Mountain Biking - XT Shadow vs XT?

would you prefer
Shimano XT Shadow derailleur or
Shimano XT 771 SGS derailleur (non-rapid-rise)

basically, what do you guys buy about the Shadow. Has anyone used one?

go!

i have never used XT simply because it is out of my budget...Given that money is not an issue, i would go for the shadow.. Looks Waaay better.. Not sure about its performance though..

For the same price, I would go with the Shadow. I have the "Shadow" (RD-M772-GS) and like low profile design. Here are a few pics of my Shadow:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6400536-md.jpg

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6488771-md.jpg

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6400528-md.jpg

I'd just go with the regular XT. I understand the intent of the shadow deraillieur, I have yet to figure out the practicality of the Shadow deraillieur. If you want more clearance, go with a smaller cassette and get a short or mid cage.

For the same price, I would go with the Shadow. I have the "Shadow" (RD-M772-GS) and like low profile design. Here are a few pics of my Shadow:


clean. ok i think i'm gonna do it.
what do you have up front to get away with the GS?



I'd just go with the regular XT. I understand the intent of the shadow deraillieur, I have yet to figure out the practicality of the Shadow deraillieur. If you want more clearance, go with a smaller cassette and get a short or mid cage.

i get the impression that you are doing drugs +]

EDIT: i think i understand what you're trying to say.
however, the greater clearance sought after by this design would be the lateral clearance: the shadow hugs closer into the frame. ya? nah?

clean. ok i think i'm gonna do it.
what do you have up front to get away with the GS?




i get the impression that you are doing drugs +]

EDIT: i think i understand what you're trying to say. the greater clearance sought after by this design would be the lateral clearance: the shadow hugs closer into the frame. ya? nah?

I am in no way on drugs, I don't even have any prescriptions that I need to take for medical/mental reasons.

Just read up more on the shadow deraillieur.

Yes, but there is still the possibility of getting it snagged against something and still breaking the deraillieur or deraillieur hanger not from protruding side to side, but from protruding up and down. What I'm working towards is that shimano could have used the money that was used for developing the shadow deraillieur and instead put it towards designing and developing a more affordable gearbox for mtb's, one that will put an effective end to rear deraillieurs to begin with. Or for the development of a burlier internal shifting group, something that isn't nexus.

I do like the concept of the shadow deraillieur, but it is just simply a temporary fix to something that could have been easily solved 2 years ago at least.

Yes, but shimano could have used the money that was used for developing the shadow deraillieur and instead put it towards designing and developing a more affordable gearbox for mtb's, one that will put an effective end to rear deraillieurs to begin with.

I do like the concept of the shadow deraillieur, but it is just simply a temporary fix to something that could have been easily solved 2 years ago at least.

interesting! Is this an idea from a preexisting conversation?
also, I am curious as to what you do for a living? +]

interesting! Is this an idea from a preexisting conversation?
also, I am curious as to what you do for a living? +]

Its been discussed a lot on this board and ridemonkey. Deraileurs are not the future of some aspects of mountain biking. A gearbox and/or internally geared hub should be the future, in some form. Deraileurs are weak and dangly, while efficient for shifting can create big problems on rough narrow trails and/or downhill.

I am with smashy, I think shimano continues to re-invent the wheel time and time again, while actually doing nothing to progress shifting. While internally geared systems aren't new, there is a market for them at the right price and correct efficiency.

I would love to see something truly innovative, but I don't think its going to happen. The gearing box (virtual) is to restrictive and expensive to allow for anything truly creative.

interesting! Is this an idea from a preexisting conversation?
also, I am curious as to what you do for a living? +]

LBS mechanic. Just observations that I have made over the past 5 years regarding drivetrain development.

With today's technology when it comes to manufacturing and engineering, it would be somewhat easy to come up with a gearbox design that is compact and light enough to put on a mtb and could be done while keeping the cost at a somewhat attainable level, Shimano is one of the companies that have the capabilities of pulling that off, they make fishing reels after all, so they can do compact.

Until that's done, I'll just stick with what I'm running.

These are the kind of discussions that I love.

. . . instead put it towards designing and developing a more affordable gearbox for mtb's, one that will put an effective end to rear deraillieurs to begin with. Or for the development of a burlier internal shifting group, something that isn't nexus.Here, here! I'm with you and Maelstrom completely on this. In fact, I was all set to try a Sturmey-Archer XRK8 (knowing I'd probably eventually demolish it) just because. Then I torpedoed myself by getting a frame requiring a 150mm thru-axle hub.


