Now That The News Is Out

The new component group from Shimano- GRX

Well, now you've probably seen the news about GRX. (If not, here is my RidingGravel.com post about it) I also had a reaction to the significance of this new introduction, which you can read here, if you care to.

The reactions of others were typical and predictable. Those who have had issues with Shimano for any reason in the past, (even if they were mechanic/self-induced) didn't like it. Those who love SRAM stuff didn't like it. Some people commented on my story with comments that were addressed in my posts, but the commenters obviously ignored, (or did not read or comprehend) my thoughts. Again....very typical and very expected. 

But there is one rule of the internet that I have learned over the last almost 15 years. That is, only the dissatisfied/unhappy comment. Well, almost only they do. Sometimes you get the open minded commenters.Sometimes you get folks that have reasoned criticisms and you can have a good discussion with them. Fortunately that has mostly been the case here on the blog. But on the general internet- not so much. In general, people with reasoned opinions, or that are in agreement simply nod their head, think about things, take a sip of coffee, and then move on. You never hear from them. Not on the internet, at any rate. Meet them in public and you get surprised. The kindness and interaction is refreshing. It's a weird reality.

Anyway, I think that the whole introduction of parts and pieces early, as Shimano has done, is not optimal for the bicycle business. Now, if you are thinking about a gravel bike, you are going to put off your decision until GRX is available, (Late Summer/Early Fall), and this also makes floored models in shops, (and online, by the way), less attractive. I know. I had an interaction with someone that was like this yesterday. But how do you make sure an entire line of new components is all ready to go on bikes all at the same time. Remember- SRAM did it with one level of components, not three, and not across such a wide ranging number of possible combinations. So, don't compare it to the late SRAM AXS intro. It isn't even in the same league.

Shimano has 1X. By the way, SRAM did not "force their hand" into this either.

Certainly, the introduction was held at such a time that it came just before bikes started showing up spec'ed with the parts. This is another issue with the bicycle industry- the roll out of new componentry and new bikes right in the heart of the selling season. This has been going on for decades.

Then there is the whole issue of "created need". You know, there was a time when cross-compatibility of chain rings was ubiquitous. You could set up an MTB, cyclo cross, road, or touring set up with one crank set, a couple or three square taper bottom brackets, and a selection of rear free wheel cogs, and later on, cassettes. "One crank forging to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them". (Apologies to J.R.R.) But with changes came confusion, and compatibility is very limited now, or non-existent. This drives demand when a new advancement is made and it isn't compatible with your current gear. Fortunately, Shimano did not make the new GRX 12 speed and had us all go to MicroSpline cassette free hub wheels. (But how long before that happens?) Anyway.....It didn't seem to bother people when SRAM made us get their XD driver, so who knows?

There are certain things that point to a better future with GRX and adventure/gravel rigs, but there are also things that are sort of a pain due to their proprietary nature. At least Shimano made GRX compatible with current cassettes and chains. You can plug and play current Di2 stuff into Di2 GRX, (as long as it is 11 to 11 speed), and you can use current 11 speed road shifters to make GRX derailleurs shift. I guess it is about the best Shimano could have done, in that regard.

So, will I get any of this stuff? I'd like to try it, for sure. Probably the 46/30 crank though. Honestly, I'd rather not have that low a little ring, but whatever. I may opt for the GRX in the rear only and stick with my 46/36T crank set. I just don't see the need for dropping out of a 46 to a super-spinny 30T and having to switch up three or four gears in the back to get where I want to be. I'm a picture book case of "Princess and the Pea" (overly sensitive) when it comes to cross-chain gearing. So, I am likely an outlier in this crank gearing business.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this goes as time progresses. GRX won't likely be widely available until later this year. Stay tuned........

Now That The News Is Out

The new component group from Shimano- GRX

Well, now you've probably seen the news about GRX. (If not, here is my RidingGravel.com post about it) I also had a reaction to the significance of this new introduction, which you can read here, if you care to.

The reactions of others were typical and predictable. Those who have had issues with Shimano for any reason in the past, (even if they were mechanic/self-induced) didn't like it. Those who love SRAM stuff didn't like it. Some people commented on my story with comments that were addressed in my posts, but the commenters obviously ignored, (or did not read or comprehend) my thoughts. Again....very typical and very expected. 

