# Why not 3x1?



## phillygorilla (Sep 14, 2009)

I'm talking 3 chainrings up front w/ a front derailleur and one cog in the back. Why is this NOT a good idea? Cross chaining?


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

With a 1x9 or similar you can do without a front mech. Your way would still require a rear mech* to take up the chain slack. If you've got a rear mech you may as well use it to change gears.

*Or at least some kind of shifting chain tensioner.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

Why not a 3 spd internally geared rear hub then? you could still change your rear cog to adjust your ratios for conditions and not have to worry about chainline issues


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

3-speed internal gear hubs are HEAVY, right? does anyone make a light-ish one? i don't think i am being a weight weenie here, because those things are boat anchors.


----------



## jackspade (Jul 23, 2010)

You'll need FD and RD, it's easier to go 1x9 with just RD also you'll need longer chain.

I don't know if internal gear will fit for off-road, the mechanical thing seems fragile and complicated. Is it shock proof?


----------



## asphaltdude (Sep 17, 2008)

Story


----------



## chmnyboy (Nov 14, 2008)

I ride with someone who did this. I think the main advantage is that you still get the mental simplicity of a single speed (not constantly searching for the best ratio like on a _ x 9) but you can still push on long fire road descents, or pick an easier ratio on steep extended climbs.

FWIW he moved back to a SS.


----------



## zaskaranddriver (Oct 14, 2009)

Two extra rings, a derailleur, and chain tensioning is probably something like 400g. Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub weighs a tad over 1kg. What's that, 600g more than a standard hub? So that's a 200g penalty for an IGH that's cleaner looking and way more reliable.


----------



## Scott forty G. (Dec 25, 2009)

If you cant handle SS and considering 3x1 or 1x9 or something ridiculous that entail gears...you might as well go 3x9 or 2x9...Just sayin


----------



## ricot83 (Jul 2, 2008)

Scott forty G. said:


> If you cant handle SS and considering 3x1 or 1x9 or something ridiculous that entail gears...you might as well go 3x9 or 2x9...Just sayin


Agreed. It's one thing to go 1x9 or 1 x6. Etc but hy put front an rear mechs on?


----------



## jackspade (Jul 23, 2010)

I probably go to 1x3 or 1x4 because my chainline wasn't that good to get 1x7 and I hate the sound of chain friction - it's a taboo for me to have bike with unnecessary sounds.


----------



## buddhak (Jan 26, 2006)

IGH hubs have woeful engagement, BTW. Never mind the weight. A friend of mine made a 2x3 using a road double + front mech and a Sturmey Archer 3spd + rear mech tensioner. It was a road cruiser, but it was dope. In any case, Phillygorilla, try it and tell us what you think. That's the pioneer spirit.

BTW: the story on the 3x1 posted above is pretty compelling. Seems like a decent zig to everyone else's zag.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

zaskaranddriver said:


> Two extra rings, a derailleur, and chain tensioning is probably something like 400g. Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub weighs a tad over 1kg. What's that, 600g more than a standard hub? So that's a 200g penalty for an IGH that's cleaner looking and way more reliable.


I don't see how an IGH is going to be more reliable than a mounted, adjusted derailer, a chain and someone's heel

In any case, I feel people wanting a 3x1 are an exception to the rule. SS offroad makes perfect sense. Adding two gears doesn't, or more people would do it. I have tried dingles and the like, but mainly to get commuting or cross town capacity from my mountain bike. Buy another bike.


----------



## zaskaranddriver (Oct 14, 2009)

umarth said:


> I don't see how an IGH is going to be more reliable than a mounted, adjusted derailer, a chain and someone's heel


In the interest of full disclosure I have to say I've never run one. I didn't know their engagement was so bad. But from what I understand, being internal, they require pretty much none of the adjustment you mentioned and are far more resistant to mud, debris, impacts from trail features, crashes, etc. These are some of the reasons why they're often the choice for urban bike rental programs in Europe and starting in the US.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

zaskaranddriver said:


> In the interest of full disclosure I have to say I've never run one. I didn't know their engagement was so bad. But from what I understand, being internal, they require pretty much none of the adjustment you mentioned and are far more resistant to mud, debris, impacts from trail features, crashes, etc. These are some of the reasons why they're often the choice for urban bike rental programs in Europe and starting in the US.


I think most are not rated for offroad use. Great for around town, but I think I'd rather have a derailer set up. They are really heavy. Probably better to ask in the IGH forum....


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

umarth said:


> SS offroad makes perfect sense. Adding two gears doesn't, or more people would do it.


SS made just as much sense before it became so popular, so I can't see the number of people doing it as a valid reason against any setup.

I've actually tested 1x3 on my mtb because I was curious and I enjoyed it a lot. If/when my stable expands beyond my SS bike, the new bike has a good chance of being a 3pd, possibly 4 or 5 though. I picked the middle cog to be the same as my SS ratio so I could ride it like my SS and stay in this gear most of the time, with the other two cogs different enough in size that I would switch to them only occasionally for sprints and road riding or really nasty long climbs. That was the reason it felt so nice to me compared to a 1x9 or more with lots of closer ratios where you end up focusing more on shifting and using all the options you have. The lowest ratio in a 1x9 is still very close to the spinning of a full granny gear, while the low ratio in my 3spd setup was still a stand and mash gear. The 1x3 felt a lot more like a singlespeed with benefits.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

boomn said:


> SS made just as much sense before it became so popular, so I can't see the number of people doing it as a valid reason against any setup.


Offroad. My premise did say that most people doing a 3x1 are commuting or going cross town with their bikes before hitting a trailhead. Those are exceptions to the rule. Most wouldn't run 3x1 for offroad because SS works fine. Is that clearer?


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

umarth said:


> Offroad. My premise did say that most people doing a 3x1 are commuting or going cross town with their bikes before hitting a trailhead. Those are exceptions to the rule. Most wouldn't run 3x1 for offroad because SS works fine. Is that clearer?


yep, its clear, I just politely disagree. Like I said, the number of people currently using a system tells me nothing about its qualities.

To draw a parallel to SS and paraphrase you a little: 
SS is already an exception to the rule. Most mountain bikers don't run SS, because their gears work fine. However that doesn't mean SS isn't good, fun and useful, because most mountain bikers have never test ridden an SS and plenty have never even heard of SS.

As for SS "working fine", every type of geared and SS setup I've run "worked fine" but they do ride quite differently, have different tradeoffs and suited best to different terrain. Working fine isn't enough of a reason for me to prefer one, it is the particular tradeoffs and simple personal preference that matter. My 1x3 with friction shifter was far simpler to dial in than a normal geared drivetrain and helped me handle mixed terrain better than my SS, so it has its place.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

boomn said:


> My 1x3 with friction shifter was far simpler to dial in than a normal geared drivetrain and helped me *handle mixed terrain* better than my SS, so it has its place.


I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I've used the set up before when I've had mixed terrain and that is a perfectly acceptable way of riding.

I ride SS because gears haven't worked fine, same with a couple of my friends. The conundrum with SS is that it always works fine, it just isn't something everyone is willing to work with in the first place.

Sandwiches, Boomn, sandwiches.


----------



## Scott forty G. (Dec 25, 2009)

boomn said:


> yep, its clear.....helped me handle mixed terrain better than my SS, so it has its place.


I will have to say that if this non sense about multiple gears continues, the moderators might consider moving this to a different forum. It is called Singlespeed for a reason. One speed! I mean no disrespect but if you are considering gears just go all 3x9. With that said, my SS has been the perfect DH, XC, All mountain and FR bike i could ask for. I would not trade it for anything. So, if you do go back to that type of riding, don't expect us to say hello to you when we see you out in the trails....

PS. Leave your SS alone you''ll be happier.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Scott forty G. said:


> I will have to say that if this non sense about multiple gears continues, the moderators might consider moving this to a different forum. It is called Singlespeed for a reason. One speed! I mean no disrespect but if you are considering gears just go all 3x9. With that said, my SS has been the perfect DH, XC, All mountain and FR bike i could ask for. I would not trade it for anything. So, if you do go back to that type of riding, don't expect us to say hello to you when we see you out in the trails....
> 
> PS. Leave your SS alone you''ll be happier.


haha, don't worry, I went back to SS fairly quickly... I was only experimenting so I could buy the right parts the first time when/if I build a second bike.

I ride my SS 29er for everything from gnarly to smooth as well and I love it. I should have said "mixed grades" or something instead of "mixed terrain"; such as trails that alternate between gently rolling and straight up in the same loop.