The gearing box (virtual) is to restrictive and expensive to allow for anything truly creative I was so disappointed when I saw the finished product for the V-boxx and G-Boxx designs. Both stressed-member units with very specific countershaft placement that meant that frames/rear suspensions were limited to one way to work with the box's design.

clean. ok i think i'm gonna do it.
what do you have up front to get away with the GS?


I just have a standard LX derailleur up front (FD-M581A).

I just have a standard LX derailleur up front (FD-M581A).

sorry, i meant what size chainring gears do you have
i am guessing youre using only 2 gears or one gear? my understanding of the smaller caged GS is that it isn't enough to handle 11-32 in the back and 22-44 up front, and that the SGS is required for this. right?

sorry, i meant what size chainring gears do you have
i am guessing youre using only 2 gears or one gear? my understanding of the smaller caged GS is that it isn't enough to handle 11-32 in the back and 22-44 up front, and that the SGS is required for this. right?

I have an 11-34 in the rear and 22-44 in the front. I am changing the front to 24-46 tomorrow. I just have to remember that when I am in the granny gear I need to stay on the upper end of the rear. When I am in the center chainring I should be able to access all gears and when I am in the 46 I need to stay in the lower gears in the rear.

I have an 11-34 in the rear and 22-44 in the front. I am changing the front to 24-46 tomorrow. I just have to remember that when I am in the granny gear I need to stay on the upper end of the rear. When I am in the center chainring I should be able to access all gears and when I am in the 46 I need to stay in the lower gears in the rear.

okay sounds fair enough, so what is the benefit then of having GS in this setup?

okay sounds fair enough, so what is the benefit then of having GS in this setup?

The advantages of the GS over the standard XT dérailleur are debatable... I feel more comfortable with the lower profile design keeping the dérailleur and cable closer to the frame. I also like how the cable does not protrude outwards. On this bike, I was upgrading my shifters due to adding hydraulic brakes (I had shifter/brakes in one pod). the Shadow appealed to me and cost the same as the current XT. It may be personal preference, or there might be some merit to the GS design. I feel the merits are enough to choose the GS, others might think these improvements are not significant for the price. I was already buying another rear dérailleur to support 9sp in the rear.

For you, it might come down to personal preference... Does the GS meet your needs & match your bike ascetically? Only you can answer.

The advantages of the GS over the standard XT dérailleur are debatable... I feel more comfortable with the lower profile design keeping the dérailleur and cable closer to the frame. I also like how the cable does not protrude outwards. On this bike, I was upgrading my shifters due to adding hydraulic brakes (I had shifter/brakes in one pod). the Shadow appealed to me and cost the same as the current XT. It may be personal preference, or there might be some merit to the GS design. I feel the merits are enough to choose the GS, others might think these improvements are not significant for the price. I was already buying another rear dérailleur to support 9sp in the rear.

For you, it might come down to personal preference... Does the GS meet your needs & match your bike ascetically? Only you can answer.

what is the advantage of using the medium length cage on your setup vesus the long cage?

I'd just go with the regular XT. I understand the intent of the shadow deraillieur, I have yet to figure out the practicality of the Shadow deraillieur. If you want more clearance, go with a smaller cassette and get a short or mid cage.


I am with smashy, I think shimano continues to re-invent the wheel time and time again, while actually doing nothing to progress shifting. While internally geared systems aren't new, there is a market for them at the right price and correct efficiency.

Shimano isn't the guilty party...SRAM does the same thing. The consumer fuels it. The consumer is always asking for "crisper, tougher, lighter, cheaper". If either company halted all R&D of external systems and just offered the current technology for a few years while they R&D internal systems...then the other company would get all the business and the one with the vision would go teets up. Who knows...maybe Rohloff is as good as it's gonna get? Maybe durability issues with MTB's will cause the system to be better for everything except weight. (which really isn't that bad right now)

So now you have one of the "Big S's" finishing up R&D 3 years later while they didn't sell a thing. They're on the verge of bankruptcy and they have discovered..."Hey, we basically just re-invented the Rohloff". So now you have a bunch of weight-weenie babies crying because their new-fangled system is now 3/4lb heavier while completely destroying all other drivetrain issues. The weenies are still going to buy the external system. The only thing we could hope for is that the R&D and mass production mixed with competition caused the price to come down a little...but when you compare the current XTR/X.0 system to the Rohloff...the price isn't terribly different. Factoring in that you don't have to do anything to the Rohloff for 60,000 miles (100,000km) except change oil every 3,000 miles...it becomes much cheaper in the long run.