But there is one rule of the internet that I have learned over the last almost 15 years. That is, only the dissatisfied/unhappy comment. Well, almost only they do. Sometimes you get the open minded commenters.Sometimes you get folks that have reasoned criticisms and you can have a good discussion with them. Fortunately that has mostly been the case here on the blog. But on the general internet- not so much. In general, people with reasoned opinions, or that are in agreement simply nod their head, think about things, take a sip of coffee, and then move on. You never hear from them. Not on the internet, at any rate. Meet them in public and you get surprised. The kindness and interaction is refreshing. It's a weird reality.

Anyway, I think that the whole introduction of parts and pieces early, as Shimano has done, is not optimal for the bicycle business. Now, if you are thinking about a gravel bike, you are going to put off your decision until GRX is available, (Late Summer/Early Fall), and this also makes floored models in shops, (and online, by the way), less attractive. I know. I had an interaction with someone that was like this yesterday. But how do you make sure an entire line of new components is all ready to go on bikes all at the same time. Remember- SRAM did it with one level of components, not three, and not across such a wide ranging number of possible combinations. So, don't compare it to the late SRAM AXS intro. It isn't even in the same league.

Shimano has 1X. By the way, SRAM did not "force their hand" into this either.

Certainly, the introduction was held at such a time that it came just before bikes started showing up spec'ed with the parts. This is another issue with the bicycle industry- the roll out of new componentry and new bikes right in the heart of the selling season. This has been going on for decades.

Then there is the whole issue of "created need". You know, there was a time when cross-compatibility of chain rings was ubiquitous. You could set up an MTB, cyclo cross, road, or touring set up with one crank set, a couple or three square taper bottom brackets, and a selection of rear free wheel cogs, and later on, cassettes. "One crank forging to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them". (Apologies to J.R.R.) But with changes came confusion, and compatibility is very limited now, or non-existent. This drives demand when a new advancement is made and it isn't compatible with your current gear. Fortunately, Shimano did not make the new GRX 12 speed and had us all go to MicroSpline cassette free hub wheels. (But how long before that happens?) Anyway.....It didn't seem to bother people when SRAM made us get their XD driver, so who knows?

There are certain things that point to a better future with GRX and adventure/gravel rigs, but there are also things that are sort of a pain due to their proprietary nature. At least Shimano made GRX compatible with current cassettes and chains. You can plug and play current Di2 stuff into Di2 GRX, (as long as it is 11 to 11 speed), and you can use current 11 speed road shifters to make GRX derailleurs shift. I guess it is about the best Shimano could have done, in that regard.

So, will I get any of this stuff? I'd like to try it, for sure. Probably the 46/30 crank though. Honestly, I'd rather not have that low a little ring, but whatever. I may opt for the GRX in the rear only and stick with my 46/36T crank set. I just don't see the need for dropping out of a 46 to a super-spinny 30T and having to switch up three or four gears in the back to get where I want to be. I'm a picture book case of "Princess and the Pea" (overly sensitive) when it comes to cross-chain gearing. So, I am likely an outlier in this crank gearing business.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this goes as time progresses. GRX won't likely be widely available until later this year. Stay tuned........

The Lowly Triple

Modern refinements and materials technology have raised the bar here.

Down with front derailleurs! Or not.......

It would seem that with what is going on with drive trains for mountain bikes and even cyclo cross bikes, the front derailleur is in danger of being eliminated from consideration as a component. SRAM is pushing the "1X" concept with its wide ranging 11 speed cassette. Others have eliminated the triple and now have wide range double cranks. Bigger low gear cogs are common place now. It used to  be that a 32T rear cog was as big as it got. Now were dealing with 36 and 42 tooth rear cogs!

Well, I have to admit that the 1 X 11 stuff does work great for me and it almost has enough range. You miss some on the low end. But that said, it is not too bad. Actually, the doubles are where I find the switching to one front ring or the other compromises your cadence. It seems that if you dump the front down to the smaller ring you're switching rear cogs in a hurry to get closer to the cadence you were at. By the time all this happens you lose momentum and you end up shifting again to compensate.

