# XT Cassette Loses It's Battle.....



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

*Against diesel torque. *

Maybe 300 miles on this bad boy.

The bike was just sitting there....and all of the sudden POP, crash, grind. It was broken. 

Something look funny?

002 by jonshonda187, on Flickr

Broken

003 by jonshonda187, on Flickr

Yup...it broke

005 by jonshonda187, on Flickr


006 by jonshonda187, on Flickr


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Holy crap. 
I can't imagine doing that. I can leg press 750 pounds and I've never done that to a cassette.


----------



## kwarwick (Jun 12, 2004)

Doing some hucking on that bike, perhaps?


----------



## dietz31684 (Mar 30, 2010)

Those teeth look shark-finned already at 300 miles!


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

Impressive, good work. Never accomplished that before.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

User error for that to happen.


----------



## Locool (Feb 25, 2006)

Had that happen to me, I don't know, maybe 6-7 years ago. XT cassette snapped the same way. But I had a lot more than 300 on mine. I push the big gears, not a spinner, but have not have it happen again. Changed to Sram after that, and had no problems since. Back on XT for the moment, so will see. I don't anticipate any problems.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

TooTallUK said:


> User error for that to happen.


Do tell :skep:


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

The power you generate on the bike has very little to do with weight or size. If it did, pro cyclists would all be 6'6" and 400lbs. If it did, 300 miles would be normal for a cassette. It isn't.
So - what were you doing? Mashing the same big gears up every hill? Hucking big jumps with a too-short chain and bad landing technique? Bad spannering? 
Materials do not just give up and fail - something has to be putting them under unusual stresses and that isn't usually from riding a bike using smooth gear changes and a flowing technique.

I've just read your other discussions of this on other threads:



> The past year has seen; 5 bottom brackets, a x9 crank set, hope pro2 fh body, spesh seat, one pedal, two broken spokes, two cassettes, a few different seat post clamps, cracked (in three places) frame, specialized seat post, one chain, and more hours maintaining that i would care to admit.


Bad spannering or user error - no doubt. That sort of failure rate is way beyond normal.


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

That gave me a good chuckle Tall man, actually stuff does give up and fail. Just feel lucky you haven't had to experience it. The bike industry doesn't design bikes or equipment for large guys, their target rider is under 200 lbs.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

TooTallUK, I cannot tell if troll or serious?



TooTallUK said:


> The power you generate on the bike has very little to do with weight or size. If it did, pro cyclists would all be 6'6" and 400lbs..


You are stating that a 150lb rider standing, mashing up a hill, will generate the same forces on the drivetrain as a 275lb rider? The physical act of me standing up and applying my weight (weight only) to a crank arm = nearly double the force of a 150lb rider doing the same. Heck, the force required to even get me up a hill is nearly double.

The reason pro's are not 6'6" and 400 lbs also has a lot to do with physics. Easy comparision. A cadillac vs. mini cooper on a road race course. Cadillac requires lots of power to get up to speed, keep up to speed, brake, turn. It needs a much larger moter, much heavier components, much more room to move around, larger brakes etc....
A Mini Cooper is small, nimble, weights much less therefore requires much less to move it around a track.

According to your logic, you are implying that the same force required to move 150lb load is equal to the force required to move a 275 lb load? That is false. If we lived in ZERO gravity, this would be true. I am not riding a moonlander, so that logic does not apply.



TooTallUK said:


> So - what were you doing? Mashing the same big gears up every hill? Hucking big jumps with a too-short chain and bad landing technique? Bad spannering? .


The situation is rooty rocky flat to large steep hill. Standing on this is common for many riders here, as it is also rooty and very rocky, so sitting is difficult. 
Bad spannering (had to look this up) is not out of the question, but I have a pretty new KMC chain, and the cassette was hanging on a brand new PRO 2 hub, tighten down to spec.



TooTallUK said:


> Materials do not just give up and fail - something has to be putting them under unusual stresses and that isn't usually from riding a bike using smooth gear changes and a flowing technique. .


