I'm probably going blind but I haven't seen this posted here yet:
http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/05/25/sram-teases-xx1-drivetrain-top-level-1x11-w-super-wide-cassette-range-more/

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

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;

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?

_________________
weight concerned = good, weight obsessed = bad!

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

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!

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

cape epic = 4-7h/day * 8 days in the saddle = enduro for me. no?

_________________
weight concerned = good, weight obsessed = bad!

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

200-300 grams lighter than 2x10 XX?

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!

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).

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.

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.