For all you Sh!*mano fans out there..

[nathrix]

Shimano had on display their new 10 speed mountain bike group, on the

Deore XT and SLX versions. The system is called Dyna-Sys, and is

comprised of a 3?10 drivetrain. The groups include a new crank, chain,

cassette, rear shifter and derailleurs.

 

http://seaotter.mtbr.com/2010/04/22/shimano-dyna-sys/

 

 

 

[GTfan]

Go Shimano

[Andyr249]

Looks good!

[Guest Big H]

Wonder when krampekkernoggelia will try to launch a MTB groupset after their previous groupset.

[Eugene]

There is no doubt, that Shimano make some of the best looking stuff out there and despite what the Campag/Sram die hards say, their stuff works bl**dy well too.

[Thug]

Why do we need 30 gears for MTB use ? I certainly don't need 30 gears and I'm positive 80% of MTBers out there don't need it either.

 

Is there not some ulterior motive whereby if they did make a 2x10, then parts could be interchanged with SRAM, which they obviously don't want happening ??

 

Yes, I could do with a 10 speed cassette and shifter but then, I only run 1 blade up front.

 

 

[scotty]

Looks nice but cut out the xcross big front/rear and small front/rear and you dont add much more.

[Face Plant]

interesting that they are going 3X10 and SRAM is going 2X10 on all their MTB groupos from next year? i really dont see the benifit of 3X10?

[Weight Weenie]

3x10 is an Epic fail IMO

[AndreZA]

They made it because they can and it will sell. The same reason Campy made 11 spd.

[Guest Big H]

I do not agree with you Thug or the Weightless Weenster........ you will need the 30 gears..... how else will you be able to pull the telephone booth with you to change into your superman outfit???????

 

Anyways old people cycle as well and they need all the gears they can get.

[evolve]

Before we all decide that this is a Epic Fail, go read the theory behind the groupset, it takes cadence, suspension travel into consideration.

[Eldron]

3x10 is an Epic fail IMO

 

I'm with you on that.

 

I think 2x10 and 3x10 are both epic failures.

 

Nothing wrong with ye olde 3x9.

 

Granted - there are probably only a handful of races per year that require a granny gear but if you had 2x10 at the national at PMB a few weeks back you would have KAKKED.

 

10 and 11 are both a case of marketing over cmmon sense as Mampara said. It adds nothing but increases the risk of mechanical failure as tolerances get smaller.

 

Hell even 3x8 was fine.

 

 

 

[evolve]

Unless you are a elite rider, all we want to do is to enjoy the ride and not have to take a dew days off to recover after a ride - we have jobs, so why try to be superman and run a 1X9 when you can have the comfort of the ratios that will see have a enjoyable ride.

[Eldron]

Here is an epic fail for you:

"The larger the chainring size, the lower the chain tension, the lower the impact on rear suspension and ultimately the most efficient transfer of power," they say. It should also produce a straighter chainline, which will reduce drivetrain-induced suspension movement on bikes with rear shocks.

Shimano also reckon the Dyna-Sys setup with its smaller large chainring (42T rather than 44T) and larger small chainring (24T rather than 22T) will reduce the number of 'recovery shifts' needed at the rear when changing at the front, making it easier to maintain your pedalling cadence.

So in the first paragraph they say a bigger chainwheel is better then immediately say they dropping 2 teeth off the big ring size?! Unless of course I have the horse by the tail and they've somehow increased the chain ring diameter whilst reducing the number of teeth - is that even possible??

 

Either way - me no like 10 speed.

[techguy]

Considering Sram has revamped their entire range this is a bit of a wet fart, the main difference is another shifter,chainrings and cassette, nothing else has really changed noticably...I'm talking about cosmetics here...