« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: SRAM X01 EAGLE  (Read 3357 times)

JohnnyNT

SRAM X01 EAGLE
« on: January 22, 2016, 07:42:04 AM »
It seems that 10-42 is not wide enough and SRAM will push it further by quite a lot: http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/possible-leaked-photos-of-new-sram-12-speed-eagle-drivetrain/
Logged


Carbon_Dude

Re: SRAM X01 EAGLE
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2016, 08:37:55 AM »
I read rumors about SRAM increasing the low gear beyond 42T but it surprises me to see 50T.  For my riding 10T-42T x 32T is enough range.  If anything, I would prefer a little more top speed so I may look at a 34T chainring and a 10-44T cassette.

I think it's good to see so many drivetrain options.  Gone are the days of only being able to choose 2x10 or 3x10.  The 1x setups are so good that I don't think I will ever want a front derailleur on my mountain bike.
Logged
2019 Stumpjumper Expert 29/27.5+
2017 Santa Cruz Stigmata
2017 Trek Stache 9.8 (29+)
2016 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Carbon Comp 6Fattie (27.5+) (Sold)
2016 Trek Stache 9 (29+) w/upgrades (Sold)
2014 -036 Full Suspension Chiner (Sold)
2013 -057 Hardtail Carbon Chiner (Sold)
Atlanta, GA

RS VR6

Re: SRAM X01 EAGLE
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2016, 02:57:36 PM »
There were two threads on MTBR and got deleted by the Mods fast.

I think that SRAM is trying to render the front derailleur obsolete in all riding conditions. It will also allow you to run a much larger chainring up front.
Logged

Oolak

Re: SRAM X01 EAGLE
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2016, 11:30:06 PM »
Got deleted why?
Logged

Vipassana

Re: SRAM X01 EAGLE
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2016, 04:30:48 PM »
It probably got deleted because it's not announced yet (under press embargo) and the forum probably wants to avoid the wrath of SRAM from either a legal perspective or as a potential advertiser.

This all makes sense now... At Leadville I was in the SRAM booth and the engineer smiled funny when I asked when the 44T was coming out.  Then he said he couldn't confirm or deny.  Now I know he knew this was coming...

I'm not opposed to this at all.  But it's of limited use to me.  I don't use the 42T much.  I would love a 44T and then a larger 34T or 36T in the front.  This would let you run a 40T 42T up front.  But them my frame wouldn't support anything larger than a 36T anyway so moot point.

Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »