Cassettes&Durability: SRAM 990 vs 980 vs 970
So, upon having bent the 24t cog on my 1.5 yr old 990 cassette, I have to replace it (yes, I corrected it, only to have it bend back within a mile).
What is more durable? I see only minimal (5g or so) weight difference between same geared cassettes in their lineup - which one is less likely to suffer the same fate?
990 - 5 arms on the alloy spider, steel rings (5 on spider), 275g for 11-32
980 - 5 arms on the alloy spider, steel rings (3 on spider), 280g for 11-32
970 - ? no spider (they provide no pics), steel rings, 330g for 11-32
FWIW, I just replaced the chain/middle chainring 25mi ago (XTR chain and RF 34 chainring), so this will be a basically new drivetrain. Running 07 X.9 shifters and X.9 med-cage rear der.
Thanks for the feedback/direction!
you can read the reviews here or on chain reaction's website (they have user reviews). supposedly the xt and 990 cassettes have some issues with cogs bending; moreso with the xt from what i've read. i'd try the 980 and see how that goes if the reviews don't mention any problems.
quick note: if you have a rear hub that has an aluminum freehub body, you might want to stick with the 990. the 980, as you noted, only has the largest three cogs on the carrier thus the middle cogs would likely dig into the body pretty good.
No longer 26
My 980 has worked better and been more durable than the 990. I used a couple of the 990 spacers and the lockring from the 990 and the weight diff is even smaller.
You can't depend on honest answers from dependant hands...