What is the point of cassette over 28 tooth?
03-31-18, 03:35 PM
#26
aka Phil Jungels
I've always thought a 50, 40, 30 in the front, and an 11-32/34 9 spd in the back is PERFECT! The 34 - 34 on my Sirrus just makes it livable! Many times I find myself wishing for that 26 on the front of my Crosstrail..... lol
03-31-18, 05:25 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minas Ithil
Posts: 9,173
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2432 Post(s)
Liked 638 Times
in
395 Posts
IMO this is the best all around modern group, it has a 11-32 option. And only $390 at Ribble. I might buy one just to have it for some future build while I can still get it. Can't find anyone selling a complete Sora 3030.
03-31-18, 06:26 PM
#28
Rhapsodic Laviathan
03-31-18, 06:55 PM
#29
Pokemon Master
I really enjoy my 42/26 crank with an 11-36 10 speed cassette. On a 29 x 2.00 I can pedal up to about 25 mph before it gets too hectic. I commute at an average speed of 13-16mph and don't frequently use my 11t. It's the perfect everyday gear range for me around where I live. I take the road bike out and thrash it every now and then, but it has 50/34 with an 11-34 10 speed. We have some long climbs, and since it has downtube shifters, I don't mind the bigger gaps between cogs.
03-31-18, 08:30 PM
#30
100% Certified Beast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arctic (Near Russia)
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
13 Posts
haha this is too funny. Dura Ace and Ultegra Triple will be super expensive retro parts in the year 2030 you guys just wait and see. Time to stockpile this stuff when the new generation of riders on electronic shifters think 8sp is "vintage" 
The point is hills.
I have a 48-36-26 crank and an 11-34 cogset. My limit is 14% incline, where after 300 yds I get off and push. Obviously, it doesn't happen often, but when it does, I dream of a 22 or 24 chainring and a 36 (or even 40 if I could shoehorn it in front of the derailleur...).
No, not all of us are racers (very few at my current age... 65).
I dread the day that triple cranks will not be available, I feel that I should hoard complete drivetrains for the future.
I have a 48-36-26 crank and an 11-34 cogset. My limit is 14% incline, where after 300 yds I get off and push. Obviously, it doesn't happen often, but when it does, I dream of a 22 or 24 chainring and a 36 (or even 40 if I could shoehorn it in front of the derailleur...).
No, not all of us are racers (very few at my current age... 65).
I dread the day that triple cranks will not be available, I feel that I should hoard complete drivetrains for the future.
03-31-18, 08:34 PM
#31
100% Certified Beast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arctic (Near Russia)
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
13 Posts
not sure the 22t on the mtb triple is the smallest front chainring that I ride. I do wonder if there are even smaller chainrings. I mix 8 to 10 speed on all my rides so they work ok.
10T chainring? 
The big thing of reducing the smallest rear sprocket from 13T or 14T down to 11T is that one can have wider range in the rear without going to huge cassettes. So an 11/28 cassette gives about a 2.5x range, or would be about the same as a 14/35 freewheel
But, the biggest benefit is when one also reduces the chainring sizes. But, that only works if one is content to sacrifice the top-end gearing. Perhaps adding new sprockets should be top end, bottom end, and filling in the middle.
The other thing that happened is that the standard bike has gone to wider rear clusters... in part available with adding a bunch of sprockets, and still allowing reasonably tight gearing for at least several sprockets.
So, a 14/19, 5s freewheel gives single step gearing except for the last sprocket.
One could make a similar freewheel with single step gearing from say 11T to 18T, then doubles from 20, 22, and 24, or whatever you want... nonetheless, a lot more single step gearing as one shifts from 5x2 to 11x2 gearing.
As far as larger rear sprockets... it certainly depends on what kind of riding a person does. I do a lot of hauling cargo of one sort or another. Usually less than 50 pounds or so, but sometimes quite a bit more than that. And, have recently started experimenting with both larger rear sprockets, and smaller front sprockets.
Also, if one is riding steep hills on loose or wet surfaces (gravel, dirt, moss, etc), then one gets better traction sitting down with smoother circular motion of the pedals, and thus benefits from lower overall gearing. Standing can cause wheels to spin due to shifting weight forward, and a jerky power curve.
The big thing of reducing the smallest rear sprocket from 13T or 14T down to 11T is that one can have wider range in the rear without going to huge cassettes. So an 11/28 cassette gives about a 2.5x range, or would be about the same as a 14/35 freewheel
But, the biggest benefit is when one also reduces the chainring sizes. But, that only works if one is content to sacrifice the top-end gearing. Perhaps adding new sprockets should be top end, bottom end, and filling in the middle.
The other thing that happened is that the standard bike has gone to wider rear clusters... in part available with adding a bunch of sprockets, and still allowing reasonably tight gearing for at least several sprockets.
So, a 14/19, 5s freewheel gives single step gearing except for the last sprocket.
One could make a similar freewheel with single step gearing from say 11T to 18T, then doubles from 20, 22, and 24, or whatever you want... nonetheless, a lot more single step gearing as one shifts from 5x2 to 11x2 gearing.
As far as larger rear sprockets... it certainly depends on what kind of riding a person does. I do a lot of hauling cargo of one sort or another. Usually less than 50 pounds or so, but sometimes quite a bit more than that. And, have recently started experimenting with both larger rear sprockets, and smaller front sprockets.
Also, if one is riding steep hills on loose or wet surfaces (gravel, dirt, moss, etc), then one gets better traction sitting down with smoother circular motion of the pedals, and thus benefits from lower overall gearing. Standing can cause wheels to spin due to shifting weight forward, and a jerky power curve.
03-31-18, 09:12 PM
#32
Rhapsodic Laviathan
I'll just stick to my archaic 2/7 14 speed setups. Adapt myself to the situation.
04-01-18, 12:02 AM
#34
Lopsided biped
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 737
Bikes: 2017 Day 6 Cyclone (the Buick); 2015 Simcoe Deluxe (the Xebec); Street Strider 3i (the not-a-bike); GreenSpeed Anura (the Black Swan)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked 160 Times
in
97 Posts
I think there's another factor at work here in the kind of customers that gravitate to each kind of system. Look at European utility bikes: no derailleurs (see also Worksman's line). These are often not recreational vehicles, and they need to last a very long time (because they're expensive) and they need to perform consistently with minimal maintenance and tolerate being left outdoors year-round. Fully-enclosed chain-cases, internal-geared hubs, hub brakes ... see the pattern? The important working parts are kept away from the weather. These are tools, not toys, and they don't get replaced until they're irrepairable. So the demand is suppressed for this market.
If, say, Rohloff could make their Speedhubs for $350 retail, I have no doubt it'd knock a big dent in the derailleur market. I think a lot of recreational cyclists would really love a good trouble-free transmission. I just don't think it's going to happen.
04-01-18, 12:21 AM
#35
Senior Member
With the way technology advances and gets cheaper these days, I can see it really taking off in the next 10-20 years, particularly as more people use bicycles for actual transportation instead of just for recreation.
I'm just glad we have the options (expensive as they may currently be) already!
I'm just glad we have the options (expensive as they may currently be) already!
04-01-18, 03:49 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Central Io-way
Posts: 2,673
Bikes: LeMond Zurich, Giant Talon 29er
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 629 Times
in
472 Posts
The powder metallurgy process is a precision metal forming technology well-suited to producing gears | Machine Design
04-01-18, 07:26 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,380
Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,966 Times
in
1,915 Posts
Surprised no one is trying to implement the use for a differential carrier at BB driven by the crank, then use of a driveshaft going outback to an IGH. You'd eliminate the RD, FD, FCGs, chain & most of the associated shifting components, reduce BB load, & while never needing to worry about X chaining.
Shaft diameter would be tiny, weight could be a fraction of the chain, Diff Carrier should be comparable in weight to a triple crankset, maintenance & service time would become less frequent.
Shaft diameter would be tiny, weight could be a fraction of the chain, Diff Carrier should be comparable in weight to a triple crankset, maintenance & service time would become less frequent.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
-Oh Hey!
04-01-18, 07:45 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 7,085
Bikes: Cervelo Prodigy
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 87 Times
in
67 Posts
The future: road riders will eventually age into gravel for that all-around capability. Less group riding to stay up with the pull. For the budget driven riders, its making a road bike to be like a gravel and getting the gearing for it.
For the big spenders, its a brand new bike. Ultegra 11 speed 11-32 and a crank like 52/36.
For the big spenders, its a brand new bike. Ultegra 11 speed 11-32 and a crank like 52/36.
04-01-18, 07:59 AM
#40
Zircon Encrusted Tweezers
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: high ground
Posts: 1,347
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Liked 131 Times
in
83 Posts
I am keeping my triples. I don't care about having the latest tech, so it will remain viable for me. Its not like the world got flatter just because SRAM wants to sell folks new stuff to replace their not yet worn out slightly older stuff.
04-01-18, 08:44 AM
#42
Senior Member
I use 1x on my mountain bike (32 chainring) and on my gravel bike (40 chainring). I've never had a problem with either. The range is certainly sufficient. I've noticed some larger steps between gears but it's far from a deal killer. Then again, I used to have a gravel bike with a 50/32 11-28 setup and that was great as well.
The only real advantage I see for 1x in road or gravel applications is SRAM's ability to run a narrow/wide ring and a clutched RD, which is a huge plus on rough washboard for eliminating chain slap, better chain retention and quiet running. That's the reason I went with Rival 1 and I do indeed love it on more technical gravel. This advantage is going away now that Shimano is introducing a clutched Ultegra RD that works with 2x.