Materials just don't give up and fail. I will spread the news to engineers everywhere, their worries are over!! :madman: :nono:

The stresses you are reffering to are simple. I am using a cummings deisel on a drivetrain mostly designed for a Honda four cylinder. :thumbsup:


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Sasquatch1413 said:


> That gave me a good chuckle Tall man, actually stuff does give up and fail. Just feel lucky you haven't had to experience it. The bike industry doesn't design bikes or equipment for large guys, their target rider is under 200 lbs.


As a 250lbs+, 6'7" tall, 21 year mountain biker, I am not shooting blind here. Aluminium doesn't just fail, steel doesn't turn to cheese - it does not just 'give up and fail'. Something has to happen in order to make it fail. Too many big riders blame their size for what is user error.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

As I said - materials do not just fail - you have to do something to them in order to fail.

Your track record of multiple bottom brackets etc tell me that poor maintenance has a bigger part to play than you weighing a little more than me.



> a drivetrain mostly designed for a Honda four cylinder


Rather than just guessing, do you know the actual numbers for the design of a drivetrain, or any other part for that matter? I've not seen anyone come up with actual numbers for much, but an average bike chain will fail at about 2000lbs load - which you are not generating. So many people say it isn't designed for 'us' but I have yet to see numbers to back that up.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

*jonshonda's 9:ZERO:7 speaking*. I can confirm that jonshonda does in fact follow good maintenance practices, keeps me clean and well lubed in all the right places. He is hard on me sometimes, but that is how I like it. I can also confirm that jonshonda was standing and mashing at the time of my cassette failure. No wrong doing was occuring at the time of failure.

Straight from the horses mouth. What other proof do you need?


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

TooTallUK said:


> materials do not just fail


Stuff fails all the time. Its not user error, is operating equipment outside of its intended design. Granted riding styles (mashers vs spinners), smoothness, terrain all have an impact but your statement that stuff doesn "just fail" is incorrect.


----------



## uzurpator (Dec 8, 2005)

Actually, you guys argue over a false dillema.

Materials do fail on their own. Just like assembly may be faulty. For example a bit too little preload of the rivets on the cassette carrier will suffice to cause, over time, damage like in OPs pictures. Even the best QC cannot account for all flaws in a product. That is why warranties exist.

Granted, equipment with flaws that would not bother 150lb rider, may surface when abused by a clyde. However, most bicycle parts are way overbuilt for their intended purpose. No manufacturer will risk 50% failure rate at a cost of 20 or so grams.

In my opinion the cassete should be warrantied.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

uzurpator said:


> Actually, you guys argue over a false dillema.
> 
> Granted, equipment with flaws that would not bother 150lb rider, may surface when abused by a clyde. However, most bicycle parts are way overbuilt for their intended purpose. No manufacturer will risk 50% failure rate at a cost of 20 or so grams.
> 
> In my opinion the cassete should be warrantied.


Shimano agreed that it is a warranty issue.

Engineers design the product with a certain safety factor for its intended usage. The higher the safety factor, the higher the cost and weight ( depending on material selection). If the intended design was for a certain range of rider size, the safety factor will be based off the range. The designers aren't creating cassettes for the heavy riders, because that percentage of riders falls well out of the bell curve based on the typical rider.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

I've done the same, but to my single speed chainring.


----------



## DudeNudem (Jun 11, 2012)

TooTallUK said:


> As a 250lbs+, 6'7" tall, 21 year mountain biker, I am not shooting blind here. Aluminium doesn't just fail, steel doesn't turn to cheese - it does not just 'give up and fail'. Something has to happen in order to make it fail. Too many big riders blame their size for what is user error.


Yeah, I kinda think the same thing - I started riding at 6'6" 266 lbs (down to 238 ATM) and about the only "too much power" problems I have had is snapping master chain links. All other items have worn at pretty standard rate (aside from 3 seats with crushed seat rails.)

