OneUp Shark 10-Tooth Cluster and MiniDriver - Review

Sep 6, 2016
by Mike Levy  
OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver


When someone mentions OneUp, there's a good chance that most people think of anodized green, pie plate-sized cogs made to provide an easier gear ratio than whatever came stock on your bike. Own a chubby all-mountain machine? Legs and lungs more Kia than Koenigsegg? Then a big OneUp add-on cog might be for you. But what if you want to make a change on the other end of your 11-speed cassette, one that would result in a harder gear for higher top-end speed, or to compensate for a smaller chainring? OneUp's $45 USD Shark 10-Tooth Cluster consists of 10 and 12-tooth cogs machined from a single piece of steel, as well as a 14 or 15-tooth cog (depending on your needs) that interfaces with splines on its backside, all of which replaces the bottom three cogs of your Shimano 11-speed cassette.

The Shark 10-Tooth Cluster requires a special, proprietary (but not patented) freehub body, called the MiniDriver, that's shorter than a normal Shimano freehub. The $40 USD MiniDriver is only compatible with hubs that employ DT Swiss Star Ratchet internals, and it works with 142 and 148mm hub spacing. Together, the Shark 10-Tooth Cluster and MiniDriver freehub provide a 500% range when combined with OneUp's 50-tooth Shark cog and Shark Cage. In case you're curious, that's the same as SRAM's Eagle drivetrain, but it comes via a highly modified Shimano 11-speed cassette and derailleur rather than a new 12-speed system.

Shark 10-Tooth Cluster Details:

• One-piece 10 and 12-tooth cogs
• 14 or 15-tooth third cog
• Compatability: Shimano 11spd cassettes
• Requires OneUp MiniDriver ($40 USD)
• Adds 10% to gearing range
• Includes required lockring
• MSRP: $45 USD
www.oneupcomponents.com / @OneUpComponents

Depending on the stock cassette you start with, and if you've made any changes on the other end of the gear range, the four possible configurations stack up like this:

10-12-14-17-19-21-24-27-31-35-40 (11-40 converted to 10-40)
10-12-14-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-42 (11-42 converted to 10-42)
10-12-15-18-21-24-27-31-25-40-45 (11-45 OneUp'd Shimano converted to 10-45)
10-12-15-18-21-24-28-32-37-42-50 (11-50 OneUp'd Shimano converted to 10-50)



OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
The OneUp MiniDriver is roughly the same height as an XD freehub, and 4.5mm shorter than a normal 10-speed freehub.


Why do normal 8, 9, 10, and 11-speed cassettes only go down to an 11-tooth cog? There are a couple of reasons, but the main one is that the diameter of the freehub bodies that we've all been using for many, many years limits how small the bottom cog can be. So while the largest cog size has grown considerably over the last decade, things had stopped at eleven teeth on the opposite end. The notable exception, however, is Shimano's old Capreo group and stepped freehub body that allowed for nine and ten tooth small cogs, as well as a now obscure system from Moulton. The late, great Sheldon Brown has all sorts of information about those two examples on his website, just in case you want to see where we've been.

SRAM's XD freehub is shorter and slightly stepped for the very same reason, to make room for the 10-tooth small cog, and it's also why OneUp's anodized green MiniDriver freehub body is 4.5mm shorter than a standard 10 or 11-speed freehub.

OneUp's aluminum freehub body, which they say was developed via a collab with Hope Technology and is therefore also compatible with Hope's new cassette, sports the same splines as a standard Shimano HG system.

The shortened design isn't patented so as to allow other companies to make use of it, and OneUp also says that this should make ''the production of inexpensive 10T equipped cassettes a reality.'' With both major drivetrain companies pushing their new 11 and 12-speed systems, I'm not sure we'll see that happen, and a more jaded mind might assume that it isn't patented because it's been done before, but hey, it's good to see either way.
OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
An extra tall lockring is included to reach the shortened freehub down through the Shark 10-Tooth Cluster.

The freehub uses DT Swiss' much-lauded Star Ratchet system, which is a good thing in my mind. Yes, not everyone has a DT Swiss hub or one that uses their internals, but the Star Ratchet design is mega simple, requires no tools to service and can be pulled apart by hand, and can be configured to work with basically any drivetrain or axle system by using different end caps. When you purchase the $40 USD MiniDriver, it comes with bearings installed and the required axle end cap, but you'll need to re-use the two ratchet wheels and springs in your hub - it's plug-and-play.


OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
The 14 or 15-tooth third cog rides on splines on the backside of the Shark 10-Tooth Cluster rather than on the freehub body.


The Shark 10-Tooth Cluster is actually two cogs, 10 and 12-tooth cogs that are machined from a single piece of steel, and then a third that interlocks with the smaller two. The 10-tooth cog sits proud of the end of the freehub body, and it is the splines under the 12-tooth cog that lock it in place while an extra tall lockring reaches down through the small cog to tighten everything up. Next, there's a 14 or 15-tooth cog (14 if it's going on an 11-42T Shimano cassette, 15 if it's going on a modified 11-50T OneUp'd Shimano cassette) that interlocks with splines on the outside of the 10 and 12-tooth cluster. Got all that?

Again, this is very similar to how the Capreo system worked, and while it sounds complicated, it's simple and effective. The final product is a three-cog unit with 10, 12, and either 14 or 15 teeth, that replaces the bottom three cogs of your Shimano cassette, thereby adding 10% to the range on the high-end with a net weight gain of zero grams. Pretty neat.



Installation and Setup

The job isn't hard, but messing about with your cassette and freehub can be intimidating if you've never done it before. You'll need a lockring tool and wrench, as well as a chain whip, to get your cassette off and reinstall the OneUp'd block, but your DT Swiss freehub comes off without any tools.

Once you have the cassette removed, simply pull your old freehub body straight off with a firm tug, being careful not to send the two springs and ratchet wheels flying across your garage to disappear forever. Clean the hub's drive-ring and ratchet wheels before applying a thin coating of new grease, and then slide the inner spring, two ratchets, and outer spring back over the axle and into the hub body. The MiniDriver freehub slides on right over all of this and rotating it slowly counterclockwise as you do it will allow the ratchet wheels to seat correctly. Slide the new (and required) axle end cap over it all, push it home, and you're done in way less time than it takes to read this review.


OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
No tools are required to swap out the stock DT Swiss freehub for the MiniDriver.


The Shark 10-Tooth Cluster is even easier to install than the MiniDriver freehub; ditch those last three cogs on your stock Shimano cassette and simply replace them with OneUp's version of how to do things.
I slid the 15-tooth cog (my cassette already has the 50-tooth Shark cog installed) onto the 10 and 12-tooth cluster before sliding all three down onto the freehub body, and then tightened down the extra long lockring as per normal.



Performance

So, how does it all work? The 10-tooth cog obviously provides a taller gear than the 11-tooth that it replaced, and while a single-tooth difference is a change that sounds small, it's one that you can feel in your legs. The harder gear is, well, harder. But while my trails are relatively quick for the part of southwestern B.C. that I call home, I still rarely found myself down in the 10-tooth speed demon cog unless I was trucking along a fireroad at a good clip. There were definitely times when I appreciated the smaller cog, but this happened between trails rather than on them.

This is where your chainring comes into play, as well as what you may or may not have done to the easy end of your cassette. I used the Shark 10-Tooth Cluster in conjunction with two other Shark products, the giant 50-tooth cog, and the Shark Cage, and all of it came together to provide a massive 500% gearing range. For comparison's sake, a stock Shimano XT 11-42 cassette supplies a 281.81% range; a SRAM XX1 10-42 gives you 320%, and the OneUp'd XT 11-50 cassette offers a wider 354.54% range. The highly modified 10-50 Shimano cassette on my bike, with its Shark 10-Tooth Cluster and 50-tooth Shark cog, makes all those sound pretty narrow.


OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
Eleven cogs, maximum range.


Yes, I know that not everyone needs that kind of range, and also that some riders will raise their nose at such a spread; I did exactly that when I first saw the numbers, but then someone older and wiser than me (okay, it was RC) suggested that I lower myself down from my high horse and think about the possibilities. Since then I've played with chainring sizes, bouncing between 32 and 34 teeth, both of which provide both an easier low gear and harder tall gear than when I was running a 30-tooth chainring with the stock cassette. The Shark setup is all about options - run what suits you and your terrain, whether that's a larger cog, smaller cog, or both.

My favorite kind of rides are the ones that take four or five hours longer than what some riders would say is fun, and that go places that may or may not best suit a mountain bike. Sometimes that means stupidly steep climbs up old dirtbike singletrack that'd be easy with a 250cc motor under me, or sometimes that means way too much time spent on some long forgotten and nearly grown in fireroad. It's these places that the massive 500% range of the highly modified 11-speed cassette comes in handy. I could also see it also being handy for an enduro racer who wants to run a smaller chainring to spin up the transfer stages without sacrificing top-end speed.
OneUp Shark 10t and MiniDriver
Agreed.

As far as reliability goes, everything looks good so far, and shift quality on the bottom-end is unchanged from the stock setup. The freehub isn't showing any signs of gouging, and the three new Shark cogs are doing their job without complaint. My single issue with the system is that it's only compatible with hubs that employ DT Swiss' internals, which, while making sense from a manufacturing and business standpoint, does severely limit how many riders can use the Shark 10-Tooth Cluster.




Pinkbike's Take:
bigquotesThe Shark 10-Tooth Cluster could make more sense on your bike than you might first suspect, but riders should consider a different sized chainring, or even the larger Shark cog and Shark Cage, to get the most out of the system. - Mike Levy




Visit the feature gallery for high resolution and additional images




137 Comments

  • + 87
 working less ≠ upgrading shit constantly
  • + 2
 unfortunately true....
  • + 47
 Most of your ratios are wrong: 50/10 = 500% (yes), but all of these were off by a hundred's digit --> 42/11 = 381.81% range; a SRAM XX1 42/10 gives you 420%, and the OneUp'd XT 50/11 cassette offers a wider 454.54% since the range of the cassette is the largest cog divided by the smallest.
  • + 3
 Glad to know I wasn't the only one scratching my head.
  • + 8
 This. I'm confused as to how this could even happen that he consistently subtracted 100% from all of the ratios but the Shark 500%...
  • + 2
 @ThatDan: This. I'd get it with the smallest cog being a 10T in all cases (that's how people get 320 and 400 % range for Sram's cassettes, by justz substracting the two cogs and somehow turning that into percents), but i don't get it with 11T cogs in some cases.

Lo and behold, 24 hours later the article still has the same error in it...
  • + 1
 Can't see why anyone would want 500% range when SRAMs 420 range is clearly superior ha ha ha
  • + 1
 @northshoreshred: so that's why Sram made the Eagle groups?

