Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 225 Posts

·
Always Learning
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
20.100 FR said:
For all you low ratio lovers, or may be also 2*9 ?

12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36
425 g
425g? :madman: Will it eventually be coming out in the XTR flavor?

I'll stick with my 11-34 at 187g. The difference in 238g less of rotational weight alone ought to be worth about the same as 2 teeth.:D

BB
 

·
Cassoulet forever !
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Bruce, all rotating weight does not have the same inertia. The weight at the hub is like weight on the frame. This said, i agree with you, this is heavy ! There is still the option to go to a custom titanium cassette.

Starre : an 180mm XTR crankset in 20 30 40 oval (rotor) rings will do for me :)

Charlie : i've got no additionnal info then what i gave you. This info comes from a trusted source ;-)
 

·
Harmonius Wrench
Joined
·
8,254 Posts
20.100 FR said:
For all you low ratio lovers, or may be also 2*9 ?

12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36
425 g
Thanks for that info. I had heard rumors of this coming out, but the ratios and weight I had not seen posted before.

Bruce: I don't think Shimano is thinking that weight weenies and XC geeks will be at all interested in this, and before you say "1X9", I just want to also point out that Shimano will need to see folks like you actually using that cassette before they will consider making higher end versions of it. Typically, racers are not going to want a 36T out back, so I can totally see why there is no XT/XTR version. (Besides, mere mortals wouldn't even be able to afford those cassettes.)

I would advise a wait and see attitude. There may be a work around to get that cassette cog on a lighter weight cassette, or maybe you could employ a little "drillium". ;) :D

At any rate, rock crawling, chunk riding, Alpine flying 29"er geeks should be rejoicing over this news. I for one think it's awesome.

EDIT: I see there is no 34T before the 36T. This sounds like a MegaRange cassette, which would be a disappointing thing if true. We'll see....
 

·
Category Winner
Joined
·
6,138 Posts
Guitar Ted said:
EDIT: I see there is no 34T before the 36T. This sounds like a MegaRange cassette, which would be a disappointing thing if true. We'll see....
Using my fingers and toes (good thing I wear sandals) I see a trend to defend the leap of tooth.

12-14=2
14-16=2
16-18=2
18-21=3
21-24=3
24-28=4
28-32=4
32-36=4

So sounds good enough to me. Gimme a 28-36 corn cob, and I'll go back to gears.

:)
 

·
Hybrid Leftys aren't real
Joined
·
16,476 Posts
Good work Shimano. Make a product folks seem to be clamoring for, then make it so heavy, none of them want it. Guaranteed product failure. "See Mr. Shimano, I told you these were a bad idea"....:rolleyes:

Sounds like it's time to get out the drill and dremel, and go Drillium on it's a$$ :ihih:
 

·
Always Learning
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
Guitar Ted said:
Thanks for that info. I had heard rumors of this coming out, but the ratios and weight I had not seen posted before.

Bruce: I don't think Shimano is thinking that weight weenies and XC geeks will be at all interested in this, and before you say "1X9", I just want to also point out that Shimano will need to see folks like you actually using that cassette before they will consider making higher end versions of it. Typically, racers are not going to want a 36T out back, so I can totally see why there is no XT/XTR version. (Besides, mere mortals wouldn't even be able to afford those cassettes.)

I would advise a wait and see attitude. There may be a work around to get that cassette cog on a lighter weight cassette, or maybe you could employ a little "drillium". ;) :D

At any rate, rock crawling, chunk riding, Alpine flying 29"er geeks should be rejoicing over this news. I for one think it's awesome.

EDIT: I see there is no 34T before the 36T. This sounds like a MegaRange cassette, which would be a disappointing thing if true. We'll see....
Hey, I'm all for the option being available. I was just super-surprised by the weight when compared to the 32T and 34T Shimano 9 speed cassette weights. My chunkiest XT 11-34 weights 290g with the lockring and my SRAM 990 is 302g with lockring.

My guess is the initial Shimano cassette with the 36T is at the Deore HG 50 level (when comparing weights to their Deore HG-50 9 speed mountain).

For the race crowd, I could see a cassette with a 36T working well for 1 x 9 and 2 x 9 race sets for 29"ers. The Middleburn Duo that can come in the 29/42 combo works with a 34T, but granny gear can get a bit grueling later on in a race when hitting some steep climbs. But, the industry (including Middleburn) has also introduced 2 x 9 rings in the 27/40 combination for this season which removes the need for a 36T out back. And, of course, Action-Tec has been doing the big ring cassettes in Ti at a lighter weight than the Shimano - so there are plenty of options available.

I've got one of those 7 speed Shimano Alpine HG cassettes with a 34T out in the garage. I'll have to go out and weigh it to see what it weighs. It's probably around the 425g area.

I'm looking forward to seeing pictures of the new Shimano cassette.

BB
 

·
Harmonius Wrench
Joined
·
8,254 Posts
teamdicky said:
Using my fingers and toes (good thing I wear sandals) I see a trend to defend the leap of tooth.

12-14=2
14-16=2
16-18=2
18-21=3
21-24=3
24-28=4
28-32=4
32-36=4

So sounds good enough to me. Gimme a 28-36 corn cob, and I'll go back to gears.

:)
First of all your going to gears is as about as likely as you using a suspensio........whoops! Well...........ah...........anyway! :D

I just throw that out there due to all the bickering I have witnessed in regards to SRAMs jumps on their cassettes. Seems folks don't be likin' it. ;) . That's all.

Rant on.......

Still it is a great idea. And where did all this gram counting for cassettes suddenly come from anyway? :skep: I thought people wanted to ride up stuff they couldn't before. Seems like now that you might be able to, all we hear is griping about the parts weight. Hey great! Thanks Shimano, but we'd rather walk than ride a part we think is too heavy. Go away until you can shave 200 grams off it and sell it for $29.95. :rolleyes:

Rant off.............
 

·
Always Learning
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
Guitar Ted said:
First of all your going to gears is as about as likely as you using a suspensio........whoops! Well...........ah...........anyway! :D

I just throw that out there due to all the bickering I have witnessed in regards to SRAMs jumps on their cassettes. Seems folks don't be likin' it. ;) . That's all.

Rant on.......

Still it is a great idea. And where did all this gram counting for cassettes suddenly come from anyway? :skep: I thought people wanted to ride up stuff they couldn't before. Seems like now that you might be able to, all we hear is griping about the parts weight. Hey great! Thanks Shimano, but we'd rather walk than ride a part we think is too heavy. Go away until you can shave 200 grams off it and sell it for $29.95. :rolleyes:

Rant off.............
No, no. At 225g I'd be willing to pay $200+ for it. The XTR is a great cassette and I always pick one up on sale when I see it. Perfect shifting and light weight.

Power to weight ratio is important for me because even with training, I cannot produce more power than I am physically (and genetically) able to produce. So keeping weight low on my body and the machine is a concern for climbing. But I have to admit that spinning in a granny gear such as a 36T is not going to require as much power unless we were talking super-steeps where keeping traction and the bike upright the challenge all the more rewarding when cleared.

For alpine touring, and loaded touring this cassette will be well used as a less expensive alternative to the Action-Tec Ti alpine cassettes. We'll see how it sells and if it eventually leads to introducing those gearing options in the more expensive and lighter weight Shimano cassette lines.

BB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
94/58BCD cranks just make more sense I think. You can still run traditional gearing, or the lower 20/30/40t combo. The chainrings would be lighter, your chain would be lighter due to less links. I know that a 36t combined with current chainrings would wear slower, but come on. With all of these people out there riding SS 29ers whose lowest gear are commonly 32-20, do we really need a cassette that weighs just short of a pound? 1 ounce less than a pound. That's insane.

I just question the need for a 36t chainring. Especially when there are 20t chainrings available for 64BCD's. I know there are people who would utilize the the 36t in combination with the 20t. But similar things can be accomplished by just loosing 60-100gr with a lighter rear wheel and maybe even a little lighter tire. A little goes a long way in terms of rim weight and tire weight.
 

·
Recovering couch patato
Joined
·
14,019 Posts
Very cool! Surely this will be the beginning of more.
New derailers to be built to accept even larger ranges?

I'm a 1*9 guy myself.

I have a new 38t, no shifting ramps, Rotor downhill/singlespeed Q-ring, which will serve duty on my new build, with lightweight 190-195mm custom cranks. Should work at least as well as the 36's I've been using in single ring setups.

