Minus Ten Review- 2009-7

A Shimano 11- 36T cassette. Really low gearing circa 2009.

Ten years ago on the blog I was talking about a new cassette for 29"ers. A Shimano 11-36T version which was a response to not having low enough gears for 29 inch wheeled bikes. The 36t low cog was considered "extraordinary"at the time. Really.

Up until this point you could get 11-34T cassettes and that was as low as things went. Of course, we had triple cranks in those days, so really low rear gearing wasn't necessary. Well, for most folks it wasn't. There were those out West clamoring for lower gears for their extended climbs.

This may all seem rather odd in a day when rear cog sizes have grown to 50T, but again- triple cranks. Remember those? With them you could keep your chain line straighter, have closer ratios, and not wear things out as quickly. But short chain stays, big, "plus" sized tires on wide rims, and funky-monkey rear suspension designs pushed front derailleurs, and close spaced rear cassettes, off the radar.

My prediction is that, along with a swing back from the "short. slack, and low" geometry of today, we will see front derailleurs make a comeback as well. Maybe not triple front cranks, but you never know. The geometry and gearing that is out now just seems weird to me. It is so DH focused that average climbing and descending seems to be a concept lost on most designers. Front ends wander, weight is so rearward biased, and bottom brackets scrape terra firma.

 I'm sure the geometry works in some places, but to have to have everyone deal with it is weird. It used to be that companies were known for their "geographical geometries". Trek was Mid-West single track, Specialized was West Coast driven, and Cannondale had "Eastern woods geometry". Consumers had choices. Now you may as well pick blindfolded as most geometries are pretty much identical again, as in the old "NORBA Geometry" days.

Minus Ten Review- 2009-7

A Shimano 11- 36T cassette. Really low gearing circa 2009.

Ten years ago on the blog I was talking about a new cassette for 29"ers. A Shimano 11-36T version which was a response to not having low enough gears for 29 inch wheeled bikes. The 36t low cog was considered "extraordinary"at the time. Really.

Up until this point you could get 11-34T cassettes and that was as low as things went. Of course, we had triple cranks in those days, so really low rear gearing wasn't necessary. Well, for most folks it wasn't. There were those out West clamoring for lower gears for their extended climbs.

This may all seem rather odd in a day when rear cog sizes have grown to 50T, but again- triple cranks. Remember those? With them you could keep your chain line straighter, have closer ratios, and not wear things out as quickly. But short chain stays, big, "plus" sized tires on wide rims, and funky-monkey rear suspension designs pushed front derailleurs, and close spaced rear cassettes, off the radar.

My prediction is that, along with a swing back from the "short. slack, and low" geometry of today, we will see front derailleurs make a comeback as well. Maybe not triple front cranks, but you never know. The geometry and gearing that is out now just seems weird to me. It is so DH focused that average climbing and descending seems to be a concept lost on most designers. Front ends wander, weight is so rearward biased, and bottom brackets scrape terra firma.

 I'm sure the geometry works in some places, but to have to have everyone deal with it is weird. It used to be that companies were known for their "geographical geometries". Trek was Mid-West single track, Specialized was West Coast driven, and Cannondale had "Eastern woods geometry". Consumers had choices. Now you may as well pick blindfolded as most geometries are pretty much identical again, as in the old "NORBA Geometry" days.

When The Simplest Thing Fails

The Raleigh Tamland Two- Highly evolved, not much stock here anymore!

I was doing maintenance on a couple of my gravel rigs yesterday. The first up in the stand was the Twin Six Standard Rando. I wasn't happy with the SRAM cheapo cassette that was on it as it was making a racket whenever I shifted due to the individual cogs not being secured perfectly. I opted for a lower geared cassette, an 11-36T, and in eleven speed, of course. The cogs are mounted on a carrier for the last three, largest cogs, and the others are made more precisely and should not rattle. I have the same model cassette on the Tamland Two which has worked really well.

I thought I might need a chain also, but when I checked it with my tool for wear it was well within spec. Such a waste to pull it off, so I left it on there. I am chalking the longevity up to using DuMonde Tech lube which I have used on that chain for a while and on the Tamland's chain for ever. That chain also checked out good as well. The Tamland just needed a bit of fresh lube on its chain and a refresh on sealant. Then it was out for a bit of a test ride.

I noted a "clunk" which was hard to repeat. Was it the chain not shifting quite right? Hmm.....nope! What about that bottom bracket? I couldn't remember ever replacing it. It could be time for it to go. However; the noise wasn't tied to pedaling. Weird. What was it?

Bad part! Bad part! Go to the bin!

I got off my bike and grabbed the rear wheel and tried to see if the hub bearing maybe had loosened up. To my surprise, I could wiggle the wheel and recreate the clunk. That White Industries hub had a bad bearing already? Well....... I do ride it in severe dusty conditions a lot. It was possible, but I had ridden other wheels more miles on gravel with no ill effect. Maybe the axle was broken? Gah! That would suck!

But once the wheel was pulled I could not find fault with the hub at all. Hmmm...... What about that QR lever? Now, I'd be real surprised if it was that, because the wheel moved a lot when it was clamped in the frame. But whatever..... I had to try it to see if I could eliminate that as a reason for my troubles. I grabbed a good Shimano skewer, they are the best, you know, and slammed the wheel with that Shimano skewer installed into the frame and clamped it up.

No more wiggle, no more noise!

A simple part swapped in and no more issues. Shimano skewers are always a sure bet.

I'm not sure what company made that skewer, but it won't ever get used again after that! It is ironic that Shimano makes such a dead reliable skewer and hardly anyone else can seem to come close. Most skewers that you see are external cam skewers and most of those are junk. Then you have some internal cam skewers which can be relied upon other than Shimano, (Velocity USA's are pretty good), but those are rare. I have a set sold by FSA that were designed like Mavic/Simplex skewers and those are pretty decent, but they are an oddball design.

Obviously, through axles get rid of a lot of this, but they also have their own issues. One being that no one wants to pay SRAM or Shimano/Fox a royalty for their good designs and they come up with their own. Some are good, some are........dumb. Some are so difficult to get to work properly you may as well just use a bolt, and some other through axles are bolts! So don't just say QR's are dumb and everyone should use a through axle, becuase there are some real clunkers in the through axle world too.

The bottom line is that a simple part like a skewer should just work, and when it doesn't, and fails, I find that to be rather amazing. Just quit trying to make it different so you can avoid the fees and make simple parts that actually work!

When The Simplest Thing Fails

The Raleigh Tamland Two- Highly evolved, not much stock here anymore!

I was doing maintenance on a couple of my gravel rigs yesterday. The first up in the stand was the Twin Six Standard Rando. I wasn't happy with the SRAM cheapo cassette that was on it as it was making a racket whenever I shifted due to the individual cogs not being secured perfectly. I opted for a lower geared cassette, an 11-36T, and in eleven speed, of course. The cogs are mounted on a carrier for the last three, largest cogs, and the others are made more precisely and should not rattle. I have the same model cassette on the Tamland Two which has worked really well.

I thought I might need a chain also, but when I checked it with my tool for wear it was well within spec. Such a waste to pull it off, so I left it on there. I am chalking the longevity up to using DuMonde Tech lube which I have used on that chain for a while and on the Tamland's chain for ever. That chain also checked out good as well. The Tamland just needed a bit of fresh lube on its chain and a refresh on sealant. Then it was out for a bit of a test ride.

I noted a "clunk" which was hard to repeat. Was it the chain not shifting quite right? Hmm.....nope! What about that bottom bracket? I couldn't remember ever replacing it. It could be time for it to go. However; the noise wasn't tied to pedaling. Weird. What was it?

Bad part! Bad part! Go to the bin!

I got off my bike and grabbed the rear wheel and tried to see if the hub bearing maybe had loosened up. To my surprise, I could wiggle the wheel and recreate the clunk. That White Industries hub had a bad bearing already? Well....... I do ride it in severe dusty conditions a lot. It was possible, but I had ridden other wheels more miles on gravel with no ill effect. Maybe the axle was broken? Gah! That would suck!

But once the wheel was pulled I could not find fault with the hub at all. Hmmm...... What about that QR lever? Now, I'd be real surprised if it was that, because the wheel moved a lot when it was clamped in the frame. But whatever..... I had to try it to see if I could eliminate that as a reason for my troubles. I grabbed a good Shimano skewer, they are the best, you know, and slammed the wheel with that Shimano skewer installed into the frame and clamped it up.

No more wiggle, no more noise!

A simple part swapped in and no more issues. Shimano skewers are always a sure bet.

I'm not sure what company made that skewer, but it won't ever get used again after that! It is ironic that Shimano makes such a dead reliable skewer and hardly anyone else can seem to come close. Most skewers that you see are external cam skewers and most of those are junk. Then you have some internal cam skewers which can be relied upon other than Shimano, (Velocity USA's are pretty good), but those are rare. I have a set sold by FSA that were designed like Mavic/Simplex skewers and those are pretty decent, but they are an oddball design.

Obviously, through axles get rid of a lot of this, but they also have their own issues. One being that no one wants to pay SRAM or Shimano/Fox a royalty for their good designs and they come up with their own. Some are good, some are........dumb. Some are so difficult to get to work properly you may as well just use a bolt, and some other through axles are bolts! So don't just say QR's are dumb and everyone should use a through axle, becuase there are some real clunkers in the through axle world too.

The bottom line is that a simple part like a skewer should just work, and when it doesn't, and fails, I find that to be rather amazing. Just quit trying to make it different so you can avoid the fees and make simple parts that actually work!

Cogs: How Many Do You Really Need?

Cogs: Some say "All You Need Is One".

Friday in my "Friday News And Views" post, I was talking about upgrading my Black Mountain Cycles rig from 9 speed to an 11 speed drive train. There was a comment left asking if there had been any studies done on the differences, (if any), in efficiencies between the older 7/8 speed stuff and the 11 speed drive trains of today. There was also an expression of the oft heard/read feelings of many cyclists that "we don't need no stinkin' 11 speeds!", or 10 speed, or 9 speed........

In fact, that sentiment goes all the way back to when 6 speed drive trains were introduced in the 1980's. ......well.....Probably when the first multi-speed hub gear was developed and came out against the single speed, fixed gear bike is when that happend.

Anyway.....

So, here is my reaction to all of that. First, it must be pointed out that whenever the cycling world sees a change, there is a lot of resistance to that change. The hackles get raised, the fur stands on end, and you can find many comments of rejection, sarcasm, and downright nastiness aimed at anyone who might suggest that some new thing is "good". I could name six component changes right off the top off my head that caused the sale of pitch forks and torches to increase for a time. But who would now say that threaded steer tubes and head sets are "better"? (Besides Grant and his Disciples of Antiquity), Or who would say that suspension forks have no business in mountain biking?

Generally speaking? No one would argue those points today. But go back to when those things were introduced, and others I have not mentioned...... Whoo Boy! Talk about negativity!

So, if you merely mention the fact that 11 speed drive trains are "the new kid on the block" in terms of most bicycle drive trains, you can be sure the rebels will be out in force against it. Funny........you don't here much quibbling about 8 and 9 speed stuff anymore. But back when that came out?

Yeah........ Major uproar! 

 So, anybody that says "we don't need (fill in the blank) speed drive trains", well, that falls on deaf ears here. That kind of talk is fully expected to occur.

The once hated, "we don't need it" 9 speed cassette. Now loved by millions.

Now, with that said, I would say two other things about adding "more gears" to a bicycle.

