<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
REVIEW<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\nDo you ever find yourself in the middle of a heated discussion and you can\u2019t remember how you got to that point? You don\u2019t even care all that much about the things that you\u2019re trying to say, yet here you are, red-faced and hoarse-throated.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s how I\u2019m starting to feel about the Shimano Clutch Situation (SCSTM for short). It feels like any time the new Di2 comes up, it turns into a conversation about the elimination of the clutch, and it\u2019s either:<\/p>\n
– The worst thing that ever happened to mountain biking, or<\/p>\n
– Not a big deal at all<\/p>\n
I lean strongly towards the \u201cnot a big deal\u201d camp. Yes, I did mention it in my review<\/a>, and I do notice that the system feels a bit different. It\u2019s far, far from being a dealbreaker for me. For me, I notice it as a gentle tugging at the feet when riding fast through a series of quick, repetitive bumps. Continuing discussion is piling on to a topic that I don\u2019t really think is all that consequential.<\/p>\nStill, it did come up. Some claim it turns their previously pleasant rides into a cacophony of annoyance. I asked Shimano about it, and they said the short cage version greatly reduces this sensation (and noise). And they offered to send me a set to try out. So of course I agreed. So, here we are again, talking about clutches.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai_5.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThis photo gives you absolutely no perspective to compare sizes, but it’s a nice view<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai_1.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nDetails of the GS-caged version<\/h2>\n
The launch of the original Hyperglide+ drivetrains (way back in 2018, I believe) introduced the Microspline freehub body. This allowed Shimano to get down to a 10-tooth cog on the back. Recently, they\u2019ve gone even further, thrown out compatibility with the traditional lockring tool and figured out how to squeeze in a 9-tooth cog. This paves the way for two separate versions of their new drivetrains – the 10-51 tooth SGS version that we’re used to, and a 9-45 tooth GS version.<\/p>\n
New things are scary, and it took me a while to wrap my head around this. Why bother with two different versions? What is the impact of that tiny little chainring going to have on my bike? What is going to happen to my gear ratios? We can answer some of these questions.<\/p>\n
On the gear ratio front, I had to prove the math to myself, but a 10-51\/32 cassette\/chainring combo has very similar gear ratios to a 9-45\/28 cassette\/chainring combo. Simple ratios show us how this is possible: 32\/10 = 3.2 and 28\/9 = 3.11 and 32\/51 = 0.627 and 28\/45 = 0.622. On the low end (i.e. climbing a hill), 32\/51 and 28\/45 are nearly identical ratios. On the high end (i.e. descending fast on pavement), you have a slightly faster gear with a 32\/10 compared to a 28\/9. For most, you won’t notice much difference in your ratios if you drop 4 teeth from your typical chainring.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"DSCF3237\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/DSCF3237.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n3 rings, 2 generations. The 28 tooth (top) is a fair bit smaller than the 32 tooth (both on bottom)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"DSCF3229\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/DSCF3229.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThis gives you some idea of the offset difference between the old generation (left) and new (right). The new, non offset rings are much simpler.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"DSCF3242\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/DSCF3242.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n9-45 on the top and two generations of 10-51 on the bottom. Which is which? Who knows. The 9-45 is substantially smaller, doing away with the larger dinner plate.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"DSCF3259\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/DSCF3259_RFnCk7F.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe lockring is very different, moving from an internal to an external set of splines<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"DSCF3266\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/DSCF3266.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe only difference in the two derailleurs is the cage length.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nWe can also get a sense of how this might impact the suspension on your bicycle. I had a few ideas about what might happen, but I thought it would be worthwhile to speak to somebody who really knew about these things and didn\u2019t have much of a hat in the ring. I reached out to Jimmy at Cascade Components<\/a> to get his thoughts on how a smaller chainring might impact a full suspension bicycle. Would it be noticeable? Are there any specific bikes where the impact would be larger or smaller? Here is what he said:<\/p>\nWith any bike, the anti-squat comes from a combination of chain tension and the acceleration force. A bike with an exceptionally rewarding axle path gets a larger amount of anti-squat from the acceleration force and, as a result, does not need to rely on chain tension as much (assuming we have a desired amount of anti-squat we are striving for here). Since what drives the change in anti-squat when going to a smaller chainring is the increase in chain tension, the impact is not as large on a bike where the portion of anti-squat from chain tension is lower. When I look at this number, what I actually compare is chain growth rate. If chain growth rate is zero, then a change in chain tension doesn\u2019t really do anything to anti-squat. Generally speaking, chain growth rate is positive; however, on high-pivot bikes it can drop below zero depending on where the idler is. For example, the Crestline DH bike has a chain growth rate that goes negative after about 50% of travel. I guess the point of that ramble is that the impact of chain tension on anti-squat lies within a range. The absolute largest difference you could see by going from a 30T to a 28T is probably around 6% and, assuming a positive chain growth bike, the lowest is 0%. Realistically, it\u2019s going to be somewhere in the middle of this range, so a few percent is a pretty decent generalization.<\/i><\/p>\n
If I had to pick a few key bullet points for people, it would be:<\/i><\/p>\n\n- High pivot bikes are less affected by chainring changes than other bikes<\/i><\/li>\n
- The percent change is in the low single digits<\/i><\/li>\n
- Whether or not that is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion it\u2019s a small enough difference that it isn\u2019t worth losing any sleep over<\/i><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
So, to paraphrase, there isn\u2019t really an easy answer. All bikes are different, but the change to your anti-squat is likely an increase in the single digits, percentage-wise.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n“Okay. Ride by. No. Slower. No. Again. No. Slower. No. Slower. Again. No. Slower. Okay. Just hold the bike and lean on it. Yep. Good!”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nFirst Impressions<\/h2>\n
Pulling the parts out of the box, I was quickly impressed with what I saw. Everything was very noticeably smaller, and that started to look like a really great idea. A shorter derailleur cage and a much smaller cassette both feel correct, though the small chainring is a bit of a tougher sell. A 32-tooth ring is already pretty tiny, and dropping to a 28-tooth looks a bit weird. Altogether, it\u2019s a smaller, lighter package that looks a bit more streamlined than what we are used to. I started to wonder why Shimano wasn’t pushing this harder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai_2.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\nMore tucks and chamfers than the Guggenheim Bilbao<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nRiding<\/h2>\n
I’m going to keep this pretty simple. Compared to the regular SGS components, everything functioned the same. Shifts were crisp. Chain retention was good. All of the good stuff carried through, and two benefits emerged.<\/p>\n
The first is ground clearance. My personal bikes, and if I have a choice in testers, are dual 29. I don’t mind riding mullet bikes, but at my height I don’t feel the need for that smaller rear wheel. When I do ride a mullet, I’m always a bit shocked by how close the rear derailleur is to the ground, and the GS cage would improve this situation. You also gain a bit of clearance at the chainring.<\/p>\n
Next is pedal feedback\/chain control. Was it better than the SGS version? Yes. It didn’t totally go away, but it seemed to take much more of an impact to feel the chain tugging at my feet. It also felt like those several small little tugs were replaced by one or two, and then the system would quickly settle back in on itself. This makes sense. What I imagine is that the dual springs do a pretty good job of dealing with most chain oscillations, and at a certain point of frequency\/amplitude, the derailleur is overwhelmed by the chain movements, and you are feeling the derailleur bouncing around while it struggles to regain control. With the shorter cage, shorter chain and smaller cogs, it takes more to unsettle the system, and it’s faster to recover when it becomes unsettled. It is an improvement, and I almost have to look for the sensation now to feel it.<\/p>\n
While this is great, as I\u2019ve moved through the test, the one big negative has become more and more obvious to my old, saggy body. While we talked about how your gear ratios stay the same, that assumes that you’re running a 32-tooth chainring (or larger) on your more conventional drivetrain. If that’s the case, then dropping 4 teeth to a 28-tooth is going to be just fine. However, it removes any possibility of anything smaller than that. I\u2019m sure 26-tooth rings exist, but not to any reasonable extent. Throw in the Shimano-specific tooth profile, and I wish you good luck. At that size, you\u2019re also more likely to start seeing chainstay clearance issues. For me, the 28-tooth was just fine until it wasn’t. For the first month or so of the test, I was quite happy to bounce around the North Shore on my typical laps, climbing my typical hills. Then I went to Whistler and just about died.<\/p>\n