While I agree with you both regarding internally geared hubs and gearboxes...I completely disagree that the OP should "just go with the regular XT". Assuming the reg. XT and Shadow are the same price or even marginally different...why not have the one with lower profile and direct cable routing instead of having that fragile derailleur hang even further out there with a big loop of cable?

Sure...maybe two years from now a decently priced/light internal hub will be available, but how is that going to help the OP today? That's like telling all of the SRAM converts that they shouldn't have bought their systems for the 1:1 ratio and direct routing because it's still a temporary fix. We shouldn't support the new and "improved" technology because it's a waste of money to support something that's not working toward internal gearing.

Between the two choices the OP offered...get the Shadow.

Practicality:

I "usually" go through 2-3 cassette's per year, 3 chains per cassette (5-6 per yr.), 1 set of chainrings, and possibly a rear derailleur in 1.5-2yrs.

So conservatively:
2 XT cassettes-$150
6 PC 971 chains - $150
1 set of rings (22/32) - $50
1 XT rear derailleur computes to ~ $40 per year

I'd say this is a conservative figure especially when factoring in S&H. If you shop at a LBS...'could be even more.

So let's say $400 per year. 60 miles per week / 52 weeks per year / 3120 miles per year...round about.

So the Rohloff system lasts 19-20 times that long with intermitant oil changes. When you multiply the $400 times 19-20...

The blue collar XT system costs around $7600-$8000.

You can buy the Rohloff on line built and ready to install for $1396.97. Factor in $74 for an overly priced disc rotor and $47 for the Speedbone attachment and it's about $1500. That includes a front wheel with a Hope Pro 2 hub, DT Comp spokes, brass nipples, and EX 5.1d rims.

The rear wheel won't be dished anymore so it will be stronger.

I'd say it's a no brainer, but it's difficult to plan that far ahead with MTB's, eh?

Shimano isn't the guilty party...SRAM does the same thing. The consumer fuels it. The consumer is always asking for "crisper, tougher, lighter, cheaper". If either company halted all R&D of external systems and just offered the current technology for a few years while they R&D internal systems...then the other company would get all the business and the one with the vision would go teets up. Who knows...maybe Rohloff is as good as it's gonna get? Maybe durability issues with MTB's will cause the system to be better for everything except weight. (which really isn't that bad right now)

So now you have one of the "Big S's" finishing up R&D 3 years later while they didn't sell a thing. They're on the verge of bankruptcy and they have discovered..."Hey, we basically just re-invented the Rohloff". So now you have a bunch of weight-weenie babies crying because their new-fangled system is now 3/4lb heavier while completely destroying all other drivetrain issues. The weenies are still going to buy the external system. The only thing we could hope for is that the R&D and mass production mixed with competition caused the price to come down a little...but when you compare the current XTR/X.0 system to the Rohloff...the price isn't terribly different. Factoring in that you don't have to do anything to the Rohloff for 60,000 miles (100,000km) except change oil every 3,000 miles...it becomes much cheaper in the long run.

While I agree with you both regarding internally geared hubs and gearboxes...I completely disagree that the OP should "just go with the regular XT". Assuming the reg. XT and Shadow are the same price or even marginally different...why not have the one with lower profile and direct cable routing instead of having that fragile derailleur hang even further out there with a big loop of cable?

Sure...maybe two years from now a decently priced/light internal hub will be available, but how is that going to help the OP today? That's like telling all of the SRAM converts that they shouldn't have bought their systems for the 1:1 ratio and direct routing because it's still a temporary fix. We shouldn't support the new and "improved" technology because it's a waste of money to support something that's not working toward internal gearing.

Between the two choices the OP offered...get the Shadow.

If you weould read what Ityped, which you quoted, I reccomended the regular xt.

what is the advantage of using the medium length cage on your setup vesus the long cage?

The medium length cage allows a larger range of gears in the larger chainrings with the same length of chain as a long cage. With a long cage dérailleur you will either need a chain that is several links longer or reduce the range of gears.

If you weould read what Ityped, which you quoted, I reccomended the regular xt.

I know...that's my boggle. The Shadow will give more clearance (laterally) and the direct cable routing is definately a bonus.

I actually am a bit confused regarding your second post. Are you recommending the OP do a little reading about the Shadow, or between your 1st and 2nd posts...you went and read about it?

Why the Standard over the Shadow? Does it shift better or last longer?

I just today got a Shadow on my bike.
I only got to take for a totally rad curb jump sesh out the front of my house but i can see the difference (as oppopsed to the stupid Deore that was on there), but i must say it shifts rather clunkily, but i think thats just a bed-in thing.
Im not sure why i picked it over the Standard XT. I guess i wanted to see hwat all the hype was about and decide for myself.
Look people are debating advantages V disadvantages left right and center here, but thats the same with everything MTB related and i guess its goig to come to preference and trial and error in the end.

Theres also been some talk of internal gearings. I do agree that yes that is the way the port of MTBing is progressing and will continue to do so, but i highly doubt the two S's are sitting back doing nothing about it. i trust there will be a system out soon enough. There would have to one hell of a lot of RnD time involved in makling a system cheap, easy to manufacture and reliable. Sure they could have brought it out years ago, but it probably wouldnt be viable to manufacture, would only be producing 100 or so a year and they would cost the GDP of Tonga. Just give it time.

Besides, not everyone will cath onto the new tech. straight away. Its like disk brakes. 20 years from now people will still be using derailleurs i think. There just won be too manhy of them around is all.

For the same price, I would go with the Shadow. I have the "Shadow"

I'm liking this thread. It sucks to hear that BFG, coming from a Deore RD, says the Shadow shifts "clunkily". (nice word BTW) I doubt it's a bed-in thing. I've never needed bed-in time on a RD install.

Scelia: What RD's have you been using and how does your Shadow compare?

Here, here! I'm with you and Maelstrom completely on this. In fact, I was all set to try a Sturmey-Archer XRK8 (knowing I'd probably eventually demolish it) just because. Then I torpedoed myself by getting a frame requiring a 150mm thru-axle hub.

I was so disappointed when I saw the finished product for the V-boxx and G-Boxx designs. Both stressed-member units with very specific countershaft placement that meant that frames/rear suspensions were limited to one way to work with the box's design.

I'm almost there D.

I'm considering building one...I'll save all my XT stuff just in case I destroy it. My only hang-up is that it's only an 8-speed. There are some steep little hills here in th Midwest that I just can't do w/o my granny. I'd have to end up walking them most likely. I guess if I don't like it, I could always switch back and put the Sturmey on my Commie.

I'm only running a 22/32/bg right now, so I guess if I gear it similar to my lowest gear with regards to my front ring...I may still be able to get a 32/11 or 12 ratio in the 8th gear.

Well thats mainly because the Deore just ghost shifted all the time.
I didnt change gears for a whole month of commuting on it - i knoew it was going to randomly do it bby itself soon enough.

I dont know. Im liking the Shadow anyway. Its a much tighter unit, far stronger and is definitely going to stand up o DH (which i was stupid to take Deore riding on :P).

One thing i find weird is how it has some sort of secondary hanger, if that makes sense. Im not sure how readily replacable it is, but you can see that its what attaches to the bikes hanger, and where it bolts to the actual Der. is right behind the cable in the first of Scelia's pics.

I like this thread too. Not a ****fight, yet informative.

I'm liking this thread. It sucks to hear that BFG, coming from a Deore RD, says the Shadow shifts "clunkily". (nice word BTW) I doubt it's a bed-in thing. I've never needed bed-in time on a RD install.

Scelia: What RD's have you been using and how does your Shadow compare?

I have used various Shimano and Suntour dérailleur's over the years. To me, the Shadow appears to shift swift and smooth, but I think your shifters have an effect here. I have used XTR, XT, LX and Acera rear dérailleur's previously and have found that the most were similar in shifting performance when new, but the higher end components continued to perform at the same level when the lower end components needed adjustments or idler pulley maintenance. I like the ruggedness of the XT line over the XTR, the Shadow just improves the XT line. This direct cable routing, low profile and strong springs make for swift shifts and less chain slap.

One thing i find weird is how it has some sort of secondary hanger, if that makes sense. Im not sure how readily replacable it is, but you can see that its what attaches to the bikes hanger, and where it bolts to the actual Der. is right behind the cable in the first of Scelia's pics.


That is part of the low-profile design. I thought it was strange as well, but find that I like it more. It has a tension adjustment for the angle at which it rides normally. It also pulls the top pulley back and under the rear cassette instead of slightly in front.

Practicality:

I "usually" go through 2-3 cassette's per year, 3 chains per cassette (5-6 per yr.), 1 set of chainrings, and possibly a rear derailleur in 1.5-2yrs.

So conservatively:
2 XT cassettes-$150
6 PC 971 chains - $150
1 set of rings (22/32) - $50
1 XT rear derailleur computes to ~ $40 per year

I'd say this is a conservative figure especially when factoring in S&H. If you shop at a LBS...'could be even more.

So let's say $400 per year. 60 miles per week / 52 weeks per year / 3120 miles per year...round about.

So the Rohloff system lasts 19-20 times that long with intermitant oil changes. When you multiply the $400 times 19-20...

The blue collar XT system costs around $7600-$8000.

You can buy the Rohloff on line built and ready to install for $1396.97. Factor in $74 for an overly priced disc rotor and $47 for the Speedbone attachment and it's about $1500. That includes a front wheel with a Hope Pro 2 hub, DT Comp spokes, brass nipples, and EX 5.1d rims.

The rear wheel won't be dished anymore so it will be stronger.

I'd say it's a no brainer, but it's difficult to plan that far ahead with MTB's, eh?

This is the type of cyphering I use on the wife to convince her of the practicality of a new bike every couple years Ed! Sharpen your pencil and inflate those numbers a bit more and you'll have the Hick's new bike justification system down!

Practicality:

I "usually" go through 2-3 cassette's per year, 3 chains per cassette (5-6 per yr.), 1 set of chainrings, and possibly a rear derailleur in 1.5-2yrs.

So conservatively:
2 XT cassettes-$150
6 PC 971 chains - $150
1 set of rings (22/32) - $50
1 XT rear derailleur computes to ~ $40 per year

I'd say this is a conservative figure especially when factoring in S&H. If you shop at a LBS...'could be even more.

So let's say $400 per year. 60 miles per week / 52 weeks per year / 3120 miles per year...round about.

So the Rohloff system lasts 19-20 times that long with intermitant oil changes. When you multiply the $400 times 19-20...

The blue collar XT system costs around $7600-$8000.

You can buy the Rohloff on line built and ready to install for $1396.97. Factor in $74 for an overly priced disc rotor and $47 for the Speedbone attachment and it's about $1500. That includes a front wheel with a Hope Pro 2 hub, DT Comp spokes, brass nipples, and EX 5.1d rims.

The rear wheel won't be dished anymore so it will be stronger.

I'd say it's a no brainer, but it's difficult to plan that far ahead with MTB's, eh?


If you go through 2 cassettes and 6 chains in just 3000 miles, you are doing something wrong.

The real question is, if you continue this habit, should I buy stock in shimano or sram?

If you go through 2 cassettes and 6 chains in just 3000 miles, you are doing something wrong.

The real question is, if you continue this habit, should I buy stock in shimano or sram?

I really thought so too. I clean and lube my chain after every trail ride. I check my chain with the Park chain checker and always replace it when it gets to 0.75.

There was a thread a while back with this in it and there was a discussion saying something like:

Heavier riders that climb hills on heavier bikes in bigger gears will put more pressure on the chain causing the drivetrain to wear quicker. A 150lb rider on a light bike that uses the granny alot will save the life of the drivetrain. A 195lb rider on a 32lb dually who stands up and honks on them pedals while climbing will wear out the drivetrain quicker.

I guess since I'm heavier, ride a heavy bike, and still climb in my middle ring alot...maybe I wear it out faster.

Shimano isn't the guilty party...SRAM does the same thing. The consumer fuels it. The consumer is always asking for "crisper, tougher, lighter, cheaper". If either company halted all R&D of external systems and just offered the current technology for a few years while they R&D internal systems...then the other company would get all the business and the one with the vision would go teets up. Who knows...maybe Rohloff is as good as it's gonna get? Maybe durability issues with MTB's will cause the system to be better for everything except weight. (which really isn't that bad right now)


I didn't mention sram because, in the scheme of things, they are relatively new to the mass quantity production of gearing systems. While I don't disagree with you, shimano has had a "decent" internally geared hub for ages, they have had something to work with for a long time and have done nothing.