First- Closer ratios mean more efficient motors. Look at the automobile industry as your example. In the 1960's, automatic transmissions were 2 speed or 3 speeds at most. Now in 2017 they are often 6,7, or more speeds, or "constantly variable" in order to increase efficiency of the motor. Closer ratios, so the motor does not fluctuate in revolutions per minute (RPM), and can be kept in its most efficient powerband. This is exactly why we have more ratios today than we did ten years ago. Closer ratios keep the rider in a cadence and power output range that is most efficient for the rider in question. That's harder to do if you have major jumps between ratios in a similar range of ratios overall. Like a 2 speed Powerglide equipped car would "wind out the RPM's" at about 70mph, then shift, and the engine would suddenly be loping along at several thousand RPM's lower, so too will the cyclist have major adjustments with greater leaps between the gears. 11 speed, theoretically, should provide the rider with a way to maintain momentum, accelerate easier, and do all of that without drastic changes in power output and cadence. (Assuming for a 2X set up, not 1 X 11, or 1 X 12 which compromises on this and is actually worse than 2X 10 in this regard.)

Second- The way things are being jammed into the same spaces as we have had for decades is the "real issue" here. Look, the first thing you should try to wrap your mind around is just where the "meat is being cut from". Thinking about chains and cogs, there are two major parameters that have not changed in decades. Those being the pitch of the chain (one half inch) and the width of the chain roller pins between the inner chain plates. Everything else has changed. The metal has been removed from the over all width of the chain and the cogs to make more fit in the same space we've been using since the 1980's. So, chains are thinner, overall, and cogs are thinner to make fitting eleven in an axle spacing that hasn't budged in years possible. Less "beef" means accelerated wear, right? 

Well, to a degree, that is certainly true, but not to the degree that one might think. Material technologies have been brought to bear that were not in use ten years ago. Certainly, they weren't even possible twenty years ago. Bevels, chamfers, and shaping have made chains able to move from cog to cog so much more efficiently it isn't even an argument. This causes less wear, so getting thinner cogs and chain plates are not the deal breaker they would have been without these advancements.

So, the benefits are many, the detriments are fewer. That is why we have 11 speed cassettes today. Could all the newer technology be brought to bear on a premium level 8 speed cassette and chain? Sure they could. Totally possible. It would last longer, shift better, and have a marginal effect upon many cyclists who wouldn't care about big jumps between ratios. But you are not going to see that from SRAM or Shimano because that is not a market that is profitable for them.

And I still say all you really need is one gear!

Cogs: How Many Do You Really Need?

Cogs: Some say "All You Need Is One".

Friday in my "Friday News And Views" post, I was talking about upgrading my Black Mountain Cycles rig from 9 speed to an 11 speed drive train. There was a comment left asking if there had been any studies done on the differences, (if any), in efficiencies between the older 7/8 speed stuff and the 11 speed drive trains of today. There was also an expression of the oft heard/read feelings of many cyclists that "we don't need no stinkin' 11 speeds!", or 10 speed, or 9 speed........

In fact, that sentiment goes all the way back to when 6 speed drive trains were introduced in the 1980's. ......well.....Probably when the first multi-speed hub gear was developed and came out against the single speed, fixed gear bike is when that happend.

Anyway.....

So, here is my reaction to all of that. First, it must be pointed out that whenever the cycling world sees a change, there is a lot of resistance to that change. The hackles get raised, the fur stands on end, and you can find many comments of rejection, sarcasm, and downright nastiness aimed at anyone who might suggest that some new thing is "good". I could name six component changes right off the top off my head that caused the sale of pitch forks and torches to increase for a time. But who would now say that threaded steer tubes and head sets are "better"? (Besides Grant and his Disciples of Antiquity), Or who would say that suspension forks have no business in mountain biking?

Generally speaking? No one would argue those points today. But go back to when those things were introduced, and others I have not mentioned...... Whoo Boy! Talk about negativity!

So, if you merely mention the fact that 11 speed drive trains are "the new kid on the block" in terms of most bicycle drive trains, you can be sure the rebels will be out in force against it. Funny........you don't here much quibbling about 8 and 9 speed stuff anymore. But back when that came out?

Yeah........ Major uproar! 

 So, anybody that says "we don't need (fill in the blank) speed drive trains", well, that falls on deaf ears here. That kind of talk is fully expected to occur.

The once hated, "we don't need it" 9 speed cassette. Now loved by millions.

Now, with that said, I would say two other things about adding "more gears" to a bicycle.

First- Closer ratios mean more efficient motors. Look at the automobile industry as your example. In the 1960's, automatic transmissions were 2 speed or 3 speeds at most. Now in 2017 they are often 6,7, or more speeds, or "constantly variable" in order to increase efficiency of the motor. Closer ratios, so the motor does not fluctuate in revolutions per minute (RPM), and can be kept in its most efficient powerband. This is exactly why we have more ratios today than we did ten years ago. Closer ratios keep the rider in a cadence and power output range that is most efficient for the rider in question. That's harder to do if you have major jumps between ratios in a similar range of ratios overall. Like a 2 speed Powerglide equipped car would "wind out the RPM's" at about 70mph, then shift, and the engine would suddenly be loping along at several thousand RPM's lower, so too will the cyclist have major adjustments with greater leaps between the gears. 11 speed, theoretically, should provide the rider with a way to maintain momentum, accelerate easier, and do all of that without drastic changes in power output and cadence. (Assuming for a 2X set up, not 1 X 11, or 1 X 12 which compromises on this and is actually worse than 2X 10 in this regard.)

Second- The way things are being jammed into the same spaces as we have had for decades is the "real issue" here. Look, the first thing you should try to wrap your mind around is just where the "meat is being cut from". Thinking about chains and cogs, there are two major parameters that have not changed in decades. Those being the pitch of the chain (one half inch) and the width of the chain roller pins between the inner chain plates. Everything else has changed. The metal has been removed from the over all width of the chain and the cogs to make more fit in the same space we've been using since the 1980's. So, chains are thinner, overall, and cogs are thinner to make fitting eleven in an axle spacing that hasn't budged in years possible. Less "beef" means accelerated wear, right? 

Well, to a degree, that is certainly true, but not to the degree that one might think. Material technologies have been brought to bear that were not in use ten years ago. Certainly, they weren't even possible twenty years ago. Bevels, chamfers, and shaping have made chains able to move from cog to cog so much more efficiently it isn't even an argument. This causes less wear, so getting thinner cogs and chain plates are not the deal breaker they would have been without these advancements.