(yeah I know it's sarcasm, but still...)
  • + 41
 I'm on the new fashion it's a front chain ring range expander it means I add an extra cog on the front so I can run a 40 Dollar cassette at the back for eagle like range for fuck all money
  • + 3
 Haha, well said!
  • + 9
 Extra cog on the front? Hmm, I think you're on to something.
  • + 19
 Plus the trick bar mounted remote actuator
  • + 2
 Front Derailer: Ressurection
  • + 1
 and what if we had slightly smaller wheels... oh ok I shut up...
  • + 18
 I don't get how a one up'd cassette is cheaper than just buying a new cassette/driver? Buying a setup like this means you have to build up a new cassette again when time for replacement no? seems like it would make more sense to just buy an XD driver and be able to buy new cassettes without hassle. Its not like you can't use a shimano derailleur with a sram or e13 cassette. why not just skip the driver and build it all as one part for that matter? didnt someone do that with a DH drivetrain? so confused on what this is actually for.
  • + 1
 especially given the fact that this seems aimed at someone with an existing bike, which would mean their drivetrain is not new/ semi worn out, one more reason to just replace all of it VS trying to convert it
  • + 2
 XT cassette: $150
Shark 50t: $125
Shark 10t: $45
Total: $320

Eagle cassette: $420
  • + 14
 @DandelionDan: you forgot mini driver
  • + 5
 There is also the option to add range at the top, bottom OR both. You don't have to use the whole setup.
@DandelionDan the 10t requires the mini driver at $40...still cheaper though I suspect the weight of the One Up/ XT setup will be considerably heavier.
  • + 11
 XT cassette is only $65 and SLX is even cheaper. That puts the total with driver at $275. If your bike came with 11spd Shimano you don't need to shell out for a new Eagle shifter, RD and chain.
  • + 3
 @stella10: You just compared 11spd to 12 spd though...
XT is definitely closer to $150 CDN than the $65 online price you're talking about. Oh and LOL @ Eagle chain.

I'd rather go with an X.01 cassette and add a 45/46t cog.
  • + 1
 @MmmBones: Which is still cheaper than the SRAM Eagle.
  • + 20
 I love how there is automatic xt to eagle comparison? Hate to say it but eagle is not aimed at the customer that is going to compare it to SLX or XT. Thus making any comparison pointless. Like comparing a Civic SI to a C6 vette.
  • + 4
 I just bought a hope pro4 hub and an m8000 cassette. I right fancy this but don't want to spend £170 on a hope cassette. What chance of a hope compatible part like this in the future?
  • + 2
 @DandelionDan:

With the eagle, one needs new chain, shifter, derailleur, and 12x specific chainring.

CTDchris has a point though. There are other options. The XT cassette starts at over 400grams.
Shark 50t: $125
Shark 10t: $45 + derail hanger is up over 500g?

e13 9-46 cassette 349 (retail) street ?
280 grams

Old X01, X11 11 speed models can be found for $220 street + 46t gets one in the same basic area(close enough).
(or GX1 + big ring)
  • + 1
 @sutter2k: The SRAM models would require a new driver though.

If the e13 cassette comes down in price it'll definitely give the other a run for the money.
  • + 2
 @jaame: you can probably just by the new Hope freehub body (the one that comes with their cassette) as OneUp told me at Sea Otter that they are the same.
  • + 5
 @MmmBones @thomdawson both the OneUp 10t and the Eagle cassette both need proprietary drivers, the cost of which i didn't include because we were talking about the cost of replacing a cassette once it wears out.
  • + 3
 @PHeller: The e*thirteen with 9t uses the XD driver as well.
  • + 2
 @groghunter: bummer, but I guess there is no way to make smaller than 11t gears without reducing the diameter of the freehub.
  • + 4
 Holy Eff. It's like many of you commenting on this post didn't actually bother to read the article above.
  • + 1
 @mikericci: thanks for that champ. IT'S good to know. That would be more cost effective
  • + 2
 @gonecoastal: I bought XT m8000 cassette 2 months ago. Cost 70€. Have also 1x11 XT setup with shark 50t cog and it works perfect flawlessly. But I have speci Hi Lo rear hub, no DT/Hope hub so this 10t cog must wait for current hub failure Smile
  • + 1
 @ThomDawson: heavier? not according to the article
  • + 1
 @kjjohnson: DandelionDan was comparing the XT/ One Up setup to Eagle. My response was in reply to him. The big cog extender adds quite a bit of weight to an already heavy cassette. I can read dude but thanks for contrubuting.
  • + 9
 Mike Levy, you have lost 100% in each of your calculations on gear ratio. It should have been: A stock Shimano XT 11-42 cassette supplies a 381.82% range; a SRAM XX1 10-42 gives you 420%, and the OneUp'd XT 11-50 cassette offers a wider 454.55% range. The calculation is like this: 100 x (largest cog) / (smallest cog)

*Edit: kyle26354 beat me to it..
  • + 10
 now all i have to do is figure out how to make it work with my 9 speed cassettes.
  • + 6
 E thirteens new 9-46 cassette will be 511% range, half the weight, and not many more dollars (and thats just based on msrp and 350) plus replaceable sections. Or the older cassette is 489% and $280. Whole lot less faffing about too.
  • + 1
 Was about to say, some of the retailers are letting the 9-44 go at around $250 right now. Just picked one up the other day from CRC to replace my 10-42.
  • + 1
 @P3N54: got mine for like $220 a year ago with a backcountry promotion.
  • + 2
 Even tacking on the price of an xd driver, a phenomenal bargain and weight savings. Pretty sure that's what I'll run too
  • + 7
 People need to read friction facts and then they'll realise than 10 tooth (and 9t) cogs are extremely inefficient and reduce the benefit of going for that size.
  • + 2
 For someone who doesn't even know where you would start on this what are the facts?

I assume that there is inefficiency in 'bending' the chain, so the tighter radius of the smaller cog means more inefficiency? Obviously there are numerous variables we can't know like how dirty/lubed the chain is, but what kind of additional inefficiencies are we looking at? 5%?
  • + 2
 @slimboyjim: Based on reports I've seen from the roadie side of things, you're looking at around a 11% increase in drivetrain friction when its in the 10t compared to the 11t. Its 14-17% when you compare it to a 12t
  • + 1
 My bmx had 9t cod why it inefficient?
  • + 2
 @clownpnd: Something to do with the amount the chain bends. Its why you see a lot of the roadie guys even changing to larger derailleur pulleys to reduce the effect
  • + 2
 @rrsport: Wow - that is significant. I would imagine that it would be worse on a mountain bike with the increase in likely contamination of the chain too...

However, playing devil's advocate this will save you a few grams compared to a larger cassette (for a given range) so that *may* reduce the effect a fraction...? I know the numbers are small, but then so is the total effect on efficiency in the grand scheme of things...
  • + 5
 @slimboyjim: Essentially its to do with load distribution mathematics and leverage, if you ran the chain some how in-line to the centre of the rear axle so that it pulled directly on the axle, it would not rotate the wheel at all, you could apply pulling force on the chain, but the energy would simply be counteracted by the frame holding the axle. Obviously then, the further away from the axles centre line you go, the more leverage the chain will have to rotate the wheel instead of wasting energy into the frame, the percentage of waste decreases dramatically as you move away. But 9-10 tooth cogs are potentially still too close to the axles centre and you may actually be wasting pedalling energy into the frame by mechanical inefficiency as your pedalling force will more greatly be trying to dislodge the axle rather than rotate the wheel, especially at lower rotational speeds. Basically, there's a an optimum minimum chainring size before a system may become inefficient.
  • + 1
 @clownpnd: generally that is for freestyle not race and is less efficient than a 13-18 rear gear in back and harder on chains....I also have 9 on my freestyle but not on my race bmx
  • + 6
 @rrsport: For all I know that may be true, but what I ALSO know is that my bike is undeniably faster now that I have a 9 tooth as my smallest cog. Even if the 9 and 10 ARE less efficient than the 11 they STILL let me go faster and that's what I care about.

I remember reading years ago about how inefficient and draggy gearhubs are and thinking "Why would anyone want one?". Then I actually got my hands on a really great gearhub... This was the beginning of me being skeptical of other peoples' skepticism. Now I try things for myself and make up my own mind instead. Maybe you DO have an 11% frictional loss with the smaller cogs, but I'm just not convinced that it matters.
  • + 3
 @RunsWithScissors: I'm with you there on some of what you say but not all.
Personally I do notice the difference between a clean and lubed chain (that says a lot about how often I clean it properly that it gets that bad!) so drag and inefficiency do matter. However, a 9 tooth sprocket is only going to be for going downhill fast where I've no doubt I'd never notice it. I'm not sure if I'd want that on an uphill though, hence why I'm on the fence with gearbox bikes that has 'inefficiency' across the range.
I'll hold my hand up that I've never had the opportunity to ride a gearbox bike though, so could be completely wrong...
  • + 1
 So what is the time difference of that friction change, say over an hour road time trial? Seconds to a minute saved? Can't imagine that's relevant to real world MTB given that most regular people and racers aren't going to stay in the 10t cog longer than a few minutes at a time.
  • + 2
 to reiterate what other people have said, who cares about efficiency loss in your highest gear... you're never hammering down on it for more than 15 second bursts on straightaways. At speeds fast enough for you to use your highest gear, a tuck and narrower handlebars will have a greater effect on your total drag.
  • + 2
 @hamncheez: Agreed. When you're gunning for max burst speed, trading some efficiency is acceptable & normal.

@clownpnd Your BMX is also a single speed, with greater chain wrap, & no derailleur controlled slack, which helps with that 9t. you also aren't generally pedaling it sitting down, which is when you would notice the pulse-ey feel of a cog that small, due to polygon effect, which was why SRAM stayed with 10t (if you go look at XX1 release articles, they talk about testing a 9t & deciding against it for these reasons.)
  • + 0
 @rrsport: I think CTD07 is on the right track. The closer the chain gets to the axles (hub and bb) for a given number of inches (or gear ratio), the higher the tension on the chain. Higher tension = more stretch and more load on the bearings, all increasing friction and wear.
  • + 0
 People need to believe in physics instead of commercial Wink
  • + 3
 @ivankvkharkiv: Physics really DOES matter, but I think a distinction needs to be made between that which is theoretical and that which is actually observable. In THEORY a 9 tooth cog should be rumbly feeling an inefficient. In ACTUAL USE I haven't felt any rumble and my bike goes noticeably and verifiably faster.

Some people get a lot of satisfaction over arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....
  • + 0
 @RunsWithScissors: Well I am not arguing... I am just laughing out loud from the fact that people will do anything to have range bigger than it actually could be use on trails or while their usual riding. And for having their extra gears fore those veeeery rear moments when they actually need it they "could kill a dog"...Smile

Independently of your feelings friction is really bigger and it influence on your chain and actually chainring itself as a result they don't serve as long as they could. So you can answer "It doesn't matter. I can buy myself a chain every day.". And actually a agree. Chains are really cheap nowadays and buying them is not an issue.

But on my transmission I have only those gears I use really often and I made my chainline in such way that bending of my chain while my regular riding is minimal. So I change chain not often. Why do I have this kind of transmission when chains are cheap? Well I don't actually know... The first reason is because it is very convenient for me in use. And the second is maybe when I know that there is bigger friction in my transmission my imagination starting to show me a pictures of damaged metal and I become nervous Smile
  • + 0
 if a 9 or 10 tooth was no loss in efficiency, the team sky track bikes would have it. If it means you have better roll over or a better granny gear or a better performing suspension with a smaller chainring, then go for it.
  • + 2
 @clownpnd:

My bmx and many bmx run a half link chain, or a directional chain with extra machining to get the chain to go around the 9T driver.
  • + 3
 @ctd07: Sorry, mate, but that doesn't work, although explaining why is easiest done with either a drawing, or 4 years on an engineering course, neither of which I can manage here :p Here we go anyway...

Rotational moments and linear forces need to be evaluated separately. The chain tension pulls horizontally on the cassette, causing a rotational moment about the wheel's axle *and* a horizontal force that tries to pull the whole wheel towards the BB.

The rotational moment is opposed by all kind of stuff like rolling resistance, but is still large enough to overcome these opposing rotational moments and spin the wheel. So that's a very quick evaluation of the rotational stuff, but there's still that horizontal force that needs balancing, otherwise, as said earlier, the wheel will be pulled towards the BB. The chainstays, provide a horizontal force, equal and opposite to the chain tension, meaning the overall horizontal force is reduced to zero and the wheel is kept safely in the dropouts, at the correct distance from the BB.

Basically, you're always pulling on the axle with a force roughly equal to the chain tension, no matter which sprocket you're in.

Anyway, if we're talking efficiency, you'll need to consider power and energy, rather than just looking directly at the forces themselves. The idea is that energy that should be propelling you forwards is instead consumed overcoming the resisting friction as the the chain bends around a small radius and the link plates slide over each other. The tighter the radius, the more sliding, so more energy is lost to friction, leading to drivetrain inefficiencies.

Like I said, it'd be much clearer with diagrams. I feel like no-one will read this :s
  • + 1
 @Smevan: I read it and it made sense. In short the inefficiency is due to the displacement of the chain around the cog, which is greater for a small cog, and all the other forces aren't important in the efficiency argument (talking just about cog size rather than getting complicated with moving suspension, etc)...
  • + 1
 @Smevan: What you're referring to would be the concept of an instant centre and that somehow these forces would always be equal on the axle, your view would be correct if the rear brake was on or the wheel couldn't rotate, but you're looking at it from a static, 'snapshot' viewpoint, I too am an engineer bla bla bla and my understanding is sound, as the wheel is dynamic (rotating) these forces are applied to rotation instead of into the axle the further away you get from the axle, from what you're saying, if the force into the axle remained constant, no force would be transferred to the rotation of the wheel regardless of big the chainring got, meaning the wheel wouldn't rotate [you don't simply generate more force without applying it].
Another factor that could increase efficiency with a small rear cog would be to shorten tooth/link length to limit angular pull from the chain (90 degrees from the chain to the instant centre [axle] being most efficient), however, without doing the maths, I believe this would only be a minor factor. @foghorn1 is also right in that the increased axial load of a smaller chain ring will increase bearing stress/wear/vibration etc. All this said though, someone would actually have to do the maths to work out the smallest chainring size you can go to before it becomes really inefficient, I suspect 9T or lower is really where you would start seeing a negative impact.
  • + 1
 @ctd07 @Smevan small amounts of efficiency loss are meaningless with the ten tooth. You are going (hopefully) over 25 mph when in this gear, so you only will be using it for short sprints, and wind resistance will be a MUCH bigger factor. The weight savings from a 10% range increase on the small end instead of the top looks to be 100 grams or more (comparing sram to shimano/sunrace, etc) of unspring weight, a much bigger deal than a tiny loss in efficiency.
  • + 1
 @ctd07: Unless I'm misunderstanding, your point is that, because the wheel is free to rotate, the chain tension is "used up" by the rotation, leaving no force left to cause linear motion. Force isn't a quantity like money though, where you can spend it all one on thing, leaving none left for another. Like I was saying, an applied force is able to produce *both* rotational and linear components and they must be evaluated separately - it's not a one-or-the-other scenario. It's easy to demonstrate that this is as valid for dynamic systems as it is static ones:

wrap a length of chain around a cassette sprocket, lie the arrangement on a smooth, low friction surface and pull on the chain - the sprocket will both rotate *and* slide across the surface in the direction of pull. That's what I mean - the chainstays have to provide a linear force, roughly equal and opposite to the chain tension, to prevent that translation/ sliding, to prevent the wheel being pulled towards the chainstays. That linear force does nothing to affect the wheel's rotation, because those two types of force component are separate.

You're totally on the money with the shorter chain links being more efficient on smaller sprockets. I reckon you're right about the modest potential gains too. A new hyper-efficient, "metric" chain standard, anyone? :p
  • + 2
 @ctd07 @hamncheez I can't offer much of an opinion on actual numbers, but I agree with you guys - I've read before that SRAM did tests with a 9T and decided is was too problematic and inefficient, but they obviously thought they could get away with a 10T, so you'd think the efficiency and stuff can't be that bad.

That explanation's no fun though, so let's all put on tinfoil hats and that Richie Rude and T-Mo were only so dominant because they had Shimano's super-efficient, slick and speedy 11T sprockets, while everyone else was pissing into the wind on Sram's 10Ts :p
  • + 1
 @slimboyjim: Glad to know I can still make sense, at least some of the time :p
  • + 1
 @Smevan: I've thought about a smaller chain pitch before, & the conclusion I came up with is that your chain will get quite a lot heavier, most likely to the point of very little gain. That's ignoring the added cost of machining more, smaller teeth, & the durability problems those smaller teeth might experience.
  • + 1
 @Smevan: You still learning engineering right? Energy gets used like money if you will, that's a bad analogy though, look at electricity - its follows the path of least resistance and can manifest itself as heat (element), light (light bulb) or vibration (power converter) if it has too. Forces work the same way, and will cause noise, heat and vibration too, as well as linear, torsional and rotational movement all of this will 'use up' energy like cash - in your ideal example the resistance against rotational and sliding forces are roughly equal, the hub would also try to twist mind you. In a more realistic scenario, the hub would grip the surface and its horizontal movement would be created by the rotation of the hub along the surface.
But back to a bike frame, if the dropout holds the axle from moving, the chain pull force has to go somewhere, and will rotate the wheel. This concept is the same reason why brake-jack arms work, a wheel rotates... The brake comes on, and the the forces get converted to linear movement and the suspension will compress unless a brake-arm or linkage system directs these forces into the frame, rotational energy will also be converted to heat, noise and vibration too. Please don't try to correct people when you're so far wrong
  • + 1
 @groghunter: Yeah, I can see how that'd be a problem :/
  • + 1
 @ctd07: Yep, I recognise that the example I gave isn't the best because of the very reason that there are two possible causes for the linear movement, although it doesn't invalidate the point I was making, I just should have chosen a better way to demonstrate it.

Let's take a step back, then, and I'll have another go at arguing my point, from the beginning.

My initial problem with your first post was this stuff:

"if you ran the chain... in-line to the centre of the rear axle so that it pulled directly on the axle, it would not rotate the wheel at all, you could apply pulling force on the chain, but the energy would simply be counteracted by the frame holding the axle... 9-10 tooth cogs are potentially still too close to the axles centre and you may actually be wasting pedalling energy into the frame... as your pedalling force will more greatly be trying to dislodge the axle rather than rotate the wheel"

which seems to suggest that the sprocket diameter affects the magnitude of the force being exerted on the frame, in this case the dropouts, and therefore how much pedalling energy is wasted deforming the frame, leading to the conclusion that smaller sprockets exert more force on the frame and so waste more energy. I don't believe this is right.

Here's a very simple diagram of the chain tension and its components I scribbled out:
tinyurl.com/joylkd9

Obviously, in a real-life situation there's a bit more going on and there are things to consider like the way chain tension wouldn't just be horizontal, but none of that changes the underlying principle so I've kept it simple.

You can see that the force the frame is having to exert in reaction to pedalling to keep the wheel held in the dropouts, N, is entirely independent of the sprocket diameter. Therefore, the pedalling energy wasted during the exertion of forces by the wheel into the frame/ dropouts depends only on, f, the chain tension, which is why your explanation of why different diameter sprockets lead to energy wastage and inefficiency is wrong.

As I said, the explanation that I accept is that smaller sprockets force the chain links to undergo a greater angle of rotation as they mesh with the sprocket teeth, which means more work is being done to overcome friction between the link plates and also between the chain and sprocket, which reduces the energy available to drive wheel rotation, lowering efficiency.
  • + 8
 So much effort to avoid a FD.
With 2*11 I've got a 620% gear range and use the whole spread most weekends.
  • + 1
 Also get some gears you'll never use because they are duplicate. Also front derailleur vs chainguide. I really enjoy how my chain never falls off. I do miss coming around a corner on a down and finding a surprise uphill and being able to shift once vs 8-9 times. But it is what it is. New shifter makes it 3.
  • + 2
 It's good you can run a FD. On some frames you can't.
  • + 1
 @WolfStoneD: Mrp 2x guide, came stock on my giant trance, my chain has never once come off, I swore by 1x systems until I used a 2x guide, absolutely love having a front derailleur and Grammy gears now!
  • + 8
 Neat but why not just sram?
  • + 3
 because choices?
  • + 4
 My left thumb revolted against shifts a couple seasons back and I bought it a 42t Wolftooth ($100cad) to 1x my 10 spd. Left thumb was happy working just the dropper lever THEN after 3 months the giant cog spit out a tooth and I was 1x 11x36. (My old legs were now clearly not happy). They did not warranty the GCog and I refused to buy another since I also needed to replaced the remaining cassette from wear. Bought a complete Sunrace 11x42 for $90cad. I am enjoying the deals I got on xtr shifter and fresh XT derailleur. Love the price of stuff with 10 spd written on it. Only full cassette for me.....the price is better.
I see if you replace your 29inch wheels w 26in you get a gear advantage for climbs too.
  • + 1
 We put the Sunrace on my buddy's bike because it was cheaper than buying another 11-36 and a 42t. Works great. Really surprised more people don't know about that gem.
  • + 2
 @texasblake: just ordered one. will see how it goes. got a year out of the stock shimano + extender.
@benviebikes: my left thumb controls my seat post. maybe in the future it will adjust my suspension. Being able to do this while riding full beans is totally worth the benefit over any minor efficiency gain in a 2x10 setup
  • + 1
 The price of those had me wondering if my xc/gravel bike would be better served with a compact CX crankset and 11-42 cassette and staying 2x10
  • + 1
 There are a few people in my riding circle using the Sunrace cassette, they seem to have zero problems with it. The 29 vs 26 inch wheels and gear ratios can be mitigated using different front rings.
  • + 2
 I feel like this stuff is for two kinds of people: Those with the on-bike time and abilities to justify the purchase, and the hosers who should spend more time riding what they already own (which was purchased less than 2 years ago and still in like-new condition).
  • + 1
 That applies to literally every bike part review ever. Doesn't make it any less true, though.
  • + 2
 I fitted th 10-50 One-Up cassette to my 29er Specialized Enduro about a week ago and my initial reviews are that it shifts flawlessly. Originally I had a ageing XX1 setup with the OneUp 44t conversion on a XX1 rear cassette. So it gave me a 10-44 range using a 30t front chainring. All in the quest to get more range from an ageing drivetrain. It worked, but not well given the age of the system and after about 6 months all the bits and pieces had eventually reached the end of their days. So I had to replace chain, chainring and cassette due to normal wear. I was hooked to the concept of greater range though I considered Eagle, but the pricing is nuts. Anything from SRAM is quite expensive and I break stuff. I did consider the e-thirten cassette, but reviews have been luke warm and it is still quite expensive. Instead, I was able to change to XT with the OneUp 10-50 range and go up to a 34t front chainring for price of just an X01 or e-thirten cassette. Cheap, highly functional, but defintely heavier than a SRAM setup. Worth it though in my mind given the price.
  • + 2
 XT cassette: $65 / 433g
Shark 50t: $125 / adds 89g
Shark 10t: $45 / no weight change
MiniDriver: $40 / no weight change
Total: $275 / 522 grams