What I’ve decided is that climbing in Whistler kind of sucks. The hills are really steep and the climbs go on forever. This particular weekend I was with a large group of people that I didn’t know all that well. Before the ride, I packed down a solid 2 plates of pasta, and halfway up the first climb I came very, very close to barfing all over the place. I would have given just about anything for a chainring with 2 fewer teeth, and if this was to become a part of my typical riding repertoire, I would very urgently be moving to a 30\/10-51 combo. Indeed, following that weekend, I’m thinking I may just do that anyhow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/formula_suspension_shimano_XT_dave_tolnai_19.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\nAnother riding shot, why not? Extreme chain control for an extreme section of trail.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nOther Follow Ups<\/h2>\n
A few quick follow-ups on some of the other XT components. With the wheelset, I was pretty ho-hum about them through the test. They did their job and stayed on my bike post-test mostly because of a cascading series of Shimano component requirements (the shifter mount requires the brakes, which requires the rotors, which requires centerlock hubs, ergo the XT Wheels stayed on). Back to that Whistler weekend, we were at the tail end of a descent, and I absolutely clanged my wheel on a rock. As I felt the impact, I thought my day was over. I pulled over, took a look and\u2026nothing. Just a slight jog in the wheel. No ding. No flat. No crack. I was seriously impressed that it took that hit. Those wheels are now off my bike, but they\u2019re tooling around the garage now with a teensy bit more pride of place.<\/p>\n
Now, about that shift mount. I guess I should have known this, but the I-spec and the 22.2 clamp version of the shifters are totally different parts. I thought it would be relatively simple to figure out a separate clamp for the I-spec, but Shimano doesn\u2019t make one, so you\u2019re left with Problem Solvers or Wolf Tooth. This seems a bit crazy to me.<\/p>\n
Beyond that, everything is still trucking along. I would like to try the new thicker rotors at some point, and a 30-tooth ring with the 10-51, but that\u2019s about all I would want to experiment with.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n ![\"DSCF3244\"](\"http:\/\/nsmb.com\/media\/images\/DSCF3244.width-1920.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\nThe new tool\/system is at least as easy to use as the old.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nIn Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n
If you live somewhere flatish, seldom ride uphill or have quads of steel, I can\u2019t think of too many reasons why you shouldn\u2019t go with the GS version of the new Shimano drivetrains. Everything is smaller and lighter, with improved clearances and less chain slap. It\u2019s an easy choice.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve ever even considered a 30-tooth chainring, this probably isn\u2019t for you. There\u2019s just no way around the physics of the smaller chainring, so if you want to run the equivalent of a 30\/51, you\u2019re out of luck.<\/p>\n
Next Steps<\/b><\/h2>\n
I love this new world of Shimano cross compatibility! All through this test I was thinking \u201cthis makes total sense for gravel!\u201d So my near-term plans involve tracking down some Di2 drop bar shifters and giving this a go on my gravel bike. The SGS stuff is going to go back onto my mountain bike (with a 30T ring). From there, I\u2019m going to keep hammering along on this stuff and will probably tell you even more about it at some point in the future.<\/p>\n
Shimano XT Di2 11x Rear Derailleur<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Do you ever find yourself in the middle of a heated discussion and you can\u2019t remember how you got to that point? You don\u2019t even care all that much about the things that you\u2019re trying to say, yet here you are, red-faced and hoarse-throated.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s how I\u2019m starting to feel about the Shimano Clutch Situation (SCSTM for short). It feels like any time the new Di2 comes up, it turns into a conversation about the elimination of the clutch, and it\u2019s either:<\/p>\n
– The worst thing that ever happened to mountain biking, or<\/p>\n
– Not a big deal at all<\/p>\n
I lean strongly towards the \u201cnot a big deal\u201d camp. Yes, I did mention it in my review<\/a>, and I do notice that the system feels a bit different. It\u2019s far, far from being a dealbreaker for me. For me, I notice it as a gentle tugging at the feet when riding fast through a series of quick, repetitive bumps. Continuing discussion is piling on to a topic that I don\u2019t really think is all that consequential.<\/p>\n Still, it did come up. Some claim it turns their previously pleasant rides into a cacophony of annoyance. I asked Shimano about it, and they said the short cage version greatly reduces this sensation (and noise). And they offered to send me a set to try out. So of course I agreed. So, here we are again, talking about clutches.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This photo gives you absolutely no perspective to compare sizes, but it’s a nice view<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n The launch of the original Hyperglide+ drivetrains (way back in 2018, I believe) introduced the Microspline freehub body. This allowed Shimano to get down to a 10-tooth cog on the back. Recently, they\u2019ve gone even further, thrown out compatibility with the traditional lockring tool and figured out how to squeeze in a 9-tooth cog. This paves the way for two separate versions of their new drivetrains – the 10-51 tooth SGS version that we’re used to, and a 9-45 tooth GS version.