The Riding Gravel Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #26 
While all of that is true, there are a couple of other considerations:

First is the aformentioned gearing jumps, which just get larger as the cassette does. I find huge gearing jumps to be uncomfortable and inefficient, as you're frequently pedaling too fast or too slow. The second consideration is piling excess weight on the bike by adding a huge, heavy cassette, more chain and a Roadlink that's only necessary because of the huge cassette. I'm not saying that any of this is wrong or that it won't work for many riders (it obviously works for you), I'm just pointing out the downsides.

In contrast, switching to smaller chainrings allows you keep the smaller cassette (or even reduce it in size), reduce the amount of chain and eliminate the Roadlink. Gearing gaps are reduced dramatically, which for me at least, results in more efficient and enjoyable riding. For non-racers, the essentially useless gears above 100 gear inches are eliminated. If I'm spinning out a gear that big, I must be going downhill and I'm better off coasting and catching my breath for the next climb.

As for shifting more in the front, you won't shift that much more often, as you still have a good range on each chainring. The difference is that you'll spend more time in the big ring and use the small ring primarily for climbing and transitioning back to the big ring. Besides, when did front shifting become burdensome? Modern derailleurs and cranks shift quickly and reliably - on or off-road - so what's the big deal with a few extra front shifts?

In fairness, I have to point out that changing a crankset is the more expensive route, particularly if you have to change the front derailleur as well. However, if it makes riding more fun and efficient, it's worth the outlay IMO, as that's the whole point, isn't it?
0
Absoluteblack

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #27 
Hi everyone,

I just wanted to pass on some 1x12 news from absoluteBlACK

SRAM GX Eagle - 12spd budget groupset is coming

Looking to go Oval with 1x12 drivetrain, but it is still too expensive? Then absoluteBLACK have good news for you!
SRAM GX Eagle is coming soon, which will finally give you the extended range on a budget. All absoluteBLACK Oval chainrings are compatible with GX Eagle so there was not a better time to #GoOval and improve your climbing. Try an absoluteBLACK oval and never look back. We promise.

To convert your bike to 1x12 you only need the 12-speed compatible cassette, rear derailleur, shifter, chain and absoluteBLACK oval chainring. You can even keep your current crank and just mount an absoluteBLACK Oval ring to it. This is as simple as it gets.

However; if you happen to get a GX Eagle crank, then there will, most likely, be two versions (with or without a removable spider) as with current 11spd model. GX-1400 Eagle will accept our direct mount Oval Traction Chainring for SRAM and GX-1000 Eagle will accept our Oval 94bcd Traction Chainring for SRAM - since the latter GX-1000 crank does not have removable spider. Either way absoluteBLACK have your chainring needs covered.

Share this information with friends who are on the lookout for a new budget 1x12 drivetrain.

0
drwelby

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 391
Reply with quote  #28 
In other news Shimano is coming out with an 11-34 HG800 cassette that fits on the MTB or 8-10spd Road cassette body. So if you have older road hubs and want to go 11 speed but didn't want an 11-40 this could work for you.

Also more rumors of the RS690 gravel-oriented group with a road clutch derailleur and subcompact cranks.
0
NoCoGreg

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 273
Reply with quote  #29 
Wow - when 1-x derailleur setups get two more gears they'll have as many as a Rohloff hub...  [biggrin]
http://www.cyclingabout.com/15-reasons-to-tour-with-a-rohloff-hub/

Full disclosure - a Rohloff is still on my n+1 list so it has yet to make it into my garage.  Yeah-yeah I'm aware of all the con's but it just screams "gravel"!

0
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #30 
If it wasn't for the weight, I think a lot of people would be using them, as they're in the same price range as high-end derailleur systems. From a weather/mud/gravel-proofness standpoint, you can't beat 'em.
0
Cmtgravel

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #31 
I have shimano 105 on my masi cxgr and the rear derailleur handles the 11-36 cassette i installed last year no problem. This year i installed a sram mtb crankset with 42/28. What a life changer! Not much lost on top end (not like i was spinning out the 50x11 on gravel descents), and i can now pedal up the steep gravel roads of the hudson valley in ny. An added plus is there is far less redudancy in gearing. In usual setups (50/34 front and 11-32 or 36 rear), you end up with 10 redundant gears (check on gear calculator). In my current setup i think i have 2 redundant gears. So much more versatile, and easier on the knees.
0
Absoluteblack

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #32 

BIG News. SRAM is going OVAL!
Surprised? We are not. After Sram purchased dozens of absoluteBLACK oval rings to test late last year, they are about to release their own (̶c̶o̶p̶y̶)̶ version in the near future.

If you still have sceptical friends around saying, “ovals don’t work otherwise 'big S' would make them surely” - SHARE this news with them then!

We have always believed absoluteBLACK Oval chainrings will become a mainstream drivetrain choice - for all riders - because of their excellent functionality.

With absoluteBLACK's huge international success, even the world's biggest players in bicycle drivetrain technology join now our #ovalrevolution by mimicking our work and raising global awareness of the #gooval movement.

However, not all oval chainrings share the same performance characteritstics as absoluteBLACK. The 'clocking' (timing) and shape of the oval are the most crucial parts of any oval chainring design, absoluteBLACK spent three years in design development and have perfected both timing and shape design elements - ensuring the ride quality of absoluteBLACK oval ring will be different and superior to ovals from other brands (as many abosluteBLACK customers already realised).

Our longterm belief in oval and development of our design, has led absoluteBLACK to become the most commercially successful oval chainring product in the world. So keep in mind that not every oval chainring is equal to an absoluteBLACK.

absoluteBLACK's motto: “Try an oval and never look back” has surely made an impression on SRAM.

https://goo.gl/CE6rcQ



Attached Images
jpeg sram_oval_gxp_chainring_eagle_12_compatible_absoluteblack_gold.jpg (139.23 KB, 2 views)

0
email.gjm

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #33 

To run a larger Shimano 11-40 cassette with a regular shimano ultegra 105 5800 derailleur it seems the options are to either use the roadlink or use a longer cage for the rear derailleur.  

However, I was wondering how the addition of the long cage alone allowed for the derailleur’s jockey wheel to be clear of the 11-40 cassette?

It doesn’t seem like just lengthening the derailleur cage/arm helps to lower the jockey wheel out of the way of the large cassette vs the roadlink modification which lowers the derailleur - but may have other drawbacks such as using the smaller cog gears.

any comments on this would be helpful since looking to either use a roadlink or this longer cage to fit a shimano 11-40 cassette.

0
jeanjacques

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #34 
It's a very common misconception*: the cage length aren't related to the size of the cassette, it's just about how long the chain wrap can be. 
For a big cassette, the only thing that matter is the movement of the parallelogram. With 1x, a short cage is plenty enough (the chain wrap with 11-40 is 29 teeth, less than a double with 11-25 cassette (16+14).  But the movement have to be suffisant.

*Sram don't help with that, the long cage is not different just by the cage, there is also a longer upper part and the parallelogram's movement is different, model "Wifli".
0
NoCoGreg

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 273
Reply with quote  #35 
+1 on what JeanJacques said...

Another detail which may be of interest:
Unlike road rear derailleurs, the new 11/12 speed mountain bike RD's do NOT have an adjusting barrel.  Depending upon your bike and preferences this may not matter.  I really-really like the large range of adjustment available with the RD adjusting barrel.

All of my road, gravel and Frankenbike conversions have RD's with adjusting barrels.  MTB's have the adjusting barrel integrated in the shift lever.

Cheers,
Greg

0
OffB10Path

Member
Registered:
Posts: 28
Reply with quote  #36 
Greg makes a good observation.  You can mitigate the lack of barrel adjuster when mixing an MTB RD and STI shifters by installing an inline barrel adjuster between your bars and the first cable stop on the frame. 
0
GSPChilliwack

Member
Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurichman
I live here in Pa. and yes we have mts. here. I have a triple road bike a 2006 Lemond Victoirre that climbs like a sweetheart. I bought a 2016 Raleigh Tamland 1. It weighs 24.5 lbs stock and 25.15 lbs with my mt pedals on it. I went to climb y local  mt. the 1st ride out and though my heart was going to explode out my chest and I conider myself a decent climber. I had the LBS put on the Sram 11 x 36 and the road link and a new chain. I haven't had a chance to climb the mt with it yet but know that it has to be better than before. Since I am going to be doing some gravel grinding in those leetle hills in WV. I am going to need those lower gears.


Zman


You could run a RaceFace mtb cinch crank--there are different spindles available. Although I'm not sure that it would be particularly economical once you got the different spindle, the 2x spider, rings....and RF bb is garbage.
0
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #38 
The Tamland comes with a 105 crank, which means it's designed for crank with a road chainline. You're not going to get that with a MTB crank. I ran into the same thing with my Niner, which came with Ultegra. To get a road spindle, you have to buy the Easton version of the crank that's much more expensive.

FSA has a 46/30 available in their alloy Energy line that lists for $270. If you can catch it on sale, you can probably find it for a little over $200. The 386EVO design will work on any type of road frame, you just need the proper BB and spacers.

0
Veloceleste

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #39 
I wanted lower gearing on my 2017 Tamland 1 and was looking into either a 46/30 crank or a 36-11 cassette. I went to my LBS and he suggested a Shimano xt 40-11. One of the bike shop owners had his bike set up that way (105 long cage rear derailleur and 105 front derailler) and let me take it for a quick ride. It shifted smoothly. I went with that set-up on my Tamland. Only other change was a longer chain of course. I now have a 23 inch low gear! The jumps are bigger but I can adjust to that change. I wanted that low a gear because of my age, bad knees, and weight amoung other things. I may try some bike-packing also.
0
drwelby

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 391
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnystrom
The Tamland comes with a 105 crank, which means it's designed for crank with a road chainline. You're not going to get that with a MTB crank.



The rear hub is 142 so technically it is MTB chainline.
0
email.gjm

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloceleste
I wanted lower gearing on my 2017 Tamland 1 and was looking into either a 46/30 crank or a 36-11 cassette. I went to my LBS and he suggested a Shimano xt 40-11. One of the bike shop owners had his bike set up that way (105 long cage rear derailleur and 105 front derailler) and let me take it for a quick ride. It shifted smoothly. I went with that set-up on my Tamland. Only other change was a longer chain of course. I now have a 23 inch low gear! The jumps are bigger but I can adjust to that change. I wanted that low a gear because of my age, bad knees, and weight amoung other things. I may try some bike-packing also.



Do you have the model number for the 105 long cage rear derailleur?   And did that setup need a roadlink or reversed B screw on the RD?  

thanks
0
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drwelby


The rear hub is 142 so technically it is MTB chainline.


That's what I thought about my Niner, but it turned out not to be true. The 105 is a road crank and Shimano does not make it with an MTB-length spindle.

That said, it's not as if putting an MTB crank on it is likely to create any major problems.
0
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloceleste
I wanted lower gearing on my 2017 Tamland 1 and was looking into either a 46/30 crank or a 36-11 cassette. I went to my LBS and he suggested a Shimano xt 40-11. One of the bike shop owners had his bike set up that way (105 long cage rear derailleur and 105 front derailler) and let me take it for a quick ride. It shifted smoothly. I went with that set-up on my Tamland. Only other change was a longer chain of course. I now have a 23 inch low gear! The jumps are bigger but I can adjust to that change. I wanted that low a gear because of my age, bad knees, and weight amoung other things. I may try some bike-packing also.

As long as it works for you, that's all that matters. Go out and enjoy it! [thumb]

I personally don't like big gearing jumps for any type of road riding, pavement or dirt. That's probably because I've been a roadie and have ridden relatively close-ratio gearing for 40+ years. Even trail riding on an MTB, an 11-36 is about as much as I can stand and I can't say that I like it. You won't see me on a 1x with a 10-50 cassette anytime soon! [wink]


I'm a bit of a weight-weenie too, so going with a crank with smaller, lighter chainrings (46/30) and keeping the cassette relatively small (11-32) was sort of a no-brainer.
0
drwelby

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 391
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnystrom


That's what I thought about my Niner, but it turned out not to be true. The 105 is a road crank and Shimano does not make it with an MTB-length spindle.

That said, it's not as if putting an MTB crank on it is likely to create any major problems.


Well yeah, the 105 is road crank with road chainline. No debate there.

What I'm saying is that the chainline of a bike is determined by the rear hub. The Tamland, with a 142 rear hub, technically has MTB chainline and would happily take a MTB crank assuming you're ok with the wider Q-factor. However it practice with modern drivetrains it works fine (and debatably better) with road cranks too (assuming the road cranks clear the chainstay).
0
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drwelby


Well yeah, the 105 is road crank with road chainline. No debate there.

What I'm saying is that the chainline of a bike is determined by the rear hub. The Tamland, with a 142 rear hub, technically has MTB chainline and would happily take a MTB crank assuming you're ok with the wider Q-factor. However it practice with modern drivetrains it works fine (and debatably better) with road cranks too (assuming the road cranks clear the chainstay).


It depends on how the frame is designed and you're assuming the rear triangle is symmetric. If the rear triangle is offset to the left to accommodate the chainline of a road crank, the chainline will be off if you install an MTB crank.

