Back in the spring, I put a G-one R pro up front and an RS on the rear, and have put them through quite a bit of gravel riding and racing.
The 50s barely fit in the frame and fork and have rubbed down some of the protective tape I put in the chainstays. But it will be hard to get me to go back to a smaller tire. I've crept the pressures down a touch, sometimes to 21/23 f/r, and even the RS semi slick has pretty acceptable grip when you have that much volume and that low of pressure. I raced on these at Get lost gravel in hamilton and got another 2nd place. My whole year has been about almost but not quite winning it seems. The tires were great all day though. Mostly I just screwed up at the end.
The rear tire did wear out sort of quickly, and the insides of the edge knobs are pretty much all shredded off. Next I'm going to try the R pattern front and rear. The R will have a bit more grip and maybe better puncture protection with the small, tightly spaced tread blocks, but in testing is only barely slower than the RS on a drum. I definitely rode the rear tire much longer than I would have liked but there was pretty poor tire availability all summer.
I have still been riding it, haven't gotten any punctures since that one, and even on trails and steep gravel descents the grip is like, still fine. That's kind of the thing about a higher volume tire- you don't need as much tread.
So yeah, I think the g-one pros have been about my favorite all around gravel tires and they're conveniently about the fastest thing out there. Big handmade challenge tires get the edge for having the smoothest ride feel, and the pirelli gravel RCs had better cornering grip and feel. Mainly though, bigger tires are better. For a bike that gets ridden off pavement, it's hard to say why you would ever want a tire smaller than what fits in the frame. Mud clearance for cyclocross? Probably I will have to go back to something different/smaller especially with my new wider wheels. I really need the tires to actually measure 48-49mm instead of 50-51. The 45 challenge getaways were just about perfect in that regard and pirellis also measure on the large side.
Well we're getting toward the end of the summer and so I've worn out most of my tires and have a bit more to say about them if anyone reads blogs on the internet anymore. I guess i need to get with the times and start being a social media influencer and making youtube videos about this or something. But excuuuse me for liking to read and write still.
Alright where was I? Tires I guess. Maybe I should find something better to do with my life but this is what i do these days.
First up lets talk about the Schwable Rick XCs. I got over the narrower width and wound up liking these tires a lot. Pretty good durability over rocks although I did slice one real good a few weeks ago and it was worn enough for me to not bother trying to put in a patch.
The ricks got swapped around between my bikes this spring and they were on a set of bontrager kovee rsl wheels. I also had some thunder burts on a set of bontrager wheels and then also my mezcals on some dt swiss wheels. 3 sets of wheels and tires between two bikes was kind of nice although I never put the thunder burts on the hei hei (although I have done that before) or mezcals on the trek. Mostly it was swapping the ricks over to the hei hei whenever I wanted to race it, which was actually most of the time this season. With that wheel and tire setup the bike came in at under 25lbs ready to ride and I rode it like that at the homestead 6 hour (where I got 2nd) and 4 out of 5 of our wed night races (I got 2nd 3 times and won the series but never managed to win a race).
It was a very good setup that not only was light and went fast, but could corner and go downhill. The trek only got brought out to race once with a rick up front and a thunder burt on the back and the ricks have made me not want to bother racing the thunder burt front and rear at all. The thunder burts are fast, but have limitations when you're actually trying to ride them on trails or in a race where you have to do things like slow down and turn. The Ricks are almost as fast on a drum and can actually turn, which, in the real world, probably translates to being faster overall. But please, schwalbe, make it a little bit bigger and give the weight a little more QC attention.
With one of my ricks worn down and then sliced open, and one of my thunder burts worn down and also sliced open, I have a burt/rick combo on the trek.
The hei hei is back on it's mezcals and I like those tires as well. They are the new 2.4 xc race version and I think i've talked about them before. Last year i rode them quite a bit, wore out a rear tire, bought a single replacement, and then swapped the new tire onto the front and the used rear to the back. I'm still riding those tires and would say the tread wear was much better than I expected. Those ricks were toast after a spring of racing.
Between the two it's hard to say which I prefer. The ricks are a bit faster, but the mezcals are higher volume, last a bit longer, and maybe have a touch more grip. For a pure XC race tire I'd give it to the Ricks. For a little more general use where you're racing and also trail riding, the Mezcals are probably better. I might try the new peyotes next season, which test fast and have decent cornering knobs, and like the mezcals will actually measure 2.4" wide.