Yeah, it doesn't always go that way, but more often than not, it does. I was reminded how that dramatic cadence shift is prevalent with 2X set ups when I rode a bike with a tight ranging triple the other day. I shifted out of the middle ring and it was such a subtle difference, I was not sure I had shifted at all! I was so used to going from a comfortable cadence to a spinning like mad cadence that the subtle difference with the triple was shocking, really.

Then shifting back up out of the "granny" to the middle ring was seamless. Silent and smooth! And this is on a mid-range component group. Finally, I was hitting the pavement back home when I realized I had a "big" ring again! Bingo! Super smooth shift up and I was off on a flyer. I couldn't have done it without a triple crank set. In one in section, all I did was shift the front rings to get my self in comfortable, good cadence range pedaling. Try that with your double crank.

So, should the triple go "bye-bye" or should we "rediscover it"? I think with the refinements in technology, the lowly triple deserves another look.

The Lowly Triple

Modern refinements and materials technology have raised the bar here.

Down with front derailleurs! Or not.......

It would seem that with what is going on with drive trains for mountain bikes and even cyclo cross bikes, the front derailleur is in danger of being eliminated from consideration as a component. SRAM is pushing the "1X" concept with its wide ranging 11 speed cassette. Others have eliminated the triple and now have wide range double cranks. Bigger low gear cogs are common place now. It used to  be that a 32T rear cog was as big as it got. Now were dealing with 36 and 42 tooth rear cogs!

Well, I have to admit that the 1 X 11 stuff does work great for me and it almost has enough range. You miss some on the low end. But that said, it is not too bad. Actually, the doubles are where I find the switching to one front ring or the other compromises your cadence. It seems that if you dump the front down to the smaller ring you're switching rear cogs in a hurry to get closer to the cadence you were at. By the time all this happens you lose momentum and you end up shifting again to compensate.

Yeah, it doesn't always go that way, but more often than not, it does. I was reminded how that dramatic cadence shift is prevalent with 2X set ups when I rode a bike with a tight ranging triple the other day. I shifted out of the middle ring and it was such a subtle difference, I was not sure I had shifted at all! I was so used to going from a comfortable cadence to a spinning like mad cadence that the subtle difference with the triple was shocking, really.

Then shifting back up out of the "granny" to the middle ring was seamless. Silent and smooth! And this is on a mid-range component group. Finally, I was hitting the pavement back home when I realized I had a "big" ring again! Bingo! Super smooth shift up and I was off on a flyer. I couldn't have done it without a triple crank set. In one in section, all I did was shift the front rings to get my self in comfortable, good cadence range pedaling. Try that with your double crank.

So, should the triple go "bye-bye" or should we "rediscover it"? I think with the refinements in technology, the lowly triple deserves another look.

Gear Heads

2X, 29"er gearing

Gearing: Ask a single speeder what gearing is best, and it might spark some mild debate, but ask a 29"er freak about gearing and you may be in for a long rant on the disparity between gearing for 26"ers and 29"ers. I found out about that from a recent post we put up on Twenty Nine Inches recently, (seen here).

The thing is, what is 29"er gearing? I don't have any clue, since the comments I read are all over the place as to what folks think that is. Some want super low gearing. Some want triple crank sets for the widest range of gearing, and still others are saying a 1X set up is all they will ever need.

What about me? Well, I never have liked the front dérailleur. I will say that Shimano's and SRAM's latest have gone a long way in impressing me though. I also will say that a lot of what I ride can be done on a 2X set up hear on my local trails. That doesn't mean I think it is perfect at all.

Probably the coolest set up I have ridden is the new DynaSys 10 speed. The thing that makes it work is not what you would expect at all though. Shimano actually identified something I wish was focused on more than it is, or seems to be.

Road riders have identified an advantage in close ratio cassettes, and actually, that's been the case for that discipline for a long time now. However; in the case of mountain bikes, it wasn't possible to have a close ratio and a wide range of gearing with only 15 speeds, so jumps between gearing were big. This persisted throughout the modern mountain bike's development up until recently.

Shimano realized that tightening up the jumps between cogs meant less loss of momentum and less rider fatigue due to a lower cadence when shifting to higher gears and a cadence that was too fast when switching to lower gears. They fine tuned DynaSys to help eliminate this, and to my mind that was the major selling point to me for the new 10 speed group.