I would say maybe this guy is putting way more miles than me, but I doubt it or he wouldn't be 275 lbs.


----------



## tysonnemb (Jan 23, 2010)

Yeah clearly certain brands of parts are designed for certain things. Saint stuff will handle more abuse than XTR, for instance. And, yes, some parts do break when you are 'just riding along', but it seems like the concern is the volume of parts that are being broken. I would say that something would need to change, be it the type of parts you are using, or riding habits.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Got everything bolted back together and hit the trails. Lately I have been getting funky noise coming from the crank set area (only while on the granny gear). So I took the ring off, cleaned, greased, and applied lock tight to the bolts (I have been noticing them losening up after each ride). 

90% of the ride went off without a hitch. Then I noticed the chain was getting bound up on the granny ring (aka CHAINSUCK!!). I know I put it on correctly and it is bolted tight. Switch to the big ring.... boom, issue gone. No noise, no binding. 

Looks like I have a worn out raceface turbine chainring? How is that user error?


----------



## CSCHMITT (Jul 26, 2011)

I have a picture on my phone that looks EXACTLY like the OP.Broke it last December on a climb standing up.Rough climb on solid rock.Terrible granite climb at the Horse Park in Conyers, Ga.Same xt cassette,same gear.Shimano did warranty it.


----------



## CSCHMITT (Jul 26, 2011)

Forgot to mention i also broke the axle at the same time!


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> How is that user error?


What you have described could easily come from:

poor chain line 
Corroded / stiff / worn chain
Chain too long
Rear mech not doing it's job properly and taking enough tension out of the chain

Not every problem is user error - many are. You can wear stuff out. What you described could come from many other things.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I was kinda joking about the user error part.

Chain line may be poor. I will have to take measurments to determine if I should remove one spacer from the drive side. 

Chain gets a mineral spirits bath followed by Pro Link Gold fairly often. I did inspect the links that were binding up and they appeared to be moving freely. 

Chain length was determined using the Park Tool diy section, and verified ok by LBS. 

I have a long cage X9 rear der which is less than a year old. I will inspect it for function. What would help me determine if it is not functioning properly?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

How would I be getting chain suck in the small ring but not the big?


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

If you use the small ring more, it will have more wear. Also the small ring is more prone to suck since its a smaller diameter and easier to pull the chain up the backside. I've never had chain suck on my big ring.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Makes sense. 

So I would make sure chain is good and lubed up, or throw a new chain on there to see what happens. I am really thinking my small ring is beat.


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

I actually broke an XT cassette in that exact same fashion last month. It was the same cog that pulled off. At the time I was standing up to muscle out the last 20 feet of a steep climb. I'm 250#. Shimano warrantied it. No abuse. It would seem that that particular part of the cassette body is not up to the force that a clyde can put down.


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

I always wonder about the effects of frame flex on the chainline with this kind of stuff.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Shimano did warranty the cassette. But I am thiking a new chain is in order. I am getting some drivetrain noise in my lower gears that has me concerned.


----------



## Blackhawks01 (Oct 8, 2013)

Think about "torque". You can be a professional cyclist or just an average joe that weighs 300# and mashes the crap out of the pedals... Where is almost all of the torque at? The chainrings! The cassette sees some force, but really with the chain tracking through the guide wheels(jockey wheels) and then up and around the cassette, doesn't see nearly as much force as the chainrings. So to see a cassette come apart like that after 300 miles is pretty interesting.

I'm 6'2 250# and I have over 400 miles of training and xc-racing on my SLX cassette and it still looks like new.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Ummm...I don't think that is logical. I put power through the pedal, crankarm, chainring, chain, and into the cassette to turn the rear wheel. I am sure the chain gives up a little power through friction, but the cassette is going to see just as much if not more torque. The lowest (largest cog) on the cassette will apply the greatest amount of torque. Think of the largest cog as a long breaker bar, and the smallest cog as a short breaker bar. You want to break a bolt loose, which breaker bar do you choose? THE BIG ONE!! 