So, the benefits are many, the detriments are fewer. That is why we have 11 speed cassettes today. Could all the newer technology be brought to bear on a premium level 8 speed cassette and chain? Sure they could. Totally possible. It would last longer, shift better, and have a marginal effect upon many cyclists who wouldn't care about big jumps between ratios. But you are not going to see that from SRAM or Shimano because that is not a market that is profitable for them.

And I still say all you really need is one gear!

Friday News And Views

SRAM marketing strikes with a new 11 spd cassette that is aimed at 1X riders.

SRAM NX 1 X 11 Parts Announced:

If you've been paying attention for the last few years, you know that SRAM has been pushing its 1 X 11 gearing for mountain bikes quite heavily. I've used it, and it is a fascinating idea that ends up being "just okay", in my opinion. (More on that coming up here.) The biggest issue I, and many others have had, with this format is that (a), it requires a specific free hub body and (b), the cost is outrageous for the cassette. Mostly this is due to the outlandish, wasteful carving of a huge block of steel into a single, 10 cog unit, to which a final, aluminum cog is fitted to. The waste in the material and cost to machine the huge chunk of steel forces SRAM to charge exorbitant prices- anywhere from $260-ish to a bit over $400.00 depending upon where you purchase and what level X-Dome cassette you buy. Compare that to $160-ish for an XTR 11 speed cassette from the UK online dealers, and you can see why xx-1 is a bit of a big bite to chew for riders. That's just the cassette too. You still need a special derailleur, shifter, chain ring, and chain.

The obvious solution was for SRAM to find a way to make the 1 X 11 idea cheaper. They tried the GX platform, which still required an XD free hub, which was riveted together and consists of separately made cogs. However; the barrier of the special wheel was still there. Meanwhile, quietly and in typically sedate Shimano style, the Japanese component giant offered an 11 speed, wide ranging cassette that fit on a standard free hub body. Now, SRAM has announced a cassette which also fits on a standard free hub body dubbed "NX" in response. There actually is a whole suite of 1X parts to go with this. Differences to GX are minor, and the NX crank is almost identical to a GX 1X crank, only made with a different aluminum alloy. To wit: SRAM claims both crank sets weigh in the 680 gram range. Functionally they should be identical. The derailleur is a cheaper version of GX probably with lower level materials, as SRAM is wont to do with their groups.

Shimano's XT 11spd, 11-42 cassette- A SRAM 1X alternative

The big deal here is obviously the cassette, and the ability for OEM bikes to be set up 1X in the Far East, shipped here to North America, and hit a retail price point that should be far more palatable to more budget conscious riders. The NX stuff can arguably be said to be "X-5"-ish quality, which means that the materials and construct of the cassette and components will reflect the $75.00-ish dollar asking price for the cassette aftermarket.

But hold on here. SRAM, by ditching most of their proprietary technology like the XD cassette carrier, X-Dome cassette manufacturing technique, and lowering the materials and construction techniques to almost hybrid bike levels, have put themselves into a playing field where Shimano dominates. Check this out.....

A savvy shopper can source an XT 11 speed 11-42 cassette for under $75.00, which is going to have a far better shifting quality and construction than an NX 11 speed cassette will ever have. No.....I haven't seen an NX cassette, but I have seen and handled a GX cassette, and this NX cassette is one level below that. You have a Shimano cassette for about the same asking price as a lower quality SRAM one, and if you have a Shimano Shadow Plus clutch style rear derailleur, it probably can already handle a 42T cog. Want better shifting quality? The replaceable hangar on a Shadow Plus derailleur can be replaced with a Goat Link from Wolf Tooth components and bang on shifting is at your finger tips. While you're at it, you can grab one of Wolf Tooth's chain rings, slap it on your current crankset, and you have a 1X set up as good if not better than XX-1 at a bit more than maybe a NX set up will cost you. Well.....that is if your rig is 11 speed. Of course, you can easily approximate the same deal in 10 speed for similar amounts of cabbage and have a far better quality set up than NX.

So, a great marketing campaign, a good way to get OE spec, but otherwise, not really all that big of a deal in real terms for the performance minded riders that demand durable, great performing parts. I still think Shimano outperforms this stuff, and that 2 X 11 or 2 X 10 is still a better option for riders. Shimano has front derailleurs dialed, and with a two ring crankset, there is absolutely no way that a 1 X 11 covers the same range of gearing for most technical mountain biking with any appreciable elevation changes. Not only that, but your gearing can have closer ratio jumps between gears, helping to maintain momentum, and cadence speeds don't change all that much, making you more efficient.

Will 1X take over the mtb world? I am rather skeptical of that. Especially when wheel technology and the spaces we have to work in for components is what it is. Does 1X look better? Maybe. Does 1X appeal to the mind as being easier to understand? Most definitely. Is it better for "your motor"? Well, there is the real question, no? I will say that a closer ratio gearing is generally preferred by racing folks, and for a good reason. I think average folk can also benefit for similar reasons, and that's why I am not sold on 1X.

Okay, enough ranting for one day! Have a great weekend and hopefully you can hit some cycling up where you live.

Friday News And Views

SRAM marketing strikes with a new 11 spd cassette that is aimed at 1X riders.

SRAM NX 1 X 11 Parts Announced:

If you've been paying attention for the last few years, you know that SRAM has been pushing its 1 X 11 gearing for mountain bikes quite heavily. I've used it, and it is a fascinating idea that ends up being "just okay", in my opinion. (More on that coming up here.) The biggest issue I, and many others have had, with this format is that (a), it requires a specific free hub body and (b), the cost is outrageous for the cassette. Mostly this is due to the outlandish, wasteful carving of a huge block of steel into a single, 10 cog unit, to which a final, aluminum cog is fitted to. The waste in the material and cost to machine the huge chunk of steel forces SRAM to charge exorbitant prices- anywhere from $260-ish to a bit over $400.00 depending upon where you purchase and what level X-Dome cassette you buy. Compare that to $160-ish for an XTR 11 speed cassette from the UK online dealers, and you can see why xx-1 is a bit of a big bite to chew for riders. That's just the cassette too. You still need a special derailleur, shifter, chain ring, and chain.

The obvious solution was for SRAM to find a way to make the 1 X 11 idea cheaper. They tried the GX platform, which still required an XD free hub, which was riveted together and consists of separately made cogs. However; the barrier of the special wheel was still there. Meanwhile, quietly and in typically sedate Shimano style, the Japanese component giant offered an 11 speed, wide ranging cassette that fit on a standard free hub body. Now, SRAM has announced a cassette which also fits on a standard free hub body dubbed "NX" in response. There actually is a whole suite of 1X parts to go with this. Differences to GX are minor, and the NX crank is almost identical to a GX 1X crank, only made with a different aluminum alloy. To wit: SRAM claims both crank sets weigh in the 680 gram range. Functionally they should be identical. The derailleur is a cheaper version of GX probably with lower level materials, as SRAM is wont to do with their groups.

Shimano's XT 11spd, 11-42 cassette- A SRAM 1X alternative

The big deal here is obviously the cassette, and the ability for OEM bikes to be set up 1X in the Far East, shipped here to North America, and hit a retail price point that should be far more palatable to more budget conscious riders. The NX stuff can arguably be said to be "X-5"-ish quality, which means that the materials and construct of the cassette and components will reflect the $75.00-ish dollar asking price for the cassette aftermarket.

But hold on here. SRAM, by ditching most of their proprietary technology like the XD cassette carrier, X-Dome cassette manufacturing technique, and lowering the materials and construction techniques to almost hybrid bike levels, have put themselves into a playing field where Shimano dominates. Check this out.....

A savvy shopper can source an XT 11 speed 11-42 cassette for under $75.00, which is going to have a far better shifting quality and construction than an NX 11 speed cassette will ever have. No.....I haven't seen an NX cassette, but I have seen and handled a GX cassette, and this NX cassette is one level below that. You have a Shimano cassette for about the same asking price as a lower quality SRAM one, and if you have a Shimano Shadow Plus clutch style rear derailleur, it probably can already handle a 42T cog. Want better shifting quality? The replaceable hangar on a Shadow Plus derailleur can be replaced with a Goat Link from Wolf Tooth components and bang on shifting is at your finger tips. While you're at it, you can grab one of Wolf Tooth's chain rings, slap it on your current crankset, and you have a 1X set up as good if not better than XX-1 at a bit more than maybe a NX set up will cost you. Well.....that is if your rig is 11 speed. Of course, you can easily approximate the same deal in 10 speed for similar amounts of cabbage and have a far better quality set up than NX.

So, a great marketing campaign, a good way to get OE spec, but otherwise, not really all that big of a deal in real terms for the performance minded riders that demand durable, great performing parts. I still think Shimano outperforms this stuff, and that 2 X 11 or 2 X 10 is still a better option for riders. Shimano has front derailleurs dialed, and with a two ring crankset, there is absolutely no way that a 1 X 11 covers the same range of gearing for most technical mountain biking with any appreciable elevation changes. Not only that, but your gearing can have closer ratio jumps between gears, helping to maintain momentum, and cadence speeds don't change all that much, making you more efficient.

Will 1X take over the mtb world? I am rather skeptical of that. Especially when wheel technology and the spaces we have to work in for components is what it is. Does 1X look better? Maybe. Does 1X appeal to the mind as being easier to understand? Most definitely. Is it better for "your motor"? Well, there is the real question, no? I will say that a closer ratio gearing is generally preferred by racing folks, and for a good reason. I think average folk can also benefit for similar reasons, and that's why I am not sold on 1X.

Okay, enough ranting for one day! Have a great weekend and hopefully you can hit some cycling up where you live.

Front Derailleurs: Should We Really Lose Them?

Not all front derailleurs are weak, ineffective, or a hassle to use.

There is a move afoot by a certain purveyor of cycling hardware to rid the world of that pesky protuberance on the seat tube known as the "front derailleur". It's a pox, if you believe the hype, and should be gone so you can have a cleaner, more streamlined drive train.

I'm not going to go where you think with this rant, by the way. Nope. Gear range is a conversation for another day. What concerns me is something I've not seen mentioned by anyone until very recently. There was a review on an all-road bike posted recently on the "Bike Radar" site, and in the review on this particular bike equipped with a "one-by" drive train, you can find this gem:

Shifting across the wide 11-32t cassette is no different to any other SRAM DoubleTap groupset, with just a little extra noise in the biggest cog, where the chain is at its most extreme angle.

Did you catch that? The bit about the "extra noise" when the chain is in the "most extreme angle"? Think about that for just a minute......

What is it that you've heard preached about when using a multiple geared drive train? Long ago, Keith Bontrager had an article in "Dirt Rag" which covered the four cardinal rules of shifting. In that piece he described how one of the principle rules of multiple speed drive trains was to keep the chain line as straight as possible. Why? Because a straighter chain is more efficient. A chain that angles from one cog in the rear to another chain ring on the front becomes less efficient as the angle increases. This accelerates wear as well. In order to maintain a straighter chain line, the rider should shift the drive train into an appropriate chain ring up front. Then use the rear cogs on the back the more closely approximate a straighter chain. This keeps efficiency high and reduces wear to a minimum.

With only one front ring, there is no way to correct for extreme chain lines.

While it is true that materials technology has taken a huge leap since the 90's when Keith Bontrager penned that article, it doesn't erase the fact that we're still functioning in the same relative spaces when it comes to bicycle drive trains and that with narrower chains and slimmer cogs and chain rings. It would seem then that wear and efficiency would be even more important to pay attention to, yet for some strange reason, the front derailleur and multiple front chain rings have been targeted as being out of fashion. Why?

In my opinion it is because the appeal to riders is that it makes understanding the drive train easier. To a lesser degree, it also helps you to get a slightly lighter drive train. Finally, for mountain bikers it clears up enough real estate on the handle bar so that a dropper post remote has a place on the bar without being affixed in a strange, poor ergonomic position. However; it would seem nigh unto impossible to show that it is actually more efficient unless you spend the majority of your time in the middle of your cassette, in which case the higher gears and lower gears are essentially dead weight.

