XTR fail. On so many levels.

[shirk]

we really have to move forward from this chain-driven/derailleur bullshit.

Got any options that range from 93% to 98% efficiency at the same weight? Nobody has hit those numbers yet with the alternatives.

[kidwoo]

My assumption is that Shimano just wasn't willing to compromise the efficiency of the drivetrain to go with a 10-42 cassette to make a wide range 1x.

Probably among the list of reasons. I kept hearing so many from anyone affiliated with shimano.

In the meantime, people are going to keep buying sram stuff, especially as 1x trickles down and gets cheaper.

Derailleurs are just annoying and limiting the number of them is really nice for a lot of folks. They've pretty much put their foot down though......want 1x? sram. 2x or greater? Shimano. I'm just kinda bummed I won't be getting a wide range 11sp that shifts as smoothly as shimano stuff.

[rideit]

Got any options that range from 93% to 98% efficiency at the same weight? Nobody has hit those numbers yet with the alternatives.

I am not talking about today with existing technology.
Maybe 15 years?

[iscariot]

I just kind of assumed that Shimano would come out with an 11-42 10 sp cassette compatible with existing shifters/derailleurs/freehubs and a new SLX/XT/XTR crankset based on a BCD that can accomodate a 28t chainring.

Yes please.

This is a gift to the 3rd party companies making spiderless chainrings and 42T cogs.

Yup. I was waiting for shimano. They fucked it up so now its on to a oneup 42 with a 16 replacing the 15 and 17, and Next SL's with narrow wide for me.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I kinda like my 2x10. Front shifts great now.

[Eluder]

The biggest advantage to a 1x system is having the dropper post readily available like a front shifter. Ive never had problems with front derailleurs or setting them up, but my brain is to slow to shift and drop my post. That all being said 2x systems work awesome, I would be happy with that if I didn't ride in terrain that i like to move my seat all the time.

[creaky fossil]

we really have to move forward from this chain-driven/derailleur bullshit.

yeah, magic carpets for all. seriously.

[wkd-rdr]

could they not make a wide range 10sp with a 40T ?
seems like it would be a big seller, and not having to swap hub bodies would be nice.

[beaterdit]

This shit is a joke. There's no innovation here. Front derailluers suck, redesigned or not. Shimano's brakes are sweet but they're off the back on drivetrain and have been for several years now.

[gravitylover]

wkd-rdr - I "heard" that is on the way. The person I was talking to was pretty noncommittal but didn't deny it.

[toast2266]

I'm just kinda bummed I won't be getting a wide range 11sp that shifts as smoothly as shimano stuff.

Any reason you can't just use the shimano 11 speed shifter / derailleur on a SRAM cassette? Is the spacing / width different?

[rideit]

I am gonna guess that the (XTR) derailluer wont have effective reach, but I don't know.
At that point, what's the advantage over full Sram?

[toast2266]

It's only got to go up an extra 2 teeth (42t vs 40t). It's pure speculation, but I would think that'd probably work. I'm assuming that it wouldn't have any problem going down to the 10t.

Advantage would be if you prefer shimano shifting, or if you're running shimano brakes and you want clean clampy bits on your bars.

[rideit]

Yeah, fair points. I wasn't thinking of it that way.
Remains to be seen on the wrap, I guess.
There is always the 'run the b-screw backwards' trick...

[shirk]

Wait why are you guys wanting to use the Shimano rear mech with the Sram XX1 cassette?

You want that monstrosity of of a chain eating mega expensive cassette you'll have to endure the clunky SRAM shifting that goes with it.

[soup Nazi voice]No silky smooth crisp precise Shimano shifting for you.[/soup Nazi voice]

[frorider]

Wait why are you guys wanting to use the Shimano rear mech with the Sram XX1 cassette?

what we want is 10-42 shimano cassette / der / shifter and silky smooth crisp precise Shimano shifting. since shimano isn't making that possible, the question is how close a mix and match would even get.

btw is the XD driver an open standard i.e. could Shimano have swallowed their pride and released a 10-42 or 10-40 on the XD standard if the system had met their other reqmts? XD seems to be catching on for better or worse...DT, hope, hadley, chris king, I-9, ... although I'm not a fan of changing standards at least this change has tangible benefits, and is not particularly expensive in the scheme of things.

[rideit]

Yeah, I got the light bulb over my head over in that other thread....

[teledad]

Not open but can be licensed with no royalties:

http://www.xddriverbody.com/apply.php

[toast2266]

Looks to me like the driver can be licensed with no royalties, but not the cassette. So Shimano could make a hub that takes SRAM XD cassettes, but can't make cassettes to fit on XD hubs.

[shirk]

Why would they license xd when they originally designed the concept with Capreo?

http://sheldonbrown.com/capreo/index.html

They have a solution for your request of a teeny tiny cog...they just feel that beyond a certain range a 2x system is the better solution.

[frorider]

Yep I remember working on a Capreo setup back in the day for a friend. I believe Canfield made some hubs and tried to get 9 tooth 'microdrive' going based on Capreo...but it didn't seem to get anywhere. like it or not, XD seems to have become the hi end hub small cog standard.

I'm not a front derailleur hater by any means, but I do see the combo of a N/W single ring and clutch rear derailleur making chainguides generally unnecessary other than on my DH bike, and now that I have a wide range 1X on two bikes I am coming around to preferring it when possible. :shrug: I don't feel that Shimano owes me anything and they can feel free to misinterpret the market.

[frorider]

btw the animus against front derailleurs that seems to be more and more common is also a function of the short chainstay thing. 29ers with fat tires, fatbikes w/ 170 mm rear end spacing, the new nomad...more and more across various biking segments designers are telling customers 'hey we can make a better riding bike if you don't mind doing w/o front derailleurs completely, or limiting your rear tire clearance if you do insist on a front derailleur'. I'm not pointing out anything you don't know already, just observing how several factors lately are nudging the industry toward more 1X solutions. I believe shimano has tried to address front der / tire clearance issue somewhat, but it's kinda rearranging deck chairs on the lindsey lohan career ship.

[creaky fossil]

[soup Nazi voice]No silky smooth crisp precise Shimano shifting for you.[/soup Nazi voice]

it's hard to give up the sonic buzz of the SRAM clunk

[toast2266]

I believe Canfield made some hubs and tried to get 9 tooth 'microdrive' going based on Capreo...but it didn't seem to get anywhere.

yeah - they still make that. I think your only option is a Canfield hub though. And, if I remember correctly, if you go smaller than an 11 tooth cog, efficiency decreases significantly. I think a 9t cog is something like 26% less efficient due to the chain having to make a tight bend.

[gravitylover]

You're all trying too hard. Why smaller cogs? Are you riding road with "this" bike? Maybe I'm just a pussy I want a 13/14-40/42 10 speed to maintain a reasonably tight ratio for trail use and I want to be able to ditch the fd and double setup in the front for simplicity. The fewer moving bits the fewer problems, right? I want chainring bolt spacing that will make it easy to change the front ring depending on where I'm riding from 28-36 so I can have low range for tech spots and a higher range for smooth stuff.