I found there was less shifting between cogs up front, and when you did, you only had to readjust one, maybe two clicks in the rear to accommodate your cadence. I found the tighter ratios in the middle of the rear cassette to be gold for me on longer, grinding climbs when you could find a gear that was "just right".

Is DynaSys my perfect set up then? No, it is not, but to my mind the way Shimano is thinking about mountain bike gearing is making sense to me more and more. I just wish that Shimano would give the riders that low, low gear some are wanting, but Shimano has never really been about low, low gears either. I don't expect to see a change there.

Maybe an "ala carte" system similar to Surly's "Mr. Whirly" cranks, but without the weirdness that crank set has would be the ticket. Then make a cassette with user customizable ratios and we'd have everyone covered. But whatever the "perfect 29"er gearing" is, I'm sure it won't be available anytime soon. That is something you can take to the bank!

Gear Heads

2X, 29"er gearing

Gearing: Ask a single speeder what gearing is best, and it might spark some mild debate, but ask a 29"er freak about gearing and you may be in for a long rant on the disparity between gearing for 26"ers and 29"ers. I found out about that from a recent post we put up on Twenty Nine Inches recently, (seen here).

The thing is, what is 29"er gearing? I don't have any clue, since the comments I read are all over the place as to what folks think that is. Some want super low gearing. Some want triple crank sets for the widest range of gearing, and still others are saying a 1X set up is all they will ever need.

What about me? Well, I never have liked the front dérailleur. I will say that Shimano's and SRAM's latest have gone a long way in impressing me though. I also will say that a lot of what I ride can be done on a 2X set up hear on my local trails. That doesn't mean I think it is perfect at all.

Probably the coolest set up I have ridden is the new DynaSys 10 speed. The thing that makes it work is not what you would expect at all though. Shimano actually identified something I wish was focused on more than it is, or seems to be.

Road riders have identified an advantage in close ratio cassettes, and actually, that's been the case for that discipline for a long time now. However; in the case of mountain bikes, it wasn't possible to have a close ratio and a wide range of gearing with only 15 speeds, so jumps between gearing were big. This persisted throughout the modern mountain bike's development up until recently.

Shimano realized that tightening up the jumps between cogs meant less loss of momentum and less rider fatigue due to a lower cadence when shifting to higher gears and a cadence that was too fast when switching to lower gears. They fine tuned DynaSys to help eliminate this, and to my mind that was the major selling point to me for the new 10 speed group.

I found there was less shifting between cogs up front, and when you did, you only had to readjust one, maybe two clicks in the rear to accommodate your cadence. I found the tighter ratios in the middle of the rear cassette to be gold for me on longer, grinding climbs when you could find a gear that was "just right".

Is DynaSys my perfect set up then? No, it is not, but to my mind the way Shimano is thinking about mountain bike gearing is making sense to me more and more. I just wish that Shimano would give the riders that low, low gear some are wanting, but Shimano has never really been about low, low gears either. I don't expect to see a change there.

Maybe an "ala carte" system similar to Surly's "Mr. Whirly" cranks, but without the weirdness that crank set has would be the ticket. Then make a cassette with user customizable ratios and we'd have everyone covered. But whatever the "perfect 29"er gearing" is, I'm sure it won't be available anytime soon. That is something you can take to the bank!

Friday News And Views

29"er Specific Gearing?

I've written on this before, and I want to bring the topic back up for discussion again, but first- a quick recap for those who don't know what this is about.

When the 29"er came about, several good and bad things were noted right off the bat. One of the "bad" things was in regard to gearing. You see, your wheel size affects your end gear ratio. Late 19th Century cyclists would have been quite familiar with that concept, but with all the cassette gears and crank chain rings in between the pedals and the drive wheel these days, how a rear wheel affects final drive gear is lost on a lot of folks. Essentially, a bigger wheel is a "harder" gear, all else remaining the same. You go faster, but it is harder to get rolling, and harder to climb hills, etc. Make sense?

So, 29"ers, with their larger diameter wheels, were stuck using gear ratios optimized for smaller wheels. This left the low end of the range wanting. (Well, for some folks anyway. Bear with me here.) Suggestions to remedy the situation included getting a cassette with a 36T low gear, (got that now, huzzah!), and using a crankset with a 20-30-42 tooth chain ring set.

Now some will be about a millisecond from the comment button right now ready to pounce and tell me about Middleburn, or Action Tec, or whatever. Sorry folks. This has to do with those that control the market with OEM spec. Namely SRAM and Shimano.

Okay, and then there is the argument that says you need to lose weight, get fitter, pedal harder, yada, yada, yada. This doesn't apply here either. Yes, that is a valid point, but we're putting that "over there" for a minute, okay? Some folks "need" this lower gearing. Shimano and SRAM are not giving it to them. Close in the case of SRAM, but no cigar.

Historically, Shimano has been all over the board with regard to gearing on hybrids and mountain bikes. One thing is for certain, unless the Shimano company is going to sell "a lot" of product to OEM's, they don't really care what you and I think "mountain bike gearing" should be for any bicycle. They are a research and development company that specializes in forged metal products. They are not much for market research. They definitely do not chase "niches". Until most mtb's become big wheelers, (and that looks to be starting to happen), Shimano will not make a "29"er specific crankset. Heck, they don't even do a single speed crank set for mountain biking. And we all know how long that's been around.

SRAM is hedging its bets with 2X10 drive trains, and hoping that will become enough to make 29"er folks happy. Very soon they will offer what they are billing as crank sets good for 29"ers in a 22/36 configuration. Not low enough gearing, some will say, and I'd have to agree that it seems to be a lateral move. I mean, you can 2X a triple and practically get that gearing.

Nope! Until one of the big outfits does a 20-30-42, we'll continue to hear about this gearing thing for 29"ers.

Soul Ride

Here We Go Again With That Steel Thing...

Looks like another Milwaukee Bikes 29"er is headed over for testing and review. Ya know......another steel hard tail! 

I don't know how the new rig will compare,  but I nearly bought the old one after testing and reviewing it, I liked it that much. But....I sent it back. This one? We'll see. Check out Twenty Nine Inches for all the updates.

I'll just say that it is Fall, which is the perfect time to single speed, this bike will be a single speed, and Reynolds steel at that. If it rides anywhere as near to the older Milwaukee rig, it's gonna be good times in the woods!

It is great to just hammer the single track without fear of ripping off your derailleur when a stick gets caught bin your spokes. That happens a lot here in the Fall due to the windy days that knock down a ton of twigs, branches, and well......sometimes entire trees!

Those pesky twigs and branches get kicked up by your front wheel and wham!  (Not the George Michael "Wham!", but ya know.....a sudden bad thing kinda "wham" Well........I guess you could say those are both bad kinds of "wham"!)

Anywho.......yeah. Bad deal there when the ol' rear mech goes belly up into your spokes. I've been clear of that issue for more years than I care to count, but then again, I single speed most Fall seasons anymore! Now I've gone and jinxed myself, I suppose, but we'll see.

Okay, have a great weekend folks! Ride bikes, Take pictures!

Friday News And Views

29"er Specific Gearing?

I've written on this before, and I want to bring the topic back up for discussion again, but first- a quick recap for those who don't know what this is about.

When the 29"er came about, several good and bad things were noted right off the bat. One of the "bad" things was in regard to gearing. You see, your wheel size affects your end gear ratio. Late 19th Century cyclists would have been quite familiar with that concept, but with all the cassette gears and crank chain rings in between the pedals and the drive wheel these days, how a rear wheel affects final drive gear is lost on a lot of folks. Essentially, a bigger wheel is a "harder" gear, all else remaining the same. You go faster, but it is harder to get rolling, and harder to climb hills, etc. Make sense?

So, 29"ers, with their larger diameter wheels, were stuck using gear ratios optimized for smaller wheels. This left the low end of the range wanting. (Well, for some folks anyway. Bear with me here.) Suggestions to remedy the situation included getting a cassette with a 36T low gear, (got that now, huzzah!), and using a crankset with a 20-30-42 tooth chain ring set.

Now some will be about a millisecond from the comment button right now ready to pounce and tell me about Middleburn, or Action Tec, or whatever. Sorry folks. This has to do with those that control the market with OEM spec. Namely SRAM and Shimano.

Okay, and then there is the argument that says you need to lose weight, get fitter, pedal harder, yada, yada, yada. This doesn't apply here either. Yes, that is a valid point, but we're putting that "over there" for a minute, okay? Some folks "need" this lower gearing. Shimano and SRAM are not giving it to them. Close in the case of SRAM, but no cigar.