As for saying I might as well jump all the way from SS to 3x9, that's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then setting the bathroom on fire. Even a good 1x9 (which I have a lot of experience with too) is quite different than 3x9, never mind a 3x1 or 1x3 with friction shifting


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

umarth said:


> I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I've used the set up before when I've had mixed terrain and that is a perfectly acceptable way of riding.
> 
> I ride SS because gears haven't worked fine, same with a couple of my friends. The conundrum with SS is that it always works fine, it just isn't something everyone is willing to work with in the first place.
> 
> Sandwiches, Boomn, sandwiches.


pssh, I'm practically the Earl of Sandwich!

I was disagreeing with your bold statement that adding two gears doesn't make sense, because I think it can. That's all.

Gears certainly do take more maintenance and adjusting to keep them working fine, but SS bikes still need both occasionally too and problems can certainly happen if you don't. My SS has been quite trouble free but not perfect. Less maintenance is definitealy very nice, but I can't say it's one of my main reasons for preferring SS. In fact, I've actually worked to remove some of that prejudice towards gears from my thinking because I don't want it clouding my reasons for liking SS. If all those other knuckle-draggers can maintain a decently shifting geared setup then certainly a _vastly_ superior mechanic such as myself could do the same, and in fact I was quite good at it when I had such a bike. Mountain biking should be about the riding, and I want to make sure I prefer singlespeed primarily for the riding, and not because of deficiencies in my skills as a mechanic that can be trained out or setup issues that be fixed with appropriate component choice. Or maybe I've just found a new way to be pedantic


----------



## buddhak (Jan 26, 2006)

boomn said:


> haha, don't worry, I went back to SS fairly quickly... I was only experimenting so I could buy the right parts the first time when/if I build a second bike.
> 
> I ride my SS 29er for everything from gnarly to smooth as well and I love it. I should have said "mixed grades" or something instead of "mixed terrain"; such as trails that alternate between gently rolling and straight up in the same loop.
> 
> As for saying I might as well jump all the way from SS to 3x9, that's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then setting the bathroom on fire. Even a good 1x9 (which I have a lot of experience with too) is quite different than 3x9, never mind a 3x1 or 1x3 with friction shifting


I'm with Boomn on this one. Vive la differaunce, brothers! Everyone's terrain, riding style, and fitness levels are different. I haven't tried a 3x1, but clearly it is a different beast than a 1x6 or a 3x9 or an IGH - in terms of gear range, simplicity, shifting, chain dropping, etc. You can't dismiss the 3x1 before having used it without sounding...how should I put it...like you have an opinion. And you know we all have opinions - right between our cheeks. If the 3x1 worked for the guy who helped to revolutionize the way we go bike-packing, then maybe it has its niche. As for me, I have invested in an ENO hub and trials freewheel for my SS KM. If ever I want to add gear range without building a new wheel, then a 3x1 makes a lot of sense.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

buddhak said:


> I'm with Boomn on this one. Vive la differaunce, brothers! Everyone's terrain, riding style, and fitness levels are different. I haven't tried a 3x1, but clearly it is a different beast than a 1x6 or a 3x9 or an IGH - in terms of gear range, simplicity, shifting, chain dropping, etc. You can't dismiss the 3x1 before having used it without sounding...how should I put it...like you have an opinion. And you know we all have opinions - right between our cheeks. If the 3x1 worked for the guy who helped to revolutionize the way we go bike-packing, then maybe it has its niche. As for me, I have invested in an ENO hub and trials freewheel for my SS KM. If ever I want to add gear range without building a new wheel, then a 3x1 makes a lot of sense.


I'm still uncertain why this misguided thought of everyone being against 3x1 comes from. As you say, it has a role, just a rather specific one. If I ever go for a tour (again), that will likely be my set up. And I think I'm going to try to get back into the "dingle" game if I can track down a wider set of rims in town..