The advantages of 1x for MTB are larger: easier suspension engineering, easier BB/chainstay packaging, cleaned up bars with room for lockout/dropper levers, less need for finely graded gearing etc.
I don't think I'll ever go 1x for skinny-tire road or touring. Triples for loaded touring are awesome.
The only real advantage I see for 1x in road or gravel applications is SRAM's ability to run a narrow/wide ring and a clutched RD, which is a huge plus on rough washboard for eliminating chain slap, better chain retention and quiet running. That's the reason I went with Rival 1 and I do indeed love it on more technical gravel. This advantage is going away now that Shimano is introducing a clutched Ultegra RD that works with 2x.
The advantages of 1x for MTB are larger: easier suspension engineering, easier BB/chainstay packaging, cleaned up bars with room for lockout/dropper levers, less need for finely graded gearing etc.
I don't think I'll ever go 1x for skinny-tire road or touring. Triples for loaded touring are awesome.
04-01-18, 01:27 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I have an 11-32 cassette on my road bike and don't think I could go back to anything under a 30. Nice for hills and rolling terrain. I might try a 1x setup next time around for sale of simplicity.
04-01-18, 01:35 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Surprised no one is trying to implement the use for a differential carrier at BB driven by the crank, then use of a driveshaft going outback to an IGH. You'd eliminate the RD, FD, FCGs, chain & most of the associated shifting components, reduce BB load, & while never needing to worry about X chaining.
Shaft diameter would be tiny, weight could be a fraction of the chain, Diff Carrier should be comparable in weight to a triple crankset, maintenance & service time would become less frequent.
Shaft diameter would be tiny, weight could be a fraction of the chain, Diff Carrier should be comparable in weight to a triple crankset, maintenance & service time would become less frequent.
04-01-18, 03:59 PM
#45
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,851
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked 1,644 Times
in
826 Posts
There's a place for everything in riding. I have Specialized Tarmac with a compact double. I built a gravel/touring bike with mountain bike triple gearing. I built a carbon fiber commuter with 1X11. That 1x11 will do just about all I need it to until I go to the mountains. For me a 44x28 with a 32 tooth large on the cassette would cover everything I do. I guess if I ever did loaded touring in the mountains I'd want the triple.
04-02-18, 10:50 AM
#46
Senior Member
The point is hills.
I have a 48-36-26 crank and an 11-34 cogset. My limit is 14% incline, where after 300 yds I get off and push. Obviously, it doesn't happen often, but when it does, I dream of a 22 or 24 chainring and a 36 (or even 40 if I could shoehorn it in front of the derailleur...).
No, not all of us are racers (very few at my current age... 65).
I dread the day that triple cranks will not be available, I feel that I should hoard complete drivetrains for the future.
I have a 48-36-26 crank and an 11-34 cogset. My limit is 14% incline, where after 300 yds I get off and push. Obviously, it doesn't happen often, but when it does, I dream of a 22 or 24 chainring and a 36 (or even 40 if I could shoehorn it in front of the derailleur...).
No, not all of us are racers (very few at my current age... 65).
I dread the day that triple cranks will not be available, I feel that I should hoard complete drivetrains for the future.
04-02-18, 11:01 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207
Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times
in
51 Posts
My fat bike has a 36x22 up front and an 11-36 in the back.
I rarely use big-little, and I rarely use little-big. I'd love to split the difference with a 28 and be done with it, if for no other reason than to remove the need to shift the front right in the range I regularly use the bike. 28-36 would give me the low end of what I regularly use in the current 22.
I rarely use big-little, and I rarely use little-big. I'd love to split the difference with a 28 and be done with it, if for no other reason than to remove the need to shift the front right in the range I regularly use the bike. 28-36 would give me the low end of what I regularly use in the current 22.
04-02-18, 01:35 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 540
Bikes: Novarra Randonee 2016, Trek Verve 2 2015
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Changing chainrings is the least of my problems!
04-02-18, 01:45 PM
#49
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I notice that bigger tooth cassette and long cage rear derailleur are trendy now with a single front chainring. Is all this simply to improve cadence? For road riders, why not just shrink the compact to even a smaller chainring (22t? in the future?). This helps reduce weight with a smaller cassette and front chainrings. I guess I am new at this just trying to make sense of all the options available to cyclists.
The range of an 11-28 cassette is 255%.
For standard freehubs, you can’t go smaller than 11t for the smallest cog, so if you want to increase the range over 255%, you need to increase the size of the largest cog.
04-02-18, 07:25 PM
#50
Senior Member
There are these things called "hills" and "mountains," and which are hard to ride over when you don't have enough gearing. I have a bike which runs a combination of Dura Ace and XTR parts, with a single ring in front, and 11 in the back with a 34t low gear. This gets me over the big hills pretty well without needing a granny gear. Besides having one less ring on the front, I also don't need a front derailleur, cable, or shifter. Easy-pleasy.