Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Sram's New XX1 Group

72K views 476 replies 143 participants last post by  Epic_Dude 
#1 · (Edited)
What is everyones response to the new XX1 Group and idea of 1X11 as a whole?

At first I did the ol eye roll too :rolleyes: .. but after punching some of the gearings into my calculator I began to think it might be something Im looking forward to...

I pretty much ride exclusively 29ers these days, and for me the 10X42 cassette might work perfect with a 28/30 tooth single up front. I currently run 26 low and 36 high with a 11/36 cassette and rarely use my top end...

I wouldn't mind sacrificing a little tiny bit of top end to keep the extra weight off, extra shifting out and simplicity of a 1x11 ;)
 
#10 ·
At least until you decide youve hardened up you can change the front cog without a lot of trouble just slides strainght over the arm and pedal. :thumbsup:

From what ive read, price is somewhere in the ballpark of $1200 and the clutch rear deraillieur plus some new movement system solves the chainflop.

I would give it a go if i knew what the ratios equated to compared to a 22/36 or a 24/39 2 x 10 system.
 
#5 ·
I'm taking a wait-and-see regarding chain management issues. If you make the chain long enough for the 42, won't it be flopping all over the place when you are in the 10? And if you add a chain guide would it hinder the shifting?

I'm currently loving 1x9. but if I can get 2 more gears all else being equal I'd take it in a heartbeat!

- Rob
 
#16 ·
Amen! Love the overall concept, but just don't understand the need to go through with what it took to get the 10T. I run 1x9 34T-11/32T and 1X10 32T-11/34T and can count on 1 hand how many times I ever even use the 11T. I'll be curious how compatible (or incompatible) the chain will be with any cassette other than this XX1 10/42T. Not hopeful on that though.
 
#14 ·
I agree with this. Perhaps we will see a "X01" model in 11-42 that fits a standard freehub body. Racing with 34x11-36 now, I would be absolutely thrilled to have that gear range.

It should go without saying that not everyone has DT Swiss or SRAM rear hubs. I have Industry 9 wheels and also a wheelset with ZTR hubs. I'd love to hear them announce their XX1-compatible freehub bodies, but I haven't heard that from them or any other of the many companies out there that make rear hubs.
 
#15 ·
I have x9 hubs so I guess I could give it a try. But that cassette is going to be like $400 and I bet the chain will be over $100. That's just too much money for stuff that I will replace twice a season. I really hope this trickles down to less expensive parts.
 
#24 ·
I have to say the 42T rear is ridiculous. If you can't make it up the climb with a 32x36t (the current standard) the you can probably walk it just as fast as running a 33x42t.

It seems like a cog that could deliver a serious amount of torque to a free hub (probably the reason it requires a special hub, so that you can't just slip it on any old hub and destroy it on the first climb), and it makes me think that a dirty drive train would just contribute to a lot of broken chains, bend 42t cogs etc.

All too often bike component makers spend too much time making bike riding easier to compensate for the fact that bikes riding has been made easier. Modifying the SS riders creed, you have 9 or 10 or 11 speeds, all your gears and walking and if the hill is too hard to climb ride more, don't make it easier to climb. That is the same as removing rocks in the trail because you can't clean them. Learn to ride your bike, first. Then buy stuff.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Nevermind...

It seems like a cog that could deliver a serious amount of torque to a free hub (probably the reason it requires a special hub, so that you can't just slip it on any old hub and destroy it on the first climb), and it makes me think that a dirty drive train would just contribute to a lot of broken chains, bend 42t cogs etc.
Im no physics major, so forgive on this.... but if total gear ratios are all equal is there any additional torque on the free hub..?

I would think that only lowering the gear ratios would apply additional torque, no?

EDIT:

Sorry crusher I re-read your post and was confused at first. In response; as far as I can tell SRAM's not intending to further lower the standard gear ratios with the 1X11 group. I believe the smallest chainring looks like they will offer for this group is a 28t. Im sure most will probably run 32/34t up front though, so it really should keep in line with the current standard gearings.
 
#27 ·
I think it is awesome, like the idea about the 1x.
I think they will do as they did with the "old" xx. They are the only who have a 11 speed mtb cassette, så you have to buy a new xx cassette when it wears out. But in a year or 2 they will come with some cheaper options for 1x11 X0 and X9.

Right now i have 2x10 on 1 bike and 1x10 on the other bike. And i really like the simplicity of 1 chainring. But sometimes i would be nice to have a little lower gear.
 
#30 ·
Looking forward to the Shimano version. I'm basically thankful that SRAM is doing something big to introduce something that could shake up the freehub spline standard. I really like their dome cassette construction concept, which helped opened up freehub ideas like the one Kappius has.

Design Philosophy | Kappius Components

Also thankful that SRAM is helping to get away from micro drive, which the weight weenies helped solidify. I like the benefits that using larger rings and cogs offer. 26/39 with a wider range cassette (11-36), was a good idea, at least for hardtails and the few suspension designs optimized for it.

As for the 1x idea, I'm glad that they added such a gear to mimic a 39x11, as that bothered me more than not having something to mimic a 26x36 when trying to run a 32t and 11-36. I like the teeth profiling, and basically treating the drivetrain as a full system and making it work together in way much better than any conversion nowadays would perform.
 
#31 ·
meh, I'm with the wait and see crowd. 1x8 is fine for me with 34t being the biggest. I could see 10-42 being useful at some trails around. With that cassette I could easily enough ditch the 32 upfront and run 34 instead. Of course it'll all have to wait for my new bike anyway.
 
#33 ·
Well, more gears would help make the spread between gears from 10/11/12/13t to the 42t cog smoother. The spacing isn't changed from current 10spd spacing. They just found more room to stick in an extra cog, taking advantage of the space between the spokes and the biggest cog on a standard 10spd cassette. It's more like 10+1.

In an industry where innovation used to be more about making things bigger in diameter or attaching something to another slightly differently... this does attach things differently and increases "diameter", but they go way further than just that. This is true innovation, IMO. Would love to see even more things taken further. Lots of good innovation recently, like anglesets, clutch RDs, dropper posts, etc. This has quite some potential of making that list, though I hope it doesn't become a mess like tubeless, axle, and crank/bb "standards", where a bunch of brands come up with their own way of mounting a cassette or whatever.
 
#43 ·
I just can't see how chains getting thinner is better. I know they have crazy R&D, but these potential stress loads freak me out. Not that I'm a weight weenie...but are we adding weight on again? Or is it neutral to less with one less ring up front? It's an interesting concept...just too proprietary IMO. I've been running my 1x10 hard tail (32x12-36) and its been great! I was doing a 34 up front and it has made me a better rider. I think the goal is to find a way to machine a less gear cassette that shifts smooth, has a good spread, and has a thicker chain....shush I'm already designing it...hehe
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top