SRAM Eagle XXI

>>1022203
oh btw, the 24t/28t/30t refers to the front chainwheel. The rear cassette is spec'd for 10t-50t [zomg]

I want that kind of wide gearing on a road bike desu

>>1022205
the front chainwheels go up to 38t.
Should be doable around a std. road frame, but I'm NOT sure a stock thumb shifter's gonna work. [altho I bet some1's working on THAT as we speak...]

File: 1470229939491.jpg (165KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x1200px

Having a 6-speed casette with a chain that was twice the thickness of modern ones was more reassuring

>>1022208
Nowadays they put 100+ kg on a trailer and haul shit sround w/ what u describe.
I currently run 7/8 speed chain, had groceries loaded into rear steel baskets, no probs

>>1022203
Definitive fred tax. It kinda solves the range issue 1xX drivetrains have, but pulls in a host of other problems. If you need the range, just go 2xX.

>>1022208
>>1022209
The plates and pins hardly differ, the more gears=weaker chain thing is pure nonsense, if anything they are stronger since the rollers/pins are narrower in width. People who put out more watts than you ever will and ride 10x the distance you do are having 0 issues with 11 and 12 speed chains.

File: CORVOS_00026937-003.jpg (744KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 1600x1067px

Funny how SRAM couldn't make a quality front derailleur to save their mothers life, so they drop it and start the 1X trend. Probably a good thing for mtb frame engineering and it simplifies things, but still funny.

I'm a fan of XT M8000. They "only" do a 11-46t cassette, but it costs fucking $80. If I was going all out on a bike build, I'd buy Eagle because it's pretty bling and that 50t looks ridiculous.

>>1022294

1X is far superior for MTB and has been around for a long time. It would of taken over regardless if SRAM can make a good FD or not.

The grouppo is decently priced except for the $400 cassette, spending that much on a cassette is really retarded unless you're a rich fred who hits the trails once a week.

>>1022203
>>1022204
Stop typing like someone 45 years younger than you.

> I'd prefer a 24t or 28t , 30t should be awesome. Let's just say u granny it more when ur ancient like me]
>How hard iz it to disintegrate a 12-speed chain?
Your weak as fuck ancient legs won't pose any threat to an Eagle chain. Chances are you're slow as shit anyway so just go 10/11 speed with 46t in the back and 22t up front.

>>1022207
>the front chainwheels go up to 38t.
38:10 is pretty low for road gearing. That's equivalent to 42:11 where as most road bikes have 50-53 up front. To cover typical road gearing it'd need to be something like 48:10-34.

>>1022272
It's surprising how many people don't realise this. The exception would be single speed chains which can have thicker side plates as there's no width limitation.

>>1022294
Having used a SRAM 9 speed front road derailer I never had any issues with it, although perhaps there 10/11 speed MTB stuff was different. Front derailers are comparatively simple compared to rears, it would really surprise me if they couldn't get them right.

If anything I imagine it's more a case of them needing the next big thing to sell to consumers for ridiculous prices.

Btw, if you didn't already know you can get 11-46t in 10 speed for a little less money (along with cheaper derailers and shifters). Shit's pretty good.

>>1022308
Seeing the insane amount of machining that goes into the cassette the price is almost justified, however it is stupid and they should really do it a cheaper way. The rest of the shit is overpriced for what it is, but I understand that they have to charge more for the "better" stuff.

>>1022339
38:10 is higher than 52:14, the gear ratio found on most old road bikes with freewheels.

Also that's wrong you faggot, the pins are shorter and the plates are thinner. There hasn't been a roller width reduction since 9 speed. This means skinny chains don't wear as fast, but they might also not be as strong.

>>1022344
>38:10 is higher than 52:14, the gear ratio found on most old road bikes with freewheels.
And? Modern road bikes have cassettes that go down to 11t.

>Also that's wrong you faggot, the pins are shorter and the plates are thinner.
I never said they were exactly the same thickness and neither did the guy I was replying to. The difference is very small and nowhere near enough to weaken the plates to the extent that their tensile strength would be an issue.

>>1022203
You're fucking 58, type like an adult.
>The true gear range we've all waited for
You mean significantly less gear range than my 10-year old 3x9 setup?

>>1022205
>I want that kind of wide gearing on a road bike desu
...Really? I've never felt the need for anywhere near 500% gear range on a road bike. A compact double (50/34) crank and an 11-28 cassette is 374% gear range; I have a roadbike set up like that and I climb all over goddamn mountains with it.

>>1022339
>38:10 is pretty low for road gearing. That's equivalent to 42:11
One of my road/touring bikes is set up with a 44:11 top gear, and I'm going to be frank, it's never been a limiting factor. You don't really need more than ~110 gear inches at the top end unless you're racing. 44:11 is also very close to 50:12, which is not uncommon as a top gear.

>>1022352
>...Really? I've never felt the need for anywhere near 500% gear range on a road bike. A compact double (50/34) crank and an 11-28 cassette is 374% gear range; I have a roadbike set up like that and I climb all over goddamn mountains with it.

Well, I currently have a 53/39 with an 12-25 (90s road bike) so I might just be overreacting, I do plan on getting a new bike with 50/34 11-32

>>1022349
It is also way too tall for mostpeople. Overwhelming majority of people are not capable to spin 50x11

>>1022208
Loss of longevity in current gear is mostly due to machining required to make 10 or so speed drivetrains work, not gear count

Why do you type like a negro

File: 1x 6000000.jpg (70KB, 960x566px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 960x566px

when will this meme end?

>>1022352
>>1022413
It's not hard to top 35mph down a longish hill, with 42:11 that means spinning at about 120rpm. Ideally you'd want that closer to 90-100rpm which means 48-53t, 48:10 would allow you to do 35mph at 90rpm and even push it further to 38mph at 100rpm.

Yes, I do understand that this is by no means necessary (unless we're talking about racing), but it's gearing that a lot of road bikes offer and some people do actually take advantage of.

>>1022203
derailleur's are soon to be dead, as gearboxes, have more range, less prone to being smashed off your bike, and no flimsy chain,

>>1022470
I'm a huge fan of IGHs and gearboxes but please check your facts, event he top model Pinion can be beat by a couple of derailers if gear range is the primary concern. Of course you could then add a rear derailer to a pinion frame, but then you acquire the disadvantages of a derailer drivetrain as well.

The main disadvantage of IGHs and gearboxes is unfortunately cost, a lot of people are unwilling to spend so much on something they may not like, they don't feel the advantages are worth the greater cost, or the just flat out can't afford it even if they wanted it.

File: NicolaiPinion.jpg (288KB, 1023x764px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1023x764px

>>1022485
>The main disadvantage of IGHs and gearboxes is unfortunately cost,

not true acctually - in the long run maintence and component change wise, they even might be cheaper.

Bigger disadvanteg is weight on the wrong place (bigger weight on the rotational part of the rear axle insted of bb) and many can shift only when coasting. Hammerschmidt was a good idea doe.

also, external gears are more easily tunable etc.

>>1022494
>not true acctually - in the long run maintence and component change wise, they even might be cheaper.
I was referring to initial cost. Over 5 years a £300 Alfine 11 may end up being cheaper than a £150 derailer drive train plus the cost of replacement cassettes over that length of time (just random numbers as an example) but some people won't be comfortable dropping that much money in one go. As you go up in price (for a Pinion frame) not only is the initial cost even greater but the length of time for the cost to match that of a derailer drive train is also greater.

>Bigger disadvanteg is weight on the wrong place
For IGHs yes, not for gearboxes where the weight is actually better positioned (although potentially greater). Whether that weight (both the placement and the amount) is a concern depends on what you're actually riding and whether you have the money to make up for it in other ways.

If the cost was much lower then there'd be a lot more people using them, even if they are heavier. As it is it's harder to justify the price especially when it's heavier, where as with derailers it's usually a case of stuff getting lighter the more that you spend.

>>1022367
If you're coming from a bike geared like that, fair enough. A road double and a 12-25 is pretty terrible if you climb any significant hills.
>11-32
Tangent time: It still blows my mind that an 11-32 is a perfectly acceptable road bike cassette in the 11-speed era. I seems like only a few years ago that 12-27 was the widest range you find on a road bike cassette, and 11-32 or 11-34 was a gear range reserved exclusively for mountain bikes.

>>1022465
This is certainly a fair concern - with my 44:11, I max out a hair under 40mph going full-bore on a long hill - but do I really care? As long as I'm not limited by my gearing on the flats, I'm fine with not being able to power faster on downhills. Especially because almost all the downhills around here are twisty as fuck and I use my brakes waaaay more than the pedals.

I understand why 53:11 is desirable for a racing bike, but the vast majority of people riding bikes don't race. The only explanation I can imagine for why most bikes are sold with race gears is "because freds".

>>1022539
It's interesting how race gear being sold to mere mortals differs by sport. In cycling everyone wants pro gear and no one bats an eye if the overweight weekend warrior has a standard chainrings with narrow cassette. Go to alpine skiing and people act as if race skis are impossible to ski if you're not a racer and buying legit race skis requires actual effort from your part and specifically seeking them out while toned down versions are available everywhere.

I guess the difference is that you can still ride a bike with race gearing without any real problems unless you're climbing massive mountain passes while race skis will punish every single mistake you make instantly, they do also respond to every single command instantly which is what makes them so great, which makes them unsuitable for anyone who doesn't know what they're doing.

>>1022465
How often do you need to go 35+? By preparing for such speeds you, essentially, sacrifice two-three smallest cogs for that alone. If you spend 99% of your riding in the 15-25mph range, then by preparing for 35+ you are riding, effectively 7-8 speed bike.

If you race, and that 35+ is important, then a fair point. But if you don't, then what point is there to be 20 seconds faster on a downhill at a cost of three gears?

I mean - if you are a 60rpm masher, or have 400w FTP, then fine. Otherwise - it's kind of useless.

>>1022470
Not going to happen. Regardless of what you do, IGHs are going to be less efficient and heavier then external derailleurs.

>>1022539
>Tangent time: It still blows my mind that an 11-32 is a perfectly acceptable road bike cassette in the 11-speed era.

11 speed 11-32 can be set up as 9 speed 11-25 with extra gears. I'd hazard to say that 11-25 at 11 speed is too densly spaced for most people.

Also - finally freds can get proper gearing and not risk being unfashionable. I had 1:1 gear on my road bike since 2006

>>1022607
>How often do you need to go 35+?
If it's not a race then never, but it's still fun. However I suppose being able to keep up with cars could be seen as a "need".

>sacrifice two-three smallest cogs for that alone. If you spend 99% of your riding in the 15-25mph range, then by preparing for 35+ you are riding, effectively 7-8 speed bike.
If it was a 1x then sure, I could agree with that. However with a double there's no reason you couldn't use the number 2 and 3 cogs with the smaller chainring.

For 1x it would be interesting to try a cassette with a larger jump from the smallest cog and tighter spacing at the larger end (like a reverse bailout gear), no idea how well that would shift.

Personally I use an 11 speed IGH and I've geared it so that I can hit 35mph at 90rpm (I'd probably top out around 40mph with how fast I can spin). I will admit that I don't use the upper gears all that much but the range is large enough that I don't need to gear it any lower (and if I did so the torque would pull it out of the dropouts anyway).

>>1022465
>>102261

You do realize that it's more efficient to aero tuck down hills right? That's why dropper posts for road bikes are in development.

Lets see you hold 35+ on flat ground in non-perfect conditions.

>>1022633
>You do realize that it's more efficient to aero tuck down hills right?
Sure, but most of the time not faster. I'm not racing so don't really care about efficiency, I go fast down hills because it's fun.

>Lets see you hold 35+ on flat ground in non-perfect conditions.
And where exactly did I say that I do 35mph on flat ground? If I live in flatland then of course I wouldn't gear my bike as high.

>>1022608
Oh yeah, I totally understand why road cassettes are getting bigger - past a certain point it doesn't make any sense to pack tighter ratios between gears. It's just that in my mind 30-32T was the barrier between a "wide-range road bike cassette" and a "mountain bike cassette".

>>1022463
Lol

>>1022636
why is their a barrier? there both made to get you up fuck off steep hills and do big rides without premature leg fatigue, seeing as there is no negative to a wide range 11 speed cassette I dont understand people aversion to them.

>>1022897
Learn to reply and learn to read. He never said he had an aversion to them, he simply said that in the past(9 speed era) road cassettes used to stop at 30t and MTB cassettes would usually be 32t and higher.

File: 201602_1725_dcdib_sm..jpg (7KB, 300x181px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x181px

>>1022203
>SRAM
I can wait for Shimano 12sp.

can't backpedal either.

defective tech. gimmick.

>>1022463
Actually I'd like to see how it looks like to have some 26 inch carbon wheels, 200 mm rotor and 50t eagle cassette.

File: przekos_3.jpg (45KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x400px

>>1022936
With eagle, you can. Eagle and EX1 cassettes have a N/W profile on the back of the cassette teeth and some ramps on those so chain meshes properely. This allows for backpedalling to your heart's content.

>>1022936
>>1022962

>Backpedalling in first or second gear

Kill yourselves...