<\/p>\n New things are scary, and it took me a while to wrap my head around this. Why bother with two different versions? What is the impact of that tiny little chainring going to have on my bike? What is going to happen to my gear ratios? We can answer some of these questions.<\/p>\n On the gear ratio front, I had to prove the math to myself, but a 10-51\/32 cassette\/chainring combo has very similar gear ratios to a 9-45\/28 cassette\/chainring combo. Simple ratios show us how this is possible: 32\/10 = 3.2 and 28\/9 = 3.11 and 32\/51 = 0.627 and 28\/45 = 0.622. On the low end (i.e. climbing a hill), 32\/51 and 28\/45 are nearly identical ratios. On the high end (i.e. descending fast on pavement), you have a slightly faster gear with a 32\/10 compared to a 28\/9. For most, you won’t notice much difference in your ratios if you drop 4 teeth from your typical chainring.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 3 rings, 2 generations. The 28 tooth (top) is a fair bit smaller than the 32 tooth (both on bottom)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n This gives you some idea of the offset difference between the old generation (left) and new (right). The new, non offset rings are much simpler.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n 9-45 on the top and two generations of 10-51 on the bottom. Which is which? Who knows. The 9-45 is substantially smaller, doing away with the larger dinner plate.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n The lockring is very different, moving from an internal to an external set of splines<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n The only difference in the two derailleurs is the cage length.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n We can also get a sense of how this might impact the suspension on your bicycle. I had a few ideas about what might happen, but I thought it would be worthwhile to speak to somebody who really knew about these things and didn\u2019t have much of a hat in the ring. I reached out to Jimmy at Cascade Components<\/a> to get his thoughts on how a smaller chainring might impact a full suspension bicycle. Would it be noticeable? Are there any specific bikes where the impact would be larger or smaller? Here is what he said:<\/p>\n With any bike, the anti-squat comes from a combination of chain tension and the acceleration force. A bike with an exceptionally rewarding axle path gets a larger amount of anti-squat from the acceleration force and, as a result, does not need to rely on chain tension as much (assuming we have a desired amount of anti-squat we are striving for here). Since what drives the change in anti-squat when going to a smaller chainring is the increase in chain tension, the impact is not as large on a bike where the portion of anti-squat from chain tension is lower. When I look at this number, what I actually compare is chain growth rate. If chain growth rate is zero, then a change in chain tension doesn\u2019t really do anything to anti-squat. Generally speaking, chain growth rate is positive; however, on high-pivot bikes it can drop below zero depending on where the idler is. For example, the Crestline DH bike has a chain growth rate that goes negative after about 50% of travel. I guess the point of that ramble is that the impact of chain tension on anti-squat lies within a range. The absolute largest difference you could see by going from a 30T to a 28T is probably around 6% and, assuming a positive chain growth bike, the lowest is 0%. Realistically, it\u2019s going to be somewhere in the middle of this range, so a few percent is a pretty decent generalization.<\/i><\/p>\n If I had to pick a few key bullet points for people, it would be:<\/i><\/p>\n So, to paraphrase, there isn\u2019t really an easy answer. All bikes are different, but the change to your anti-squat is likely an increase in the single digits, percentage-wise.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n “Okay. Ride by. No. Slower. No. Again. No. Slower. No. Slower. Again. No. Slower. Okay. Just hold the bike and lean on it. Yep. Good!”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Pulling the parts out of the box, I was quickly impressed with what I saw. Everything was very noticeably smaller, and that started to look like a really great idea. A shorter derailleur cage and a much smaller cassette both feel correct, though the small chainring is a bit of a tougher sell. A 32-tooth ring is already pretty tiny, and dropping to a 28-tooth looks a bit weird. Altogether, it\u2019s a smaller, lighter package that looks a bit more streamlined than what we are used to. I started to wonder why Shimano wasn’t pushing this harder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n More tucks and chamfers than the Guggenheim Bilbao<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n I’m going to keep this pretty simple. Compared to the regular SGS components, everything functioned the same. Shifts were crisp. Chain retention was good. All of the good stuff carried through, and two benefits emerged.<\/p>\n The first is ground clearance. My personal bikes, and if I have a choice in testers, are dual 29. I don’t mind riding mullet bikes, but at my height I don’t feel the need for that smaller rear wheel. When I do ride a mullet, I’m always a bit shocked by how close the rear derailleur is to the ground, and the GS cage would improve this situation. You also gain a bit of clearance at the chainring.<\/p>\n Next is pedal feedback\/chain control. Was it better than the SGS version? Yes. It didn’t totally go away, but it seemed to take much more of an impact to feel the chain tugging at my feet. It also felt like those several small little tugs were replaced by one or two, and then the system would quickly settle back in on itself. This makes sense. What I imagine is that the dual springs do a pretty good job of dealing with most chain oscillations, and at a certain point of frequency\/amplitude, the derailleur is overwhelmed by the chain movements, and you are feeling the derailleur bouncing around while it struggles to regain control. With the shorter cage, shorter chain and smaller cogs, it takes more to unsettle the system, and it’s faster to recover when it becomes unsettled. It is an improvement, and I almost have to look for the sensation now to feel it.<\/p>\n While this is great, as I\u2019ve moved through the test, the one big negative has become more and more obvious to my old, saggy body. While we talked about how your gear ratios stay the same, that assumes that you’re running a 32-tooth chainring (or larger) on your more conventional drivetrain. If that’s the case, then dropping 4 teeth to a 28-tooth is going to be just fine. However, it removes any possibility of anything smaller than that. I\u2019m sure 26-tooth rings exist, but not to any reasonable extent. Throw in the Shimano-specific tooth profile, and I wish you good luck. At that size, you\u2019re also more likely to start seeing chainstay clearance issues. For me, the 28-tooth was just fine until it wasn’t. For the first month or so of the test, I was quite happy to bounce around the North Shore on my typical laps, climbing my typical hills. Then I went to Whistler and just about died.<\/p>\n What I’ve decided is that climbing in Whistler kind of sucks. The hills are really steep and the climbs go on forever. This particular weekend I was with a large group of people that I didn’t know all that well. Before the ride, I packed down a solid 2 plates of pasta, and halfway up the first climb I came very, very close to barfing all over the place. I would have given just about anything for a chainring with 2 fewer teeth, and if this was to become a part of my typical riding repertoire, I would very urgently be moving to a 30\/10-51 combo. Indeed, following that weekend, I’m thinking I may just do that anyhow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Another riding shot, why not? Extreme chain control for an extreme section of trail.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n A few quick follow-ups on some of the other XT components. With the wheelset, I was pretty ho-hum about them through the test. They did their job and stayed on my bike post-test mostly because of a cascading series of Shimano component requirements (the shifter mount requires the brakes, which requires the rotors, which requires centerlock hubs, ergo the XT Wheels stayed on). Back to that Whistler weekend, we were at the tail end of a descent, and I absolutely clanged my wheel on a rock. As I felt the impact, I thought my day was over. I pulled over, took a look and\u2026nothing. Just a slight jog in the wheel. No ding. No flat. No crack. I was seriously impressed that it took that hit. Those wheels are now off my bike, but they\u2019re tooling around the garage now with a teensy bit more pride of place.<\/p>\n Now, about that shift mount. I guess I should have known this, but the I-spec and the 22.2 clamp version of the shifters are totally different parts. I thought it would be relatively simple to figure out a separate clamp for the I-spec, but Shimano doesn\u2019t make one, so you\u2019re left with Problem Solvers or Wolf Tooth. This seems a bit crazy to me.<\/p>\n Beyond that, everything is still trucking along. I would like to try the new thicker rotors at some point, and a 30-tooth ring with the 10-51, but that\u2019s about all I would want to experiment with.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The new tool\/system is at least as easy to use as the old.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n If you live somewhere flatish, seldom ride uphill or have quads of steel, I can\u2019t think of too many reasons why you shouldn\u2019t go with the GS version of the new Shimano drivetrains. Everything is smaller and lighter, with improved clearances and less chain slap. It\u2019s an easy choice.<\/p>\n If you\u2019ve ever even considered a 30-tooth chainring, this probably isn\u2019t for you. There\u2019s just no way around the physics of the smaller chainring, so if you want to run the equivalent of a 30\/51, you\u2019re out of luck.<\/p>\n I love this new world of Shimano cross compatibility! All through this test I was thinking \u201cthis makes total sense for gravel!\u201d So my near-term plans involve tracking down some Di2 drop bar shifters and giving this a go on my gravel bike. The SGS stuff is going to go back onto my mountain bike (with a 30T ring). From there, I\u2019m going to keep hammering along on this stuff and will probably tell you even more about it at some point in the future.<\/p>\n Shimano XT Di2 11x Rear Derailleur<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nDetails of the GS-caged version<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\nFirst Impressions<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\nRiding<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\nOther Follow Ups<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\nIn Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n
Next Steps<\/b><\/h2>\n