Historically, Shimano has been all over the board with regard to gearing on hybrids and mountain bikes. One thing is for certain, unless the Shimano company is going to sell "a lot" of product to OEM's, they don't really care what you and I think "mountain bike gearing" should be for any bicycle. They are a research and development company that specializes in forged metal products. They are not much for market research. They definitely do not chase "niches". Until most mtb's become big wheelers, (and that looks to be starting to happen), Shimano will not make a "29"er specific crankset. Heck, they don't even do a single speed crank set for mountain biking. And we all know how long that's been around.

SRAM is hedging its bets with 2X10 drive trains, and hoping that will become enough to make 29"er folks happy. Very soon they will offer what they are billing as crank sets good for 29"ers in a 22/36 configuration. Not low enough gearing, some will say, and I'd have to agree that it seems to be a lateral move. I mean, you can 2X a triple and practically get that gearing.

Nope! Until one of the big outfits does a 20-30-42, we'll continue to hear about this gearing thing for 29"ers.

Soul Ride

Here We Go Again With That Steel Thing...

Looks like another Milwaukee Bikes 29"er is headed over for testing and review. Ya know......another steel hard tail! 

I don't know how the new rig will compare,  but I nearly bought the old one after testing and reviewing it, I liked it that much. But....I sent it back. This one? We'll see. Check out Twenty Nine Inches for all the updates.

I'll just say that it is Fall, which is the perfect time to single speed, this bike will be a single speed, and Reynolds steel at that. If it rides anywhere as near to the older Milwaukee rig, it's gonna be good times in the woods!

It is great to just hammer the single track without fear of ripping off your derailleur when a stick gets caught bin your spokes. That happens a lot here in the Fall due to the windy days that knock down a ton of twigs, branches, and well......sometimes entire trees!

Those pesky twigs and branches get kicked up by your front wheel and wham!  (Not the George Michael "Wham!", but ya know.....a sudden bad thing kinda "wham" Well........I guess you could say those are both bad kinds of "wham"!)

Anywho.......yeah. Bad deal there when the ol' rear mech goes belly up into your spokes. I've been clear of that issue for more years than I care to count, but then again, I single speed most Fall seasons anymore! Now I've gone and jinxed myself, I suppose, but we'll see.

Okay, have a great weekend folks! Ride bikes, Take pictures!

The Great Gearing Debate

<===Shimano is set to introduce this 12-36T 9 speed cassette soon. (Courtesy of terrengsykkel.no)

Recently it was revealed on a thread on mtbr.com that Shimano will introduce a cassette with a 36T low gear. There have been calls in the 29"er ranks for lower gearing, and this would seem to be a n answer to that call. However; there has been more bickering about deficiencies in weight, and of rider strength, than praise for at least an acknowledgement of the call for this lower gearing. Ah.......the wonder of the forum shows itself again!

I suppose it is too easy to say, "just don't buy it then.", since that takes away all the fun, but having said that, let's take a look at the reasons for and against such a component.



<===Shimano will also introduce a hub to go with the cassette that will feature a stronger free hub. (Courtesy of terrengsykkel.no)

First off, the weight thing. Shimano could have made it an XT level cassette, which all the weight weenies would have loved, but think about a few things here. One: Shimano needs to sell these things to folks and an XT version would have been quite expensive compared to this HG/Deore level cassette. Secondly: The XT level cassette isn't necessarily built for high torque loads, the very kind of loads that a 36T cog is going to generate. Shimano isn't going to spend the money on this (probably) low sales numbers cassette to re-engineer it to withstand those loads and be at an XT level. Not when a Deore level cassette can do he job with little to no extra cost to manufacture. The very notion that a special free hub body/hub had to be developed to accommodate the expected torque loads should be enough evidence to support my theory here.

Need. That word that some say in support of this product and some say that there is none of. Well, as I wrote on the mtbr.com thread referenced above, "I was as big a naysayer as anyone on this thread, but again: Sit down and talk with someone that rides these crazy climbs and high altitude stuff. Have an open mind, and you'll get it"

And to those who just don't get it, I say this, "Just don't worry about it. It isn't for you then. That's fine." I think a lot of folks will use it, and not just for 29"ers, and not just for mountain bikes. The low 36T gear will most certainly make it to touring bikes and tandems. Lower gears there will mean less shifting at the font derailleur, which most users will find a nice thing. Probably other unforeseen uses will come about for this cassette as well.