Long story short, the cassette gets diesel torqued.


----------



## Blackhawks01 (Oct 8, 2013)

^^ I promise you're putting more torque through the cranks/bottom bracket/chainrings than you are the rear cassette.

I am thinking of a breaker bar. Two of them called the right & left crankarms. The arms are 175mm long, and produce way more torque on the chain and chainrings than the cassette, especially when you're out of the saddle...


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm sorry but i don't think that your weight allows you to put more power through a cassette than, for example, a professional rider.


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

Porch said:


> I'm sorry but i don't think that your weight allows you to put more power through a cassette than, for example, a professional rider.


Its ok, a lot of people have incorrect thoughts. Have fun riding your bike


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

Yeah, pros are pros because of the amount of power they can put out on a sustained basis. That implies that they are light. Being light means you have less traction at the wheel. Being light means that no matter how much leg strength you have you dont have as much mass to back up the pedal stroke. 

The physics of the situation are clear. A big fat guy with enough fitness to move his bulk around briskly, whos smashing a tire down tight against the terrain will put more force through the drive train. He might only do it for 5 pedal strokes, but the peak forces are going to be much higher than a pro can generate. The pro will either lift his body instead of pushing the pedal or he will break traction.


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

Clearly you haven't seen the calves and thighs on those guys. 

If bicycling were all about standing on the pedals to make them go, you would be correct. In reality, competitive bicycling involves pushing AND pulling on the pedals (this is why they make clipless), as well as using your upper body and the handlebars to increase power. Why do you think everyone is buying into these $x,000 power meters? If a guy was limited in how much power he could put into the pedals by his weight, it would be a useless measurement...don't you think?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Blackhawks01 said:


> ^^ I promise you're putting more torque through the cranks/bottom bracket/chainrings than you are the rear cassette.
> 
> I am thinking of a breaker bar. Two of them called the right & left crankarms. The arms are 175mm long, and produce way more torque on the chain and chainrings than the cassette, especially when you're out of the saddle...


I had a nice picture all drawn up for you, but flickr is blocked at work. Yes, the crankarms are the device that transfer the power, and they serve the same function as a chainring, chain, cassette, spokes, wheels.

I will explain the best I can using text. 
Foot applies power to pedal, which transfers to crankarm, which transfers to mounting location of chainring. The power is then transfered from the mounting location of the crankarm across the chainring, to the chain (we will call the distance from the mounting location to the chain distance A).

Chain then transmittes (spelling) the power to the rear cassette, where it then travels through the rear cog (36t in this example) and into the freehub body (we will call the distance from the chain to the fh body distance B).

Although there will be power loss from the chain, it is a non-issue. The power applied to the chain at the crank will be the same applied to the cassette. But at the cassete (36t cog), the axis of rotation is much futher away from where the power is being applied (the chain), meaning the cog will be under more stress due to the transfer of power over a greater distance (In this case, distance A is much shorter than distance B).



Sasquatch1413 said:


> Its ok, a lot of people have incorrect thoughts. Have fun riding your bike


I lol'd!

Porch, lets just say I can leg press 800lbs ( I can't )...now do a put more power down than a pro? How much can a pro leg press?


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

I don't know how much a pro can leg press. You should look it up--you're the one trying to convince everyone that you can snap XT cassettes at will, not me.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

It really isn't worth the typing. Some big guys think that they are Thor on a bike and their POWAH breaks things. They all have perfect shifting technique, their spannering technique is also beyond reproach and they choose to ignore the published breaking strains of bike chains.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Porch said:


> I don't know how much a pro can leg press. You should look it up--you're the one trying to convince everyone that you can snap XT cassettes at will, not me.


Ummmm...you are stating that I the powa in my legs isn't matching pro status. I have nothing to prove.

Regardless of the power I make, its the power required to get me up the hill that causes breakage. I don't know of any pro's that weigh as much as me, but I am sure if they did they would also snap parts.