This also doesn't even touch how shorter cage rear derailleurs shift more quickly, and are lighter, or how you don't need enormous rear cogs which rear derailleurs aren't the most efficient at shifting into or out of. It doesn't begin to tell how that big cog/front ring chain line is actually more severe than a typical 2X set up. Nor does it touch on how some front derailleurs are actually quite easy to shift and these don't have to be electronic either. Finally, multiple front chain rings distribute wear across more material/teeth, and a single front ring is going to wear out faster.

While a "one-by" chain ring set up might seem really cool for your bike, it has its drawbacks and compromises. Something to think about before you "make the leap".

Front Derailleurs: Should We Really Lose Them?

Not all front derailleurs are weak, ineffective, or a hassle to use.

There is a move afoot by a certain purveyor of cycling hardware to rid the world of that pesky protuberance on the seat tube known as the "front derailleur". It's a pox, if you believe the hype, and should be gone so you can have a cleaner, more streamlined drive train.

I'm not going to go where you think with this rant, by the way. Nope. Gear range is a conversation for another day. What concerns me is something I've not seen mentioned by anyone until very recently. There was a review on an all-road bike posted recently on the "Bike Radar" site, and in the review on this particular bike equipped with a "one-by" drive train, you can find this gem:

Shifting across the wide 11-32t cassette is no different to any other SRAM DoubleTap groupset, with just a little extra noise in the biggest cog, where the chain is at its most extreme angle.

Did you catch that? The bit about the "extra noise" when the chain is in the "most extreme angle"? Think about that for just a minute......

What is it that you've heard preached about when using a multiple geared drive train? Long ago, Keith Bontrager had an article in "Dirt Rag" which covered the four cardinal rules of shifting. In that piece he described how one of the principle rules of multiple speed drive trains was to keep the chain line as straight as possible. Why? Because a straighter chain is more efficient. A chain that angles from one cog in the rear to another chain ring on the front becomes less efficient as the angle increases. This accelerates wear as well. In order to maintain a straighter chain line, the rider should shift the drive train into an appropriate chain ring up front. Then use the rear cogs on the back the more closely approximate a straighter chain. This keeps efficiency high and reduces wear to a minimum.

With only one front ring, there is no way to correct for extreme chain lines.

While it is true that materials technology has taken a huge leap since the 90's when Keith Bontrager penned that article, it doesn't erase the fact that we're still functioning in the same relative spaces when it comes to bicycle drive trains and that with narrower chains and slimmer cogs and chain rings. It would seem then that wear and efficiency would be even more important to pay attention to, yet for some strange reason, the front derailleur and multiple front chain rings have been targeted as being out of fashion. Why?

In my opinion it is because the appeal to riders is that it makes understanding the drive train easier. To a lesser degree, it also helps you to get a slightly lighter drive train. Finally, for mountain bikers it clears up enough real estate on the handle bar so that a dropper post remote has a place on the bar without being affixed in a strange, poor ergonomic position. However; it would seem nigh unto impossible to show that it is actually more efficient unless you spend the majority of your time in the middle of your cassette, in which case the higher gears and lower gears are essentially dead weight.

This also doesn't even touch how shorter cage rear derailleurs shift more quickly, and are lighter, or how you don't need enormous rear cogs which rear derailleurs aren't the most efficient at shifting into or out of. It doesn't begin to tell how that big cog/front ring chain line is actually more severe than a typical 2X set up. Nor does it touch on how some front derailleurs are actually quite easy to shift and these don't have to be electronic either. Finally, multiple front chain rings distribute wear across more material/teeth, and a single front ring is going to wear out faster.

While a "one-by" chain ring set up might seem really cool for your bike, it has its drawbacks and compromises. Something to think about before you "make the leap".

Shake Down Ride Shakes Something Out: Part 2

Stuck On You Part 2!

Okay, a week ago I had a great Fall ride on the Fargo Gen 1 when at the end of it all I had something odd happen with my rear wheel. (See the post here) Well. yesterday I got around to sussing that issue out, and here's how it went down.

The Subject: A Hope Pro Evo II hub with a SRAM 9 speed cassette with the individually mounted cogs. Yes......they were stuck on! It wasn't critical to getting to the bottom of my problem, but you'd rather not have to deal with those teeth. At least I didn't. The Hope Pro evo II has removable/swappable end caps for quick release or through axles, so you simply pop off your end cap. Then this allows a tool free removal of the cassette free hub body, which reveals the free hub mechanism. You can see what that looks like on the left here.

Now I could remove a couple of the smaller cogs off the cassette and then bang on the backside of the cassette with a rubber mallet to push off the cassette and get that out of the way.

Cassette removed!

The Diagnosis:  Once the cassette is removed I could handle the free hub body much easier and get to cleaning the old grease away so I could see if I either had a breakdown or just some stuck pawls. I employed some foaming degreaser of the citrus variety from Tri-Flow. I had to do this about three times to begin with. Whatever grease those U.K. blokes put in there is pretty tenacious!

As I worked more and more grease away from the mechanism, I noticed two things. One- The grease coming off was silvery. That's never a good sign! This means the grease is contaminated with metal. Hopefully just worn metal from years of coasting!

Two- The pawls were not "springing back to life", and this was cause for concern. Maybe something really did break. More applications of degreaser and the mystery was solved. I had a complete failure of all four pawl springs!

It's a dead parrot! No! Its pining for the fjords, or simply stunned!

Bummer! Well, as I stated last week, better to find out about it before the Geezer Ride! Had I not done the 32 mile pre-ride shake down cruise, I would have had the failure on the ride, and that would have been disastrous. Or at the very least, it would have provided quite the story! 

The Solution: Well, now its on to the solution. I have a spare Hope Pro Evo II wheel sitting around that I could scavenge the free hub body off of, but I am not desperate to ride the Fargo just now. So, I won't be stealing that free hub body now. My second option, of course, is to just replace the whole shootin' match with a steel free hub body and that would also solve my issues with the cassette digging into the alloy bodied free hub. I'm thinking this sounds like the reasonable choice, given that I typically don't buy XT level cassettes for my gravel/rough stuff bikes. It really doesn't weigh all that much more either. I'd gladly trade off the minimal gain in grams for the ease of servicing the cassette/free hub.

So, I think a steel free hub body will soon be on its way, and this nearly seven year old hub will be back in service again on the good ol' Fargo Gen 1 rig. I won't necessarily be needing the old bike for a bit, so I'll be okay with waiting on that. Heck- it's getting to be fat biking season, and the single speed bikes are all ready to roll in the meantime. Fall is definitely single speed time around here anyway.

Shake Down Ride Shakes Something Out: Part 2

Stuck On You Part 2!

Okay, a week ago I had a great Fall ride on the Fargo Gen 1 when at the end of it all I had something odd happen with my rear wheel. (See the post here) Well. yesterday I got around to sussing that issue out, and here's how it went down.

The Subject: A Hope Pro Evo II hub with a SRAM 9 speed cassette with the individually mounted cogs. Yes......they were stuck on! It wasn't critical to getting to the bottom of my problem, but you'd rather not have to deal with those teeth. At least I didn't. The Hope Pro evo II has removable/swappable end caps for quick release or through axles, so you simply pop off your end cap. Then this allows a tool free removal of the cassette free hub body, which reveals the free hub mechanism. You can see what that looks like on the left here.

Now I could remove a couple of the smaller cogs off the cassette and then bang on the backside of the cassette with a rubber mallet to push off the cassette and get that out of the way.

Cassette removed!

The Diagnosis:  Once the cassette is removed I could handle the free hub body much easier and get to cleaning the old grease away so I could see if I either had a breakdown or just some stuck pawls. I employed some foaming degreaser of the citrus variety from Tri-Flow. I had to do this about three times to begin with. Whatever grease those U.K. blokes put in there is pretty tenacious!

As I worked more and more grease away from the mechanism, I noticed two things. One- The grease coming off was silvery. That's never a good sign! This means the grease is contaminated with metal. Hopefully just worn metal from years of coasting!

Two- The pawls were not "springing back to life", and this was cause for concern. Maybe something really did break. More applications of degreaser and the mystery was solved. I had a complete failure of all four pawl springs!

It's a dead parrot! No! Its pining for the fjords, or simply stunned!

Bummer! Well, as I stated last week, better to find out about it before the Geezer Ride! Had I not done the 32 mile pre-ride shake down cruise, I would have had the failure on the ride, and that would have been disastrous. Or at the very least, it would have provided quite the story! 

The Solution: Well, now its on to the solution. I have a spare Hope Pro Evo II wheel sitting around that I could scavenge the free hub body off of, but I am not desperate to ride the Fargo just now. So, I won't be stealing that free hub body now. My second option, of course, is to just replace the whole shootin' match with a steel free hub body and that would also solve my issues with the cassette digging into the alloy bodied free hub. I'm thinking this sounds like the reasonable choice, given that I typically don't buy XT level cassettes for my gravel/rough stuff bikes. It really doesn't weigh all that much more either. I'd gladly trade off the minimal gain in grams for the ease of servicing the cassette/free hub.

So, I think a steel free hub body will soon be on its way, and this nearly seven year old hub will be back in service again on the good ol' Fargo Gen 1 rig. I won't necessarily be needing the old bike for a bit, so I'll be okay with waiting on that. Heck- it's getting to be fat biking season, and the single speed bikes are all ready to roll in the meantime. Fall is definitely single speed time around here anyway.

Stuck On You

Aluminum freehub bodies = Cassette stuck (Most of the time)

Weight. The bane of cyclists, or so it would seem, on anything bolted to a bicycle. The pursuit of the lightest, strongest, most "Bontrager Rule" breaking bits has been happening for years now. Wheels especially, since every gram of rotational weight saved is celebrated by those who see this as being paramount to obtaining "good wheels".

Wheel manufacturers know this and try to accommodate the cyclists with nods to shaving weight here and there. Butted spokes, lighter rim extrusions, carbon fiber rims, less spokes, and aluminum freehub bodies are all typically used to achieve the perceived "Best" wheel for any discipline of cycling.  A few of these marketing ploys I have issues with at times, but none peeve me more than aluminum freehub bodies.

While aluminum is a reasonable material for a freehub body, cassettes that go on them are not really all that well suited to the softer material. Steel is still the preferred substance to craft most cassettes from, with perhaps a bit of titanium thrown in for good measure on top of the line fare. The mating surfaces of most steel cassette cogs with aluminum freehub bodies is a narrow bit. Multiply those narrow mating surfaces by 9 or 10, add in some torque from a chain, and those edges like to dig into the softer aluminum splines on freehub bodies. Then, the thing gets stuck.

Steel vs Steel = No Stuck Cassettes.

There really is no reason for this to happen anymore these days. Wise folks that design nice products, like Bill Shook of American Classic, have figured it out. A few steel strips inserted on aluminum cassette freehub bodies stops this digging in and you can get the cassette off easily, or at least get it off at all.

Yes- you can get cassettes with spiders that don't dig in, but these are expensive and rarer than the more common single cog/spacer/single cog type cassettes you see most often. There are far more aluminum free hub bodies than ever before. Why can't we just have a decent design that works with any proper cassette for your drive train?

American Classic doesn't have a stranglehold on this idea, by the way. In fact, my Raleigh Tamland Two has a cassette body with a single strip of steel on one of the cassette body splines. Those wheels have Novatec hubs, so at least that company has caught on. Hopefully, this becomes a trend. Why? Well......yes, I have a cassette stuck on a freehub body now. It is annoying, and I could leave it until it wears out, (what I'll likely do), or destroy the danged thing trying to get it to come off. A simple solution as shown by American Classic and Novatec would make this unnecessary.

