Why won't SRAM offer a 12-tooth smallest cog Red cassette?
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
What's the big deal? At the weight of Red cassettes, with all steel cogs and with that smallest cog lots of folks would flock to it even if they were riding Shimano, maybe even Campy drivetrains. When I finally switch to 11 speeds in the rear, I will want both the 16 and 18-tooth cogs, i.e. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 or 26. I refuse to use Ti cogs to get the weight down, and even if I would, the Shimano and Campy offerings are heavier than Red. Why does SRAM stubbornly refuse to offer such a potentially popular cog set. Having the 11-tooth smallest cog doesn't make one's bike more pro.
Discsuss...
Discsuss...
Robert
I agree, Robert! I love the design and light weight of Sram's Red cassette and I consider it superior, but as an old man of almost 57, I ride a DA 12-28 because I need more gears at the upper end rather than the lower end. The DA gives me two more usable gears than the Red.
Chris
Chris
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Why not go to a smaller chainring then?
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
- Contact:
smaller chainring means having to use a smaller inner ring. Chris maybe like me in that a 36T or 34T inner ring is useless.
This mornings ride for example was in 39/17T fo 80% of the time (I stayed in the inner ring all the way). This is a nice straight chainline nearly. I would have to use the 15T and have a taller gear ratio with a 36T inner ring and have to change up when I drop gears as I would only have 3 left. The 34T inner ring would have me in the 14T or 15T cog and I would be changing gear at the front more often.
My prefered inner ring is 41 or 42T as I have a useable inner ring but I have to use a 12-27T instead of a 12-25T cassette.
Smaller chainrings are one solution but for me at least they would lead me to be crossing the chain more and changing chainings more often which I currently don't do alot.
It is possible Robert and Chris have similar reasons.
Ti sprockets are not wear prone I get good mileage from my Campagnolo Ti cassettes but they are heavier than SRAM. If SRAM did a 12-27T I would probably use it.
This mornings ride for example was in 39/17T fo 80% of the time (I stayed in the inner ring all the way). This is a nice straight chainline nearly. I would have to use the 15T and have a taller gear ratio with a 36T inner ring and have to change up when I drop gears as I would only have 3 left. The 34T inner ring would have me in the 14T or 15T cog and I would be changing gear at the front more often.
My prefered inner ring is 41 or 42T as I have a useable inner ring but I have to use a 12-27T instead of a 12-25T cassette.
Smaller chainrings are one solution but for me at least they would lead me to be crossing the chain more and changing chainings more often which I currently don't do alot.
It is possible Robert and Chris have similar reasons.
Ti sprockets are not wear prone I get good mileage from my Campagnolo Ti cassettes but they are heavier than SRAM. If SRAM did a 12-27T I would probably use it.
If your dream ratio is 53/39 chainset with a 12-26 cassette, a 50/36 chainset with a 11-23 cassette is almost identical.
Example: 39/17 = 2,29 vs. 36/16 = 2,25 (less than 2% difference)
Both provide the same chainline (17 is the middle gear of 12-26, while 16 is the middle gear of 11-23)
This is true for the other cogs on the cassette also, with only minor differences at the end 39/26 vs 36/23
Example: 39/17 = 2,29 vs. 36/16 = 2,25 (less than 2% difference)
Both provide the same chainline (17 is the middle gear of 12-26, while 16 is the middle gear of 11-23)
This is true for the other cogs on the cassette also, with only minor differences at the end 39/26 vs 36/23
-
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:09 pm
-
- Posts: 849
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 8:32 am
- Location: Australia
Could it be a cost issue? Only having 1 flavour for the smallest cog might be cheaper/simpler for them to produce?
I write the weightweenies blog, hope you like it
Disclosure: I'm sponsored by Velocite, but I do give my honest opinion about them (I'm endorsed to race their bikes, not say nice things about them)
Disclosure: I'm sponsored by Velocite, but I do give my honest opinion about them (I'm endorsed to race their bikes, not say nice things about them)
I can't tell if this discussion is even serious. How can anyone have a problem with 11 - 26 or 11-28. You have 11 options and somehow can't find a decent cadence at a given speed? Or like some have said, play with the chainring options, go compact, etc. to find your "gear". Silly.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.
- wheelsONfire
- Posts: 6283
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
- Location: NorthEU
rpenmanparker wrote:What's the big deal? At the weight of Red cassettes, with all steel cogs and with that smallest cog lots of folks would flock to it even if they were riding Shimano, maybe even Campy drivetrains. When I finally switch to 11 speeds in the rear, I will want both the 16 and 18-tooth cogs, i.e. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 or 26. I refuse to use Ti cogs to get the weight down, and even if I would, the Shimano and Campy offerings are heavier than Red. Why does SRAM stubbornly refuse to offer such a potentially popular cog set. Having the 11-tooth smallest cog doesn't make one's bike more pro.
Discsuss...
Robert, i would like to tell you that there is a way around this if you can imagine using something that is not branded Sram?
I currently have 3 Edco Monoblock cassettes.
You ask for a 12T, there is 12-25 and 12-28.
But you also have another option which you should consider.
That is 14-25.
If you ask, why would i use this?
Well, just check the linear ratio of a 14-25 cassette and you have it.
This allows you to use a larger chainring(combo) for more torque.
Just look at Edco Monoblock
http://www.carbonwheelsshop.com/monoblo ... 14-25.html
http://www.carbonwheelsshop.com/edco-mo ... 12-25.html
http://www.carbonwheelsshop.com/edco-mo ... 12-28.html
Bikes:
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Rickard,
Thanks for introducing the Edco cassettes into the conversation - I have been considering them but stuck with Shimano because I am unfamiliar with the brand. I take it you have had good luck with them? And yeah, that 14-25 is a viable option for me! Did not know that ratio even existed!
Thanks much,
Chris
Thanks for introducing the Edco cassettes into the conversation - I have been considering them but stuck with Shimano because I am unfamiliar with the brand. I take it you have had good luck with them? And yeah, that 14-25 is a viable option for me! Did not know that ratio even existed!
Thanks much,
Chris
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
Marin wrote:Why not go to a smaller chainring then?
It isn't about gear ratio as much as it is about having one-tooth jumps in the 19-15 tooth cog region where I spend most of my time. With 11-speed and stopping at 12, you can recover the missing 16 and 18 tooth cogs. If I were willing to have 23 as my largest cog, I could even get the 16 and 18-tooth cogs on a 10-speed cassette if 12 were the smallest cog.
Robert
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
wheelsONfire wrote:rpenmanparker wrote:What's the big deal? At the weight of Red cassettes, with all steel cogs and with that smallest cog lots of folks would flock to it even if they were riding Shimano, maybe even Campy drivetrains. When I finally switch to 11 speeds in the rear, I will want both the 16 and 18-tooth cogs, i.e. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 or 26. I refuse to use Ti cogs to get the weight down, and even if I would, the Shimano and Campy offerings are heavier than Red. Why does SRAM stubbornly refuse to offer such a potentially popular cog set. Having the 11-tooth smallest cog doesn't make one's bike more pro.
Discsuss...
Robert, i would like to tell you that there is a way around this if you can imagine using something that is not branded Sram?
I currently have 3 Edco Monoblock cassettes.
You ask for a 12T, there is 12-25 and 12-28.
But you also have another option which you should consider.
That is 14-25.
If you ask, why would i use this?
Well, just check the linear ratio of a 14-25 cassette and you have it.
This allows you to use a larger chainring(combo) for more torque.
Just look at Edco Monoblock
http://www.carbonwheelsshop.com/monoblo ... 14-25.html
http://www.carbonwheelsshop.com/edco-mo ... 12-25.html
http://www.carbonwheelsshop.com/edco-mo ... 12-28.html
Thanks a million. That is just what I was looking for. I still wonder why SRAM won't get on board, but at least I don't have to "suffer" because of it. Perfect!
Robert
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
Mr.Gib wrote:I can't tell if this discussion is even serious. How can anyone have a problem with 11 - 26 or 11-28. You have 11 options and somehow can't find a decent cadence at a given speed? Or like some have said, play with the chainring options, go compact, etc. to find your "gear". Silly.
The discussion is serious. Even with a compact crank, I would find myself in the two tooth jump area of the cassette. This is not a momentous issue, but just a preference being expressed. When you talk about this issue online, you find that lots of folks don't value the 11-tooth cog even on the highest end drivetrains.
BITD when a freewheel had five cogs, a 13 or 14-tooth smallest cog was standard, and pros did just fine with it using a 52 or 54 tooth big front ring. For some reason as more cogs were added in the rear some of the suppliers added them in a balanced way to both the ends and the interior of the freewheel or now cassette. SRAM seems to have the idea that advanced riders want more at the small cog end not in the middle, but I think that is short sighted. Simply put, I would rather have what I want than to try to cope with what I don't want.
Robert
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com