Mountain Biking - Yay, cheaper 10 speed

Not sure if people have already seen this, but SRAM is doing down to X7 as 10 speed next year.

Been wanting a XX group but can't afford it, hopefully I'll be able to afford the X7 version. Apparently shimano are also going to be doing a similar range of 10 speed mtb stuff although I'm not as sure on that one.

Meeh! don't need it. :p

Woo. Woo.

Yay another solution to a problem that didn't exist that was a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Meh, I'm looking forward to it. Will make it much easier to get a set of gears I like.

Anyone remember that old TV show......uhhhh ... 8 is enough?

I don't really see what's to gain by 10-speed here. Narrower chain? More expensive cassettes? Those don't seem like improvements to me, but I also just ride for fun.

On the bright side, maybe 9-speed replacement parts will drop in price?

Link to propaganda (on my site, not SRAM's)


http://www.coveredbridgecyclery.com/propaganda/SRAM_X7_2X10.pdf

I don't really see what's to gain by 10-speed here.

Probably that with an 11-36 ten-speed cassette, you can have a 2-chainring setup without losing too much off the low end, or broadening the jumps from cog to cog. Two-ring cranks, properly done, would improve chainline, FD-to-tire clearance (especially on 29ers with fat tires), and Q-factor. They also eliminate the need to shift into granny (with its attendant risk of chain drop or chainsuck). When the rider's at that "I need my lowest gear now" point, he'll be making a rear shift to the 36, not a momentum-robbing front dump from a 32-tooth ring to a 22.

I welcome the option to use native 2-ring cranks (XC-type, not granny-middle-bash) without having to get into the semi-exotic price range, e.g. Middleburn.

I don't think I've hit my granny gear on my XC bike since I bought it in '02.

And that includes the rides pulling my kid in a trailer with an 11-25 cogset.

I sometimes use the granny gear on the FR bike... which of course has no big ring.

Not on my purchase list anytime soon.

I don't think I've hit my granny gear on my XC bike since I bought it in '02.

And that includes the rides pulling my kid in a trailer with an 11-25 cogset.

I sometimes use the granny gear on the FR bike... which of course has no big ring.

Not on my purchase list anytime soon.

Then it's obviously not for you, but some of us have horrendous sticky mud, snow and silly inclines we like to be able to ride over/through/up.

I can't see why the people dislike the idea of extra cogs if it isn't going to cost any more.

I can't see why the people dislike the idea of extra cogs if it isn't going to cost any more.
Because it's a bicycle after all if you can't make it with nine gears you are not gonna make it with ten period. Seriously...instead of spinning your pedals two revolutions faster you are going to invest all that money in to new crank, new cassette and a new derailleur?

Will the likes of X7 still be available as 9speed?

Then it's obviously not for you, but some of us have horrendous sticky mud, snow and silly inclines we like to be able to ride over/through/up.

I think we all have those things, or we wouldn't be on here. I don't think an extra cog is going to help me with those things.

But is making the chain narrower when the *horrendous sticky mud* is staying the same size (so to speak) an upgrade?

I'm not sure.

People keep asking "Why? Why? Why?! I won't be upgrading!"
Amazingly enough, new bikes continue to be built. Bicycle production didn't stop when you bought your bike. New bikes need a new drivetrain. Ergo, your upgrading or not upgrading makes not one bit of difference to SRAM.

They added one cog in the back so they could lose one cog in the front. Honestly - face it - triples suck. It's much easier to have clean shifts with 2 chainrings than with 3.

Of course, I switched to a double back when Ritchey introduced his 2x9 system....

People keep asking "Why? Why? Why?! I won't be upgrading!"
Amazingly enough, new bikes continue to be built. Bicycle production didn't stop when you bought your bike. New bikes need a new drivetrain. Ergo, your upgrading or not upgrading makes not one bit of difference to SRAM.

They added one cog in the back so they could lose one cog in the front. Honestly - face it - triples suck. It's much easier to have clean shifts with 2 chainrings than with 3.

Of course, I switched to a double back when Ritchey introduced his 2x9 system....

I ran a 2X9 for last season. It wasnt any special trendy set up, just a dual ring setup with a 9 speed cassette in the back. That did way more than fine for me. Like someone else said before, its the solution the a problem that either doesnt exist, or one that they created.

I think we all have those things, or we wouldn't be on here. I don't think an extra cog is going to help me with those things.

But is making the chain narrower when the *horrendous sticky mud* is staying the same size (so to speak) an upgrade?

I'm not sure.

Tbh I doubt anyone can ride what I do without dropping below a 32-25 combination. If you've got any tips as to how it's possible I'd love to hear them.

