Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    482

    10-52t cassetteI review?

    Searched and didn't see anything. I am updating my drivetrain and the only sram cassettes available are the newer 10-52t. Its a pretty big jump from the 2nd lowest gear 42t and wondering if 52 is too low? I ride primarily in CO and 50t works for me most of the time, although there are some days/times where I wish there was something a little lower. Anyone with similar terrain have a review of the 52t low gear?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by slcdawg View Post
    Searched and didn't see anything. I am updating my drivetrain and the only sram cassettes available are the newer 10-52t. Its a pretty big jump from the 2nd lowest gear 42t and wondering if 52 is too low? I ride primarily in CO and 50t works for me most of the time, although there are some days/times where I wish there was something a little lower. Anyone with similar terrain have a review of the 52t low gear?
    This is one of those things where everyone is going to have a different opinion and usually ends up with some dick measuring and bragging about riding a 34t ring and a 42t big cog and how everyone should do the same and toughen up.

    I have a 28t oval chainring and 10-51 XT cassette (29" wheels). Don't regret it one bit - but I do a lot of really steep singletrack climbing (and still plenty of hike a bike) in the mountains in the summer. That 51t is great for recovery in between harder efforts when climbing singletrack to stay on the bike. In the shoulder seasons riding the mtb trail networks with good climbing trails I just don't use the 51, which is actually really good for cassette wear anyway.

    So basically unlesss you're racing XC or something I wouldn't worry about the jump, chances are when you need that low gear you are going to be happy about the big jump and otherwise the 42 is going to be fine.

    And in response to those who say that at xx gear hiking is faster, well when you're already spending half the time on the 2 hour climb up the trail hiking, it is nice to get some relief and get back on the bike and pedal for a bit

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,845
    I don't mind the bigger jump to the 52. There have been other cassettes (i.e. 46t shimano 11 speed) where I did notice the jump, so I'm at least moderately sensitive to the sort of things.

    As far as the gearing... it's a little easier. It's noticeable, but not huge. Could always bump to a bigger chainring if it's too easy.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    4,716
    One thing to keep in mind is the old eagle derailleurs are not intended to work with the 52t cassettes. Personally I have never tried it.

    The one complaint that has increased since going to 52 is home mechanics have found they can’t pedal backwards in their repair stands in the 52t… I am not sure why but this is a problem for a select few.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    482
    Cool, thanks for the input. I imagine there isn't a huge diff between 50 and 52, but 50 seems appropriate most of the time.

    Side topic, do you notice a diff with the oval ring? I feel like that's a technology (?) that keeps getting recycled every so often. I had an oval ring (biopace) about 15-17 years ago but don't recall noticing any difference.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    482
    Good info. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    I don't mind the bigger jump to the 52. There have been other cassettes (i.e. 46t shimano 11 speed) where I did notice the jump, so I'm at least moderately sensitive to the sort of things.

    As far as the gearing... it's a little easier. It's noticeable, but not huge. Could always bump to a bigger chainring if it's too easy.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    cordova,AK
    Posts
    3,688
    I am a novice recreational rider. I was riding a 28 chainring with a 50 cassette. Had a 52 cassette put on and they put on a 30 tooth chainring. Rode it awhile. Went back and had a 28 chainring put on. Am riding up stuff I could never ride before. I think 28 chain ring 10 to 52 is the way to go.
    off your knees Louie

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    588
    it depends on how strong you are, and power/weight. I like a billygoat gear for the end of 4-5k' rides, but it is a lot of time in your head.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by slcdawg View Post
    Side topic, do you notice a diff with the oval ring? .
    On technical and/or steep singletrack climbs when you are trying to get up and over stuff - yes, especiallywhen using flat pedals - spinning up a fire road climb, no. Not a controlled study but based on my personal experience it has made things easier on my knees as well.

    Is it all placebo? Maybe but if it is that's fine with me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    482
    I currently have a 32t chainring with 10-50t cassette. Fairly strong uphill rider, but I do use the 50t quite a bit as my usual rides have typical front range steep climbs.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    214
    I am also a fan of a 28t chainring x 51t sprocket for steep high country riding. I'd rather ride my bike than walk it whenever possible. And as mentioned previously, on mellower trails you can spend more time in a higher gear in your cassette to save wear on the aluminum granny. No complaints on spinning out on road descents- I just coast more. I guess if I raced I'd feel differently.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    4,716
    I find the oval more noticeable on my higher geared hardtail 32/44 than my 30/52 FS.

    It’s gimmicky and may or may not matter but it is different than biopace.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,648
    I spent many years on oval w 11spd, now switched to 2 bikes w 12spd and don’t find I miss it as much with the broader range as mentioned already.

    It does take a ride or two to get over a bit of weird feeling, but do think it was a bit like traction control in some aspects applying more even power, but may have been placebo.

    May try it again on 12spd but it’s subtle IME


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC burbs
    Posts
    4,186
    In the past 3 years I've gone from a 10-50 cassette with a 34t round chainring to a 10-51 cassette with a 30t oval. I'm not any slower and my knees appreciate the higher RPM when grinding up stuff. Dropping teeth in the front had a much bigger impact than going from round to oval but the oval is definitely noticeable, mostly at low RPMs. As VTskibum said, it's probably about a more even distribution of power which can make a difference in very steep or very techy terrain.
    When I was running SRAM I didn't like the jump from 42 to 50 on the cassette. I feel a lot better with the Shimano ramp but plenty of people don't mind the 42 to 52 jump. I'm sure I'd get used to it if I had one.
    "Your wife being mad is temporary, but pow turns do not get unmade" - mallwalker the wise

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    588
    I was one of the early adopters of the oval rings (5yrs ago), they are game changers on steep climbs with questionable traction. They even out the power output so the rear tire is less likely to spin. Ovals feel weird over 90RPM cadence though, they shine when grinding at low RPM. That's my experience.

    My knees also much happier.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    612
    Has anyone had clutch wear issues with an oval chainring? I've heard some people say that the up and down movement of the chain while you're pedaling can cause more wear

    Sent from my SM-G960U using TGR Forums mobile app

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    35,361
    From my own three year research on two bikes, that is either an urban myth, or attributable to other issues, like the clutch not being lubricated properly.
    I mean, how many times does a derailleur go back and forth and up and down on any ride with rocks, roots, water bars, logs, rollers, features, etc? Thousands!

    That’s just my opinion, maaaan
    Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    BC to CO
    Posts
    4,865
    Quote Originally Posted by S.B. View Post
    Has anyone had clutch wear issues with an oval chainring? I've heard some people say that the up and down movement of the chain while you're pedaling can cause more wear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •