# 11-38T from KCNC



## eliflap (Dec 13, 2007)

2012 new cassette from KCNC

11-38T

complete catalogue , download from

http://kcnc.com.tw/pdf/KCNC 2012 catalog-M.pdf

search for 11 speed MTB and 12 speed road groupset 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## babar (Feb 20, 2004)

according the bad picture it seems that the 11-38 cassette is available in 10 and 11spd (?!) for MTB.
Would be a good alternative for dual chainring in mountains and 29ers


----------



## eliflap (Dec 13, 2007)

babar said:


> according the bad picture it seems that the 11-38 cassette is available in 10 and 11spd (?!) for MTB.
> Would be a good alternative for dual chainring in mountains and 29ers


for single front ring setup too

34 or 32 in front and 11.38 rear ...

new speeds :

12 road and 11 mtb


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

Very cool! Can't wait to checkout the KCNC gruppo!


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

Due to the derailleur shape I wonder if this will be electric?


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

those derailleurs are pretty fugly!!


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

just saw this......
NEW KCNC Lightweight 10 speed Cassette 12-27T | eBay
its got free shipping though!


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Thank god it's free shipping or else I could not have afforded one !!


----------



## newnan3 (Sep 30, 2010)

$600 for a cassette?!


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

fairwheels price is still pretty brutal..
KCNC 10 Speed Titanium Cassette, Shimano : Fairwheelbikes.com


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There's so much torque already on a 36T cog that many freehubs can't take it, a 38T cog that is that lacey looks like a good candidate for folding over under load and blowing up freehubs.


----------



## janbo (Jan 19, 2007)

Well it is true if you use it with 22T granny ring up front.
If you use same gear ratio the torque on freehub will be the same. Torque is equal if you use 22-22 ring combination or 38-38t. The force that chain is pulling the freehub to the front will be ~2 times weaker on 38-38t combination than on 22-22t. It means less strain on freehub.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

A chain that accomodates a 38T cog will be pretty loose on the 14T. I hate chain clatter and skipping.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Lelandjt said:


> A chain that accomodates a 38T cog will be pretty loose on the 14T. I hate chain clatter and skipping.


Right, they'll need 38T-specific chains.


----------



## bikemaniack (Feb 6, 2010)

For me,cassette like this doesn't make any sense. Gear 22x38 will be useless


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

bikemaniack said:


> For me,cassette like this doesn't make any sense. Gear 22x38 will be useless


I think the point is to give use to a single up front. as in 1x10 not 3x10


----------



## bikemaniack (Feb 6, 2010)

I think you're right. Maybe that's the next bike trend.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

Compared to 1x10 with a 36 or 38T cog, two rings with a 34T cassette provides more gear range, better chainline, and more consistent chain tension while allowing use of a short cage derailleur. The only arguement I see for 1 ring with a huge range cassette is simplification for people who can't properly operate multiple chainrings.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Lelandjt said:


> The only arguement I see for 1 ring with a huge range cassette is simplification for people who can't properly operate multiple chainrings.


This is the weight weenie forum, isn't it? Couldn't another argument be to remove the weight of the front shifting apparatus? That doesn't seem hard to understand.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

I think this falls in the catagory of weight loss at the cost of performance. Since you need to use a longer chain and derailleur, chain guide, and huge cogs the weight loss isn't that great.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Lelandjt said:


> I think this falls in the catagory of weight loss at the cost of performance. Since you need to use a longer chain and derailleur, chain guide, and huge cogs the weight loss isn't that great.


How much weight loss is enough to pursue? People go after a few grams here.

You are also largely mistaken on those points. You will need less than 5 grams of extra chain, the derailleur will be the same or lighter than one used in any double config, a chain guide is optional but will weigh less than the derailleur it replaces, the front shifter and cable disappear, and those "huge" cogs are barely larger than the ones they replace and are quite light by all appearances. Talk about gross exaggeration...you do realize that people run 1x configs because they are lighter, right?

I'd go back to claiming the chain will go slack on the 14T, at least then you wouldn't be attacking the very foundation of the forum you are posting in.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

i went to 1 by 9 at the end of last season because i would rarely pop into my 27t ring. only used it for select climbs so i felt like it slowed me down going from 2nd to 1st for a climb then back to 2nd right after. so i went to a 34t rotor ring on a 11-34 cassette and loved it. 
now ill be on 35x11-36 mathematically i get a huge range still.

my chainguide is 17g, my derailleur was something like 109g


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> There's so much torque already on a 36T cog that many freehubs can't take it, a 38T cog that is that lacey looks like a good candidate for folding over under load and blowing up freehubs.


Not if you use it 1x10. Front 32 - 36 will put less torque on it then 32t cassette can when used with a 22t granny.

Really nice setup for 1x10, shame about the price.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> A chain that accomodates a 38T cog will be pretty loose on the 14T. I hate chain clatter and skipping.


Huh? It does not make any sense. As long as your derailleur has enough capacity - whats the difference if you have 38 in front or in the rear?


----------



## teamscarpa (Sep 19, 2011)

Does anyone know the weight of the cassette?


----------



## Baulz (Sep 16, 2005)

Lelandjt said:


> I think this falls in the catagory of weight loss at the cost of performance. Since you need to use a longer chain and derailleur, chain guide, and huge cogs the weight loss isn't that great.


Not at all. I've been doing the 1X9 thing for years with a 32t ring and 12-27 cassette. Keep in mind we all ride different terrain, I ride a lot of short but really steep hills and have no problems. With a lightweight cahinguide the savings is close to a pound once the front shifter/derailleur, cable/housing, and chainrings have been removed. Can use a shorter derailleur cage too.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

^That's an exception to get away with that cassette and short derailleur because you don't climb mountains. We'te talking about a 38t cassette and the required long derailleur and chain.

To answer the chain tension question just above: A derailleur keeps more tension on the chain when the c pivot is nearly maxed than when it's more relaxed. It will have great tension in the 38t and the chain will be floppy in the small cogs.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2011)

Lelandjt said:


> We'te talking about a 38t cassette and the required long derailleur and chain.


And you are comparing this to what? What derailleur are you using that stops working with an 11-38?



Lelandjt said:


> To answer the chain tension question just above: A derailleur keeps more tension on the chain when the c pivot is nearly maxed than when it's more relaxed. It will have great tension in the 38t and the chain will be floppy in the small cogs.


Nonsense. MTB derailleurs have enough capacity. Again, what are you comparing this 11-38 setup to?

It's easy to claim another config is lighter when you don't have to say what that config is. It's a lot harder when you actually start adding the parts up.


----------



## < T.R.E.K > (Jun 5, 2008)

bikerumor.com/2011/09/22/new-lightweight-goodies-from-kcnc-pedals-cassettes-and-cables/


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

craigsj said:


> And you are comparing this to what? What derailleur are you using that stops working with an 11-38?


A short cage. I have XO, X9, and XTR on different bikes. None would work on a 1x10, 38t cassette.



craigsj said:


> MTB derailleurs have enough capacity. Again, what are you comparing this 11-38 setup to?


A long cage derailleur has enough capacity but it will not have much tension on the smaller cogs if the chain is long enough to wrap around a 38t cassette and the same chainring is used with the whole cassette. The spring in the c knuckle does't apply the same tension regardless of cage angle (new XTR's friction damper probably improves this). Perhaps this doesn't matter to you and if that's the case you need to remember that we all ride different trails, some rocky. A slack, bouncing chain is something I don't like.



craigsj said:


> It's easy to claim another config is lighter when you don't have to say what that config is. It's a lot harder when you actually start adding the parts up.