TotallUK. I know you are just trolling...save it for a different thread.


----------



## Blackhawks01 (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm not denying that there's force on the rear cassette. If there wasn't you wouldn't have "biting" in the free hub. But again, in most cases we're talking about a very lightweight piece of aluminum that's getting marred up here. Imagine if that same thickness aluminum was used to make the chainrings? I'm not sure of the exact physics here. It might be 60% chainrings, 40% cassette. Maybe even 55%/45%... Maybe there's a way to measure both forces with a 250# standing on the pedals cranking up a slight grade? I just know when you get off of the seat and start putting power to the pedals, the forces created through the crankarms is greater than that of the chain coming off of the guide wheels and around the rear gear.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I've seen those RaceFace chainrings bust under much lighter weight guys, but they had it installed incorrectly, with the cutouts not properly aligned to not bear the brunt of the high-power/torque portion of the crank revolution. They've since updated their design.

Seen all sorts of mtb parts break. Usually push the scope of what the parts are designed for and begin to think it's alright after fooling around, but then it busts on something relatively tame looking.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Blackhawks01- I am not going to argue the physics behind this discussion, just realize that power in=power out (excluding friction and other loses). Meaning I put 50 lbs of torque into my chainring, the torque comes out the rear wheel at 50 lbs. Same torque from the chainring to the chain to the cassette, and out through the wheel.

The jockey wheels see little torque because the chain is not pushing the cassette, it is pulling it.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

This thread is great.

Tootall is trolling? Sounds like an appropriate play by play...


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> TotallUK. I know you are just trolling...save it for a different thread.


Not at all. Every big guy who breaks stuff and posts about it claims size is the factor and gets all shirty if their technique or anything else is questioned - often despite much evidence to point in certain directions.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I did it again in exactly the same spot, but this thread was over a year old....so I am happy. I am thinking it lasted this long because I am 50 lbs lighter and maybe a little better rider?


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

jonshonda said:


> I did it again in exactly the same spot, but this thread was over a year old....so I am happy. I am thinking it lasted this long because I am 50 lbs lighter and maybe a little better rider?


No Jon, obviously user error  Keep working on your technique   

I've done that to an XT cassette also. Seems to be a known issue at this point. Unfortunately its one of the best cassette options with an aluminum spider.


----------



## Blackhawks01 (Oct 8, 2013)

Been running RaceFace 1x ring and XT cassette. Ran entire XC racing season. 3 wins, 2 runner ups, 2014 series champ, not one chain drop, skip, or failure. 6'2 244 lbs(was 255 at beginning of season) and I'm a masher, not a spinner.


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

Blackhawks01 said:


> Been running RaceFace 1x ring and XT cassette. Ran entire XC racing season. 3 wins, 2 runner ups, 2014 series champ, not one chain drop, skip, or failure. 6'2 244 lbs(was 255 at beginning of season) and I'm a masher, not a spinner.


Dude you are impressive. I bet your technique is tits.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Blackhawks01 said:


> Been running RaceFace 1x ring and XT cassette. Ran entire XC racing season. 3 wins, 2 runner ups, 2014 series champ, not one chain drop, skip, or failure. 6'2 244 lbs(was 255 at beginning of season) and I'm a masher, not a spinner.


Yeah, well while you were losing traction climbing up all those hills with your skinny racing tires, my fat tires were like velcro, 100% of my power going into the ground.

What now...tough guy?


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

What I don't get is if Clydesdale's keep breaking weight weenie parts why do they continue to buy them? Buy a cassette that's made better or make one


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

fishwrinkle said:


> What I don't get is if Clydesdale's keep breaking weight weenie parts why do they continue to buy them? Buy a cassette that's made better or make one


I don't know that a XT cassette is considered weight weenie...is it? I buy it for two reasons.

1) The lowest six gears on are two spiders
2) The SLX requires modification to run 1x10 with 40/42 and swapping out the 17t cog.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

jonshonda said:


> I don't know that a XT cassette is considered weight weenie...is it? I buy it for two reasons.
> 
> 1) The lowest six gears on are two spiders
> 2) The SLX requires modification to run 1x10 with 40/42 and swapping out the 17t cog.


I run it for exactly the same reason. 
ALSO, I run the same XT 11-36 cassette on every bike in the family so when we travel, I only need one spare or can pirate parts from one bike or another.


----------



## some dude (Jan 1, 2014)

So explain my two broken Carbon Hardtails breaking in the same place with no crashing involved TooTallUK? First one did have a weird carbon lay up at the seat riser to swing arm risers but second frame was visually perfect and still failed in spite of there being an extra long seat tube that was inserted well past the joint. 

Anyway, I've only being doing this thing for 20 months now coming from racing dirty motos and I've broken more stuff at a fast rate then my much more experienced 60lb lighter riding buddies. The wheel failures were definitely technique, but Enve AM/M60's cured that and hate bragging about this but have yet to have a flat in just under 2k miles of pedaling because I maintain the hell out of my bikes. But I have had to service my CK hubs with abnormal frequency, have had to replace chains and cassettes that were starting to skip in less then 500 miles, replace brake pads way faster than my riding buddies I ride with daily and I've managed a couple top 10 Strava times on national destination type trails this past summer on shorter segments where it just clicked. The bicycle industry definitely does not cater to the big riders and we are definitely the minority.

PS

There is no way I could party/ride with TooTall, I get the dry UK thing and am very good at poking folks in the side myself, but dang dude!


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

some dude said:


> There is no way I could party/ride with TooTall, I get the dry UK thing and am very good at poking folks in the side myself, but dang dude!


You are obviously just far too awesome for me and I bow down to your IMMENSE power and fantastic ability to break carbon. Go you.


----------



## some dude (Jan 1, 2014)

TooTallUK said:


> You are obviously just far too awesome for me and I bow down to your IMMENSE power and fantastic ability to break carbon. Go you.


It was that easy JonHonda! hahaha


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

some dude said:


> It was that easy JonHonda! hahaha


Your trolling is as ham-fisted as your wrenching and riding. I bet you break a lot of keyboards.


----------



## some dude (Jan 1, 2014)

I probably have more money in Snap-on torque wrenches then most folks have in bikes, no ham fisting with a calibrated wrench which is something I have not seen in one professional bike service shop I've visited. I'm in the European moto biz, so following torque values is kind of a big thing to me. 

Some of us just pedal like men ;-)

What I can understand is bigger guys can generate more power and torque. I've pedaled with CycleOps power meters to compare results and on average I'm laying down over 30 watts more then a 175lb guy at 21mph. That works out to about a 10% higher output but I'm 20% heavier. I can sit on the CycleOps spin bike and average 320 watts for over an hour with ease, just under 400 if I want to walk funny the next 3 days. What are your numbers TooTallUK?

Point of all of this, while little pro's can indeed for the most part go faster, that does not mean they are generating more power, they are just more efficient with their power to weight ratio. Consequently that is where the majority of Clyde failures in my mind arise. We are trying to pedal with smaller guys who may have been doing this longer and we have to stress ourselves and components more without a doubt. Some failures are material/assembly while others are just oddities but for the most part your average bicycle component has a lot less safety/longevity margin when I Clyde is at the helm


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

some dude; its just not worthing getting into it with tootall, he is pretty stuck on spannering. He will ignore physics and logic, and repeatedly revert back to referencing pro riders as generating the most power. 

If he can prove that the same amount of power is required to get a 175lb rider and a 275lb rider up a hill at the same speed, he would win awards, and defy all known physics. But he cannot, and until he realizes that bigger riders simply NEED to put more power down to do the same things as smaller riders, he will be lost.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Hah I've broken two XT cassettes so far. Both at around 1700 miles.

Latest one:


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

1700 miles on a cassette! Not even once. 

