6-52t cassette by 2020?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885

    6-52t cassette by 2020?

    Can I expect to see a 6-52t cassette by 2020?

    It's not something I'm demanding but I'm noticing the industry is making a lot of money on the drivetrain range competition. It seems to be the current big thing. I mean hey, 6-52t sounds kind of nice. Why not?

    So I started to speculate. What's it going to take? New freehub bodies, new derailleurs. Is it even possible? 13 speed derailleurs? sounds like a pain to tune but people were saying the same about the idea of 10 speed derailleurs. Big wide rear axles with huge wide range cassettes?

    When is it going to stop?

    I thought this new freehub body to get 9t was a surprise but now there's this ad to the right boasting about 45t rings.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,770
    6 teeth is unlikely. Even with 9 teeth, users report that it feels like you're pedaling a polygon rather than a circle. I don't know what's next, but a 52 cog would be very heavy. Even a 42 cog isn't light when made out of steel. See the weight difference between SRAM 1150 and 1175 cassettes. As far as I can tell, the only difference between those two cassettes is that the 42 cog is steel on the 1150 and alu on the 1175, yet the 1150 is 21% heavier with just a metal difference on one cog. Going up to a 52 cog, even out of aluminum, would be ridiculously heavy, and you'd need some sorcery to get the derailleur to clear it.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gmats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,194
    There are limitations. First off, the pitch of the chain (length of each link) limits how small you can go. The industry could choose some day to maybe go to a smaller pitch (smaller chain links) which could allow smaller toothed cogs. In the end, it's about diameter ratios (chainring size/cassette cog).


    On the other end, as the cassette cogs get larger and larger, a derailleur that can handle that size needs to be moved further down and down. If there's a large enough difference between the smallest and largest cog, the derailleur cage needs to become longer and longer which will put the lower pulley closer and closer to the ground.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,755
    Quote Originally Posted by gmats View Post
    If there's a large enough difference between the smallest and largest cog, the derailleur cage needs to become longer and longer which will put the lower pulley closer and closer to the ground.
    Good point.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    Can I expect to see a 6-52t cassette by 2020
    I get the feeling that you are somewhat joking, but I don't see it going too far beyond where we are now, the math doesn't add up for it. We are already getting close to the full range of a traditional triple, going beyond that is just unnecessary. I am already unhappy that they went beyond 10 speed, or at least the cassette width required by current standards to get beyond 10 cogs. The chainline is getting ridiculous, as all the people posting about chainline issues with 11 speed drivetrains will attest to. I would be perfectly happy with the step size between gears in any conceivable 10 speed wide range cassette, I would be willing to give a 10-44t cassette a shot. I can't see ever needing anything more than that.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by VonFalkenhausen View Post
    I get the feeling that you are somewhat joking, but I don't see it going too far beyond where we are now, the math doesn't add up for it. We are already getting close to the full range of a traditional triple, going beyond that is just unnecessary. I am already unhappy that they went beyond 10 speed, or at least the cassette width required by current standards to get beyond 10 cogs. The chainline is getting ridiculous, as all the people posting about chainline issues with 11 speed drivetrains will attest to. I would be perfectly happy with the step size between gears in any conceivable 10 speed wide range cassette, I would be willing to give a 10-44t cassette a shot. I can't see ever needing anything more than that.
    I am making fun of where it is going, but I'm serious about wondering how far it will go. I am currently intrigued by Shimano's 11 speed drivetrain as it is less expensive than my current X0 drivetrain (even paired with an XTR shifter) and I enjoy the range more than the weight savings.
    I'm hoping my 10 speed X0 derailleur and shifter continue to hold up for a while, but I doubt it will last until the next Shimano 11 speed offering.

    good point on chainline, that will be another factor.

    I appreciate Gmats response, the pulley cage ultimately would need some redesign if it were to go a lot further.

    Also good points on the feel of a tiny ring. "Polygon feel" is a good way to communicate the concept of the feeling. I wouldn't be surprised if there are ways around this though and that we may see them in the future.

  7. #7
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,284
    BMX freestyle has already run into the wall of how small you can go. 8t drivers were available briefly and had horrible durability problems. You also run into issues with chain pitch. Some companies experimented with tighter pitch but nothing ever made it past prototype phase as far as I know (plus the chain is weaker).

    My hope is that companies will start putting some r&d cash into transmissions. Pinion is leading the charge but I'm sure a few million bucks could really help to dial that thing in (and lighten it up).

  8. #8
    NWS
    NWS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,468
    I'd much rather see more-practical gearboxes than wider-range cassettes.

    I'm only running a 11-36 cassette and wider range isn't interesting to me at all. My DH bike is 11-27 and I just stand up to pedal when I need to climb hills with it. Riding a single-speed really changed the way I look at cassette range. Don't get me wrong though, some range is way better than none. I just stopped caring about upgrading from 11-36 when I realized how much I can do when stuck with a single cog.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,723
    30/44 or 45 is really close gear wise to a 22/34, which is a crawling speed gear. 30/44 gives a lower gear than 24/34 which is a super weenie gear. 30/10 is a hair faster than 32/11, so a 1x with a 10-44 cassette and 30t ring mimics a 24/32 setup pretty well.

    I think 10-44 could be it. For slower riders who like to crawl along (me ), a 28t or 30t up front really gives a very very low gear for climbing. Thats a big mountain climbfest gear range. Faster riders can just go up a few teeth on the front ring.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: watts888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by big_papa_nuts View Post
    My hope is that companies will start putting some r&d cash into transmissions. Pinion is leading the charge but I'm sure a few million bucks could really help to dial that thing in (and lighten it up).
    This. I could see some more internally geared hubs. Shorten the freehub a bit and use something like a smaller Nuvinci hub. Add in a belt drive and electronic shifting, and completely remove all derailure cables.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuVinc...e_Transmission

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,317
    Quote Originally Posted by watts888 View Post
    This. I could see some more internally geared hubs. Shorten the freehub a bit and use something like a smaller Nuvinci hub. Add in a belt drive and electronic shifting, and completely remove all derailure cables.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuVinc...e_Transmission
    Hubs would be the wrong place to put that weight. Gear boxes like the Pinion center the weight and get it low.

    The issue I see with gear boxes is a standard. Right now the frame has to be made to the specific box. If a standard could be agreed on, I think it'd entice more more into it.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    I was sort of teasing with the "6/52?" thing but I teased out some good information and learned a little from it and appreciate all the input. I didn't know about the tests on small rings and where belt drive is going. That will be interesting to see where it goes.


    For those of us who like 36t up front a 36/52 is still nice sounding. I'm on a 26" Knolly Endorphin with a 10 speed 36/11-36t if that's any indication of being content with 'old' technology but I have been considering the switch to 11 speed when either my shifter or derailleur bust.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    Can I expect to see a 6-52t cassette by 2020?

    It's not something I'm demanding but I'm noticing the industry is making a lot of money on the drivetrain range competition. It seems to be the current big thing. I mean hey, 6-52t sounds kind of nice. Why not?

    So I started to speculate. What's it going to take? New freehub bodies, new derailleurs. Is it even possible? 13 speed derailleurs? sounds like a pain to tune but people were saying the same about the idea of 10 speed derailleurs. Big wide rear axles with huge wide range cassettes?

    When is it going to stop?

    I thought this new freehub body to get 9t was a surprise but now there's this ad to the right boasting about 45t rings.
    what are you going to climb? mount everest?

  14. #14
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,092
    I see now that the real reason for the move to 29" wheels is to make room for the coming gigantic rear cogs!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: watts888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6,284
    It won't be cogs. they'll ultimately end up integrating a belt drive system into the rim. One of the reasons they've gone to wide rims recently is to prepare tire manufacturers for offset tires. It'll be an equivalant to 142T. The real challenge is what front chainring to use with it.

  16. #16
    Land of the 230+
    Reputation: GuitsBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,486
    I wonder how feasible a light weight belt CVT system would be, similar to how snowmobiles work. Either manually controlled like a shifter, or automatically adjusted by how much torque you're putting out.

    Or maybe better than a belt, maybe some form of conical transmission to change the chainring speed compared to crank speed, and have a singlespeed setup out back.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gmats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitsBoy View Post
    I wonder how feasible a light weight belt CVT system would be, similar to how snowmobiles work. Either manually controlled like a shifter, or automatically adjusted by how much torque you're putting out.

    Or maybe better than a belt, maybe some form of conical transmission to change the chainring speed compared to crank speed, and have a singlespeed setup out back.
    This is great, brain storming is great. The little guy in the back yard engineering and trying stuff. Great! Remember, there was a time when bicycle development lead to powered flight.