----------



## Scott forty G. (Dec 25, 2009)

boomn said:


> haha, don't worry, I went back to SS fairly quickly...
> 
> As for saying I might as well jump all the way from SS to 3x9, that's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then setting the bathroom on fire. Even a good 1x9 (which I have a lot of experience with too) is quite different than 3x9, never mind a 3x1 or 1x3 with friction shifting


AWESOME!! Seriously, that made my day


----------



## veloreality (May 10, 2009)

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=573783


----------



## phillygorilla (Sep 14, 2009)

Just so you guys know (since I started this thread). I have a geared XC bike and a SS/Fixie road bike. When got the SS/Fixie I loved the simplicity and understand the passion behind a SS mountain bike. The SS/Fixie worked well for me... until l moved to the top of a long steep hill (for those that know Philly - it is "the wall"). I still use this bike to commute but the problem is I literally have to walk up the hill when I go home. This sort of defeats the whole purpose. The hill is steep but the rest of my commute is relatively flat. My SS/Fixie gearing is set up for flats- so on the flats I fly. I've thought of changing my gearing but due to my habits from another previous endurance sport (rowing), I don't spin- I like to mash big gears. So I'd rather not change my gearing to get up the hill so that I can spin for 85% of the commute. 

So the thinking here for me was - how do I create a simple riding platform (a la SS) that allows me to fly on the flats and still climb home? the only thing i could think of is a 3x1. 
after reading all these replies... its either 2x1 or 3x1 - what ever is cheaper.


----------



## gruppo (Nov 14, 2004)

Put a Hammerschmidt on the front and you've got a clean 2x1 that performs well, with a good gear range (You'll have to have an ISCG adapter plate brazed onto the bottom bracket shell but it's worth the effort). Plus, with a little fiddling, SRAM's Rival/Force drop bar shifters operate the Hammerschmidt just fine.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

asphaltdude said:


> Story


i'm planning on doing that! too, with a paul melvin. i wondered if the melvin had enough capacity...
i'll be running it with vintage stuff, 26-36-46 up front und a 16t cog in the rear. bought all necessary parts, had them shipped and delivered, but the parcel with the derailleur, shifter and some other small parts got lost...
i wanted to put a frame-mounted shifter on the seat tube, keeping the handlebars clean and neat but i guess i'll have to keep kicking around the chain, as i did with the 2x1 setup.
i ran 2x1 for half a year now and it's great. 36:16 is my favorite ratio, but naturally a bit harsh for real steep stuff. a third chainring would cure that problem and i could finally tackle the ~100km trail tour round my hometown:cornut:

i'll post some pictures when it's done.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> 3-speed internal gear hubs are HEAVY, right.


Wrong. It's deceptive - the weight is all in the rear though. If they built a derailleur that would last as long as a 3spd hub gear, it would weigh more.



umarth said:


> I don't see how an IGH is going to be more reliable than a mounted, adjusted derailer, a chain and someone's heel...


I've seen plenty 50 year old S-A hubs with tens of thousands of miles on them. Even 50-60 years ago they were expected to be good for at least 30,000 miles.



buddhak said:


> IGH hubs have woeful engagement...


Modern S-A hubs have excellent engagement. They only have a problem if they are not adjusted properly to the marks.

I use a 3 speed S-A hub offroad in a CX type bike.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

Velobike said:


> Wrong. It's deceptive - the weight is all in the rear though. If they built a derailleur that would last as long as a 3spd hub gear, it would weigh more.
> 
> I've seen plenty 50 year old S-A hubs with tens of thousands of miles on them. Even 50-60 years ago they were expected to be good for at least 30,000 miles.
> 
> ...


I think we're questioning how long they'd last as an offroad/XC hub. When I looked into it about two or three years ago, Rohloff was the only one that was made for XC.

EDIT: forgot this was a question about commuting. An IGH might be a good solution.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

There are other, less steep ways to get to the top of that hill, but even if you wanted to use only Levering/Lyceum, you would probably eventually be able to build up the leg strength to ride it in your preferred commuting gear.


----------



## hchchch (Aug 24, 2009)

Tensioners like these, despite their performance, wrap the chain around small dérailleur cogs like a typical dérailleur. Doesn't that reduce the smoothness and efficiency found in non-tensioners and basic non-wrapping tensioner setups?


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

hchchch said:


> Tensioners like these, despite their performance, wrap the chain around small dérailleur cogs like a typical dérailleur. Doesn't that reduce the smoothness and efficiency found in non-tensioners and basic non-wrapping tensioner setups?


it does.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

done. works great.


----------



## mmm...bicycles (Sep 30, 2007)

I got a bike I call my dingle. 

Double Single. It has a Paul Melvin with 32 and 42 tooth chain rings and an 18 tooth cog. 

It is perfect for riding to the trails doing some Hot Laps and returning home. 

I can down shift with my heel and very carefully up shift with a finger, on the fly.

