    Ok so I'm running a XTR crank 21-32 and a 11-34 cass. on a Niner RIP 9 out here in Colorado. I wanted a 20 but it won't work on my crank. Would a 11-36 cass. be over kill? Thanks for all the good info from you guys...I'm learning a lot reading your replys....
    Just ride and quit bit$hin........
    SANTA CRUZ TALLBOY LT...SC Highball-SS-....Supersix-EVO1

  23. #123
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by TNO
    If you run a 1x9, this cassette is NOT what you need. As mentioned by someone else in this posting, your gear range will decrease.
    An 11-34 cassette gives you a range of 309%
    A 12-36 cassette gives you a range of 300%
    If you want a lower low with a 1x9, than run a smaller ring up front with an 11-34 cassette.
    This will be lighter and give you a larger gear range (plus, you have more cassette options).

    [SIZE="5"][SIZE="4"]The ONLY benefit of getting this new 12-36 cassette would be if you want a lower low gear and want to keep your current triple ring crank as is.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
    Not quite true. Even if the overall gear range is almost exactly the same, the 12-36 cassette with a larger chainring will experience significantly less chain wear, cog wear and chain tension than the 11-34 with a smaller chainring.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tigerwah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    432
    Would a 11-36 cass. be over kill?
    Why would it be overkill? Also what does it matter what others think? Run what you want. I have no doubt that many of the people dogging the 12-36 cassette now will be riding it soon enough and telling others how great it is. Do what makes you happy.
    Last edited by tigerwah; 12-08-2009 at 06:23 PM.

  25. #125
    TNO
    TNO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TNO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    Not quite true. Even if the overall gear range is almost exactly the same, the 12-36 cassette with a larger chainring will experience significantly less chain wear, cog wear and chain tension than the 11-34 with a smaller chainring.
    A significant change? I'm talking about a loss of 1 or 2 teeth at the most since this is all you would need to match the new low end of this cassette. If you're running a granny ring with 4 teeth, then losing 1 or 2 teeth would be significant.
    If you're not having fun, you must be doing something wrong...

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •