SRAM Xx1 works fine on 135mm frames. Shimano 11 speed will too as it uses the same freehub that's being used on 135 mm frames today.

 

Simple question because no amount if searching gives me the simple answer.

Can I put an 11 speed cassette on my 135 mm rear, or it it only for the 142mm craze?

Toying with 1x11 for my epic

Thanks

There is no drivetrain/cassette width difference between 135 and 142 hubs. Same clearances at the dropouts.
They just use different dropouts and attachments.

 

Yep, the freehub section is identical. The wider axle just makes for stronger rear wheels with less dish and more even spoke length and tension.

 

Actually that is not true, most manufacturers use the same 135mm hub and just change the end caps, they do not change the actual hub flanges and move them anywhere to make for a less dished wheel, the extra 7mm (3.5mm per side) is taken up inside the slotted drop out, that's it. That being said, one company (whom I despise) has done something to help a bit and that's Specialized, with their 142mm+ hubs, they do actually move the DS hub flange over a few MM to help with a less dished wheel.

 

Well, now I've learned something today.

Thanks for the quick answers, now to price out a 1x11 and scare the wife.

 

Speaking of hubs, does that mean if I want an X1 cassette, I'm needing a new hub (wheel) or is there a SRAM driver body to work on my specialized hub?

 

Shiggy is wrong. I actual have 135mm frame running XX1. I had to talk to SRAM and SCB and finally came up with my own solution after talking to them. SCB sent me a few derailleur hangers to test it out and it worked perfectly. Thanks SCB.

The issue is XX1 was really designed for 142mm... if you use 135mm you are short about 3.5mm since there's a 7mm difference divided by 2. The issue lies on the 10T cog... if high and low adjustment are set correctly even with the chain on...there's stilll a chance of interference. When the chain falls off or the derailleur cable breaks...it causes the jockey wheel to collide into the derailleur cable guide.

I solved this issue by taking the derailleur hanger and added a threaded washer brazed (weld) onto the hanger where the derailleur hanger attaches. The washer is 3mm thick so it made the derailleur think it's attached to a 142mm frame. I have zero clearance now. If you search my postings, you can see a picture of what I'm talking about.

 

Per the SRAM Frame Fit documents, http://cdn.sram.com/cdn/farfuture/E...3/sites/default/files/techdocs/gen._0000000004420_rev._b_mtb_drivetrain_ffs.pdf
the distance from small cog to the outside of the hanger is 12.7mm (+/- 1.0mm) for 10 speed.
For 11-sp they spec 2.7-3.7mm from cog to inside of frame, plus hanger thickness of 7-9mm. A range of 2.7-12.7mm.

The cog to frame clearance is the same for 135mm open dropouts and 142mm TA. The extra 3.5mm per side of the latter is recessed into the frame and does not change the hanger spacing.

 

Shiggy... you are referring to document. I am referring to real life application and talking to SRAM technical dept and their solution was to add a washer. They said it's not the first time they ran into this...so while you can refer to a document, I can give you real life example of where there are interference. I'm not the only poster on the forum that had this issue.

Again...will 135mm work for XX1. Yes. When the chain or cable breaks or when the chain falls off will your derailleur hanger fall into the half moon cable guide of the derailleur? Yes it will.

I'm not talking about the spacing of the frame...that's a standard from 135mm to 142mm...manufacturers don't deviate from that...or at least they shouldn't. It's a flaw with the derailleur itself when SRAM designed the XX1. The half moon cable guide should have been smaller. For 142mm bikes when it's adjusted high low properly you don't run into this issue. For 135mm bikes without spacer even adjusted the high low tension screws...you will STILL run into this issue when the chain falls off or breaks or cable breaks. I hope that makes sense for anyone considering 135mm and XX1. Just need to add the washer.. in my case I wanted to be safe so I brazed a threaded washer I made. The washer itself will take away the amount of the b-bolt was supposed to be screwed into the frame. Brazing (welding) the washer eliminated this issue. I spent a month back and forth with SRAM and SCB and solution to fix it.

 

And in the real world SRAM 9/10-sp RDs can need washers, too. Basic design flaws and chainline issues with any 8/9/10/11-sp drivetrain.

More and more I like how my 2x6 setups work.

 

Shiggy... I hope this comes across as respectful, but how can you comment on XX1 drivetrain unless you've played with one and used 135mm frame with it? The issue again has nothing to do with chainline... it has to do with design flaw that the hi lo has to be set correctly without interfering with the derailleur cable guide.

Original poster asked if this can be done, but unless you've had your hands on it or have one... how can you give pointers unless you are just guessing based on reading documents. bicycle manuals are not all that good to start with.

It's really cool that you can be strong enough to run 2x6 unless you only ride on flat land...but I'm not going to go into more internet discussion for sake of arguing...just wanted to provide facts to help the OP. Take care.

 

Shiggy... I hope this comes across as respectful, but how can you comment on XX1 drivetrain unless you've played with one and used 135mm frame with it? The issue again has nothing to do with chainline... it has to do with design flaw that the hi lo has to be set correctly without interfering with the derailleur cable guide.

Original poster asked if this can be done, but unless you've had your hands on it or have one... how can you give pointers unless you are just guessing based on reading documents. bicycle manuals are not all that good to start with.

It's really cool that you can be strong enough to run 2x6 unless you only ride on flat land...but I'm not going to go into more internet discussion for sake of arguing...just wanted to provide facts to help the OP. Take care.

I have "played" with it, seen the flaws, which affect it no matter which axle type is being used. Problems with the hanger spacing are frame-specific, just as they are with all other SRAM RDs.

Poor chain lines plague all "modern" drivetrains and make their issues worse, especially with single chainrings.

My 2x6 setups have a WIDER gearing range than any 1x11, and are more efficient and reliable.

 

I ran xx1 on an older Ellsworth Evolve with a 135mm rear with no modifications and no issues. I moved the kit over to a new frame with a 142mm rear by changing the end caps on the hub. Performance was the same.

 

drivetrain efficiency[/URL]. From the conclusions:

Sorry, shiggy, you are totally wrong on this. You can lead a horse to water...

I'm note sure why that is a 'well respected' study. It's no better than Shiggy saying he can feel a difference. The study does not mention chain offset at all until the conclusion, where it makes an unsubstantiated claim that that loss 'should be small' compared to other factors. They say the losses were 'calculated', meaning they did not do any testing on that. Oh wait, they say 'This was verified experimentally.' Really, let's see the results! Also, all of this was done in a nice clean lab environment. How about throwing some mud or sand on the system and see what happens?

Common sense tells me the more offset the chain is, the less efficient it will be. I would love to see a study that measures how much the efficiency drops as the offset increases. I'm sure SRAM and Shimano know the results...

 

I'm note sure why that is a 'well respected' study. It's no better than Shiggy saying he can feel a difference. ...

Right, it's no better. You're a real scientist.

Also, from page 4, middle column...

A similar analysis can be carried out for the effects of chain offset with the result that the power lost as a result of offset has a form nearly identical to that given for friction at the pin-bushing interface except that a factor of the offset angle appears in the expression for offset losses. Since this angle is small, the frictional effects of offset should be small compared with pin/bushing losses.

So, yes, they do mention it and they model it.

The study does not mention chain offset at all until the conclusion, where it makes an unsubstantiated claim that that loss 'should be small' compared to other factors. They say the losses were 'calculated', meaning they did not do any testing on that. Oh wait, they say 'This was verified experimentally.'

You can't be more wrong on these points. They develop a model, show that the model predicts that chain angle isn't a significant contributor, they perform tests and present data, and use infrared photography to provide qualitative evidence of where power losses occur. Apparently you missed all that.

Also, all of this was done in a nice clean lab environment. How about throwing some mud or sand on the system and see what happens?

Interesting that you think that will change the result any. Chain angle will suddenly become important with mud?

Common sense tells me the more offset the chain is, the less efficient it will be. I would love to see a study that measures how much the efficiency drops as the offset increases. I'm sure SRAM and Shimano know the results...

And so does the author. You don't because you don't understand the article.

The article doesn't deny that losses increase with chain angle, in fact it expressly states that it's the case. What the article says is that those losses aren't significant compared to other losses in the system.

Nice try though. It's amazing how hard people try to hold onto their prejudices.

 

Is it bad that I've unsubscribed and stop reading my own thread? Got my answer (ish), and now this thread has become a circular fight over the performance of 2x6 over 1x11. I just wanted to know if it would fit on my bike, not if it was the right conversion to make.

Just sayin

 

for what its worth i'm running it on a fargo with no issues- i never saw any mention that it was intended for 142, i would imagine there are a very significant portion of users on 135

 

Shiggy, do you have a thread somewhere that describes your x6 setups?

I've been toying with the idea of 6 cogs on a Hope single-speed hub since apparently it has room... I don't really care much about efficiency but I do rather like the idea of fewer double-shifts.

I really only need about 3 gears - a middle gear for damn near everything, plus climbing and speed gears for special occasions. If I could make 1x6 work with an 11-36 cassette I'd gladly ditch my current 1x9 and 1x10 setups.

 

Shiggy, do you have a thread somewhere that describes your x6 setups?

I've been toying with the idea of 6 cogs on a Hope single-speed hub since apparently it has room... I don't really care much about efficiency but I do rather like the idea of fewer double-shifts.

I really only need about 3 gears - a middle gear for damn near everything, plus climbing and speed gears for special occasions. If I could make 1x6 work with an 11-36 cassette I'd gladly ditch my current 1x9 and 1x10 setups.

Lots of info here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-components/6-cogs-ss-hub-best-solution-458083.html

 

Um, cross chaining does cause more wear. And if there is more wear there is more efficiency loss.