This year kona brought out a new Hei Hei, which as a hei hei owner got my attention. I've been riding mine for 5 years and 8000 miles and have started thinking about a replacement bike. I like mine perfectly well, it's been tweaked and tuned and modified greatly over the years and has turned into a bike I like that works really well for my uses, which range from wed night XC races to all day adventures and 100mi events. But, it's getting old and the parts on it are now a bit out of date and would you look at all the new and shiny things out there!
So yeah, last week kona sent us a bike to try out and hey hey it even happens to be my size
So what's new with the new bike? well, as is the trend, it got a bit longer and slacker and has a steeper seat tube angle, but not by much. The front fork went from 120 to 130mm while the rear stays at 120mm of travel. It gets nice suspension- a pike and deluxe ultimate, decent tires, and the rest of the parts are kind of meh. motive bronze brakes, eagle 90, trans-x seatpost, basic kona bar and stem, dt370 hubs to wtb rims with 3c/exo/tr 2.4 dissectors. And a wtb saddle literally no one will like. You're basically buying the frame and suspension. For $5300. With XTR pedals and one bottle cage it was just over 31 pounds. My hei hei is under 25 with my lightest wheels, but usually more like 25.5, also with pedals and bottle cages.
The HTA is 1.5deg slacker at 66 and the chainstays got 5mm longer. In my size, an XL, the reach got 9mm longer (500 to 509) and stack got a lot taller going from 610 to 640mm, which is taller than I'd like and a bit on the long side for me, but the large is too short at 474. for me, 500mm of reach with a 45-50mm stem is about right. The wheelbase gained 40mm to 1262. It's a big, long bike.
kona lists a different seat tube angle for every size, getting slacker the bigger the bikes are. However, the geometry of the frame/seattube/pivots stays the same across sizes and they are just measuring at different saddle heights, as the seat tube meets the downtube forward of the BB and is angled back from there. On the old bike it was just listed at 75 across the board but based on a bit of measuring of angles drawn on a picture I came up with more like 72-73 degrees at my saddle height of 800mm. The new bike is supposedly steeper, listed at 75.8 on a XL, but again, I question if I would get that number if I pasted a picture in cad and started drawing lines and measuring angles. I put the saddle fairly far forward on the rails and it felt pretty similar to where I am on my other bikes and my knees wind up in about the same spot relative to the cranks/pedal axle. This isn't too bad when it comes to pedaling on flatter and rolling terrain, but does put you a little farther back than might be ideal for steeper climbs and gets worse the taller you are. But, seat tubes can only get so steep, chainstays can only be so long, and it's just something a tall person has to deal with. I feel like I am far enough forward and going much farther puts too much weight on my hands and gets uncomfortable. In general I do have my saddles pretty far forward on the posts but can ride all day without numb hands.
It's still a single pivot but no more flex stays like the previous version. This adds weight but does let the suspension move a bit more freely. The whole linkage is generally similar, but with more anti-squat and a straighter leverage curve (so less ramp up of progression). With my bike, it took a bit of tinkering to get the suspension to feel like I wanted and be better at pedaling. Cranking pressure up only goes so far as then you never use all the travel and it feels harsh, so I went to smaller volume spacers which means a less progressive spring curve, allowing me to have a higher spring rate and better initial support while still actually using the suspension travel. I also had the shock revalved to be "firm digressive," which basically means a lot of low speed force to keep the suspension from moving as much under slow movements like pedaling hard. I'm fairly happy- it has good response but stays smooth over the rougher stuff. Still, I ride it at just under 20% sag and use the lockout switch.
Setting up the new bike I erred on the firm side with the shock, doing a quick, "sit on bike and check" and wound up right at 20% and then set the front so it felt soft enough. I generally don't worry about measuring fork sag and instead just go by how the balance feels and keep an eye on the travel indicators to further fine tune. I have trended toward a pretty soft fork for better comfort and don't worry if i lightly bottom out sometimes. I think I was at about 65psi in the 130mm pike. I weigh about 160. I got the seat in the right general position, slammed the stem, and called it good.
For my ride I did my usual saturday night thing, going straight up the barmeyer trail to the top of dean stone, across house of sky, through pattee and crazy canyon, and out the moZ to wally and buck. It's a really great ride- lots of climbing, backcountry-esqe ridgeline riding, and then whatever sort of variety you want on the way back into town. Sometimes I go to the top of mount sentinel too, but on this ride only had time for chopsticks, which i really wanted to go down on the new bike to see how it feels on the rougher stuff.
The ride climbs 2500 feet straight from town so I was going to get a feel for how the bike rides up hill. As it's not on XC tires, and weighs 31lbs, I was not particularly optimistic. At a moderate pace it moves along fairly well, but does not really reward harder pedaling. It seemed like the extra anti-squat was useful but the extra weight and slower tires really dragged the bike down. Stranding up and cranking was kind of an exercise in futilty. Can we get moving please? I swear I can pedal pretty hard why am I not going anywhere. There are no lockouts or mode switches on this suspension but they do get a couple of fancy dials, and like I said, the extra anti-squat seemed effective at keeping the rear end from moving much when you stand on it and I would say that out of the box this suspension is in a better place than my bike was (i struggled to come up with a descriptor other than "sluggish"). Probably it's just the weight and tires I'm feeling and if I ride it again I'll at least use my wheels and tires. What's tempting is to swap over like, everything, but that seems like a lot of work.
Anyhow, I finally made it to the top, 4 min slower over an hour than last week at a similar effort and HR.
Riding down, I'd describe this bike as "smooth." It's a small step from my bike, but the fancy suspension, extra fork travel, longer wheel base, and slacker head tube are all noticable. The 18t ratchets are also practically silent, whereas my 54t 240 exp hubs are very much not, so the very quiet ride did stand out. I also only had like 18/19psi in the dissectors so those were pretty grippy compared to my usual xc tires. Nothing is really drastically different though so it was easy enought to adapt to that little bit extra traction and stability and have a fun time riding the bike. Downhill anyway. The only funny thing I noticed was that in quick direction changes the rear end got pretty slidey and loose, which i wasn't really expecting given the longer bike and longer chainstays. I think that might have just been the tires, which have a pretty open transition zone, and so probably that sliding was just happening when the tire wasn't on the edge knobs.
After the ridgeline trail and house of sky down to deer creek, I went down sam braxton and then crossed the road and climbed up to chopsticks, which is steep, fast, and a bit chunky. This got the bike up to speed and had the suspension working and it all felt pretty good and I actually expected the rear to be harsher with my sag setting. I made it to the bottom within a couple seconds of my PR (that I set the week before on mezcals). I was, however, a little surprised to see that I'd used almost all of the suspension travel (plus I dinged the front rim at some point). The trail is rocky, sure, but there are no big hits or g-outs or drops or anything like that, and on my more linear rear spring rate hei hei i don't come anywhere close to bottoming out at the same speed on the same trail. So I'm not sure what that's all about and I really did not expect to go through that much travel at 20% sag on an off the shelf shock- I guess I would need more volume spacer in the air spring. Maybe the air can on the deluxe is a little too big for this bike and the straighter leverage curve.
Anyway, I didn't not like the bike but it also didn't make me want to go out and buy one immediately, and it had me wondering if a bigger travel bike that weighs a similar amount might be a better option if I was willing to deal with all this chunk on the uphills. But nobody likes a heavy XC bike.
IF I got a new hei hei I would definitely have to start from a frame because I don't want this version of the bike or really any of the parts on it. I'd even want a more XC oriented shock and a lighter 120mm fork.
The eagle 90 is fine but a bit slow and unhappy when you try to make a bunch of shifts in a row (just like the electric version I suppose). It also never seemed to be perfectly dialed in and I kept going back and forth one notch on the barrel adjuster. If you make yourself only shift one gear at a time you definitely do notice that it's better at making one shift under high load than the previous stuff, and presumably i would get a little better at anticipating shifts. Still, think of that case where you come out of a steep slow uphill switchback and the trail flattens out- you need like 3 gears right away. Nice when you are slow and deliberate with shifts but a bit clunky when you start pushing it.
The extra seatpost drop (175mm vs my 125) was nice and I was pleasantly surprised by the motive bronze brakes. They felt good, were powerful enough, and have much less initial free stroke and better bite than my guide rscs with a fresh rebuild and bleed and mtx red pads.
While I have been complaning about things on this bike, I suppose I went through the same things with mine and wound up changing all the parts to make it lighterand tinkered with the suspension to get better pedaling performance. I'm sure I could get a new hei hei to be what I want, but I think I'm better off starting with an actual 120/120 XC bike next time around. probably a cannondale scalpel.
One thing kona did with this frame is put a lot more mounts in it. There are 5 bosses on the downtube, 2 more on the seat tube, and then 2 under the top tube in front of the shock, offering you way more ability to mount things to the frame. Sort of. My hei hei has room for two big bottles in the frame and a little tube roll tucks in between them nicely.
Two big 26oz bottles there. Don't even need side load cages. I like this a lot. I can even strap/zip tie my bear spray holster in front of the shock under the top tube.
The new bike has seat tube mounts, but, uh, you can't put a bottle there unless maybe it's one of those super tiny ones.
It's wedged up against the downtube and also the downtube bottle hits it, so maybe not?
You can do two inline on the downtube on this XL at least but I'm not sure about the other sizes or if it'll fit big bottles. I was trying to get out after work and so I just pulled that cage back off, stuck a bottle in my hip pack, and called it good enough. Maybe a little more experimenting with the arraingement would make me less annoyed and i could probably make use of all the extra mounts with things like bear spray and a bolt on tool roll/strap thing.
Anyway, as someone who has possibly ridden the previous hei hei more than anyone short of Cory Wallace, it was nice to get to try the new one. But I still like mine better.
If anyone reads this they might notice I go through a lot of tires. That will happen when you ride a lot and have a lot of bikes. I counted how many i bought last year and it was... a lot.
The other thing people may notice is how much attention there is to rolling resistance right now. It kind of started with bicyclerollingresistance.com, and now there are a number of folks out there doing testing on real roads, which is nice as the smooth roller doesn't always tell the full story especially when it comes to gravel and mtb tires on rougher surfaces. The most recent real world testing is indicating that as roughness of the surface increases, the faster wider tires become. And on smoother surfaces, many wide tires are still fast. Conclusion? Probably that you should ride as wide of tires as possible unless you're only ever on very smooth paved roads (and even then, bigger road tires are nice).
So, last year when I got my orbea that had more tire clearance than a CX bike of old, I started off with 40mm tires because I had them. Then, in the summer when those needed replacement I went to 45s. Then, this spring when it was time for a new set i tried some 50mm schwalbes. My frame officially only has clearance for a 48mm measured width but in my experience the schwables tend to be a bit small or at least not bigger than advertised so I thought I should give it a try.
My choice - the new G one pro tires, with a semi-slick RS rear and the R up front for a little more braking and cornering grip.
They measure about 50.5mm and it's a pretty close fit
Don't think I could pull off a 2.1 thunder burt or anything even slightly larger. I put some foil tape in the chainstays and I have already noticed spots where it's got some wear from rocks and dirt getting in there.
So, how do they ride? Pretty good. I've been going with about 23/25psi f/r, which is around the same or a bit less than my getaways (which measured 48mm). I did not put inserts in them because it seemed less necessary with the added volume. Last week I did quite a bit of extended gravel descending, first down allen creek road to turah. The last time I rode it on 40s my hands were numb at the bottom and I had to take a break and shake them out a bit. Last week it felt pretty good. Yesterday we rode up deer creek, down little park creek, and then over holloman saddle, then back on crystal creek. Nowhere did I think "gee I wish I had narrower tires."
Grip is pretty good but the rear will slide around a bit on hard braking. The edge knobs bite pretty good though, and you do get used to riding a file tread type tire and learning that the grip is better when they're leaned over.
Durability is questionable, but good so far in the real world over rocks and stuff. However I got a silly puncture at slow speed on the kim willaims trail, presumably from a piece of glass or something that needed to be plugged and now I need to go patch the inside of the tire. They do not have the best puncture protection rating but they are fast and comfy.
Treadwear is also already noticable on the rear after only 300mi so I might be going through a couple of these this summer. Schwalbe does make 3 versions with differing tread so there are many possible combinations of tire, from the RS front and rear to the more aggressive RX, and they all test fast on bicycle rolling resistance and in the real world.
I guess the real conclusion is that big tires are absolutely the way to go for gravel and trails. It surprises me to see new gravel race bikes being released that only fit 45s. Basically, IMO if you put out a new bike it better fit 2.2s.
This very useful post appears to have disappeared from the internet but thanks to internet archives i dug it up and here it is.
Science Behind the Magic | Drivetrain Compatibility
Can I mix SRAM, Shimano and Campagnolo shifters, derailleurs and cassettes? This article will answer that question and more. I’ve commented previously on the lack of standards in the cycling industry. It can be, at times, rather frustrating. Some new part comes out that I really want, but lo and behold, my seat post is the wrong diameter, or this tapered fork is incompatible with my straight head tube. It is a constant battle to keep up with the ever-changing times.
While the industry has advanced in leaps and bounds in the past few years, certain things have stayed relatively the same over the decades. Di2 and EPS excluded, shifting is one thing that is basically the same. Yes we’ve advanced from 5 cogs to 11, and derailleurs now have changed to account for a varying number of forward gears, but we are still talking about yanking on a cable a certain amount to move a chain up and down a line of gears.
This article contains tables with data for cable pull, derailleur shift ratio and cog pitch of SRAM, Shimano and Campagnolo drivetrains. This data can be used to show areas of cross compatibility for mixing and matching groups. Also, I want to discuss the differences amongst drivetrain competitors and the reasoning behind some of their decisions. Before we get into it all, lets define a few terms so that we are all on the same page.
The shifter determines cable pull. Every time you click your shift lever, the shifter pulls in or releases a certain amount of cable. Different brands and different drivetrain speeds (e.g. 9, 10, 11spd) pull different amounts of cable. For the most part, all the cable pulls are uniform for every shift, with the exception of some of the Campagnolo shifters. For example, a Campagnolo 10-speed shifter pulls 2.5mm of cable five times, 3mm twice and 3.5mm twice.
Derailleur shift ratios, also referred to as actuation, are the amount of movement from side to side of the derailleur relative to the amount of cable pulled. Older Shimano derailleurs all have a shift ratio of 1.7. This means that for every millimeter of cable pulled by the shifter, the derailleur will move 1.7 millimeters.
Cog pitch is the distance from the center of one cog on the cassette to the center of the next. Cog pitch changes between major brands and as more gears are added, usually cog pitch shrinks to fit more gears into the same width freehub body.
These three numbers are related by the following equation:
Cable pull * Derailleur shift ratio = Cog pitch
Looking at this equation, you can imagine the thought process behind some of the designs. If an engineer a few years ago wanted to design 10-speed drivetrains, but they wanted them to fit on the current 9-speed bikes, then the 10 cogs must fit in the same amount of space on the freehub body as the 9 previous cogs. To do this the engineer will reduce the width of the spacers between each cog. So now all the cogs are closer together. To save time and money, lets leave the derailleur design virtually the same; we will just slap a nice shiny 10-speed graphic on it. But if the cogs are closer together, we need to change the shifter design so that it only pulls the cable just enough to get to the next cog. So the shifter is redesigned with an extra “click” and now each shift pulls 0.2mm less of cable than before. Obviously the design process is not this simple, but hopefully this over-simplified example helps to explain how things work.
Tables below contain measurements for cable pull, derailleur shift ratio and cog pitch for varying drivetrains. We want to keep this table updated as new information becomes available, so feel free to comment on the bottom of the post if there is information that you think we missed or should be added.
Shifter
Cable Pull (mm)
Shimano 10 Road
2.3
Shimano 9
2.5
Campagnolo 11
2.6
Shimano 11 Road
2.7
Campagnolo 10
2.8
Shimano 8
2.8
Shimano 7
2.9
Campagnolo new 9
3
SRAM (Exact Actuation) 10 Road/Mountain
3.1
SRAM (Exact Actuation) 11 Road
3.1
Campagnolo old 9
3.2
Shimano 6
3.2
Shimano 10 Mountain
3.4
SRAM (X-Actuation) 11 Mountain
3.48
Campagnolo 8
3.5
Shimano 11 Mountain
3.6
SRAM (1:1) 9 Mountain
4
SRAM (1:1) 8 Mountain
4.3
SRAM (1:1) 7 Mountain
4.5
Cassette
Sprocket Pitch (mm)
Campagnolo 8-speed
5
Shimano/SRAM 8-speed
4.8
Campagnolo 9-speed
4.55
Shimano/SRAM 9-speed
4.35
Campagnolo 10-speed
4.15
Shimano/SRAM 10-speed
3.95
SRAM 11-Speed Road
3.72
SRAM 11-Speed Mountain
3.9
Shimano 11-Speed Mountain
3.9
Campagnolo 11-speed
3.76
Shimano 11-speed Road
3.69
Derailleur
Shift Ratio
Shimano Standard
1.7
Shimano Standard w/ Hubbub
1.6
Campagnolo (new)
1.5
Campagnolo (old)
1.4
SRAM (Exact Actuation)
1.3
Shimano 10-speed Dyna-sys
1.2
SRAM (X-Actuation)
1.12
SRAM (1:1)
1.1
Update 2/13/15: Please note when using the equation relating cable pull, shift ratio, and cog pitch, the calculated values will vary slightly from the those listed above. The precision of measuring equipment leads to as much as a 3.24% difference in calculated and measured values. Below, the chart compares the measured values of cog pitch with those calculated by multiply shift ratio with cable pull. This percent error does not mean that the numbers are incorrect, it simply suggests that more precise measuring procedures would be required to eliminate the difference.
Cable Pull
Derailleur Ratio
Calculated Cog Pitch
Measured Cog Pitch
Percent Difference
Shimano 6
3.2
1.7
5.44
5.50
1.10
Shimano 7
2.9
1.7
4.93
5.00
1.41
Shimano 8
2.8
1.7
4.76
4.80
0.84
Shimano 9
2.5
1.7
4.25
4.35
2.33
Shimano 10 Road
2.3
1.7
3.91
3.95
1.02
Shimano 10 Mountain
3.4
1.2
4.08
3.95
3.24
Shimano 11 Road
2.7
1.4*
3.69
Shimano 11 Mountain
3.6
1.1*
3.90
Campagnolo 8
3.5
1.4
4.90
5.00
2.02
Campagnolo old 9
3.2
1.4
4.48
4.55
1.55
Campagnolo new 9
3.0
1.5
4.50
4.55
1.10
Campagnolo 10
2.8
1.5
4.20
4.15
1.20
Campagnolo 11
2.6
1.5
3.90
3.76
3.66
SRAM (1:1) 7 Mountain
4.5
1.1
4.95
5.00
1.01
SRAM (1:1) 8 Mountain
4.3
1.1
4.73
4.80
1.47
SRAM (1:1) 9 Mountain
4.0
1.1
4.40
4.35
1.14
SRAM (Exact Actuation) 10 Road/Mountain
3.1
1.3
4.03
3.95
2.01
SRAM (Exact Actuation) 11 Road
3.1
1.3
4.03
3.72
2.01
SRAM (X-Actuation) 11 Mountain
3.5
1.12
3.90
3.90
0.06
*Shimano 11-speed groups do not have any published data regarding derailleur ratio. The ratio listed was calculated by measuring cable pull and cog pitch and solving for the ratio.
If you find the tables a little hard to decipher and compare, then the next sections might make things a little easier. We will discuss popular combinations of components followed by three sections that each pertain to a specific manufacturer and discusses the history and revisions to the systems over the years.
While the market is large and there are many different varieties of derailleurs and drivetrains, I would guess that 90% of people reading this article are using Shimano, SRAM or Campagnolo 8/9/10 or 11-Speed systems so we will focus on those combinations.
Mixing and Matching
It is important to keep in mind that while you find a lot of information that claims compatibility between different brands and groups, experiences will always vary. Things might seem to work well for a while, but later on, chain’s stretch, teeth get worn down, and all of a sudden shifting becomes shady. Just keep in mind that Campy engineers didn’t design any of their components to work with Shimano or SRAM or any mix in between. Mixed component group compatibilities are more of a coincidence than anything. Yes, cyclocross racers, monster ‘crossers, steep road aficionados, I’m talking to you. These riders are most likely to play the component mix up game because they desire dropbar shifters with mountain cassette ranges that require mountain derailleurs with long cages for a larger maximum tooth capacity. Until SRAM CX-1, they had no choice but to play the mix and match game. Please watch this public service announcement to gain awareness about a real issue that faces all cyclocross racers in particular.
With that disclaimer I will say that if the cable pull, ratios and cog spacing truly are matched, there won’t be an issue. The perfect example is cross compatibility between SRAM 10-speed mountain and road. These groups work together—period. Bicycle manufacturers, including Specialized, sell new bicycles with mixed groups like this. I fully encourage you to tinker and try different combinations with your new-found knowledge as you build your perfect steed.
Moving on from perfect matches, things get more complicated; we start mixing between brands. With varied success, there are a few different popular combinations today. Shimergo is the mix and match of “Shim”ano drivetrains with Campy “Ergo” shift levers. This is possible because the cable pull between the two is so similar. Routing of the cable a little differently through the derailleur effectively changes the ratio to make things line up. This is called the Hubbub routing method. But, as noted earlier, Campagnolo Ergo levers pull 2.5mm of cable five times, 3mm twice and 3.5mm twice and Shimano derailleurs are designed around consistent cable pull each time. There is a fudge factor of compatibility though and there are numerous reports of success online. The methods require a reduced speed; meaning 9-speed levers with an 8-speed cassette. If you are interested in setting up a Shimergo setup, there are plenty of articles and forum posts out there to help you with your setup.
With the Shimergo setup, it is also worth mentioning Jtek Engineering. Their most popular product, the Jtek ShiftMate, uses a pulley to change the ratio of the amount of cable pulled by the shifter. There are four different pulleys available to allow you to run numerous combinations of Shimano and Campagnolo 8 through 11-speed systems together. Here is an article that details one rider’s experience of moving from the Hubbub method to a Jtek ShiftMate.
JTek ShiftMates use a pulley to reduce or increase the ratio of cable pull to create compatibility between shifters, derailleurs and cassette spacing. Four different pulleys can be setup eight different ways to change the amount of cable pull in the system.
As mentioned earlier in this article, there are reports that XTR 11-speed cassettes use nominally the same spacing as SRAM 11-speed mountain systems. Some people are reporting success on forum posts.
And lastly, despite differences in cog pitch, it seems that there has been some success with mixing cassettes between 11-speed road systems as detailed in this VeloNews article by Lennard Zinn, the author of the popular Zinn Mountain and Road Maintenance books. Again, note that only the cassettes are being swapped, shifter and derailleur brands must still match in these instances due to significant differences in cable pull and derailleur ratio.
Shimano
Starting with Shimano, this could be the simplest section of them all if we could just talk about everything up to 9-speed. Basically everything Shimano did up until then was cross compatible. They used a derailleur shift ratio of 1.7 on everything. While the cable pull varies from 8-speeds to 9-speeds as they moved the sprocket pitch closer together, the derailleur remains the same. Shimano 10-speed road groups adhere to this design as well. It’s the 10-speed Dyna-Sys mountain systems that veered away from the norm—More on that in a second. So let’s say you have an older 8-speed Shimano drivetrain on your bicycle and your derailleur breaks. You hunt around and can’t find a replacement for your old derailleur anywhere… Fear not! Because a brand new Shimano Ultegra 6700 10-speed derailleur has the same shift ratio of 1.7, it is completely compatible. Your old 8-speed shifter will pull the same 2.8mm of cable as before, and the derailleur will move the same 4.8mm pitch required to push the chain to the next cog.
Now here’s where things get tricky, as more gears are added and everything gets closer together, tolerances get tighter. This means that with a little bit of dirt in the cable system, the derailleur doesn’t quite move as far as it should, and all of a sudden you’re in the wrong gear and your bike is ghost shifting like crazy. Enter Shimano Dyna-Sys. In the simplest terms, Dyna-Sys increased the amount of cable pulled and decreased the amount of derailleur movement per millimeter of cable pull. Because Shimano 10-speed road is the same 1.7 ratio as before, lets compare the 10-speed Shimano road to the 10-Speed Shimano Dyna-Sys mountain. The cassettes are the same width, with a cog pitch of 3.95mm. But the difference is that 10-speed road pulls 2.3mm of cable, compared to the 3.4mm of cable that Dyna-Sys pulls. So in order to end up in the same gear after a shift, the derailleur ratio is reduced from 1.7 to the new Dyna-Sys 1.2 ratio. The main reasoning behind this design change is that with more cable pull, a turn of the barrel adjuster gives much more incremental fine-tuning. Dyna-Sys allowed Shimano to squeeze 10-speeds into the same freehub body and still maintain quality shifting that stays in-tune. While I can’t speak for the engineers, I would say that Dyna-Sys was considered not necessary on road systems, because they weren’t being beaten around quite like a mountain system, until 11-speed road was introduced. Now the Shimano 11-speed road systems have a type of modified Dyna-sys that keeps them in-tune with tighter cog spacing but is completely incompatible with 10-speed road or mountain.
One of the most interesting things to happen to drivetrains lately is electronic shifting. The derailleur shift ratio is essentially programmed into the mechanism. Cable pull is completely eliminated. The shifters simply contain upshift and downshift buttons, with nothing internally that determines how many shifts you can perform beyond programming. In a perfect world you could plug your drivetrain into your computer and tell it how many gears your cassette has and the cog pitch. The derailleur and shifters could then reprogram themselves accordingly. Unfortunately we don’t live in a world like this yet. Perhaps someday someone will “Jailbreak” Shimano Di2 systems, allowing on-the-fly reprogramming of all components. Currently it is possible to swap a 10-speed derailleur for an 11-speed, resulting in your Di2 10-speed shifters reprogramming themselves with 11-speeds. This only works for specific models and firmware versions, so I encourage you to watch our video if you are interested in learning more.
SRAM
SRAM has basically approached the situation with the same method as Shimano with a few exceptions since they entered the arena a little later on. Early on, SRAM produced shifters that were cross compatible with the Shimano 1.7 ratio. This was called the SRAM (2:1) family of products. For the most part though, SRAM used their 1:1 actuation on 7/8/9-speed systems. Referencing the SRAM website, “Every unit of cable you pull moves the derailleur the same amount.” Comparable to the Dyna-Sys release, with 10-speed systems both road and mountain, SRAM introduced Exact Actuation. The nice thing about the SRAM system is that all mountain 10-speed and road 10-speed are compatible, all using Exact Actuation. So you can use road shifters, with mountain derailleurs and vice versa—though it will be necessary to throw an inline barrel adjuster in the mix when using road shifters with mountain derailleurs. I think the best easter egg of all of this is that Exact Actuation remained for SRAM 22 road groups. Meaning that if you wish to upgrade to SRAM 11-speed and you already have an 11-speed compatible freehub body, all you need is a new rear shifter, cassette, and chain. The cog pitch and derailleur ratio is the same on 10 and 11-speed road. So with a new shifter, your 10-speed derailleur turns into an 11-speed derailleur.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the SRAM 11-speed mountain systems. SRAM Mountain uses a new X-Actuation setup that once again changes ratios and increases the amount of cable pulled. So SRAM Mountain is only compatible with itself for the time being. Although interestingly enough, people on the forums are reporting that the new XTR 11-speed systems seem to run smoothly with a SRAM 11-speed cassette. Art’s examined an XTR M9000 cassette alongside a SRAM XX1 cassette and upon visual inspection and measuring as accurately as possible with our digital calipers, both cassettes seem to have a cog pitch of roughly 3.9. I say “roughly” because I am unsure of the accuracy of measurements and would like to use more precise tools to confirm. Unfortunately SRAM and Shimano both declined to provide hard numbers after I contacted them. Please note that shift pull and derailleur ratios are still different, so while you may be able to swap cassettes, you cannot use a SRAM shifter with an XTR derailleur or the other way around. Compatible cassettes do introduce some interesting combinations since XTR M9000 cassettes work with 9/10-speed freehub bodies while SRAM 11-Speed only works with the new XD driver bodies.
A good comparison between SRAM 11-speed mountain and road systems lies in the Force CX-1 Drivetrain. It is the result of a drunken hookup between a SRAM Force 22 road group and a SRAM mountain group. The result is a cassette with cog pitch, cable pull and derailleur ratio (Exact Actuation) from the road group. But with technologies like X-Horizon and a Roller Bearing Clutch made popular by the mountain group. Because the CX-1 derailleur is basically an X1 derailleur with some modification, it is easy to show the most substantial differences by putting them side-by-side.
Force CX-1 and X1 Mountain derailleurs side by side. Main differences viewed here lie in the design of the cage. The mountain derailleur on the right is designed for larger maximum tooth cogs (42T) and take up the extra chain slack required in the mountain system. This picture shows the two derailleurs without cable routing devices installed—seen in the next picture.
These two cable routers (Left: Force CX-1, Right: X1 Mountain) are designed differently to change the angle of entry of the cable into the derailleur body. They are interchangeable between the two derailleurs, but it wouldn’t do you much good as it will change the way the derailleur works. The CX-1 version has a built-in barrel adjuster since the shift lever doesn’t have one like its X1 counterpart.
After running through the cable routers pictured previously, the cable runs around a lever arm guide before being clamped in the cable bolt. Comparing the two lever arms in the above picture, we can see how the length of the arm has changed to change the derailleur shift ratio so Force CX-1 will be compatible with 11-speed road instead of 11-speed mountain with a different cog pitch.
Campagolo
And finally we discuss Campy. This section is infinitely less complicated. There are no mountain components to contend with, just road groups. Lets discuss 8 through 11-speed groups. Instead of Dyna-Sys, Dyna-Sys11, 1:1, Exact Actuation, X-Acuation or any other fancy marketing terms you could possibly come up with, we will refer to the systems as Campy “old” and Campy “new”. Campagnolo changed the shift ratio and cable pull between the two systems. 8-Speed systems are Campy “old.” 9-speed systems come in both varieties. The “new” 9-speed systems were produced after 2001. Most likely you have a newer group, but if you are unsure, old-style controls are absent of graphics or have the groupset name on them and new-style will be printed with “9-speed.” Newer 9-speed derailleurs moved the “B” adjuster screw down by the cage, as opposed to the old-style that places it where Shimano derailleurs typically have it by the frame and mount point. After that its easy, 9/10/11-speed systems are all the same. Just match the number of gears on the cassette with the number of clicks in the lever (minus 1, because 10-speed shifters make only 9 clicks) and you are good to go. The derailleur ratio remains the same across the range.
This is a lot to absorb after one reading so I encourage you to reread the specific sections that pertain to you. I hope this sheds a significant amount of light onto the industry and compatibility amongst components. I think that one thing I took away from the process of researching for this article is that most of the decisions made around these differing designs were made to try and make upgrades easier. So while we might complain that 11-speed is expensive and you have to replace everything, just remember that without Dyna-Sys11 or X-Actuation shifting, the cassette would probably get wider, and then we would need wider wheels and wider frames and it would snowball from there. The tables earlier in the article show collected data for cable pull, derailleur ratio, and cog pitch for most component groups. I hope to keep this table up-to-date with new drivetrains and information, so feel free to comment below with any information you believe should be added as we try and make this a resource for everyone.
Science Behind the Magic delves into the inner workings of your two-wheeled steed. Web Content Editor, Brett Murphy, uses his mechanical engineering background to explain the latest industry advances and breakdown component design.