First of all, I'm NOT saying a 1x10 with 38t cassette is heavier than a 2x or 3x. I'm saying it's not massively lighter and there are performance concessions.
1. I don't like a slack chain because it can skip when getting back on the power and a quiet bike feels like a fast bike to me. It encourages me to push harder.
2. I don't like massive chain angles, aka bad chainline. There's more friction and a greater chance of skipping.
3. Not as much gear range. I recognize this only applies to riders who want to climb steep mountains and go fast on the downhill.

Try to understand that not all weight weenies look at weight as the only performance parameter. If you disagree with my point of view feel free to buy what you want and don't take offense to my not buying those parts.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> ^That's an exception to get away with that cassette and short derailleur because you don't climb mountains. We'te talking about a 38t cassette and the required long derailleur and chain.


It does not. With a single ring in front you only need 27t of capacity. Medium would work fine.



Lelandjt said:


> Compared to 1x10 with a 36 or 38T cog, two rings with a 34T cassette provides more gear range, better chainline, and more consistent chain tension while allowing use of a short cage derailleur. The only arguement I see for 1 ring with a huge range cassette is simplification for people who can't properly operate multiple chainrings.


Nonsense. Chainline is is better for a double ring setup only in the extreme crosschain positions. Weight is lower in 1x10 and shifting is better, hadlebars are less clattered.

Another important point is that 1x10 setup is significantly safer, as there are no exposed big ring teeth to cut you up in a fall or slip. I only run 2 by X cranks with a bashguard for this very reason - which adds weight and makes for a worse chainline.

Take a look at this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/calf-meet-chainring-641287.html


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2011)

Lelandjt said:


> A short cage. I have XO, X9, and XTR on different bikes. None would work on a 1x10, 38t cassette.


A short cage is hardly a system that you are comparing to a 1x11-38. Furthermore, I'd wager a SRAM short cage WILL work. It certainly won't go slack on the 14T.



Lelandjt said:


> A long cage derailleur has enough capacity but it will not have much tension on the smaller cogs if the chain is long enough to wrap around a 38t cassette and the same chainring is used with the whole cassette.


Ridiculous nonsense. I've used mid-cage SRAM on an 11-39 cassette without problem. You are making this up.



Lelandjt said:


> First of all, I'm NOT saying a 1x10 with 38t cassette is heavier than a 2x or 3x. I'm saying it's not massively lighter and there are performance concessions.


Prove your assertions. Pick a configuration you are championing as better and show that it has performance advantages without being "massively" heavier.



Lelandjt said:


> 3. Not as much gear range. I recognize this only applies to riders who want to climb steep mountains and go fast on the downhill.


And this is why I'm tired of your double talk. How are you getting more gearing range out of a rear derailleur that lacks sufficient capacity for an 11-38? A short cage derailleur that does not have sufficient capacity to support an 11-38 will not support a double either. Of course you could switch to a 11-23, which would be pathetic, but combining that with a 26-39 double, while it will work, would not provide the range of even an 11-36.



Lelandjt said:


> Try to understand that not all weight weenies look at weight as the only performance parameter. If you disagree with my point of view feel free to buy what you want and don't take offense to my not buying those parts.


I take offense at your fabrication of facts to support a sad prejudice.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2011)

Lelandjt said:


> Compared to 1x10 with a 36 or 38T cog, two rings with a 34T cassette provides more gear range, better chainline, and more consistent chain tension while allowing use of a short cage derailleur.


A short cage derailleur has a typical capacity of 25T. An 11-34 uses 23T, leaving you a 2T difference in your front rings. Some combination of consistent chain tension and more gear range you've got there.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

craigsj said:


> A short cage derailleur has a typical capacity of 25T.


Must be a conservative estimate...I run a short cage on a 39T spread (13-32 and 24-44) with no problem.

