Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 465
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    97

    Shimano's answer to SRAM's 1x11

    Anybody know if shimano is coming up with something inovative as an answer to the already well acepted 1x11?? Maybe oval rings, 1x?? ...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shanem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    498
    I don't know if they have anything planned but I sure hope they do. I'm not a fa of SRAM stuff but that 1x11 looks right up my alley, I just wish it was Shimano.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surfas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    760
    I like the idea but the cassette with a 42 aluminium tooth ... and a carbon crank ...
    I 'd like Shimano XTR crank with 30, 32, 28 and more rings, XTR cassette 13-42 for a normal freehub and that kill Sram XX

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shanem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    498
    I agree. I see no need for a 10 tooth cog with the SRAM setup. I currently run a 36/28 up front with an 11-36 rear cassette. I can get away without even using the 28 up front most of the time. If Shimano were to make an 11-42 or a 12-42 rear 11 speed cassette I'd probably run just the 36 or even a 38 up front. The best part about the SRAM setup I think is the larger teeth on the front chainrings to eliminate the need for a chain guide. I just hope Shimano can come up with something similar.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surfas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    760
    At front I need a 32 or 30 depending the trail for a 42 rear. For me 13-42 on the back can resolve the freehub problem

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,947
    I'd LOVE to see this happen. I'd buy it.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,352
    Shimano's answer will the opposite XTR Di2. Just a hunch based on what we have already seen from Shimano.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    388
    I think shimano goes to 9t cassette like a capreo groupset... Using a small chainring (26t to 30t) with a 9-34t or 9-36t cassette, short cage derailleur, short chain and overall is more light than xx1 with equipared gear ratios... Hope is to launch 9-36t cassette... Shimano probably is in the same ballad...

    Send from Tapatalk via GalaxyTab

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,947
    Apparently a 9 tooth cog is hard to pedal. You can read about it here.

    SRAM XX1: Component Development And Details | Cyclingnews.com

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    388
    I see this article after i posted... I understood the reason for don't go to 9t... Maybe new chain design can be the best solution for future.....

    Send from Tapatalk via GalaxyTab

  11. #11
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by shanem View Post
    I don't know if they have anything planned but I sure hope they do. I'm not a fa of SRAM stuff but that 1x11 looks right up my alley, I just wish it was Shimano.
    plus one
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  12. #12
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,267
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbpri View Post
    Anybody know if shimano is coming up with something inovative as an answer to the already well acepted 1x11?? Maybe oval rings, 1x?? ...
    Why do you think XX1 is well excepted? Because theirs 5 companies making hubs for it? I see this as being a major hurdle for consumers. I hope Shimano comes out with a system that works on a normal freehub body and kills this silly Sram driver setup that's going to struggle to gain acceptance from the industry.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,947
    There's a lot more than 5 companies compatible with xx1. The only ones I can think of that aren't compatible are Shimano (duh) and King.

  14. #14
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,267
    Quote Originally Posted by limba View Post
    There's a lot more than 5 companies compatible with xx1. The only ones I can think of that aren't compatible are Shimano (duh) and King.
    It is more than 5, maybe 1/3 of the hub companies plan to be compatible by the beginning of the season. That doesn't change the fact that the driver and the 10 tooth cog that dictated it's adoption isn't necessary. An 11-42 would have been just as good for everybody and wouldn't have created the mess.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,947
    Yeah, but it wouldn't be just as good for everybody. Everybody isn't you, everybody isn't me. A 32 chain ring and a 11 cog won't work for me. A 34/11 won't work either. Sram tried it's best to give the customer the biggest gear range they could with one chain ring and a big ass cassette.
    At least all the big companies, except the two I mentioned are on board. Is there a hub company that you absolutely need that's not compatible?
    Personally I don't like proprietary anything. I don't even like SRAM but the driver thing isn't that big of a deal.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,439
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab View Post
    It is more than 5, maybe 1/3 of the hub companies plan to be compatible by the beginning of the season. That doesn't change the fact that the driver and the 10 tooth cog that dictated it's adoption isn't necessary. An 11-42 would have been just as good for everybody and wouldn't have created the mess.
    42-10 gives you 10% more range than 42-11. That's not insignificant. Most people who would be willing to pony up the $$$ necessary for this are likely running hubs which have an XX1 freehub available. The added cost of the new freehub is pretty small compared to the entire group, so why not? It's hardly a mess IMHO. I'd buy this in a heartbeat if it was available in X7 trim and not think twice about the cost of a hub body for my Hopes.