So now you have one of the "Big S's" finishing up R&D 3 years later while they didn't sell a thing. They're on the verge of bankruptcy and they have discovered..."Hey, we basically just re-invented the Rohloff". So now you have a bunch of weight-weenie babies crying because their new-fangled system is now 3/4lb heavier while completely destroying all other drivetrain issues. The weenies are still going to buy the external system. The only thing we could hope for is that the R&D and mass production mixed with competition caused the price to come down a little...but when you compare the current XTR/X.0 system to the Rohloff...the price isn't terribly different. Factoring in that you don't have to do anything to the Rohloff for 60,000 miles (100,000km) except change oil every 3,000 miles...it becomes much cheaper in the long run.


Cost of doing business, if a company wants to succeed for the lifetime of the sport (or production family they are producing for) it comes at that cost. My issue with rohloff is my issue with hope and other boutiqish companies. Parts, repair and maintenance cost make it an unreachable product for me. I can't afford for my rig to be out of commission for weeks while waiting for a part.

Heavier riders that climb hills on heavier bikes in bigger gears will put more pressure on the chain causing the drivetrain to wear quicker. A 150lb rider on a light bike that uses the granny alot will save the life of the drivetrain. A 195lb rider on a 32lb dually who stands up and honks on them pedals while climbing will wear out the drivetrain quicker.

I guess since I'm heavier, ride a heavy bike, and still climb in my middle ring alot...maybe I wear it out faster.


I'm a 200lb rider on a 34ish lb dually and I climb quite a bit of steep stuff. I hardly ever have to replace anything (still have the original cassette on the bike). The only thing I have had to replace because of wear has been chains. I got rid of the aluminum rings (replaced with steel) because because they were bending, and I've had to replace a few RD because of breakage.

I do know that if I don't replace my chain at 0.75 then when I put on a new chain it will skip gears when I stand up and crank on it.

I didn't mention sram because, in the scheme of things, they are relatively new to the mass quantity production of gearing systems. While I don't disagree with you, shimano has had a "decent" internally geared hub for ages, they have had something to work with for a long time and have done nothing.



Cost of doing business, if a company wants to succeed for the lifetime of the sport (or production family they are producing for) it comes at that cost. My issue with rohloff is my issue with hope and other boutiqish companies. Parts, repair and maintenance cost make it an unreachable product for me. I can't afford for my rig to be out of commission for weeks while waiting for a part.

I also didn't factor in that Shimano makes soo much more than bicycle componentry. They could survive on that while they delve deaper into R&D internally geared options.

Here's my issue with the Sturmey Archer after further review:

It is a 1:1 hub at its lowest gear. There is no gear reduction...only a 305% gain. I don't know if you can get other rear sprockets to fit it, but the largest that Sturmey offers is a 25t. This means that the lowest you could go would be a 22/25 which would be a lotta freakin' work around here sometimes.

I use a 22/32/BG with an 11/34 cassette. I'd say most of the time is spent in the middle ring, but there are many climbs at my local trail network that require a 22/30 at the bare minimum (for my hack climbing skills).

Am I on the right track here? ( I don't know much about gear inches and stuff )

So it'd be okay for flat riding with DH sections (assuming it can handle the abuse, which I doubt) but for areas with climbing...I don't think it is very feasable.

edit:
So a 22/32/BG with 11-34 cassette would give me 0.64:1 - 2.9:1 range
The Sturmey with a 22 frt 25 rr setup would give 0.88:1 - 3.49:1 range

Right?

Y'know, Ed, I never looked closely at the ratios on the S-A. Thanks for bringing that up. Not exactly an all-'round trail bike hub judging by the ratios. Still looks like it would be a suitable point-down-the-hill option though.

As hard as you are on drivetrains, sounds like the Rohloff would be justifiable. I have a hard enough time convincing my CFO that I need a $1,000 frame; I don't even want to go there on $1,400 hub.

OK, now I have one other thought for you: how about a SRAM Dual-Drive hub? It has 135mm mountain hub spacing and a cassette carrier. It's only 3-speed but the ratios are 73%, 100% and 136%. You could use the tiniest-caged road derailleur on a narrow-range cluster and still have the 73% underdrive to compensate for the lack of bigger cogs in the rear. The single-sided shifter's a bit chunky, but . . . .

Yeah...I was semi-intrigued by the dual drive...I was thinking more in the neighborhood of putting a dual drive on an existing system so you could have an 81 speed bike hahaha.

My own personal feeling is that if I'm gonna go internal, it's to eliminate the rear derailleur...not the front. (actually both)

For those who don't know what the dual drive is...it's a 3 speed internally geared hub with a cassette body on it so you can still put a rear derailleur and cassette on it basically giving yourself a full range of gears sans-front derailleur.