I would think you got your money worth at that distance.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Aw I still wanted more than 1700 miles lol. I was just really annoyed on how it was inconveniently broken when i wanted to go use it lol. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## DABIGSEAT (Apr 29, 2012)

#dead!!!!! . I died laughing after reading this reply ....hahahahaha I too have snapped sram cassete, xt chains......... no offense 250lbs in my opinion is like a baby clyde..lol...they still fit into the markets weight margin..but 330lb cleary does not.. ive had to go hd (heavy duty) on a lot of parts just because size does matter


jonshonda said:


> *jonshonda's 9:ZERO:7 speaking*. I can confirm that jonshonda does in fact follow good maintenance practices, keeps me clean and well lubed in all the right places. He is hard on me sometimes, but that is how I like it. I can also confirm that jonshonda was standing and mashing at the time of my cassette failure. No wrong doing was occuring at the time of failure.
> 
> Straight from the horses mouth. What other proof do you need?


----------



## Blackhawks01 (Oct 8, 2013)

jonshonda said:


> Yeah, well while you were losing traction climbing up all those hills with your skinny racing tires, my fat tires were like velcro, 100% of my power going into the ground.
> 
> What now...tough guy?


Skinny racing tires? I was running Ardent 2.25 front, Ikon 2.2 rear. Unless you mean you are riding a fat bike?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Blackhawks01 said:


> Skinny racing tires? I was running Ardent 2.25 front, Ikon 2.2 rear. Unless you mean you are riding a fat bike?


Yup, you might not have read any of my replies at all (pretty certain you did't), but yes, I ride a fat bike. And yes, I consider Ardent 2.4 and Ikon 2.35 to be good sized for me, not that little 2.25 stuff!


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

Are SLX cassettes stronger than XT cassettes ? How do you warranty a shimano cassette , the rivets are loose on my XT , bought October 2014.


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

XTR is stronger, it's pinned 6 times vs the XT 4 or 5 points. As a precaution, I add a few drops of Loctite 290 to the rivets before I install to prevent ANY movement in the rivet assembly. Filling in the air spaces within has benefit to the longevity of the part. Once the rivets start to move, it's pretty much game over for the cassette.

The good part of the Shimano parts is that they have a decent warranty behind their stuff. I've not been hassled for any returns.


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

-Todd- said:


> XTR is stronger, it's pinned 6 times vs the XT 4 or 5 points. As a precaution, I add a few drops of Loctite 290 to the rivets before I install to prevent ANY movement in the rivet assembly. Filling in the air spaces within has benefit to the longevity of the part. Once the rivets start to move, it's pretty much game over for the cassette.
> 
> The good part of the Shimano parts is that they have a decent warranty behind their stuff. I've not been hassled for any returns.


Just call shimano in california ? I don't have the receipt but I have my bank history where I paid for it...How long does this process take ?
Thanks !


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

I don't think Shimano entertains customers directly, the dealer network is for that...

Run it back to where you bought it. I did it through Jenson and it was simple. You will need a receipt (normal) and you can only warranty a cassette once, from the original date of purchase. XT is 2 years. The warranty process took me a week or so, but I'm in Canada...


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

-Todd- said:


> I don't think Shimano entertains customers directly, the dealer network is for that...
> 
> Run it back to where you bought it. I did it through Jenson and it was simple. You will need a receipt (normal) and you can only warranty a cassette once, from the original date of purchase. XT is 2 years. The warranty process took me a week or so, but I'm in Canada...


Shimano will with their fishing tackle , idk about cycling , gonna try it...the lbs where I bought it is kind of a pita.

thanks for the help !


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

I popped another M771 cassette this week. Going for a warranty replacement. Anyone found a better option? I run these as they are the cheapest cassette with an aluminum spider. Otherwise I destroy alum freehub bodies.


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

XTR has been an improvement for me. The cogs are pinned more, in 2 cog segments. IMHO it's worth it.