This thread is entertaining :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2011)

Shayne said:


> Must be a conservative estimate...I run a short cage on a 39T spread (13-32 and 24-44) with no problem.
> 
> This thread is entertaining :thumbsup:


Chain Wrap Capacity: 25t (Short), 39t (Medium), 47t (Long)

But if 39T is your idea of a short cage it will certainly work with an 11-38.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

craigsj said:


> But if 39T is your idea of a short cage


No, I'm saying I run a short cage and it works fine with a 39T spread


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2011)

Shayne said:


> No, I'm saying I run a short cage and it works fine with a 39T spread


Yes, road derailleurs must have been what I was talking about.  Short cage road has a capacity greater than 25T.

I agree that chain wrap ratings are conservative, that's why I said even a short cage, and by that I meant an MTB short cage, would likely work with an 11-38.

There is no way that Lelandjt can come up with a double config that offers increased function and wider gearing range while using a rear derailleur that can't be made to work with an 11-38. He's spreading FUD, pure and simple. He's the one that fears that others won't want the parts he uses, not the other way around.


----------



## unkosama (Jun 26, 2006)

I used a 1x10 with 11-36 the past 2 years, and it works great. Even though there are some steep mountain here in Utah, I generally stick to gradual climbing switchbacks and flowing singletrack. I generally only spin out when I have to ride home on pavement. The gearing has been great, and I never have to suddenly drop into my little ring, nor do I get chain suck after a long day of stream crossings and mud. In fact, I never have to think about changing the front chainring at all, which I like, cause I like to think about my line and not my gears. 

I do have to hike-a-bike a bit more, like instead of 2% it's like 5%.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

unkosama said:


> I do have to hike-a-bike a bit more, like instead of 2% it's like 5%.


Right, and I think with 11-38 it could even better.

Moot point though, as at those prices I ain't getting it.


----------



## 20.100 FR (Jan 13, 2004)

any info on the availability of the 11-38 ?


----------



## danridesbikes (Sep 10, 2009)

KCNC Kassette Titan 10-fach 140g, 339,50 €


----------



## Svard75 (Sep 15, 2010)

Don't know if anyones posted this already but owned one and rounded the teeth in about a month of serious riding. I don't trust any cassette made of anything but steel. 

Sent using my retarded blackberry


----------



## realconspiracy (Jan 22, 2011)

svard75 said:


> sent using my retarded blackberry


Hehe


----------



## Svard75 (Sep 15, 2010)

realconspiracy said:


> Hehe


I hate my BB that much!

Seriously derailed thread but I hope no one buys another aluminum/titanium/scandium/crapium/rip-u-off-ium cog'd cassette with I don't care what kinda coating (You couldn't sell me on an unobtainium coating if it existed)! Steel is real and for now evidence proven to outlast any other material for chain driven drivetrains. I enjoy the creativity manufacturers have come up with like aluminum carriers and other exotic materials but the cogs that touch the chain must be steel. Of course I am biased as I am not a factory racer so I can't afford to replace the cassettes every month.


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

i just ordered a 11-34 for my race bike. I usually get 2-3 years out of the drivetrain on that bike using a titanium cassette, so I expect the same from this one.


----------



## realconspiracy (Jan 22, 2011)

Ole said:


> i just ordered a 11-34 for my race bike. I usually get 2-3 years out of the drivetrain on that bike using a titanium cassette, so I expect the same from this one.


Makes more sense to use on race bike/race wheelset as the time spent racing is usually very small in comparison to time spent training. That's why I leave the XTR cassette on the race wheels and XT on training wheels, if I had the cash I would possibly try titanium just for racing too.


----------



## PeterGer (Feb 18, 2010)

Here some facts from the KCNC MTB 10-fach Titan Kassette 11-34


----------



## Madcow... (May 27, 2010)

Hopefully it won't be too much longer before it is publicly released. For now here are the weights on my 11-38.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

very cool.:thumbsup:
All laser cut perhaps?


