e*thirteen's New DH Cassette - Taipei Show 2016

Mar 1, 2016
by Mike Kazimer  
Taipei Cycle Show header

e thirteen 7-21

e*thirteen's LG1+ Cassette

e*thirteen's extra wide range 9-44 tooth cassette made a splash when it was announced last year, and now the company is turning their sights on the DH race world with a new 9-21 tooth cassette designed specifically for an updated version of their LG1 downhill wheels. The pint-sized seven-speed cassette has the freehub mechanism attached directly to its aluminum 21 tooth cog (all of the other cogs are steel), a clever space saving design that allowed e*thirteen to increase the distance between the hub's flanges by 12 mm. This creates a better angle between the spokes and the rim, and in turn a stiffer wheel that's capable of handling the punishments doled out by World Cup racers.

Aaron Gwin and Mick Hannah both played a part in the cassette's development, and found that even with a 32 tooth chainring they still had a wide enough gear range to sprint from the start gate in the 21 tooth cog, and then drop further down the cassette without spinning out. Running a smaller chainring allows for more ground clearance, reducing the risk of suffering a race-ending mechanical. Although e*thirteen makes chainrings and cassettes, they don't make a derailleur of their own, leaving riders to choose their preferred brand, but they did say they had good results running a Shimano Saint derailleur with the new cassette.

The LG1 wheel and cassette combo is expected to be available in April in 12x150 and 12x157mm spacing, although the exact dates and pricing have not yet been determined.
e thirteen cassette
The three pawl driver is attached to the aluminum 21 tooth cog.


Must Read This Week

115 Comments

  • + 42
 I'm out until someone comes out with an 1T small cog cassette, that of course you can pair up with the old granny 22T ring up front! Then we are talking...
  • + 33
 good luck pedaling when that single tooth faces your chainring
  • + 10
 bruh you could do like 5T tho
  • + 31
 Then 2T would be just fine
  • + 18
 7T was just a typo, all my sarcasm just lost its vibe...
  • + 28
 BMX has allready found out that smaller than 9 won't work. Because the chain will fold over on itself
  • + 7
 Proper did a 6t protoype back in 2006 or so, for 16/6 gearing bmx, wouldn't hold up though. some bmx still does 8t
  • + 1
 @nojzilla that's what half link chains are for
  • + 5
 @thook wrong, half links are for grind protection and chain length adjustment
  • + 1
 Gotta go wider range.
  • + 5
 Half links where introduced when drop outs git really small, riders where finding that certain gear ratios would put the wheel in an awkward position. Riders started using cheap single half links to get good chain tension an the full half link chain was developed Nowt to do with grinding or smaller cogs
  • + 4
 Nojzilla is right on this one.
  • - 2
 A single half link gives you all the asjustability you need. Full halflink chains are for grind protection
  • + 5
 Moped chains are for grind protection
  • + 1
 The KMC Kool Knight is a half link chain that has grind protection (Google the chain and you'll see why), but normal half link chains are nothing better against grinds. I guess this is where you are confused. But you're wrong about half link chains being for grind protection, only the Kool Knight is
  • + 15
 Durex tingle is for grind protection..... I'll get my coat...
  • - 1
 I am not confused. I have ridden BMX's for many years. If you do a lot of grinds, get a halflink chain. It is literally the only thing they are good for.

The reason being, as every single link plate dips behind the one in front of it (if you have your chain fitted the right way round) the leaning edge of the link plate can't catch on things and get pulled off of the end of its pin.

Full halflink chains are for grind protection and nothing else.
  • + 4
 Gets pulled off.......... Fnar
  • + 2
 Just to add, chains aren't what limit driver size, it's the fact that when you get smaller than 8 teeth you have to have tiny/weak bearings, the axle/ bearings are the limit.
  • + 0
 @thook wrong again, the chain does get enough wrap and rides too high on the teeth, yes small bearings, bmx used bushing down to that small, because in freestyle, you dont pedal as much, the driver is resting mostly.
  • + 0
 Ok the chain does matter, I was wrong in saying that. But anyways you can't really get below 7 teeth unless fixed gear because 7 is essentially having teeth attached to the axle. So if it's fixed gear you can.
  • + 1
 9 speed equals balistic speed, use with caution. Having 8 and 9 speed drivers on my bmx,,,,, its a toss up btw course and rider outout.
  • + 1
 Use this chain if you wish to go 3 tooth cog.
www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/images/KiefHD001.jpg
  • + 21
 MORE STANDARDS FUCK YES! This one is pretty damn cool, though.
  • + 11
 at least this one had some thought put into it, whereas with boost they seemed to have just forgotten that 150mm spacing already existed
  • + 17
 Ah yes, the typical comment from someone who thinks they know how boost works but doesn't actually know.
  • + 4
 I would hate it if it used a 12x152 spacing. But this is simply a killer hub-cassette combo that fits on an already existing drop out size.
  • + 4
 @Arnoodles you've got my interest,obviously theres something im missing, please explain (or just post a link) what 148mm can do that 150mm can't.
  • + 5
 Except boost isnt directly comparable to 150mm @gumptionZA, its part of the 142/157 family that has 3.5mm recesses for the ends of the hub. Comparing it to a flush sided dropout (135/150) gives you 141mm with boost.
  • + 2
 ok, they're a different system, but what is wrong with making 150mm hubs with the same dimensions as 148 does on the freehub side (for chainline, and tyre clearance) and then just making up the 2mm difference by moving the spoke beds 2mm further apart (than on 14Cool ? you can even change the dropout if you want, many bikes have replacable dropouts anyway, or the hub rests on the replaceable derailleur mount

I'm not trying to be rude of argumentative, im actually trying to learn something new here
  • + 4
 Because thats making the flanges narrower than 150 as standard. Theres not 2 mm of difference, its 9mm. 7mm is in the end caps that make up the 148. Forget 150, compare it to 157.
  • + 1
 yes, but youd expect that because you would have to fix the chainline to run 11 speed casettes, but at least if you had a 150mm hub lying around (more of those than there are boost hubs) you could still build up a wheel that would work fine, albeit do funny things with the chain when you backpedal
  • + 8
 A 150 hub has far wider flanges than boost. The brake mount would be too far out.

Again, your not trying to fit 150 in 148, your trying to fit 157 In 148. Its the biggest misconception to do with hubs. 135 and 150 are the same system (flat sided dropouts) and 142,148 and 157 are the same (3.5mm slots in the dropout to help locate the wheel and increase stiffness).
  • + 6
 this is so confusing. pinkbike should do a tech tuesday on all this stuff with diagrams. in my, the companies that needed the extra space, should have just taken the 157 standard and tell everyone to put an 83mm bb on their bike. but maybe i am missing something.
  • + 1
 I think the issue with 157 is that it might actually just be too wide for the back of your shoes to clear consistently, if youre grinding up a fire road on a trailbike, whereas its fine on a dh rig where you do comparatively less pedalling, and when you do, its in a completely different style, but that might all just be bs and theres another, real reason
  • + 1
 @GumptionZA I thought thats what widening the bb does? On my fat bike I have 177 spacing but my heels never hit my stays because i have a massive bb.
  • + 1
 The problem is that you increase Q-factor as well when you widen the BB, & while that's fine for a bike that you ride mostly downhill, a super wide q-factor isn't ideal for a trailbike or similar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor_%28bicycles%29

This is the reason why we stopped widening the rear dropouts at 135(130 on road bikes) with 8 speed, 6,7 & 8 are all wider than their predecessors, 9 & up stayed the same because really, there was no more room. There's a few reasons we can go wider now, but probably the biggest factor is no longer having to account for triple cranks, & the fact that MTB is now big enough that we don't have to piggyback on whatever road bikes are doing anymore (which isn't as long ago as some people seem to think.)
  • + 15
 If gwin and hannah don't spin out with this cassette and a 32 tooth front ring, then I call bull shit to all the pinkbike comment writers who "spin out" their 34 ring on a 10x42 cassette
  • + 11
 The people posting that probably spin out at 70rpm though. Their aero bellies get in the way.
  • + 2
 you do realize that a 9 tooth ring is 10% smaller than a 10 tooth one? that is a massive difference
  • + 3
 Gwin & Hannah would spin out either combo, if you put them on a fireroad. That's where I spin out most of the time, fire road or pavement.
  • + 2
 With 34t front and 10t in the back, you should be riding around 43km/h when spinning at 100RPM (spinning between 80 and 100RPM is ideal). If you spin as fast as you can, with some help of the wind or a slope, you should be able to pedal up to roughly 60km/h.
  • + 10
 32/7=4.57, That's like running a 50 tooth chainring up front with an 11 tooth in the rear! (50/11=4.54) And to achieve the same low gear with a 50 tooth up front you would need about a 32 tooth in the rear, that's incredible.
  • - 11
flag jaame (Mar 1, 2016 at 21:09) (Below Threshold)
 Number of teeth and diameter are not directly proportional though are they?
  • + 13
 Wha??? if the different gears run the same chain, then yes, number of teeth and diameter are directly proportional.
  • + 4
 Am I taking the bait here? Is that a serious question @jaame ?
  • + 2
 Gwin, Sik Mik and Needles will be running 32t rings up front this year with this setup in most cases. Better ground clearance....braaaapppp.
  • + 8
 Sorry I meant 9 not 7, therefore all above math is irrelevant. My bad
  • + 9
 let me try again: 32/9=3.55, which is like running a 40 with an 11 tooth in the rear, and needing a 28 tooth in the rear to achieve the same low gear with a 40 tooth up front.
40/11=3.63
40/28=1.42
32/22=1.45
  • + 7
 This is confusing me. I was serious! For example, changing from a 10t to a 9t will make a much bigger difference than changing from a 100t to a 99t, just for the sake of argument. It's a proportionally much bigger jump. The bigger the sprocket, the less difference a single tooth makes. That's how I look at it. Is it really just a simple ratio of teeth? Silly me.
  • + 4
 10/9=1.11
100/99=1.01
You're correct, however it's still just a ratio.
  • + 4
 To be pedantic, it's actually the equivalent of a 39/11-27:

32/9=3.(5)
39/11=3.(54)

33/22=1.(45)
39/27=1.(4)

but obviously not in narrow/wide
  • + 4
 @Jaame You're right in that tooth number is just an easy way of measureing gear differential.
The real measurement comes from the moments created by the distance that the chain sits from the cogs centre
  • + 1
 Thanks for that. Was beginning to feel like an idiot.
  • + 4
 @jaame
When you think about it in percentages of drop it makes it a bit easier.
Dropping from a 100t to a 99t sprocket gives you a 1% difference in ratio. Whereas dropping from 10t to 9t, although still only dropping 1t, will make a 10% difference in the final ratio. Hope that helps.
  • - 1
 Personally I feel like 11t in the back is small enough since even that skips every once in a while while riding in very muddy circumstances. Then again I need something that works in all weather conditions, while a pro rider can ride a dry-weather specific set up that will make him 0,1 second faster in dry weather.
  • + 3
 Yeah @TyranT21, but as someone else said up there, that "distance" between where the chain sits and the cogs centre that you mention, is the pitch diameter which is directly related to the number of teeth, for a given chain (it is the same with gears like your car's gears). That means that the "real" ratio, which you would get between the these pitch diameters, is EXACTLY the same as the ratio you get between the teeth numbers.
  • + 2
 @jaame The reason we can shorthand all of this with tooth count is that everything runs the same chain pitch. this would all fall apart if you compared it to some other application, like for instance, a timing chain on a car.

Of course, now that I summoned it, we'll find out that SRAM 12 speed is a finer chain pitch(which might actually make sense in order to bring cog sizes down on the narrow end, I wonder if the problems SRAM said they had when testing a 9t go away if you have a cog with the same circumference, but more, finer teeth.)
  • + 11
 A return to freewheels. Interesting.
  • + 2
 That right there is an excellent point. I don't mind a one-off product to address a specific need, but I sure as shit don't want to see every hub requiring a proprietary freewheel.
  • + 5
 But I just got conned into buying a bike with boost spacing, intergarated tool storage, offset hipster frame spacing and unicorn endorsed leverage ratio.. Damn you bicycle corporations, damn you all to hell..!!
  • + 7
 So this was made with gwin's help after the Demo 8 days as Demo's are 135mm rear spacing which is not offered.
  • + 2
 No cassette standard makes sense, Was going to happen sooner or later, only a lighter version not threaded on to the hub,
Wonder how long will take for the gearing to stay on the frame while the wheel is removed without cogs?
  • + 2
 You mean like the millyard dh bike?
  • + 1
 Yes sort of, but not a two stage drive, as lowers the efficiency too much , that is what Honda did wrong
  • + 1
 One of the gearbox bike prototypes did something like this last year, belt drive with essentially a fixie rear hub, the freewheel was incorporated into the gearbox itself.
  • + 4
 32t gives more ground clearance without a chainguide... But using a guide that goes up to 34 or 36t results in exactly the same ground clearance
  • + 1
 You are right, but when you use a guide with a bashguard it gives more ground clearance.
  • + 1
 some chainguides are adjustable and why not by a smaller one? it`s definitely worth it
  • + 1
 There are already mini-versions of the LG1+ and the G3 from MRP, they go up to only 32t rings.
  • + 1
 arent there smaller ones? that would definitely be an issue then
  • + 1
 Better be careful of suspension performance though, because most DH frames are designed around a much higher chainline than a 32t provides.
  • + 0
 The best way to maintain ground clearance is to leave your bike hung up in the rafters of the garage. Second way is to crash early and often so the bottom of the bike is typically pointing up. I usually start with the second and that leads to the first.
  • + 1
 I'd just like a cheaper 10-24 compatible with 10sp systems, then a 32/33/34 ring will be plenty. Just my 2 cents. Both my wheelsets will take a XD driver to make this economially feasable, but as for now I'm still gunning for a 35t or 36t with my "in reserve" 11-26 PG970 9-speed setup. FWIW, I'm running a 34x11-34 Zee setup wishing for more top-end, only because on occasion I have to actually go UP.

I'm just super-thankful for the double upshifts that shimano provides. 10t driver is as small as I'll go.
  • + 1
 Exactly my thoughts on the perfect cassette!!! Smile
  • + 1
 Pretty bad ass

But didn't SRAM nix a 9T cog because of the polygon effect in favor of a 10T? Obviously e13 has multiple cassettes with a 9T cog, but 7T does seem like it could be pushing the limits of how small you can go.
  • + 5
 7t is a typo. It is actually a 9T. There are a lot of the e*thirteen 9-44 cassettes on the market now. The polygon effect is not an issue. SRAM most likely did not do a 9t because it required moving away from a traditional cassette tool which can only be used down to a 10T.
  • + 1
 The polygon effect is described in Machinery's Handbook. Vibration and wear rise exponentially as tooth count decreases. In general, the handbook recommends 11t as a minimum, but on bikes, 9t and 10t seem to be working because they aren't used as often as the other gears.
  • + 2
 I hardly ever use my 12 or 11t sprockets. I'd risk the polygon effect on a downhill bike. I wouldn't spend money to change but if I bought a new bike fitted with it I'd be happy to try it.
  • + 4
 Awesome!! Take note shimano: 11 tooth just doesn't cut it anymore...
  • + 3
 Very cool, but totally impractical at the moment. I'll check back when I don't need new wheels to drop the quarter-pound.
  • + 3
 Direct Mount Cassette to go with your Direct Mount Chainring.
  • + 1
 people are ok with this new standard just because e13 is little and it wont make their stuff worth less. if shimano or sram released this....pitchforks
  • + 12
 People are ok with this because it makes sense.
  • + 2
 I thought about similar system some time ago, when looking at a spider on a XT drivetrain. Why use a freehub body (heavier, more expensive, more useless parts,...) when you can make your own cogs and freewheel in the same part. If the cassette is not over-exepensive, it's a good solution, IMO.
  • + 4
 Because this is a good hub-cassette combo that makes sense and fits into current drop outs. If they'd make it 12,5x153mm we'd be pissed. But since it's 12x150mm you don't need to purchase new shit just for this combo.
  • + 2
 People pull out the pitchforks because Shimano & SRAM see every new product as a way to introduce a new, incompatible standard these days... which e13 isn't doing here.
  • + 1
 they should integrate a carbon dork disc onto that lowest cog to protect the spokes and hub flange
  • + 2
 I like this hub and the small cassete but this pawl driver is weird
  • + 1
 Shimano has the same with their Capreo freehub and cassette. Monster-Specialized guys were running it.
  • + 1
 Shiiiii, they know 100% how to try and sell things to me now, this can't be good.
  • - 2
 Um, that's good news this new DH cassette, but why the hell do you have to buy the E13 wheel as well? What if i want to use it with my current Easton wheel? It would be perfect, given that it works well with Saint gears (meaning this cassette is 10-speed compatable). Smile
  • + 3
 The whole point of this wheel is that the spacing is wider with the smaller cassette
  • + 1
 Which is good for 650b-guys... who are still a small part of the riding society. Wink We, the 26' people, still ride 2012-2014 wheelsets which are regular 12x150mm and 20mm, no gimmicks like boost etc. etc., and we are extremely happy with our sets. However, i might be due for a ring/chain/cassette upgrade in the end of season 2016 - what can the industry offer me, if i don't want to part out with my Easton Havoc 2012 wheels and the Saint 820 combo i run presently? Smile
  • + 1
 9 tooth cog won't fit on standard freehubs. Even the 10 tooth cog needs XD driver.
  • + 1
 I know - my Easton wheel can be equipped with a XD-driver body. That's not the point here. Wink
  • + 2
 Gwin can win with no chain, so what are we talking about here?
  • + 2
 He sure needed it in the start gate.
  • + 3
 A no-cranks, pegs-only, push-start DH series would be exciting. The Gwinnationals, with a no-tire class.
  • + 1
 Why o why does it have to be a 150x12?
  • + 1
 Does this have 10-speed spacing, or 11-speed?
  • + 1
 Likely 11-speed.
  • + 4
 10 or 11 speed spacing is about the same. The eleventh cog is dished out.
  • + 1
 Way to re-purpose Old 80's-90's CT Special Cassettes.
  • + 1
 Doesn't look like mud has anywhere to go in this cassette
  • + 0
 Crap, I wanted the 7 tooth.
  • + 0
 Come on, Somebody give us a one piece cassette an driver allready!!!
  • - 1
 That's called a freewheel and have fallen by the wayside
  • + 3
 Nope, it's a one piece driver, not a freewheel
  • + 1
 Not a bad idea. Only downside is that the cassette will be more expensive to replace once the teeth are worn out.
  • + 2
 I dunno bud, think of all the parts in a current cassette and freehub at the moment. body, bearings,pawls cogs an spacers, lock ring.
An how muck they cost to make. Maintain an replace.....

Now imagine a one piece unit. Only moving parts are pawls an bearings = less maintenance an easily replaceable

I think also a one piece design could be utilised for smaller cogs = lighter drive train an more compact. For example a 10-16 driver with a 30 or 32 chairing even 28!
A new design could tuck a derraileur right up out of harms way
  • + 1
 A good mid range cassette and freehub body can cost over a £120 to replace, top of the range up to and well over £200!!
I think a well designed one piece unit would even work oot cheaper!!
  • - 1
 Not sure how I feel about an integrated driver tho...
  • - 3
 why does everyone want a smaller chainring?
If your chainring gets in the way, you're not riding fast enough

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.086530
Mobile Version of Website