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

I went the other direction. I bought a steel freehub body for my hub, and went with the SRAM unit where all the cogs are separate. Good so far, but I dont ride that bike much anymore.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

-Todd- said:


> XTR has been an improvement for me. The cogs are pinned more, in 2 cog segments. IMHO it's worth it.


Maybe this is old news and no longer valid, but didn't people have issues with the lowest few cogs on the XTR cassettes? Something about them being a different material and being soft or folding over?


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

If you shift properly, this isn't an issue. One of the biggest reasons I don't wreck as many parts as I did 5 years ago is because I don't shift under load. It's critical.


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

I still get a lot of damage from the lower 4 cogs that are loose. I've had to pry these off and file the freehub in order for the aluminum spiders to then slide off. Even on my hadley hub with a titanium freehub, they dig in decently. Maybe I'll just convert everything to 11 speed SRAM XD drivers


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

-Todd- said:


> If you shift properly, this isn't an issue. One of the biggest reasons I don't wreck as many parts as I did 5 years ago is because I don't shift under load. It's critical.


Todd , why the green loctite instead of the red ?


----------



## -Todd- (Jun 13, 2011)

johnD said:


> Todd , why the green loctite instead of the red ?


The low viscosity of the 290 wicks into the gap around the pins, prevents any micro movement of the pins/rivets. Red won't wick, is too thick. Once the air space is filled, the part behaves like one piece, not 3 pieces moving against one another.

Are you seeing the same problem? I run an XT cassette on my fat bike with much more success using the 290 on all the rivets prior to installation...


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

Well crap, just broke another XT cassette, this is the second in two weeks. Both have been on my 36er which has much higher torque loads on the drivetrain. Gonna try an HG-81 cassette and see how much it digs in. Its the only cassette that at least has the loose cogs pinned together. All of SRAM's 10 speed cassettes have loose cogs with no pins.


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

-Todd- said:


> The low viscosity of the 290 wicks into the gap around the pins, prevents any micro movement of the pins/rivets. Red won't wick, is too thick. Once the air space is filled, the part behaves like one piece, not 3 pieces moving against one another.
> 
> Are you seeing the same problem? I run an XT cassette on my fat bike with much more success using the 290 on all the rivets prior to installation...


Thanks, I'll pick up some of the 290.

I have had a xt for about 10 months now and it's making some noise. I put red loctite on the pins the other day and it quieted it down substantially.. 
Just ordered a new one from jenson this morning , so on this new one I'll use the green and see how it goes. Gonna try and send this other xt back to shimano , worth a shot imo.. it hasn't been 12 months yet , so they should warranty.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Sasquatch1413 said:


> Well crap, just broke another XT cassette, this is the second in two weeks. Both have been on my 36er which has much higher torque loads on the drivetrain. Gonna try an HG-81 cassette and see how much it digs in. Its the only cassette that at least has the loose cogs pinned together. All of SRAM's 10 speed cassettes have loose cogs with no pins.


This may be a fluke or just me becoming a better rider, but since I have stopped using cheaper low engagment rear hubs, I have not had nearly the same amount of failures as before w/ the XT cassette. I am "guessing" it has a lot to do with how the torque is applied when a rider puts the power down, and the fh moves a few mm before it engages w/ the hub?


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

jonshonda said:


> This may be a fluke or just me becoming a better rider, but since I have stopped using cheaper low engagment rear hubs, I have not had nearly the same amount of failures as before w/ the XT cassette. I am "guessing" it has a lot to do with how the torque is applied when a rider puts the power down, and the fh moves a few mm before it engages w/ the hub?


Interesting theory. However, I broke 3 XTs mounted to a King hub....


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

The two cassettes I just broke were on a Hadley hub, 36 POE.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Metamorphic said:


> Interesting theory. However, I broke 3 XTs mounted to a King hub....





Sasquatch1413 said:


> The two cassettes I just broke were on a Hadley hub, 36 POE.


Well then....my theory sucks donkey d!ck I guess!?


----------