    That being said, based on what I've played with over the years (road bikes, BMX bikes, mountain bikes), it is pretty hard to knock the chain and derailleur system. It's light and works quite well, tons better today especially since perfecting and going to indexed shifting.

    I've played with planetary gear systems, SVT systems, looked into them from various manufacturers. The issues? Some of them are things like wide enough gear ratios, reliability, easy service and a big one, weight. It's really hard to package something that can handle that kind of torque in such a small package like the hub or hub area and be reasonably light compared to the simple freehub, cassette, derailleur system. I'm not knocking those other systems. I truly believe they have their places based on applications.

    One thing is for sure. There's no one solution for everyone. That's certainly true on mountain biking and trail riding. I personally need extremely low gears as well as reasonably med-high gears for all the kinds of riding I do with only one bike.

    The 6 tooth thing might not be too far fetched if we get different chain pitch. The problem with that is the chain gets weaker as it get smaller. No free lunches.................

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by dracazan View Post
    what are you going to climb? mount everest?
    For those of us with 36t up front, it makes the average day a little more versatile and the big days that much more fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmats View Post
    The 6 tooth thing might not be too far fetched if we get different chain pitch. The problem with that is the chain gets weaker as it get smaller. No free lunches.................
    I wouldn't be too surprised if we saw updated chains and smaller rings than 9t at least within ten years. Bigger and bigger cogs seem to keep coming. Either a wall is going to be accepted by the entire bike industry or someone will figure a way to get over it.


    I am stoked that people are thinking about this sort of stuff instead of blindly taking what the industry throws our way. The comeback of 27.5 bikes comes to mind.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    Digging this one up cause hey - looks like there's been some follow through with what I was hoping for. It looks like the biggest hurdle for 6-52t by 2020 is going to be (1.) redesigning the freehub in a way so that it is small enough (at least on one end of it) to be able to fix the circumference for a 6t ring and (2) resolving the polygon feeling if that's really an issue.

    I'm not sure what it's going to take but I would believe the industry is already experimenting with designs. I wouldn't call 12 speed perfect but it's about the same as what people were saying about 10 speed. Cheers to the idea of a 38t x 6-56t drivetrain.

  20. #20
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,284
    Cogs smaller then 9 likely won't happen. BMX companies have been trying for over a decade to get things smaller and after hitting 8t and experiencing wear issues and rough drivetrains we went back to 9t, even with some folks continuing to have issues.

    So with this lower limit semi-established conceivably cogs will just get bigger to increase range. The problem there is that chainrings will also have to grow. But remember how much you smashed your big ring, when your bb was higher? Not to mention those super short stays and big tires creating space constraints. So where do we put all these extra teeth?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    With derailleurs the cage is already getting pretty close to the ground. Realistically, how much range is really needed. 11-42 is already more than enough for me, and 10-50 is a lot more.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for “I suck at brake control.” Here’s a free tip: get better."

  22. #22
    NWS
    NWS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by big_papa_nuts View Post
    The problem there is that chainrings will also have to grow. But remember how much you smashed your big ring, when your bb was higher? Not to mention those super short stays and big tires creating space constraints. So where do we put all these extra teeth?
    Oval chainrings need a little more clearance than circular ones, too. I had to grind the fronts of the chainstays on two of my bikes just a hair to fit 36t and 34t oval rings. But I think a frame intended for 38-40t oval rings could just shape the front of the drive-side chainstay a little differently to accommodate that. Make it thinner, but taller.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: uzurpator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    832
    Well. 11-52T cassettes are available at this moment.

  24. #24
    damned rocks...
    Reputation: Aglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,276
    I'm seriously pondering on replacing my 11-46 with a 10-42, and things like this keeps popping up.

    I can say with enough conviction that I will never go bigger than 46, and that even 46 is already too much, I claim temporary insanity on the 46.

    48, 50, 52, what's next?
    Some drivetrain code named "Phoenix" with 13 speeds and 9-54 cassette with 600% range.

    If you really need that range just go 2x, or go internal gears.

  25. #25
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,945
    No way 6 tooth cassette cog will ever happen, you'd only have 3 teeth or less engaged with the chain at a time. Even 8 is an issue as someone mentioned above.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: uzurpator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by Aglo View Post
    48, 50, 52, what's next?
    I hope the silly range race is going to end, instead we would get better use of the range we already have. All current implementations of 1x drivetrains lack proper high gear spacing. If I were to design a 13 speed cassette, it would have top gears spaced by 1 tooth, and then would gradually increase gaps at the low end.

