I have SRAM Force eTap AXS 12spd on my new Canyon. I like it. It's ok.

Can someone please explain, how is it beneficial to have smaller chainrings (48/35) and a 10T cog over having larger chainrings, i.e. 52/36, and instead of the 10T having an 18T?

I don't get it.

SRAM came up with a super expensive cassette machined out of a single lump of steel (X Dome). On the whole this is cheaper for them to make if it’s 10% smaller and they can charge more if it’s lighter. The matching freehub body (xD Driver) gets them under the former 11t limit on the Shimano freehub. It shut out Shimano for a little while, who had to invent their own equivalent. It’s a bigger savings of weight on the big 1x mountain bike cassettes than the road ones. Their architecture allows 9t top cogs too, though they themselves haven’t gone that far. The smaller front rings just keep the ratios the same. And minus a couple of chain links too.

A 48/10 is the same as a 53/11. The big mistake for sram was increasing range with a 12th sprocket, then decreasing range with a smaller percentage difference at the crank. I fixed that issue with a Campy chorus 12 speed 48/32 crank. When you have a 48 big ring, the 15-16-17 is like a 17-18-19 with a 52 or 53 ring. One reason to use a 10T sprocket is to in increase range without using an excessively large biggest sprocket. I'm using the 10-36 cassette to get a 540% range instead of the 516% that you get with a SRAM 43/30.

I suspect that sram couldn't get reliable front shifting with a 16T difference at the crank. I've only logged 300 miles on my new force axs parts, but my crank has been used extensively with the axs chain for over a year. No chain drops yet, with the AXS FD.

Campy is just about to release 1x13 cassettes that start with a 9.