I think we all have those things, or we wouldn't be on here. I don't think an extra cog is going to help me with those things.

But is making the chain narrower when the *horrendous sticky mud* is staying the same size (so to speak) an upgrade?

I'm not sure.

I was running a Dura-Ace 7900 chain on my race bike until just last week, and a KMC X10-SL before that. Mud didn't seem to be posing any special challenge to either of them:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff237/mechBgon/Bluff_3-13_1.jpg

Go to a serious cyclocross race sometime and see how many of those bikes are running anything but ten-speed. It's not like it's never been tried in sick conditions before ;)

Tbh I doubt anyone can ride what I do without dropping below a 32-25 combination. If you've got any tips as to how it's possible I'd love to hear them.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone should be slogging up the steepest hill they can find in a 34x25. My comments were in response to the notion that a 10-speed cluster will make a double-ring set-up suddenly possible. I'm suggesting that in most applications it's already possible with a 9-speed cluster.

Are the 10-speed MTB clusters actually offering a larger climbing gear than what is presently offered, like a 11-35 or 11-36? I'm asking, I dunno.



Go to a serious cyclocross race sometime and see how many of those bikes are running anything but ten-speed. It's not like it's never been tried in sick conditions before

You'll see *me* running 9-speed at said CX race, I promise. And maybe a few other cheap guys. Maybe.

Point taken, but road bike (and thus CX race bikes) clusters have been 10-speed only for years now. Those guys would have to go through the expense of retro-ing their new CX bikes back to 9-speed. I'm not suggesting it makes that much of a difference.

You'll see *me* running 9-speed at said CX race, I promise. And maybe a few other cheap guys.

Hehe, I resemble that remark :D as my only CX-able bike is currently 9sp.



Point taken, but road bike (and thus CX race bikes) clusters have been 10-speed only for years now. Those guys would have to go through the expense of retro-ing their new CX bikes back to 9-speed. I'm not suggesting it makes that much of a difference.

There's still plenty of 9-speed road stuff, e.g. the SRAM PG-950 cassettes in various road combos, and the entire Sora and Tiagra groups. If a manufacturer wants to throw a 9-speed CX bike out there, the parts are still there. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see Tiagra transition to 10-speed soon, now that 105 is getting a remake in the general image of Ultegra 6700. That would leave the R600 STI levers as the remaining 9sp brifter (they still do R500 to support the 8sp crowd, too).


Are the 10-speed MTB clusters actually offering a larger climbing gear than what is presently offered, like a 11-35 or 11-36? I'm asking, I dunno.

Yeah, 11-36 seems to be the new beige, although 29er wheels will neutralize some of that lowering by virtue of their jacking up all the drive ratios in proportion to their larger circumference.

Ugh, I hope there's wider selection of 10 speed chains with a reusable master link if everything is going 10 speed. I just switched from Shimano 8 speed chains to SRAM 8 speed chains on my MTB and was pleasantly surprised at how much more pleasant cleaning the chain is.

They added one cog in the back so they could lose one cog in the front. Honestly - face it - triples suck. It's much easier to have clean shifts with 2 chainrings than with 3.

Of course, I switched to a double back when Ritchey introduced his 2x9 system....


If I could get a front derailler that changed smoothly with a 44/22- Then I would still miss my 32 middle ring.

Don't know abou the rest of you but I do need all of the gears on my 44/32/22 and 11/32 cassette. OK- I might not need the 32 except on the steepest hills- but I still use it on most rides.

So give me a 10 speed double crankset that will cover 44/11 and 22/32 and I might give it a try. In the meantime I'll save money by not upgrading.

Why bother? The 10 speed chain is narrower and weaker. I would have gone 8 speed on my 29er if i could have, but there isn't that much quality 8 speed stuff out there for mtb. My friend tries to ride trails on his CX bike, but you put a LOT more torque on a mtb chain than you do on a road chain (big fat tires plus steep climbs). yes, if you spin you will be fine. but for the average mountain biker, who will attempt to mash in a cross chain situation, have fun. im sticking 9 speed until the bitter end. and even then, unless my road bikes are 10 speed (currently 6,7, and SS 1/8 inch drive), i will stick with 9 speed.

I think that 10 speed is ridiculous on a mtb, and the average user will end up suffering. this is just opinion, but when i told my LBS that sram x7 will be 10 speed, he said "oh god". this is a man who still rides 9 speed ultegra.