    Current extended range cassettes have way too many cogs in the middle.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: davesupra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    246
    The gearbox/freehub should be built into the bottom bracket area, with the bottom bracket area enlarged similar to how the bottom bracket area looks on e-bikes. The rear hub could then be a simple fixed hub. :-)
    DaveH
    '15 Salsa Horsethief
    '13 9:ZERO:7
    '13 Trek Domane
    '16 Salsa Fargo

  28. #28
    NWS
    NWS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by uzurpator View Post
    Current extended range cassettes have way too many cogs in the middle.
    Join the resistance.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/drivetrain-sh...e-1003361.html

    I'll grant that 11-34 with 6 cogs isn't going to work for everybody - I don't need to do any long climbs. Works great for how and where I ride though. It's nice to shift the chain over one cog and actually feel a difference every time.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    So for those of us who enjoy 40 mile days with 5,000' gained across the ride I think that 6-52t cassettes are brilliant. This thread is aimed towards those who are excited about the development of new tech. But I guess the resistance is worth understanding and addressing but it's totally a derail of the discussion to try to win over people that this stuff isn't ever going to be marketed for. Good for you guys, I'm glad you're satisfied with the riding you're doing. I wanna keep pushing the envelope. So it's not exactly appreciated to have to explain when it seems obvious but hey guys carry on with your resistance. It's futile.

    But anyway - glad to see there are those of us who are excited and willing to engage the conversation. I suppose the chain will have to be redesigned once again to be able to accommodate a 6t ring. Maybe a 38t x 6-52t is more range than you'll ever need. Maybe you think I should just have a 2x crank - that's great I don't see it see that way. 1x specific bikes get to focus on that pesky pinched chainstay on the driveside where the growing tire width and crankset keeps making things narrow. I remember back in 2011 when people were griping about 10 speed. I had just started taking mountain biking more seriously and was slightly intimidated by what I was reading online. I think that 60 mile days with 7,000' will get easier with 38 x 6-52t systems. The fire road grinding, the alpine climbing.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,455
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    I was sort of teasing with the "6/52?" thing but I teased out some good information and learned a little from it and appreciate all the input.
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    So for those of us who enjoy 40 mile days with 5,000' gained across the ride I think that 6-52t cassettes are brilliant.

    So which is it?

    I have a feeling it must be the former because with 29" wheels a 38/6t would be an incredible ~180 gear inches. With 180 gear inches you could cruise @50mph while turning a leisurely 90rpm, if you could manage the watts to do it that is, which no one could.

    Anyway, 6/52 would be a 866% gear range and due to an extremely limited demand for that I don't see much in the way of dollars going towards research and development for such a drivetrain. I'm all for advancement of new tech as long as it's an improvement over the old, thankfully the stuff that makes it to production usually is.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  31. #31
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,945
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    So for those of us who enjoy 40 mile days with 5,000' gained across the ride I think that 6-52t cassettes are brilliant. This thread is aimed towards those who are excited about the development of new tech. But I guess the resistance is worth understanding and addressing but it's totally a derail of the discussion to try to win over people that this stuff isn't ever going to be marketed for. Good for you guys, I'm glad you're satisfied with the riding you're doing. I wanna keep pushing the envelope. So it's not exactly appreciated to have to explain when it seems obvious but hey guys carry on with your resistance. It's futile.

    But anyway - glad to see there are those of us who are excited and willing to engage the conversation. I suppose the chain will have to be redesigned once again to be able to accommodate a 6t ring. Maybe a 38t x 6-52t is more range than you'll ever need. Maybe you think I should just have a 2x crank - that's great I don't see it see that way. 1x specific bikes get to focus on that pesky pinched chainstay on the driveside where the growing tire width and crankset keeps making things narrow. I remember back in 2011 when people were griping about 10 speed. I had just started taking mountain biking more seriously and was slightly intimidated by what I was reading online. I think that 60 mile days with 7,000' will get easier with 38 x 6-52t systems. The fire road grinding, the alpine climbing.
    I think you are ehigh.

    38 x 6-52t systems won't happen, something else will.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    So which is it?

    I have a feeling it must be the former because with 29" wheels a 38/6t would be an incredible ~180 gear inches. With 180 gear inches you could cruise @50mph while turning a leisurely 90rpm, if you could manage the watts to do it that is, which no one could.

    Anyway, 6/52 would be a 866% gear range and due to an extremely limited demand for that I don't see much in the way of dollars going towards research and development for such a drivetrain. I'm all for advancement of new tech as long as it's an improvement over the old, thankfully the stuff that makes it to production usually is.
    The quote of me saying I was teasing is from 2015 when I seriously doubted cassettes would go over 46t and yes, the thread was a bit more tongue in cheek back then. That's not the case anymore. I push 52 x 11t on flat sections with my road bike and sometimes want more. I'm not really about to doubt there are some corners of the bike industry that would benefit from 6 tooth cogs on the cassette and that once those are figured out it could be paired with the rest of a current cassette. 56t is only a matter of time.

    Do you doubt there is any use of such a wide range cassette at a UCI XCO race?

  33. #33
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,284
    Quote Originally Posted by davesupra View Post
    The gearbox/freehub should be built into the bottom bracket area, with the bottom bracket area enlarged similar to how the bottom bracket area looks on e-bikes. The rear hub could then be a simple fixed hub. :-)
    Now if all the e-motor companies could agree on a mounting standard the transmissions could be made to fit on the same mounts and bike companies could get away with less variance in manufacturing and potentially cut costs.

    Also, I'm assuming you know Pinion gearboxes exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    So which is it?

    I have a feeling it must be the former because with 29" wheels a 38/6t would be an incredible ~180 gear inches. With 180 gear inches you could cruise @50mph while turning a leisurely 90rpm, if you could manage the watts to do it that is, which no one could.

    Anyway, 6/52 would be a 866% gear range and due to an extremely limited demand for that I don't see much in the way of dollars going towards research and development for such a drivetrain. I'm all for advancement of new tech as long as it's an improvement over the old, thankfully the stuff that makes it to production usually is.
    Weren't triples only 600ish percent?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,455
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    I push 52 x 11t on flat sections with my road bike and sometimes want more.
    Ha ha, I think chazpat may have been right

    You might be pushing a 52/11 but you're not really turning it, more like dragging it. I'm confident saying that because the most elite riders in the world have virtually the same top gear and they could sail past you and me like we were standing still any time, anywhere, and it's doubtful they would even be in the 11t while they were doing it. If bigger gears allowed them to go faster wouldn't the pro's use them?

    A 38/6 is would be a genuinely absurd gear.



    Quote Originally Posted by big_papa_nuts View Post
    Weren't triples only 600ish percent?
    I think that's about right.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  35. #35
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    A 38/6 is would be a genuinely absurd gear.
    Outside of a few nuts trying to set downhill speed records, this.

  36. #36
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,235
    even 9 is too small of a cog. I would give up range to have a sram 11-50 cassette.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    731
    As has been said, the low tooth cogs feel horrible. I don't like anything less than 12 tooth because of the feel. I run 2 x 11, with 36/24 up front and 10-42 in the rear. It has me covered for almost anything, but I rarely use the 10 tooth cog because I don't like the feel. It would be nice to lose the 10 tooth and have the 11 gears on the cassette be spaced closer together. I know some riders have other gear needs.
    The bigger super high tooth cassettes put a lot of stress on the freehub bearings, they look like hubcaps, and they bring the rear derailleur cage too close to the ground for my rocky trails. I'm not a fan. I'm not sure that engineers are going to be able to get away from these issues without a gearbox bike or more rings in the front.
    I've never dropped a chain or mis-shifted a gear on my 2 x 11. My friends riding 1 x 12 can't say the same. Let's hope newer ends up being better, and not just newer!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Ha ha, I think chazpat may have been right

    You might be pushing a 52/11 but you're not really turning it, more like dragging it. I'm confident saying that because the most elite riders in the world have virtually the same top gear and they could sail past you and me like we were standing still any time, anywhere, and it's doubtful they would even be in the 11t while they were doing it. If bigger gears allowed them to go faster wouldn't the pro's use them?

    A 38/6 is would be a genuinely absurd gear.


    I know the dragging feeling and that's when I shift gears. I'm quite strong and have ridden with some big league riders. Not about to start name dropping but whatever. I feel like plenty of racers could benefit from it. That's my point and that's the level of fitness I'm aiming for. I don't know what you're after or where you're at but I'm not about to start assuming anything but I guess from your statements you're pretty slow.

