Ari Bike Downsizes SRAM XX1 and X01 Cassettes with 39t Replacement Cog

Ari Bike = pure racing…. All the others just lifestyle

All those cutouts, but no bottle opener?

Looks like shimano were correct all along 😛

@mateo

10t cogs are still utterly irrelevant.

The disadvantages aren’t hypothetical–they’re simply trivialized. The funny thing is I’m running SRAM XO1 shifter/derailleur with Shimano 11-40 cassette/chain, and the shift into the smaller sprocket is SMOOTHER than the SRAM cassettes.

The 10-32 or 10-36 will be lighter than what? There isn’t anything similar to compare that to. It only has smaller jumps compared to a 10-42 or 11-42, but larger than 11-34 or 11-36. Your argument is essentially “I like smaller sprockets, but I won’t just say it, so I’ll try to justify it”. Your argument is as hypothetical as the cassette you just dreamed up.

Larger sprockets with MORE teeth generally run smoother, with less mechanical losses, than smaller ones. If you’re true point to argue is that a more efficient system is beneficial to everyone, than I’d agree. I’d argue that Shimano and SRAM already found the sweet spot with 11-34 and 11-36 cassettes(and doubles). The new 11-40 is just slightly outside of that efficiency.

Ari is onto something here, but hopefully SRAM will buck up and make a couple more ratios.

@eric – Maybe, in that there is nothing magic about a 10t cog in and of itself.

The bottom line is the gear range, and until someone wants to make an 11-46t cassette, SRAM’s 10-42 beats Shimano for gear range (and would still slightly beat an 11-46).

Marc is also correct regarding weight if nothing else. You can always make a 10-42 cassette lighter than an 11-46. You’ll also use a smaller chainring to get the same gearing, so you’d save a few grams there.

I’m all for larger sprockets and chainrings to decrease wear and friction but I wonder if a 46 rear sprocket were to get made, would the rear derailleur be much more prove to hitting rocks and trail debris?