----------



## Svard75 (Sep 15, 2010)

PeterGer said:


> Here some facts from the KCNC MTB 10-fach Titan Kassette 11-34


Those weights Are inaccurate since there's no lockring shown.


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

if you open your eyes enough there's a lockring!


----------



## Svard75 (Sep 15, 2010)

sergio_pt said:


> if you open your eyes enough there's a lockring!


lol sorry there is in the first shot. I was viewing it on my eepad and I guess it was a bit too early.


----------



## PeterGer (Feb 18, 2010)

Svard75 said:


> Those weights Are inaccurate since there's no lockring shown.


@ Madcow...
The weight is without the adapter. What is the weight from the adapter?
In Germany the 11-38 is not available.

Now only the lockring.


----------



## Svard75 (Sep 15, 2010)

PeterGer said:


> @ Madcow...
> The weight is without the adapter. What is the weight from the adapter?
> In Germany the 11-38 is not available.
> 
> Now only the lockring.


OMG. Too heavy! Can I do without it? JK the cassette is no doubt very light but again I cannot say that I would ever buy one again. Mine lasted 3 months and the chain started skipping.


----------



## Locksley (Sep 17, 2008)

interesting to have one to try ,,,,, but with the shocking price .... I guess I'm better off with 36 T


----------



## GeoKrpan (Apr 7, 2007)

A 1x10 with a 34 tooth chainring and 36 tooth cog would be 27.5 gear inches, a 38 tooth cog would be 26.1 gear inches, a whopping 1.4 gear inch difference.


----------



## turbogrover (Dec 4, 2005)

GeoKrpan said:


> A 1x10 with a 34 tooth chainring and 36 tooth cog would be 27.5 gear inches, a 38 tooth cog would be 26.1 gear inches, a whopping 1.4 gear inch difference.


Well, an awesome rider with exceptional climbing abilty like yourself, probably couldn't tell the difference, but mere mortals would appreciate that extra 1.4 gear inches.

Now, that being said, I prefer a closer ratio cassette where I ride. 11-28 cassette and 42/27 crankset. Not really mountainous where I live.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

turbogrover said:


> Well, an awesome rider with exceptional climbing abilty like yourself, probably couldn't tell the difference, but mere mortals would appreciate that extra 1.4 gear inches.


Or one can use a 36t front instead, and get an extra gear before spinning out. Extra 10% of gear range is a noticeable improvement.

That said, 11-36t from Shimano are a much more economical solution.


----------



## GeoKrpan (Apr 7, 2007)

turbogrover said:


> Well, an awesome rider with exceptional climbing abilty like yourself, probably couldn't tell the difference, but mere mortals would appreciate that extra 1.4 gear inches.
> 
> Now, that being said, I prefer a closer ratio cassette where I ride. 11-28 cassette and 42/27 crankset. Not really mountainous where I live.


I found an online retailer that lists this cassette, $490, and not in stock.

Would you pay that for 1.4 gear inches?

Bad climbers would not likely be running a 1x10. They're more likely to be running a triple.
With a 22 chainring a 38 tooth cog would lower the gearing by a whopping 0.9 gear inches compared to a 36 tooth cog.


----------



## turbogrover (Dec 4, 2005)

GeoKrpan said:


> I found an online retailer that lists this cassette, $490, and not in stock.
> 
> Would you pay that for 1.4 gear inches?


It's a titanium WW part. Yes of course someone would pay that much.


----------



## kroe (Mar 30, 2009)

Maybe the terrain where I am (Connecticut) is different than most, but I don't find gear range overly important. 

I run a 28T front and 11-36 cassette. With the very technical terrain and constant ups and downs here I spend most of my time in the top half of the cassette. I never use the 11t aside from a rare connecting stretch of fast double track. 

I am not a racer, and use smooth terrain only to connect fun technical sections, but I suspect many are in a similar situation. Maybe it makes more sense to shrink the front chainring rather than jump through hoops to get a couple teeth extra out back through very non-standard means?


----------