    While the general consumer's input definitely affects the market, racers seem to be still be driving a lot of development and testing and has been a bit of a proving ground (unless I'm missing something?).

    Imagine what people would say fifty years ago about what we already have on bikes. It's inconceivable in many ways. Even 20 years ago - so much has been refined. I guess 'absurd' is sort of a compliment. Maybe most people will run a 32 x 6/52t and call it good but for those of us who want a 38t it would just be nice to have as an option. Maybe their will become a time when chainstays limit most frame/crankset combos to a 36t. I don't know. But Boost spacing was clearly invented for a reason.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,455
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    I know the dragging feeling and that's when I shift gears. I'm quite strong and have ridden with some big league riders. Not about to start name dropping but whatever. I feel like plenty of racers could benefit from it. That's my point and that's the level of fitness I'm aiming for. I don't know what you're after or where you're at but I'm not about to start assuming anything but I guess from your statements you're pretty slow.
    I wouldn't say slow, old yes, and a world away from elite level but I have raced a bit and have been on numerous training rides with pros. I can compete on strava leaderboards on the trail but I haven't done a whole lot of road riding lately. I was one the other day though and couldn't spin out the 53/11 even on a ~5% downgrade with a tailwind, apx. 50mph.

    If plenty of racers could benefit from bigger gears it seems like it would have happened long ago given it's such an easy change. Lots of riders have experimented with chainrings larger than 53 but they aren't riding away from pros with standard gearing. Wind drag is exponential and above 30mph it is formidable, unless on a hardwood indoor track (velodrome) no rider on earth can produce enough watts to benefit from anything more than about 130 gear inches.

    The trend lately has actually been in favor of lower gears, pro rodies today are getting KOM's using gears that pros 20 years ago would have thought were ridiculously low.



    At any rate I think a 1x with 500% range is suitable for at least 95% of users. I could see some people desiring a bigger range for certain types of riding but I don't think anyone can benefit from anything more than about 130 gear inches on the top end, and that much gear is only useful for strong riders on light road bikes, and only occasionally at that. 180 gear inches? No way, not without big improvements in PED's.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  40. #40
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,945
    I'm not one to normally say "it can't be done" but I really don't think a 6 tooth will ever happen. It offers really bad resolution, gears are created to be circular to rotate nicely and with 6 teeth it is a hexagon, pretty far from a circle. And I'm tempted to draft it up just to see what it would look like but I'd estimate that it would be about the size of a penny. You still need room for the axel to pass thru at least unless you go to some type of "lefty" arrangement. Now you could do what you suggested, go to chain links that are half the size of the ones now, so your 6 tooth would then be a 12 tooth (it's the diameter that matters) but with the forces that are put on it, I doubt that would hold up.

    So I think they will "solve" the issue by doing something different than just reducing the diameter of the smaller gears.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: uzurpator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    832
    For a measly 64 dollarios you can get this:

    6-52t cassette by 2020?-warsztat_271017_1.jpg

    11-52T. 739grams...

    At some point we are going to look back and wonder, where did we go wrong

  42. #42
    damned rocks...
    Reputation: Aglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,276
    Quote Originally Posted by uzurpator View Post
    (...)
    At some point we are going to look back and wonder, where did we go wrong
    What do you mean by "at some point"?

    On a 29er with my 11-46 in one year my rear mech had more rock strikes than I can remember with all my past 3x combined.

    Personally I can't grasp the concept of the 50t cog, and going over that my brain is like "does not compute... does not compute... abort, ab....."

    I would rather use an internal gear hub with a front derailleur than a 52t cog.

    And I would be saving weight as a bonus .

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,317
    I went back to DI2 2x
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,291

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    This will be a good thread to check in on in another 2 years. Some of the posts from 2015 that doubted the need for a growing range are on par with the doubts cast in 2017. Chazpat, there probably are some experiments with changing the diameter on the axle on the drive side of the bike and some of what you're talking about is probably being tested. A smaller 12t would make some sense. I wouldn't be surprised if that's being tested. It obviously creates difficulties throughout the rest of the drivetrain but I've seen some wild designs that don't make their way into the mainstream and it gets pretty wild.