Crank sets: Some will argue that the 20/30/40 T crank set will eliminate the need for this 36T cassette. I would counter with the fact that those gearing choices are a much more expensive route to take to the solution than the cassette is. Especially now with the Middleburn and Surly solutions out there. Then you might just want both the cassette and the crank set, which a lot of the critics of the cassette seem to miss in this debate.

Of course, the cassette may not play well with every derailleur set up, and if you put it on a hub that isn't up to snuff in terms of torque load handling, you may end up walking anyway, but I think the 12-36T cassette is a great step in solving the gearing complaints that some have had against 29"ers since the beginning.

The Great Gearing Debate

<===Shimano is set to introduce this 12-36T 9 speed cassette soon. (Courtesy of terrengsykkel.no)

Recently it was revealed on a thread on mtbr.com that Shimano will introduce a cassette with a 36T low gear. There have been calls in the 29"er ranks for lower gearing, and this would seem to be a n answer to that call. However; there has been more bickering about deficiencies in weight, and of rider strength, than praise for at least an acknowledgement of the call for this lower gearing. Ah.......the wonder of the forum shows itself again!

I suppose it is too easy to say, "just don't buy it then.", since that takes away all the fun, but having said that, let's take a look at the reasons for and against such a component.



<===Shimano will also introduce a hub to go with the cassette that will feature a stronger free hub. (Courtesy of terrengsykkel.no)

First off, the weight thing. Shimano could have made it an XT level cassette, which all the weight weenies would have loved, but think about a few things here. One: Shimano needs to sell these things to folks and an XT version would have been quite expensive compared to this HG/Deore level cassette. Secondly: The XT level cassette isn't necessarily built for high torque loads, the very kind of loads that a 36T cog is going to generate. Shimano isn't going to spend the money on this (probably) low sales numbers cassette to re-engineer it to withstand those loads and be at an XT level. Not when a Deore level cassette can do he job with little to no extra cost to manufacture. The very notion that a special free hub body/hub had to be developed to accommodate the expected torque loads should be enough evidence to support my theory here.

Need. That word that some say in support of this product and some say that there is none of. Well, as I wrote on the mtbr.com thread referenced above, "I was as big a naysayer as anyone on this thread, but again: Sit down and talk with someone that rides these crazy climbs and high altitude stuff. Have an open mind, and you'll get it"

And to those who just don't get it, I say this, "Just don't worry about it. It isn't for you then. That's fine." I think a lot of folks will use it, and not just for 29"ers, and not just for mountain bikes. The low 36T gear will most certainly make it to touring bikes and tandems. Lower gears there will mean less shifting at the font derailleur, which most users will find a nice thing. Probably other unforeseen uses will come about for this cassette as well.

Crank sets: Some will argue that the 20/30/40 T crank set will eliminate the need for this 36T cassette. I would counter with the fact that those gearing choices are a much more expensive route to take to the solution than the cassette is. Especially now with the Middleburn and Surly solutions out there. Then you might just want both the cassette and the crank set, which a lot of the critics of the cassette seem to miss in this debate.

Of course, the cassette may not play well with every derailleur set up, and if you put it on a hub that isn't up to snuff in terms of torque load handling, you may end up walking anyway, but I think the 12-36T cassette is a great step in solving the gearing complaints that some have had against 29"ers since the beginning.

Friday News And Views

Ritchey Design Sponsors Trans Iowa: As many of you know, Ritchey Design is sponsoring T.I.V5 with tubes and rim strips for the participants. I want to thank Ritchey, and the 17 guys that have responded to my call for your tire/wheel size. The rest of you guys need to get on the stick here! Let me know by e-mail what wheel size, ( ie: 26", 700c), and what tire size you plan on running at T.I.V5 so you will have a tube and rim strip awaiting you at the race packet pick up. (Details on the pickup to be posted later.) If you don't get me your tire size/wheel size in by the end of the month, I am just going to tell Ritchey to supply the non-responders with 700X35mm tubes and rim strips to fit a 700c wheel. (That seems to be the going size so far)

Once again: Thanks to Ritchey Design!

How Low Can You Go?: Once again, the subject of low, low gears on a 29"er has been broached on mtbr.com. Click the link and gaze at the 39T rear cog in that cassette. Yes....39T!! It is pretty amazing that the derailleur will work on that dog, but apparently it does. Although a 39T rear cog is total overkill for most Mid-West riding, I am still intrigued by this. It would be cool just to get one and make it work.

However; I can certainly see where the 36, 38, and yes, maybe even a 39T cassette cog would be worth while. Last fall riding at the Interbike Outdoor Demo, I rode a fire road back up into Bootleg Canyon which was an ever increasing grade as you went on.........and on........and on, for well over a mile! The fire road wasn't very technical, but imagine riding technical single track like that for more than a mile. How about miles? Yes, they have climbs like that out there. Apparently, so do they that live amongst the Alps. So, as "clown-bike" as it looks, this idea has legitimate reasons to be. Look for Shimano, (or someone else) to be making a 12-36T cassette sooner than later.

Save Me From The Tweakers!: Obviously, the weather sucks for riding across much of North America. How do I know this? By the increase in inner-web tweakers. The forums are full of these nincompoops that are splitting hairs and declaring their psuedo-knowledge as infallible truths. If you do not agree, you are castigated as worse than a leper and are designated as a target for unwarranted personal attacks. Nice!

While these tweakers are always there, it seems that the disease is spreading now that ice and snow have rendered much of our trails unrideable. Rain and dreary conditions have conspired to make many of us into these ogres of the net. So, let's all hope for some better weather and that folks can get out there and ride instead of pounding out inane drivel on their keyboards. It will make for a much better world. Trust me!

Okay, that's it for this week folks! I gotta go out and shovel snow. Yay me!

Ride a bike if you can!

Friday News And Views

Ritchey Design Sponsors Trans Iowa: As many of you know, Ritchey Design is sponsoring T.I.V5 with tubes and rim strips for the participants. I want to thank Ritchey, and the 17 guys that have responded to my call for your tire/wheel size. The rest of you guys need to get on the stick here! Let me know by e-mail what wheel size, ( ie: 26", 700c), and what tire size you plan on running at T.I.V5 so you will have a tube and rim strip awaiting you at the race packet pick up. (Details on the pickup to be posted later.) If you don't get me your tire size/wheel size in by the end of the month, I am just going to tell Ritchey to supply the non-responders with 700X35mm tubes and rim strips to fit a 700c wheel. (That seems to be the going size so far)

Once again: Thanks to Ritchey Design!

How Low Can You Go?: Once again, the subject of low, low gears on a 29"er has been broached on mtbr.com. Click the link and gaze at the 39T rear cog in that cassette. Yes....39T!! It is pretty amazing that the derailleur will work on that dog, but apparently it does. Although a 39T rear cog is total overkill for most Mid-West riding, I am still intrigued by this. It would be cool just to get one and make it work.

However; I can certainly see where the 36, 38, and yes, maybe even a 39T cassette cog would be worth while. Last fall riding at the Interbike Outdoor Demo, I rode a fire road back up into Bootleg Canyon which was an ever increasing grade as you went on.........and on........and on, for well over a mile! The fire road wasn't very technical, but imagine riding technical single track like that for more than a mile. How about miles? Yes, they have climbs like that out there. Apparently, so do they that live amongst the Alps. So, as "clown-bike" as it looks, this idea has legitimate reasons to be. Look for Shimano, (or someone else) to be making a 12-36T cassette sooner than later.

Save Me From The Tweakers!: Obviously, the weather sucks for riding across much of North America. How do I know this? By the increase in inner-web tweakers. The forums are full of these nincompoops that are splitting hairs and declaring their psuedo-knowledge as infallible truths. If you do not agree, you are castigated as worse than a leper and are designated as a target for unwarranted personal attacks. Nice!

While these tweakers are always there, it seems that the disease is spreading now that ice and snow have rendered much of our trails unrideable. Rain and dreary conditions have conspired to make many of us into these ogres of the net. So, let's all hope for some better weather and that folks can get out there and ride instead of pounding out inane drivel on their keyboards. It will make for a much better world. Trust me!

Okay, that's it for this week folks! I gotta go out and shovel snow. Yay me!

Ride a bike if you can!

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.