  17. #17
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,267
    Quote Originally Posted by car_nut View Post
    42-10 gives you 10% more range than 42-11. That's not insignificant. Most people who would be willing to pony up the $$$ necessary for this are likely running hubs which have an XX1 freehub available. The added cost of the new freehub is pretty small compared to the entire group, so why not? It's hardly a mess IMHO. I'd buy this in a heartbeat if it was available in X7 trim and not think twice about the cost of a hub body for my Hopes.

    Or you could go 44-11, with a bigger front ring and keep the existing free hub format. There are 3 factors in calculating gear inches, the cassette is one of them. Going from a 32 to a 33 or 34 isn't going to hurt anybody.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,947
    Yeah but then you need an even bigger cassette cog to get the low gear you want. It's a compromise no matter what you do.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,439
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab View Post
    Or you could go 44-11, with a bigger front ring and keep the existing free hub format. There are 3 factors in calculating gear inches, the cassette is one of them. Going from a 32 to a 33 or 34 isn't going to hurt anybody.
    Well, you'd need 46-11 to equal the range of 42-10. You'd also need a longer cage to take up the extra chain. The other cogs would also need to be larger, making it heavier.

    Again, I don't see what the big deal is about buying a new freehub body. If you HAD to use a SRAM hub, then I'd agree. If you're OK with putting down almost $1k for this drivetrain, then you probably aren't going to complain about another $90 for a freehub.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,476
    I also like this idea of 1x 10 or 11. I dont like it being SRAM or requiring a new freehub body. i've not had success with SRAM drivetrain in the past.

    I agree what would be great is if Shimano made the 11spd cassette 11 or 12 to 42 or 44, kept the same freehub body width, and dropped the complicated unidirectional chain with special pins and differing pins on each link. I hate their chains, just not trail-chaos-in-the-dark fix friendly.

    The other thing is that rear deraileur will have to be uber long cage. Back to snags and hitting rocks.
    We Ride In God's Country!

  21. #21
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,236
    Quote Originally Posted by myitch View Post
    I also like this idea of 1x 10 or 11. I dont like it being SRAM or requiring a new freehub body. i've not had success with SRAM drivetrain in the past.

    I agree what would be great is if Shimano made the 11spd cassette 11 or 12 to 42 or 44, kept the same freehub body width, and dropped the complicated unidirectional chain with special pins and differing pins on each link. I hate their chains, just not trail-chaos-in-the-dark fix friendly.

    The other thing is that rear deraileur will have to be uber long cage. Back to snags and hitting rocks.
    I have spent the coin to give XX1 a go, But yes I see a market for a 42-11 to go on the std free hub.

    Mybe there is a X01 group set coming that will do that, I hope so.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Shimano's answer to SRAM's 1x11-green-rdo-xx-001.jpg  


  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,476
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic View Post
    I have spent the coin to give XX1 a go, But yes I see a market for a 42-11 to go on the std free hub.

    Mybe there is a X01 group set coming that will do that, I hope so.
    So, how do you like it? Did you have experience on say, a 2x10 with 11-36 rear and 24-36 front? That's what I'd like to find out. I'm more interested in the comparison with the XX1 42t-32 vs Shimano 36-36 for climbing.
    We Ride In God's Country!

  23. #23
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,236
    Quote Originally Posted by myitch View Post
    So, how do you like it? Did you have experience on say, a 2x10 with 11-36 rear and 24-36 front? That's what I'd like to find out. I'm more interested in the comparison with the XX1 42t-32 vs Shimano 36-36 for climbing.
    The bike is new so i will have a better idea in a week, But it feels real good.

    I have a 26/39 2x10 11-36 on my other bike that is all but the same so I will get some good back to back.

    My other bike has 36/22 2x10 11-36
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Shimano's answer to SRAM's 1x11-trip-033.jpg  


  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,476
    Cool.

    I meant 24 or 22 front and 36 rear to XX1 32 or 34 front to 42 rear. Just by looking on paper the gear seems like it would be quite low for climbing, but IDK. We anxiously await your report
    We Ride In God's Country!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,947
    32 ring with a 42 cog = 1.6
    24 ring with a 36 cog = 1.4
    22 ring with a 36 cog = 1.3

    So if you need the 22/36 the 1x11 won't work or you have to suffer on those climbs. Basically you lose a gear.

Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... 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
  •