I'm not quite sure why the new 2X has captured people's imaginations so much, since it was really designed for and targeted as an elite XC-racing drivetrain. Those racers are, for the most part, competing on buff, featureless double- and singletrack courses (especially in short track) with mild terrain changes; so it makes complete sense to do away with the extraneous cogs in order to shave weight and improve chainline. Face it: they have no need of a granny that us mere mortals riding in real-world trail conditions often have to call into play if you live/ride in mountainous country and/or grunt your heavier-than-normal bigger-hit trail bike around in those hills.

Let's look at the numbers: The typical XX 2-ring setup gives you 26/36 front rings or 28/36 front rings. Couple that with the lowest-gear cog in the 10-speed, 11-36 cassette and the lowest gear ratios available to you are 1.38:1 and 1.28:1 respectively. Now, compare that to a typical 3-ring setup with a 22t granny and an 11-34 9-speed cassette and your three lowest gears are 1.27:1 (28t cog), 1.36:1 (30t) and 1.54:1 in granny/34t.

Sooooooo . . . with 10-speed XX, you will never have a grind-it-out granny gear. The best you can do is have the equivalent of your second- or third-lowest gear. That may be fine for a lot of folks; but think of all those climbs that were about to whip you but you had one more ultra-low gear in your arsenal that could get you over the top. Just food for thought.

Maybe this just speaks to my mediocrity, but when I get denied on a climb in a 34X32, dropping to the granny ring and trying it again never helps.

It's always either a loss of traction or a loss of balance due the combination of lean-back, spinning, low speed, and clearing uphill obstacles.

In a race I get off and run because everyone else is getting off to run anyways.

When I'm just riding, I get off and walk because... well, it's not a race.

Only practicality I see is in a now 1x10 set up you get another gear. But being a SS rider meh no big deal. At least the mtb world is trying new things and still evolving, when things slow down is when there is a problem.

Maybe this just speaks to my mediocrity, but when I get denied on a climb in a 34X32, dropping to the granny ring and trying it again never helps.

It's always either a loss of traction or a loss of balance due the combination of lean-back, spinning, low speed, and clearing uphill obstacles.

In a race I get off and run because everyone else is getting off to run anyways.

When I'm just riding, I get off and walk because... well, it's not a race.

+1

10 is more than we need anyway

edit - whoops - I mean for road bikes

I'm not quite sure why the new 2X has captured people's imaginations so much, since it was really designed for and targeted as an elite XC-racing drivetrain.

Um, cycling has a long and distinguished tradition of normal riders being excited about getting the trappings of elite racing on their bike.

Maybe this just speaks to my mediocrity, but when I get denied on a climb in a 34X32, dropping to the granny ring and trying it again never helps.

It's always either a loss of traction or a loss of balance due the combination of lean-back, spinning, low speed, and clearing uphill obstacles.

Same here. I find I do best near the 1:1 area on my hardtails. If I get too much lower, I'm prone to having the bike come unstuck at one end or the other (wheel lift or spinout) on really steep stuff (30-45% grade).

What I don't quite understand, is what happened to torque. I was on a ride with a group the other night, and one guy's derailleur was acting up on the 30-tooth cog, so he was complaining that his 32 x 34 was too low and his 32 x 26 was too high. I looked down at my drivetrain and I was happily crunching along in the 48 x 26 or thereabouts. I mean seriously, we're moseying up a slight grade on a firm singletrack, WTH does anyone several years younger than me need a 32 x 30 for? I bet he'd have no problem turning the 32 x 26 if chicks were watching ;)

There's one hill on my regular ride (trail - not commute) that I have the same problem with. The frustrating part is that I've cleaned it a couple of times, but I can't for the life of me remember which magic gear combo. did it for me. I've tried several times since then in different gears and I either can't smash hard enough or the rear breaks loose, but everything's been covered in slick dead leaves lately, so maybe that's the critical difference.

What I don't quite understand, is what happened to torque?I guess I just don't have enough of it, mechB. There are a couple of climbs in Riverside S.P. (not really known for that gnarly of climbs) - - Wicked Witch and going up Devil's Down . . . well and that nasty little climb up to the old rail bed - - that would have me whipped if it weren't for that low-low-low granny.

Although, I suppose that it doesn't help that my primary 'trail bike' tips the scale at about 40 lbs. ;).

I guess I just don't have enough of it, mechB. There are a couple of climbs in Riverside S.P. (not really known for that gnarly of climbs) - - Wicked Witch and going up Devil's Down . . . well and that nasty little climb up to the old rail bed - - that would have me whipped if it weren't for that low-low-low granny.

Although, I suppose that it doesn't help that my primary 'trail bike' tips the scale at about 40 lbs. ;).

Speaking of which, I wonder who's been messing with Devil's Down lately? I was there this evening, and there's rocks bigger than basketballs just lying around loose on the primary line now. A rogue trail nanny, perhaps...