Stuck On You

Aluminum freehub bodies = Cassette stuck (Most of the time)

Weight. The bane of cyclists, or so it would seem, on anything bolted to a bicycle. The pursuit of the lightest, strongest, most "Bontrager Rule" breaking bits has been happening for years now. Wheels especially, since every gram of rotational weight saved is celebrated by those who see this as being paramount to obtaining "good wheels".

Wheel manufacturers know this and try to accommodate the cyclists with nods to shaving weight here and there. Butted spokes, lighter rim extrusions, carbon fiber rims, less spokes, and aluminum freehub bodies are all typically used to achieve the perceived "Best" wheel for any discipline of cycling.  A few of these marketing ploys I have issues with at times, but none peeve me more than aluminum freehub bodies.

While aluminum is a reasonable material for a freehub body, cassettes that go on them are not really all that well suited to the softer material. Steel is still the preferred substance to craft most cassettes from, with perhaps a bit of titanium thrown in for good measure on top of the line fare. The mating surfaces of most steel cassette cogs with aluminum freehub bodies is a narrow bit. Multiply those narrow mating surfaces by 9 or 10, add in some torque from a chain, and those edges like to dig into the softer aluminum splines on freehub bodies. Then, the thing gets stuck.

Steel vs Steel = No Stuck Cassettes.

There really is no reason for this to happen anymore these days. Wise folks that design nice products, like Bill Shook of American Classic, have figured it out. A few steel strips inserted on aluminum cassette freehub bodies stops this digging in and you can get the cassette off easily, or at least get it off at all.

Yes- you can get cassettes with spiders that don't dig in, but these are expensive and rarer than the more common single cog/spacer/single cog type cassettes you see most often. There are far more aluminum free hub bodies than ever before. Why can't we just have a decent design that works with any proper cassette for your drive train?

American Classic doesn't have a stranglehold on this idea, by the way. In fact, my Raleigh Tamland Two has a cassette body with a single strip of steel on one of the cassette body splines. Those wheels have Novatec hubs, so at least that company has caught on. Hopefully, this becomes a trend. Why? Well......yes, I have a cassette stuck on a freehub body now. It is annoying, and I could leave it until it wears out, (what I'll likely do), or destroy the danged thing trying to get it to come off. A simple solution as shown by American Classic and Novatec would make this unnecessary.

Cogstack: Gears For the Climber

With my thoughts on crank sets all cleared away, I wanted to hit upon the cassette choices for climbers and 29"er rigs. Some of you may be saying, what choices? Well, it's true that SRAM and Shimano have only provided 34 tooth low gears for cassettes, but there is an alternative.

Readers that checked the Action Tec link the other day already know where this is going. Yep! Cassettes with humongous low end cogs! We're talking 36T, 38T, and 39T low gear cogs! These types of gears may seem rather useless to many of us that don't have extended climbing on the menu, but believe me, there are folks out there that love these choices.

I can certainly see the value in gearing your 29"er out with the 36T low end gear for sure. This would certainly cover your loss of low end from 26"er gearing and get you back on a level playing field in those terms. Adding in the better roll over ability and traction of 29"er wheels and it becomes very attractive, I think.

The 38T and 39T gears are more specialized gears, I think. If you have climbs reaching into the mile plus category, and/or carry loads for touring on a 29"er, I can see where these gearing choices might be desirable. But the vast majority of us would never need such gears. Walking would be just as fast and possibly safer in many instances. Short steeps that are unrideable in a 36T low? Maybe they shouldn't be ridden at all. I would have to question the sustainability of the trail at that point. At least in the Mid-West anyway.

My position is that a 36T low gear is a great idea for 29"ers. My gripe is that a cassette from Action Tec costs an arm and a leg! Yes, I could modify a SRAM cassette and have that cog, but how about SRAM or Shimano, (or some other manufacturer) just make a cassette with that low cog and sell it to me for less than a single titanium Action Tec 36T cog would cost me? (That's about $60.00 less shipping, in case yer too lazy to check out the linkage!)

Maybe this has uses beyond a triple crank 29"er set up too. Think 1 X 9, or even compact crank roadie bikes set up for touring? I think it makes sense and would be a great additional choice for cyclists, not just 29"er freaks.

Gears for climbers. Lets have 'em! That's what I say.

Cogstack: Gears For the Climber

With my thoughts on crank sets all cleared away, I wanted to hit upon the cassette choices for climbers and 29"er rigs. Some of you may be saying, what choices? Well, it's true that SRAM and Shimano have only provided 34 tooth low gears for cassettes, but there is an alternative.

Readers that checked the Action Tec link the other day already know where this is going. Yep! Cassettes with humongous low end cogs! We're talking 36T, 38T, and 39T low gear cogs! These types of gears may seem rather useless to many of us that don't have extended climbing on the menu, but believe me, there are folks out there that love these choices.

I can certainly see the value in gearing your 29"er out with the 36T low end gear for sure. This would certainly cover your loss of low end from 26"er gearing and get you back on a level playing field in those terms. Adding in the better roll over ability and traction of 29"er wheels and it becomes very attractive, I think.

The 38T and 39T gears are more specialized gears, I think. If you have climbs reaching into the mile plus category, and/or carry loads for touring on a 29"er, I can see where these gearing choices might be desirable. But the vast majority of us would never need such gears. Walking would be just as fast and possibly safer in many instances. Short steeps that are unrideable in a 36T low? Maybe they shouldn't be ridden at all. I would have to question the sustainability of the trail at that point. At least in the Mid-West anyway.

My position is that a 36T low gear is a great idea for 29"ers. My gripe is that a cassette from Action Tec costs an arm and a leg! Yes, I could modify a SRAM cassette and have that cog, but how about SRAM or Shimano, (or some other manufacturer) just make a cassette with that low cog and sell it to me for less than a single titanium Action Tec 36T cog would cost me? (That's about $60.00 less shipping, in case yer too lazy to check out the linkage!)

Maybe this has uses beyond a triple crank 29"er set up too. Think 1 X 9, or even compact crank roadie bikes set up for touring? I think it makes sense and would be a great additional choice for cyclists, not just 29"er freaks.

Gears for climbers. Lets have 'em! That's what I say.