I would have preferred the 11t to remain on the cassette though.
This one is like an 11-32 with the 11 replaced for a 38.
I'd like an 11-38 that goes like 11-13-15-18-21-24-28-33-38.
Or, better 7-speed : 11-13-16-20-25-31-38, but that's more for a custom Ti idea. Need to fire up SolidWorks again :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
It was asked before - URL? Before we go speculating on all this, can anyone confirm the details, especially the weight. Of course its going to be heavier than smaller cassettes but 425g seems like a lot. Wouldn't necessarily stop me from using it though.

As a 1x9er I am excited about this.
 

·
Harmonius Wrench
Joined
·
8,254 Posts
ia_ss157 said:
94/58BCD cranks just make more sense I think. You can still run traditional gearing, or the lower 20/30/40t combo. The chainrings would be lighter, your chain would be lighter due to less links. I know that a 36t combined with current chainrings would wear slower, but come on. With all of these people out there riding SS 29ers whose lowest gear are commonly 32-20, do we really need a cassette that weighs just short of a pound? 1 ounce less than a pound. That's insane.

I just question the need for a 36t chainring. Especially when there are 20t chainrings available for 64BCD's. I know there are people who would utilize the the 36t in combination with the 20t. But similar things can be accomplished by just loosing 60-100gr with a lighter rear wheel and maybe even a little lighter tire. A little goes a long way in terms of rim weight and tire weight.
Sit down sometime with a rider from the Rockies and have a chat sometime. Climbs that can get into miles and altitudes that range into the five digit range for most of the ride. I think you'll come away convinced that there is indeed a need for this lower gearing, even with a 20T granny. ;)
 

·
Birthday Collector
Joined
·
2,610 Posts
BruceBrown said:
425g? :madman: Will it eventually be coming out in the XTR flavor?

I'll stick with my 11-34 at 187g. The difference in 238g less of rotational weight alone ought to be worth about the same as 2 teeth.:D

BB
OK - I want to know where you got this, or who calibrates your scale! (Or did you go "drillium" on an XTR Cassette...?) The published weight for an XTR 11-32 unit is 224 grams.

http://bike.shimano.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/us/index/products/mountain/xtr/product.-code-CS-M970.-type-cs_mountain.html

Still I completely agree that 425g is pretty much among the bottom-feeders for this part. Like they made one for something sub-Alivio (358g for 11-32) or equivalent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
Excuses for laziness and lack of fitness

I say why worry about the weight, it's at the hub, so doesn't play as much as rim/tyre weight, plus that 200g bonus is NOTHING compared to what the people mainly wanting this cassette could do to lose. I guess in this day and age if you can't get fit enough, just try to by the lightest something to make up for that extra weight you're carrying around and if that doesn't work blame the manufacturers, not your fat, lazy self :skep: :madman:

Strange I managed to get my sea level arse to make alot of those nice mile, upon mile climbs at stupid altitudes, running a 24/34/46 ring setup and standard 11-34 cassette - and I ain't no strongman, super hero type build :madman:

Rant off!!

Guitar Ted said:
Sit down sometime with a rider from the Rockies and have a chat sometime. Climbs that can get into miles and altitudes that range into the five digit range for most of the ride. I think you'll come away convinced that there is indeed a need for this lower gearing, even with a 20T granny. ;)
 

·
Always Learning
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
ATBScott said:
OK - I want to know where you got this, or who calibrates your scale! (Or did you go "drillium" on an XTR Cassette...?) The published weight for an XTR 11-32 unit is 224 grams.

https://bike.shimano.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/us/index/products/mountain/xtr/product.-code-CS-M970.-type-cs_mountain.html

Still I completely agree that 425g is pretty much among the bottom-feeders for this part. Like they made one for something sub-Alivio (358g for 11-32) or equivalent.
luckynino on eBay sells the Ti cassettes. Mine is heavy compared to the 32t and 30t versions. You can also pick up the Cycle King Ti cassette from a Hong Kong seller here.

There are threads over on the weight weenie board devoted to the introduction and refinement of luckynino's Ti cassette. It currently is in the 2nd generation and is trick.

Here's the first generation which I just replaced with the new 2nd (the red)...

 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 225 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top