Of course, it's pure speculation to assume anything about a bike without having definitive frame specs, which are not likely to be readily available. When I spoke with Niner, the tech rep had to go and ask a couple of other people and finally came back with that answer "it's designed for a road crank", but he couldn't provide any frame dimensions. As best as I've been able to measure the chainline with a straightedge, what he said appears to be true.

I have no idea how the Tamland frame is designed, but if it comes with a road crank on it and there aren't any versions of it with MTB cranks, the safest assumption is that you should stick with a road crank.
0
drwelby

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 391
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnystrom


It depends on how the frame is designed and you're assuming the rear triangle is symmetric. If the rear triangle is offset to the left to accommodate the chainline of a road crank,


There's no assumption. Nobody offsets rear triangles to the left. There's zero practical reason to do so these days.
0
Veloceleste

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by email.gjm



Do you have the model number for the 105 long cage rear derailleur?   And did that setup need a roadlink or reversed B screw on the RD?  

thanks


Shimano 5800 11 speed long cage derailleur. No road link. I don't know how they adjusted the B screw. Here are a couple of pictures.
[image]  IMG_0534.jpg  IMG_0535.jpg 

0
Veloceleste

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnystrom

As long as it works for you, that's all that matters. Go out and enjoy it! [thumb]

I personally don't like big gearing jumps for any type of road riding, pavement or dirt. That's probably because I've been a roadie and have ridden relatively close-ratio gearing for 40+ years. Even trail riding on an MTB, an 11-36 is about as much as I can stand and I can't say that I like it. You won't see me on a 1x with a 10-50 cassette anytime soon! [wink]


I'm a bit of a weight-weenie too, so going with a crank with smaller, lighter chainrings (46/30) and keeping the cassette relatively small (11-32) was sort of a no-brainer.


It works for me off road. I agree that with road riding I prefer close ratio gearing. With very steep hills (especially on dirt or gravel) and other varying off road conditions, the big jumps are less of a factor. I'm also a fairly high cadence rider.
I'm sure that 40 tooth cog will be used only for extreme demand. However the next cog down at 35 teeth, takes the edge off compared to the 32 the Tamland came with.
0
bnystrom

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drwelby


There's no assumption. Nobody offsets rear triangles to the left. There's zero practical reason to do so these days.

There is if you're designing a bike to work with a road crank. Apparently Niner has done just that and perhaps Raleigh has done so, too. I'm not sure why they would do it unless they were just determined to maintain a low Q-factor. I don't have access to the Niner at the moment, but I'll take some additional measurements as soon as I do. I had just let it slide, but now I'm really curious to see exactly what they did, design-wise.

BTW, I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest or "win" the discussion. I'm more interested in what I can learn from it. Perhaps I'll discover that my initial measurements were incorrect, perhaps not. We'll see.
0
drwelby

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 391
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnystrom

There is if you're designing a bike to work with a road crank. Apparently Niner has done just that and perhaps Raleigh has done so, too.


They have not. That would mean the rear wheels are asymmetrically dished and that no aftermarket wheels would sit centered in the frame. They would have to ship each bike with a spacer so that you can put the wheel in a truing stand and have it sit centered. The frames would probably have stickers on them warning you that you can't use a stock wheel. And the rear wheels would to be dished even more than they currently are, resulting in even worse imbalance in tension or a matching offset-drilled rim.

There's really only one offset mass-market bike, the Surly Pugsley. They had to offset the rear end outwards to get chain clearance around the fatbike tires, and they didn't have wide fatbike hubs yet. But that bike so weird and unique they could get away with it. You sometimes see it on custom Plus bikes (Waltworks has built a lot of them) and there's the Sytance Evo6 standard (A Boost hub offset 3mm) you see on some German enduro bikes.

It's not a new idea - the German company Mittendorf built their frames with a 16mm offset in the 80s to give a dishless rear wheel. I'm not sure what they did about cranks though...

But in all the actual use cases, the rear end is offset out to give a wider chain line, usually to clear a fat tire with the bonus of a stronger wheel with less dish. Though this problem can also be solved going to a wider rear hub, hence the introduction of wider tandem hub sizes, 150 AM and fatbike hubs, and Boost.

You can use a "road" chainline crank with a "mtb" chainline hub on a gravel bike. It's fine as long you don't have super short stays and a 53 big ring. What would happen is that if you were cross-chained in small-small the chain would try to get picked up by the shift pins. This may also have been fixed in the latest groupsets anyway.

In the only custom cases I have seen where someone wanted disc brakes, short stays, and a 53 big ring, the solution was to build the frame with a 130mm QR road disc hub. This was at least five years ago, so again it might not be a problem with the latest groupsets.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.