    JB, I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Most of the stuff designed for mountain bikes these days seems to be for racers and is hardly any better than what was available in 2012. There are obviously plenty of frames designed to be all around fun bikes but I think most of what is developed is for the top 5% of athletes.

    I think that 6t has been necessitated by the BMX scene and it seems like it may have some application on the velodrome. It just seems like there's a chance it will end up being developed and then somewhere down the line it could become integrated in the rest of a cassette. Maybe it'll be for BMX and velodrome only at first.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,455
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post

    JB, I'm still not sure what you're getting at.

    Only that I think what you're proposing (870%1x gear range) will always be a specialty item because there's almost no demand for it. My opinion anyway, as you said time will tell.

    I don't understand why you think a 6t cog would have any application on the velodrome. Track riders aren't limited by gearing currently, there are much bigger chainrings available then are being used for any non motor paced event. Even if a 6t were possible, and I highly doubt it is, the efficiency losses would be unacceptable for anyone looking to go faster.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by uzurpator View Post
    For a measly 64 dollarios you can get this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	warsztat_271017_1.jpg 
Views:	158 
Size:	82.0 KB 
ID:	1164240

    11-52T. 739grams...

    At some point we are going to look back and wonder, where did we go wrong
    Say, where this image of pizza plate came to my head all of sudden?

    I have 22T chainring, 11-36T cassette in 26er and I need it, so soft places that can't be sped trough, so I need all the torque to rear wheel I can get.

    I have tried to do 17 hours of training in a week, but how and where I ride, I need that low gearing or I have to walk, which would be faster of course, but boring.

    32% climbs I find impossible to do when standing, need to be seated, that whole 200 feet or so, for some reason I just have to limit amount of force I put to pedals or I will run out of steam very quickly as heart rate maxes to that 160bpm, so these low gears allow me to go where I want.

    Need to buy whole new drivetrain, now how that 11-52T would be in 26er, any issues with spoke clearance?

    90rpm cadence with less than walking speed, that would save knees a bit too.

    Now at some point we probably are starting to see 2x and 3x coming back, then someone invents 4x with these super narrow chain ring gaps and it will be the thing.
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by grumpy old biker View Post
    Say, where this image of pizza plate came to my head all of sudden?

    I have 22T chainring, 11-36T cassette in 26er and I need it, so soft places that can't be sped trough, so I need all the torque to rear wheel I can get.

    I have tried to do 17 hours of training in a week, but how and where I ride, I need that low gearing or I have to walk, which would be faster of course, but boring.

    32% climbs I find impossible to do when standing, need to be seated, that whole 200 feet or so, for some reason I just have to limit amount of force I put to pedals or I will run out of steam very quickly as heart rate maxes to that 160bpm, so these low gears allow me to go where I want.

    Need to buy whole new drivetrain, now how that 11-52T would be in 26er, any issues with spoke clearance?

    90rpm cadence with less than walking speed, that would save knees a bit too.

    Now at some point we probably are starting to see 2x and 3x coming back, then someone invents 4x with these super narrow chain ring gaps and it will be the thing.
    22/36 is like 30/50 or 28/46 with a 26er it depends on how much top end you're willing to give up.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    22/36 is like 30/50 or 28/46 with a 26er it depends on how much top end you're willing to give up.
    But imagine 22/52 in 26er, I'm pretty sure that would have some nice part damaging torque.

    30/50 would be nice with 2x setup and bigger chainring would be bit more efficient if that has any practical meaning, mostly it is climbing deep mud with roots for hour or two where I like 22/36.

    Currently I have combined cog from 8-spd cassette to get wider range for my 36T cassette, might like to swap 46T ring to front to get bit more for hard surface downhills, same bike for road and mud.

    I really like from new possibilities these wider range cassettes bring.

    Probably I'm using my bike wrong, but it gets used so it's ok
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

Similar Threads

  1. Shimano cassette a bit loose on rear cassette hub
    By anymore in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 07:16 AM
  2. What will the future of bike technology bring us in 2020?
    By AC/BC in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 09-03-2016, 11:47 PM
  3. New Hope Pro 2 Evo SS cassette body + shimano cassette = play?
    By marlonpants in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2014, 02:59 AM
  4. cassette/freehub friction when I spin cassette
    By Gabe3 in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 08:15 PM
  5. Stay with 7 spd Cassette or switch to 9 spd cassette?
    By mpix00 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-31-2013, 07:03 AM

Members who have read this thread: 10

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.