2020 Vado 5.0 SL - changing cassette from 10-45 to 10-51

Brett (@VoltMan99):
It might be interesting the more expensive the 12 speed cassette is the less of steel it takes.
  • CS-M6100 (Deore) is all steel
  • CS-M7100 (SLX) has an Aluminium largest cog
  • CS-M8100 (XT) has two largest cogs made of Aluminium
  • CS-M9100 (XTR) that costs -- 410 US$ -- has 3 largest cogs made of Aluminium, next 5 cogs made of Magnesium, and 4 smallest cogs made of steel.
As if the more expensive cassettes were less durable? :)

Shimano 12-speed cassettes (some SRAM comparison, too)
 
Last edited:
I
Brett (@VoltMan99):
It might be interesting the more expensive the 12 speed cassette is the less of steel it takes.
  • CS-M6100 (Deore) is all steel
  • CS-M7100 (SLX) has an Aluminium largest cog
  • CS-M8100 (XT) has two largest cogs made of Aluminium
  • CS-M9100 (XTR) that costs -- 410 US$ -- has 3 largest cogs made of Aluminium, next 5 cogs made of Magnesium, and 4 smallest cogs made of steel.
As if the more expensive cassettes were less durable? :)

Shimano 12-speed cassettes (some SRAM comparison, too)
Stefan, The primary advantage of using the aluminum and titanium (not magnesium) alloys in the more expensive cassettes is weight savings, not strength or durability. Basically carbon steel wins hands-down when compared to aluminum or titanium when it comes to durability because it is more elastic and less prone to deformation under a given load. Since I’m more concerned about durability and reliability rather than weight - the M6100 is best for my application, as well as being very economical. Perhaps one day they will manufacture carbon fiber cogs - that will really make you happy. 🤣
 
Hi all, newbie first post here, been lurking for a while, loads of useful information, thanks! Just to say that the XT SGS rear derailleur is officially rated up to a 45T cog, I noticed when I removed mine at the weekend (SL 5.0 non-eq), see it stamped to the left of the top jockey wheel.
DSC_0203.JPG
Hopefully the B-screw will allow adjustment to the 51T, will be interesting to hear how OP gets on. I am too cheap for this bike and couldn't face the cost of replacement 12 speed parts, so have just downgraded to 10 speed (Microshift Advent X)!
 
Just to say that the XT SGS rear derailleur is officially rated up to a 45T cog
I'll verify it with my brother (this evening Central European Time) as his Trance E+ 2 Pro 2020 is equipped with Deore XT SGS 12 speed derailleur and 10-51t CS-M7100-12 cassette by factory.
 
I'll verify it with my brother (this evening Central European Time) as his Trance E+ 2 Pro 2020 is equipped with Deore XT SGS 12 speed derailleur and 10-51t CS-M7100-12 cassette by factory.
Don't worry Stefan, I've just checked the Shimano website out of curiosity, there are different models of the XT rear derailleur. My SL 5.0 had the RD-M8120 version, interesting it's listed as their 2x12 model.

Your brother must have the RD-M8100, 1x12 speed and good for 51T.


It's such a minefield looking at replacement part options! Part of the reasons I took the easy change-it-all option.
 
I'll verify it with my brother (this evening Central European Time) as his Trance E+ 2 Pro 2020 is equipped with Deore XT SGS 12 speed derailleur and 10-51t CS-M7100-12 cassette by factory.
Thanks for flagging that up Stefan. I was half correct and half wrong. That's what I have liked about this forum during my time lurking, everyone is very helpful and guru's like you go out of their way to assist. 👍😊
 
Stefan, The primary advantage of using the aluminum and titanium (not magnesium) alloys in the more expensive cassettes is weight savings, not strength or durability. Basically carbon steel wins hands-down when compared to aluminum or titanium when it comes to durability because it is more elastic and less prone to deformation under a given load.

Yes, but basically only.
Quality steel is expensive and hardly used for bike cassettes at the lower end (f.e. Shimano Deore etc).
Quality aluminium alloy such as T6-7075 is superior to the cheaper steel alloy being used and that's why it's the other way round:
expect better durabilty from Shimano SLX aluminium parts than Deore steel parts. It's a cost factor as well: normal steel is a lot cheaper than quality aluminium alloy.

On the other hand the high end Shimano XTR parts are lightweight focused and I wouldn't expect better durability from them.
 
Quality aluminium alloy such as T6-7075 is superior to the cheaper steel alloy being used and that's why it's the other way round:
expect better durabilty from Shimano SLX aluminium parts than Deore steel parts. It's a cost factor as well: normal steel is a lot cheaper than quality aluminium alloy.
Not sure where you’ve been given that impression, but I’d like to see data to back up that claim. In the world of aeronautics at least (where we argue a LOT about alloys), it’s completely reverse of your claims.
 
Not sure where you’ve been given that impression, but I’d like to see data to back up that claim. In the world of aeronautics at least (where we argue a LOT about alloys), it’s completely reverse of your claims.
Brett:
I have learnt to listen very carefully to what TS25 says. He's never been wrong, and he's been around here for a very long time.
 
Brett:
I have learnt to listen very carefully to what TS25 says. He's never been wrong, and he's been around here for a very long time.
Stefan, ok, maybe he’s right, maybe he isn’t. 🤣 However I don’t think he can back up his claims with references to the materials. The physical properties of even a medium carbon steel forged and annealed part bests the best of aluminum alloys when it comes to durability in a moving, high friction, high load application like chain drives. It’s that simple. I was schooled as an engineer, in 2 disciplines - so I don’t believe in folklore. If you show me a reference otherwise I’ll state that I’m wrong (and I have been many times in the past).

Edit: Here ‘ya go. Steel rules. Pulled these from Matweb import on SolidWorks:

Mechanical Properties, Medium Carbon Steel vs Al T6-7075

Hardns, Brinell 247 vs 150

Hardns, Knoop 276 vs 191

Hardns, Rockwell B 94.8vs 53.5

Hardns, Rockwell C 25.9 vs 87

Hardness, Vickers 265 vs 175

Tnsl Str Ult. 987 MPa vs 572 MPa

Tnsl Str Yld 685 MPa vs 503 MPa

Elongation at Break 18.9% vs 9%

Reduction of Area 49.7% (Null)

Mod. Elast. 203 GPa vs 71.7 GPa

Bulk Modulus 160 GPa (Null)

Poissons Ratio 0.290 vs .33

Fatigue Str. 370 MPa vs 159 MPa

Frac. Toughness 120 vs 17.6 MPa-m½

Machinability 60% vs 70%

Shear Mod 45.7 GPa vs 26.9 GPa
 
Last edited:
Back