New SRAM 1x11

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

jooo
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 am

by jooo


by Weenie


Asymptotic
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:06 am
Location: North Adelaide, South Australia

by Asymptotic

Hmm, I have enough issues with the current thin 10sp chains bending like spaghetti under pressure. The move to single ring is interesting as the vast majority of pro riders acknowledge that having two rings help conserve energy.
Norwood & Adelaide Uni CC

Varaxis
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:07 pm

by Varaxis

SRAM doing it doesn't move me at all either. I'm still upset that their XX cassette's "replaceable" big cog is no where to be found, when mine needs replacement, since it's skipping under torque on climbs.

Off-topic, that article only supported my impression that BikeRumor is a 2nd rate source of info at best. Their user comments are worse than Pinkbike's as well (which is where they seem to have copied the info from) See bikeradar's for more in-depth coverage: http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/artic ... -11-34098/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Sandal
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:10 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

by Sandal

well, not sure how long lasting that stuff is, but at least interesting from pure XC race perspective. i personally shifted to 38 in front and 11-36 in the rear recently, and now I can stay on big ring 95% of the time. Bringing in even a bigger cassete would eliminate small cog requirment as such. But... 38 is already not qute enough on the road & easy downhills, and also 10 teeth rear will be SO unefficient due to high friction, that practical applicaiton of 1*11 IMO will be very limited to pure XC rigs only.

PS what's the weight of that 11 cog cassette with huge 40-teeth pan? :lol:
weight concerned = good, weight obsessed = bad!

lordconqueror
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:37 pm

by lordconqueror

i thought the implication in the pinkbike article was that this was aimed at enduro racers, not xc?

User avatar
Sandal
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:10 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

by Sandal

well, i'm very skeptical. i've finished quite a number of enduros including cape epics & alike, and if you're an average amature rider than such events do require eeeeeasy gears, so that IMO even 2*10 is on the limit. 1*11 is just a no go there, IMO
weight concerned = good, weight obsessed = bad!

jooo
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 am

by jooo

Are you both thinking of different definitions for 'enduro'?

User avatar
Sandal
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:10 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

by Sandal

cape epic = 4-7h/day * 8 days in the saddle = enduro for me. no? :)
weight concerned = good, weight obsessed = bad!

jooo
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 am

by jooo

Sandal, I definitely agree that is an enduro of sorts but in this case the term is referring to trail bikes along these lines:
Image

sh33mon
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:40 am

by sh33mon

200-300 grams lighter than 2x10 XX? :shock:

Colin
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:50 am

by Colin

I have a hard time believing the 200-300g lighter claims. You lose one super light shifter, one super light front derailleur, a really light chainring and bolts, and then what? 40-50g of cable and housing? But then what about the weight of the new cassette? That thing's massive, it has to add quite a bit of weight!

lordconqueror
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:37 pm

by lordconqueror

well, regardless of what we think about it, they wouldn't be investing the time/money in developing it if they didn't think there was a market for it (or that they could creat a market for it).

xc71
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:36 am

by xc71

Colin wrote:I have a hard time believing the 200-300g lighter claims. You lose one super light shifter, one super light front derailleur, a really light chainring and bolts, and then what? 40-50g of cable and housing? But then what about the weight of the new cassette? That thing's massive, it has to add quite a bit of weight!

X2

VTBike
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:14 pm

by VTBike

xc71 wrote:
Colin wrote:I have a hard time believing the 200-300g lighter claims. You lose one super light shifter, one super light front derailleur, a really light chainring and bolts, and then what? 40-50g of cable and housing? But then what about the weight of the new cassette? That thing's massive, it has to add quite a bit of weight!

X2


I don't:
Front Derailleur - XTR 2x10: 120
Shifter: 80
26t Chainring/bolts: 40 (could be off here)
Cable 45

Total lost: 285

Gained: 60 (no idea what a 36 or 38t cog weighs, i'm being generous I think)

Total Lost: 225.

Colin
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:50 am

by Colin

But they can't just add a giant 42t cog, the have to make all of the cogs bigger, including the steel ones. None the less, you're right, and it should end up around 200g+ savings.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post