Sram GX / XO1 / XX1 12 Speed mileage

[W@nted]

got about 6500k on xx1 chain, replacing now.

 

wont go any other route...

What chain lube do you use?

 

I tried wend wax for about 500km on my new gx eagle chain. Already approaching the 0.5 wear mark, so not impressed at all! GX eagle Cassette also done after 3200km.

 

I am going to ride this chain and cassette moertoe and then put xx1 on.

Edited January 28, 2020 by W@nted

[Hamstring]

i have an GX cassette and xx1 gold chain that i put on sum time in 2018 after Epic but lets go just with 2019 7500km and to date 2020 734km. 

[babse]

squirt dry lube

 

i do wash/clean drivetrain often

 

What chain lube do you use?

I tried wend wax for about 500km on my new gx eagle chain. Already approaching the 0.5 wear mark, so not impressed at all! GX eagle Cassette also done after 3200km.

I am going to ride this chain and cassette moertoe and then put xx1 on.

[W@nted]

i have an GX cassette and xx1 gold chain that i put on sum time in 2018 after Epic but lets go just with 2019 7500km and to date 2020 734km.

That is not bad!

[W@nted]

squirt dry lube

 

i do wash/clean drivetrain often

Thanks, I have moved back to smoove and regular chain cleaning.

[Christofison]

According to this guy, XX1 & XO1 chains get you the same mileage, so that means XO1 is the best bang for your buck.

Also according to this guy, XX1 & XO1 rob you of about 3watts because of the extra coatings leading to super tight tolerances, so probably not the best for race day if you're super competitive.

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/12/the-best-bicycle-chain-durability-and-efficiency-tested/

 

 

3 watts ? over say 3hrs ? i think you'd be better off just riding around more pebbles 

Over 3 hours, assuming you can average around 300w, that puts you about 2 minutes behind.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Christofison

[manbearpig]

2 x Chains rotated on one cassette and chain ring lasted about 8000km. The chain did start to jump off the chain ring on rocky descents though. Talking GX Eagle.

Edited January 28, 2020 by manbearpig

[love2fly]

GX Chain : 1000km

 

TAYA Gold 12s : 300km

 

XO1: 1800km

 

XX1 : 500km and still no sign of wear. When fitted the Park Tool Chain checker wouldn't fit at 0.0% wear and it still doesn't.

 

The XO1 eagle cassette has seen all these chains and all chaines were replaced at 0.5% wear. At this point the wear is visible because the chain starts to lift off the 42T and 50T sprockets about half way around the chain wrap.

 

lesson: buy an XX1 chain. I don't know anyone who is using one that has replaced it yet. I even have on on my road bike now

Could not agree more. Have now done double the distance I got with GX chain and no wear, plus I weigh 110 kg so the thing works hard! Plus the gold looks lekker!

[babse]

chain rotations...nah not for me thanks!  

[DieselnDust]

According to this guy, XX1 & XO1 chains get you the same mileage, so that means XO1 is the best bang for your buck.

Also according to this guy, XX1 & XO1 rob you of about 3watts because of the extra coatings leading to super tight tolerances, so probably not the best for race day if you're super competitive.https://cyclingtips.com/2019/12/the-best-bicycle-chain-durability-and-efficiency-tested/

 

Aren't you the guy whose tjommie had a parrot fly in a a bottle of enduro seal...?

 

I'd be more circumspect when taking wattage claims with anything more than a pinch of salt.

9. 0006 difference in friction coefficient x 0watts is still zero

[Jehosefat]

I'd be more circumspect when taking wattage claims with anything more than a pinch of salt.

9. 0006 difference in friction coefficient x 0watts is still zero

I'm not sure what your point is? The link pointed to actual tested wattage losses in a given set of conditions by a relatively independent team for a bunch of different chains. It'a not a theoretical friction coefficients calculation. (Obviously the testers are not completely independent because they do sell their own chains and chain treatments but as far as a Shimano vs SRAM comparison goes they seem to be reasonably independent)

[DieselnDust]

I'm not sure what your point is? The link pointed to actual tested wattage losses in a given set of conditions by a relatively independent team for a bunch of different chains. It'a not a theoretical friction coefficients calculation. (Obviously the testers are not completely independent because they do sell their own chains and chain treatments but as far as a Shimano vs SRAM comparison goes they seem to be reasonably independent)

I'm not sure what your point is? The link pointed to actual tested wattage losses in a given set of conditions by a relatively independent team for a bunch of different chains. It'a not a theoretical friction coefficients calculation. (Obviously the testers are not completely independent because they do sell their own chains and chain treatments but as far as a Shimano vs SRAM comparison goes they seem to be reasonably independent)

I'm not sure what your point is? The link pointed to actual tested wattage losses in a given set of conditions by a relatively independent team for a bunch of different chains. It'a not a theoretical friction coefficients calculation. (Obviously the testers are not completely independent because they do sell their own chains and chain treatments but as far as a Shimano vs SRAM comparison goes they seem to be reasonably independent)

The test is BS. The sample size is too small.

 

They do not establish a norm so what is the baseline?

 

Sounds sciencey but straight away I can see their BS

[MrJacques]

https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/SRAM-Eagle-chain-longevity-is-impressive,9934

 

Older post and no doubt the Sram chains have great durability, but if the chain checker doesn't fit when it's new, then doesn't it have an advantage to start with?

[Jehosefat]

The test is BS. The sample size is too small.

 

They do not establish a norm so what is the baseline?

 

Sounds sciencey but straight away I can see their BS

 

I didn't see any discussion of sample size there (unless I missed it). What I got was that there were 31 different models of chains and each individual chain was tested twice, no mention of how many chains of each model were tested. (And even then that section was specific to the durability testing rather than the efficiency testing).

 

I'm not sure why you need a baseline when you are doing a relative comparison. If a system loses 5w between crank and rear hub and the exact same system with a different chain loses 10w, where else can the additional 5w come from?

[DieselnDust]

https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/SRAM-Eagle-chain-longevity-is-impressive,9934

 

Older post and no doubt the Sram chains have great durability, but if the chain checker doesn't fit when it's new, then doesn't it have an advantage to start with?

 

Yes it does start with a design advantage. The concept design is around better fitting parts that therefore promote durability and better performance. A bigger diameter roller fits into the gap between the gear teeth a lot better. That promotes a rolling action of the roller into the tooth dedendum as it engages. Less sliding = less wear. There is no play between the SRAM Eagle chain ring and chain as they mate. 

But the chain is also harder as can be seen by how long it takes the chain to start to wear. Once you've worn through the hard TiN layer the chain still wears slower than other chains. Hence the massive difference in lifespan 

 

 

I didn't see any discussion of sample size there (unless I missed it). What I got was that there were 31 different models of chains and each individual chain was tested twice, no mention of how many chains of each model were tested. (And even then that section was specific to the durability testing rather than the efficiency testing).

 

I'm not sure why you need a baseline when you are doing a relative comparison. If a system loses 5w between crank and rear hub and the exact same system with a different chain loses 10w, where else can the additional 5w come from?

 

a 

A baseline or norm is need to understand what a normal wear rate  and power loss looks like. It will be different for similar chains from the same manufacturer and then by another order of magnitude between different manufacturers. One off tests just tell how that one chain performed against another and not how a family of similar chains performs against another family of also similar chains.  Single samples just tell you you may have got lucky or unlucky in your sample choice.

Only in the latter sample testing can some conclusions be drawn around power loss and longevity.

Believe Muck-off, Ceramic Speed and other similar marketers at your wallets peril. They are very good at making marketing BS sound like science

[Jehosefat]

A baseline or norm is need to understand what a normal wear rate  and power loss looks like. It will be different for similar chains from the same manufacturer and then by another order of magnitude between different manufacturers. One off tests just tell how that one chain performed against another and not how a family of similar chains performs against another family of also similar chains.  Single samples just tell you you may have got lucky or unlucky in your sample choice.

Only in the latter sample testing can some conclusions be drawn around power loss and longevity.

Believe Muck-off, Ceramic Speed and other similar marketers at your wallets peril. They are very good at making marketing BS sound like science

 

Yes, I'm a statistician, I'm well aware of how sampling works. My point was that there was nothing in the article relating to the sample sizes that were used for the efficiency tests. So yes, I agree that a one-off test proves absolutely nothing but your assertion that this was a one-off test has no basis in the article.

 

I still don't get your point about needing a baseline, surely differences in the average power losses between different brands and families of chains is exactly what you are testing for? In that case your average power loss for a certain family of chains is your test result rather than a norm/baseline.

 

I do agree that the article has nowhere enough information in it to reliably conclude that one is better than the other but that may be a case of the writer leaving things out that he did not know/think were relevant rather than the data not being available.