I took a stroll around the parking lot a couple hrs ago on a new FSRXC with the Shadow derailleur on it. I can't say that I noticed any issues, but you can get just about any derailleur to perform well for a quick pkng lot jaunt. The real test will be to see if it is as durable as the std XT.

I was just talking to my LBS mech's...one of them said that he runs his drivetrain until it skips and then replaces everything (rings, cassette, chain). The other runs a chain until .75 and replaces...like me. The argument the Mech#1 had was why put a new chain on a semi-worn cassette causing premature wear. Just ride it 'till it skips.

In all fairness to Ed (Even though I do like to pull his chain pardon the pun) I've ridden with him, and he is hard on things. It's his size plus his style of riding I think. Any rock or log is an excuse to pull the bike up in the air and style it! He will try to session everything along the trail that would be consider worthy. If it's flat single track, then he is pulling the front up and riding wheelies. And tight corners are an excuse to do a stoppy and kick the back end around! Ed has fun with every piece of terrain he can, that plus his size just seems to be hard on his equipment.

In all fairness to Ed (Even though I do like to pull his chain pardon the pun) I've ridden with him, and he is hard on things. It's his size plus his style of riding I think. Any rock or log is an excuse to pull the bike up in the air and style it! He will try to session everything along the trail that would be consider worthy. If it's flat single track, then he is pulling the front up and riding wheelies. And tight corners are an excuse to do a stoppy and kick the back end around! Ed has fun with every piece of terrain he can, that plus his size just seems to be hard on his equipment.

Y'all featherweights are givin' me a fatty-complex...I'm gonna go eat something.

(I just got back from a 3.5 hr ride...I need a burrito!)

BTW...I suck at riding wheelies. I guess that's why I try so much on the trail. Hoping one magic day, it'll just stay up in the air for a 1/4 mile or so, wooohaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Lotsa' reading on the Rohloff stuff over at emptybeer.

I'm *this* close to pulling the trigger on one myself, to be put on this:

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f12/scrublover/bike%20shots/frame2.jpg

Done in ti. Should be here in a month or two. Regular drivetrain swapping over from my Peyto frame, and the sliders will let me swap in Rohloff versions later if I end up going for it. I've had a chance to scoot around on one in some parking lots, but no actual trail time on one. Trying to see if any local riders around me have a Rohloff equipped bike that I'd be able to get some actual trail time on.

Holy crap scrub! That'll be a fun setup with that slalomesque geo. Is there room for a pump track at your new place?

Holy crap scrub! That'll be a fun setup with that slalomesque geo. Is there room for a pump track at your new place?

nah, we're still in an apartment. free courtesy my work, so... we're sticking with that until we've got a better handle of where locally we want to settle and get our own place.

it's a near identical copy of my steel hardtail. only difference to size/geo is a 1/2" longer effective toptube, and a 1/2" taller headtube. just swapping over all the parts. no paint/powdercoat/corrosion hassles, and it should come in a pound lighter, and still be just as durable, if not more so. a few visual differences, but nothing major. sliders more for eventual rohloff or other internal hub use, not really SS.

larger diameter chainstays, top and downtubes, with 0.3mm thicker walls on those tubes as well. seattube insert, gusseted top and bottom headtube, with rings at both ends, disc side bracing. room for fattty tires, up to a 6" fork. a chain hanger. i love those, and they are hard to find on new bikes. :)

the peyto is an awesome bike, and i still ride it more than my squishy bike. but it's showing some age. needs a paint job and some new frame saver. big dent on the brakeside seat stay, one on the downtube. nothing structurally dangerous, but not easily repairable without fully replacing the tubes. it's steel, so i'm not too worried, but i figured what the hell, why not? treat myself to a ti bike that i really want...

That's gonna be nice!

This is one of the coolest threads in a long while.

That's gonna be nice!

This is one of the coolest threads in a long while.

i hope it will be. (the bike, that is, not the thread.)

my only concern with the rohloff is the feel when pedaling in terms of engagement. i want to see how it feels on techy riding stuff, not just around in a parking lot. going from dead stops, pedal kick moves, that sort of thing. from what i've read and been able to tell so far, it's about on par with shimano stuff. not sure if i'll like that, being used to the much faster king and hadley hubs i have now.

not worried about weight, seal drag, or the twist shifter at all. durability seems to be a non-issue so far with them, too.

i hope it will be. (the bike, that is, not the thread.)

my only concern with the rohloff is the feel when pedaling in terms of engagement. i want to see how it feels on techy riding stuff, not just around in a parking lot. going from dead stops, pedal kick moves, that sort of thing. from what i've read and been able to tell so far, it's about on par with shimano stuff. not sure if i'll like that, being used to the much faster king and hadley hubs i have now.


not worried about weight, seal drag, or the twist shifter at all. durability seems to be a non-issue so far with them, too.

That sorta mirrors the info I have been able to dig up on the Rohloff. If you're pedaling up hill or generally just under power...it doesn't engage until you lighten up a bit. I guess this is a purposeful feature that was designed to keep the gears from grinding themselves to crap. When you think about it though...how often do you shift under full power? I know that I surge and then "soft pedal" when I shift up a hill with my external system. I lighten up the pressure a tad when shifting under power downhill. So really, it doesn't sound all that different from my shifting style.

One of the more in-depth reviews I saw said that the only shift lag was between 7-8 and 8-7. It is due to the switching of the "transfer case". They said that all other changes were lightning fast, precise, and quicker than external systems. (I took that with a grain)

I wouldn't have a prob. with the twisty either. I like triggers a little better, but I can adapt to twist shifters. I had a set on my 1x9 and did just fine. The minute amount of drag that has been described by Rohloff users sounds like a non-issue for me as well. It's only in the "lower transfer case" if you will. The hub is a 2x7. The first 7 are ran through a gear reduction...hence the small amount of drag. 8-14 are not reduced, so they feel a bit more "free".

The "Rohloff sound" and drag are supposed to become next to nil after the first 1000 miles according to the popular opinion. 1000 mile break-in period...sweet!

I want one.

Y'know, Ed, I never looked closely at the ratios on the S-A. Thanks for bringing that up. Not exactly an all-'round trail bike hub judging by the ratios. Still looks like it would be a suitable point-down-the-hill option though.
. .

Looks like Blackspire has a 20t granny still for a 58/94 crankset. I don't recall who makes / made a 58 / 94 crankset, but a 20t front ring with a 25t rear would be doable.
http://www.universalcycles.com/images//products/medium/306.jpg

That sorta mirrors the info I have been able to dig up on the Rohloff. If you're pedaling up hill or generally just under power...it doesn't engage until you lighten up a bit. I guess this is a purposeful feature that was designed to keep the gears from grinding themselves to crap. When you think about it though...how often do you shift under full power? I know that I surge and then "soft pedal" when I shift up a hill with my external system. I lighten up the pressure a tad when shifting under power downhill. So really, it doesn't sound all that different from my shifting style.

One of the more in-depth reviews I saw said that the only shift lag was between 7-8 and 8-7. It is due to the switching of the "transfer case". They said that all other changes were lightning fast, precise, and quicker than external systems. (I took that with a grain)

I wouldn't have a prob. with the twisty either. I like triggers a little better, but I can adapt to twist shifters. I had a set on my 1x9 and did just fine. The minute amount of drag that has been described by Rohloff users sounds like a non-issue for me as well. It's only in the "lower transfer case" if you will. The hub is a 2x7. The first 7 are ran through a gear reduction...hence the small amount of drag. 8-14 are not reduced, so they feel a bit more "free".

The "Rohloff sound" and drag are supposed to become next to nil after the first 1000 miles according to the popular opinion. 1000 mile break-in period...sweet!

I want one.


Yeah, I've read all that. My only concern is how the engagement speed is. I like the fast engagement I've got now, particularly on techy stuff. Just really want to see how it actually feels on trail with some of that, not just a parking lot, before spending the money on the setup.

Well, looking at the exploded view...it doesn't have a ratchet / pawl drive. It appears to have a Chris King sorta thing goin on there with fewer teeth. Still appears to have a buttload of engagement spots though.

Well, looking at the exploded view...it doesn't have a ratchet / pawl drive. It appears to have a Chris King sorta thing goin on there with fewer teeth. Still appears to have a buttload of engagement spots though.

That doesn't tell me how it feels on techy stuff, though. :) Which is why I'd like to get some actual dirt time on one.

Looks like Blackspire has a 20t granny still for a 58/94 crankset. I don't recall who makes / made a 58 / 94 crankset, but a 20t front ring with a 25t rear would be doable.
http://www.universalcycles.com/images//products/medium/306.jpg

Profile makes a 58/94 crankset. http://www.profileracing.com/products_home.php?productid=43