Not bad at all since an X01 cassette is approximately $300. The X01/XX1 cassette weight is ~270g so thats about ~0.5 lbs more than the XT/OneUP 10-50t. Sram eagle costs $360 so its out of the conversation. If you don't care about weight this is the way to go. Even if you need to buy everything all over again is still cheaper. If you pair an XTR derailleur with OneUP you will be happy only if you don't care about the extra 0.5 lbs.
  • + 9
 Just weighed my 8 speed $12 cassette at 330g gonna try adding a 42 tooth on the easy end cause all the cogs aren't on some stupid carrier. You guys are crazy spending money on a wear item like this. I'll drill some more holes in my cassette and spew when some single speeder out climbs me.
  • + 1
 @choppertank3e: Maybe the people buying them think you are crazy for not doing? Or for drilling holes in a cassette? See, that logic works both ways. Just because you want to piss and moan about it doesn't mean anyone at all is crazy.
  • + 2
 Certifiable and crazy poor I definitely am. The holes are already there look at your cassette. I used to buy xt and x9 cassettes to save weight over low end crap. I'm not moaning I'm just pointing out how heavy these cassettes are. I agree with adding smaller gears at the high end to spread the gears and save weight. 9 would be better but why not 8? Wear rates bearing and ratchet size?
  • + 1
 Seriously, why wouldn't you just buy a SRAM XG-1150 cassette and the appropriate driver? It would be cheaper AND lighter than this setup. I really don't see the point.

And, by the way, I really love my OneUp 10 speed setup. This one just doesn't seem to have a point though.
  • + 2
 Because it's 10-42 instead of 10-50?
  • + 1
 @DandelionDan: Haha, oh yeah I forgot about that! 10-42 is probably good though.
  • + 1
 This is an awesome idea! I know what I'll be running on my next bikes. Forget about this XD crap, this is a smart and simple way to expand from the stock Sram cassettes. OneUp has really impressed me over the last few years tup
  • + 1
 I wonder if they will just sell the cogs when they wear out. When I contacted them about buying just a 50t they said it can only be bought with the D cage. Makes sense the first time you buy it. However, I can't spend money on specialty components from vendors who won't sell the individual wear items.
  • + 1
 I can't understand why Shimano keeps letting SRAM and everyone else beat them to market with products they had years before SRAM and Oneup existed. Hammerschmidt, extended range cassettes, 11 speed MTB, the ability to fit a 9 tooth cog on their hubs and even wireless electronic shifting. Shimano is a benchmark for quality and reliability that goes well beyond the bike industry. Shimano however is stubborn to a fault often claiming there is no demand for these things when asked. Anyone paying any attention to the bike industry knows how ridiculous that statement is. SRAM ran Shimano over when they introduced 1x and for whatever reason Shimano has not been able to make its case for the front derailleur when its very clear they think its the better solution for most riders. I'm not and won't be a 1x rider, it doesn't work for my 1 bike so I'm glad Shimano gives me a choice but I wish they would fill in their product lines.
  • + 3
 I run this with a stock 46t 11speed XT cassette, more range that my old XG-1150 cassette, and cheaper to replace now that I have the freehub body.
  • + 1
 Hope's Mini Driver for their hubs will also work with the one up kit. No idea on comparative price but in the UK at least DT and Hope must cover a high percentage of bikes.

I loved the one up 10spd stuff, it's what converted me to 1x drivetrain, but the weight of this is beginning to bother me. Hope cassette is 10-44 and similar weight to SRAM with a 10-48 on the way. 0.5lbs more than that for this and you could put your front mech and shifter back on and still save weight! I know there are other considerations with that, but I hope you see my point. There aren't many places on your bike where you can save 0.5lbs with no downsides. I think it was mentioned above but the new 11-46 m8000 cassette with one of these would be a good compromise IMO. No need for the cage or hoping up cog, but 10% higher gear top end. Just my 2p worth.
  • + 1
 Why doesn't shimano make a 11-46 xtr version with a little more weight savings baked in?
  • + 1
 @sutter2k: Good question!
  • + 1
 I'm about to go from 1x10 to 1x11, but I still don't know if it's worth the assle of a OneUp system instead of an XD Driver + e13 cassette...
In the end prices are not so distants (german websites are a good help for that matter)
  • + 2
 FWIW I've been running the e13 9-42 for a few months and have no regrets. It doesn't shift quite as buttery smooth on the biggest cogs as the SRAM cassette it replaced, but it's also jumping 7 teeth between shifts on the bottom three gears, so that's not the easiest thing to do and it does it well enough to satisfy me. As long as you aren't trying to upshift the big cogs under power they work fine.
  • + 6
 or keep your 1x10 at get the 11-42 sunrace cassette. Almost as much gear ratio for the price of a new cassette
  • + 1
 In all honesty, 11-42 is good enough for 80% of trails. Unless you're racing and need to pedal after 45-50kph, you can be perfectly happy with that range. If you do want more, srams 10-42 is 10% more, and no frankenstien-ing your cassette.
  • + 3
 @hamncheez: I definitely find myself more interested in somebody making lighter XD driver compatible cassettes for less money than SRAM is charging, rather than putting the weight savings into expanding range. The 10-42 on my bike is good enough for me, the 10t basically sees use only on roads, but the full-pin cassette is fairly heavy. wouldn't mind a reduction in unsprung weight.
  • + 1
 Yeah conversion from 11-40 to 10-40 is really vitally important task... Without this conversion I can't ride at all. But after conversion from 11-42 to 10-42 my bicycle will fly! Conversion 11-45 to 10-45 could save a day! Conversion from 11-50 to 10-50 was expected only in 2098...
  • + 1
 Aloha, totally enjoyed this read. I love/like innovation. I searched for this kind of stuff for a while because like you said above, the 10 tooth cog is pretty much only used when fire-road riding to and from trails. I agree and had pieced together a 9-40, 10 speed cassette a few years ago via the Canfield Brothers Micro-9 set up. It was heavy but worked great but was a dead end because Canfield stopped support of this. Therefore, parts would become extremely scarce. And yes, you touch on the point of having that compromise somewhere in the middle so that we can climb the obnoxious stuff and say we climbed it instead of having to walk. It's a challenge to say we rode it all instead of walking. And then at the end of the day, still be able to ride home.
  • + 2
 I dont really understand going thru all of this when you can buy a 9-44 or now 9-46 e*thirteen cassette and get nearly as much or more range for less $ and a lot less hassle.
  • + 1
 Such an effort (and probably load of cash too) just to loose one tooth. Where is the common sense?
Give me a single-speed converter that works with XD driver! Smile
  • - 1
 Noticed a little typo towards the end. Enduro racers using a smaller chainring up front to avoid spinning out. Should read larger chain ring Smile . As someone who has a bike w/ a 1x10 conversion, I'm thankful for now owning a bike with an X01 cassette. It may be a little more, but it's so much easier than the trouble of drilling out rivets or messing w/ spacers.
  • + 3
 Make a 54t star ratchet at half the price of a DT.
  • + 2
 @jawa and this is my saviour man. everything about this is getting put on my bike!
  • + 1
 "Eleven cogs, maximum range." They're not kidding, looks like a pizza pan gearing up to a thumb tack if I'm not mistaken.
  • + 1
 Eagle, now Shark? Next, Tiger? I'm sticking with the Shimano stuff until everyone gets their heads out their ass!
  • + 1
 But how awesome will Laser-Shark be?
  • + 1
 All this does is confuse the heck out of me... time to buy a Big Blue Book and study what's what and why...
  • + 2
 Finally,actual real Innovation, well done guys!
  • + 0
 This is a better solution to accommodate 10t cog than SRAM's. I hope everybody adapts it. It would work great for 11t too.
  • + 2
 waiting for the OneUp Whale 60t
  • + 0
 Rear derailuers love going from a ten tooth up to a 50 tooth cog! No isues with chain slack here. Ill stick to two by thanks.
  • + 1
 Sweet I finally have something to do with all of my 7speed freehub bodies
  • + 1
 Will this work with my X 1900 Spline?
  • + 1
 Has anyone just tried riding instead of reading into all this?
  • + 1
 I already got my shark ...
www.pinkbike.com/photo/13913346
  • + 1
 Good looking bike! Custom paint?
  • + 1
 That's a sexy bike!
  • + 1
 @hamncheez: Nop... Custom stickers...
  • + 2
 just use a front mech ?
  • - 1
 So basically shave 4.5 mm off my existing freehub and it will work on non ratchet systems? Am i right or am i missing something?
  • + 1
 You lost me at DT Swiss. No hub, no buy.
  • + 0
 One piece drivers allready!!!!!
  • + 0
 "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a $hit" Smile
  • + 0
 I feel sorry for people who need higher gears to make their trails fun.
  • - 1
 Save your money but rrsp's coast more quit trying to go so fast get a skateboard
  • + 5
 Haha the average mtb biker would fail miserably at skateboarding
  • - 2
 this is just getting stupid. Really we call this progress and all blindly jump on the bandwagon? come on
  • - 1
 Buy*

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.097017
Mobile Version of Website