It is my favorite bike, and it has not changed in several year when all of my other bikes are constantly being torn apart and rebuilt in a different configurations.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

I have several geared bikes. A couple motorized ones, too. I don't talk about them much on the mtbr singlespeed forum.

Anyway since you guys kicked the door open, I'll tell you a little about them.

One is an '06 Triumph Sprint ST sport/touring bike. Fully faired, it leans more toward sport than touring, although I have the hard luggage and have done several memorable tours. Lolo Pass is one of the funnest (that's gotta be a word by now, doesn't it?) roads to carve at speed that you could ever imagine. Anyway my Sprint is a six speed, and I find that 6 forward speeds are plenty. I've never wished for 7, but actually the top-most gear is more or less an overdrive. At ~90mph, it only drops engine speed by a couple hundred rpms compared to 5th. She's a sweet metallic blue... I call her the Blue Angel cuz she flies like that.

My off-road machine is a 1996 Honda XR400R, 5 gears. This is the sweetest dirt bike ever produced IMO, although many if not most would disagree with me on this point, given the new generation of skirtless piston, high rev, high HP, 2-stroke beaters. But my little ol' XR's tractor engine is uber dependable and kicks out ~35 hp with only the most insignificant mods... plenty of thrill for me. A motocrosser she's def not, but as far as I'm concerned Honda made the best woods bike ever when they built the XR400R.

I put a Baja Designs street legal kit on her about 6 months before the State of Oregon stopped allowing licensing of machines not intended by the manufacturer to be ridden on highway, so mine is all the more desirable now. My timing on this was sheer luck; the State did not announce the moratorium in advance of changing the law. Anyway, I can ride on the highway from one trailhead to the next legally -- a wonderful benefit. But 5th gear gets pretty wrapped up at highway speeds. I've gotten her up to ~75mph before, but it's all she's got. And I'm not going to change the size of the countershaft sprocket nor the final drive gear because I love gears #1 & 2 right where they are.

--sParty


----------



## BShow (Jun 15, 2006)

Front Derailleurs are a pain in the ass, they're finicky and they're much more likely to mis-shift resulting in a dropped chain... why would you purposely include one on your bike when you dont need to? That Paul chain tensioner thing on the rear is essentially a non-functional rear derailleur... it's subject to the same type of issues that a functional rear derailleur is and is only marginally lighter than an actual short cage derailleur. Aside from that, you can get close to the same gear ratios using a wide range cassette and you'd have a lot more useable gear range. 

3x1 setup makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

well, rear derailleus need more cleaning, they're way more likely to be damaged, i don't want anything on the bars, attached to a derailleur, it would have to be positioned on the top tube, which i dont like. i rode it once without the fd, kicking the chain up and down, didn't like it. and i don't like cassettes, as they're heavy. light ones are both pricey and don't last very long. 
and it's different.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

BShow said:


> Front Derailleurs are a pain in the ass, they're finicky and they're much more likely to mis-shift resulting in a dropped chain... why would you purposely include one on your bike when you dont need to? That Paul chain tensioner thing on the rear is essentially a non-functional rear derailleur... it's subject to the same type of issues that a functional rear derailleur is and is only marginally lighter than an actual short cage derailleur. Aside from that, you can get close to the same gear ratios using a wide range cassette and you'd have a lot more useable gear range.
> 
> 3x1 setup makes absolutely no sense at all.


i completely agree with this.

however i also really enjoy seeing different setups so i'm glad someone is doing a 3x1, even if i will never bother. a 1x3 or 1x4 however i'm very interested in and may go that way on the new whip...

and hey rigidftw, nice commuter!


----------



## mmm...bicycles (Sep 30, 2007)

BShow said:


> Front Derailleurs are a pain in the ass, they're finicky and they're much more likely to mis-shift resulting in a dropped chain... why would you purposely include one on your bike when you dont need to? That Paul chain tensioner thing on the rear is essentially a non-functional rear derailleur... it's subject to the same type of issues that a functional rear derailleur is and is only marginally lighter than an actual short cage derailleur. Aside from that, you can get close to the same gear ratios using a wide range cassette and you'd have a lot more useable gear range.
> 
> 3x1 setup makes absolutely no sense at all.


By your logic this : http://www.paulcomp.com/chainkeeper.html or anything like it is just a non functional front derailleur. So it is stupid.

And the Paul Melvin tensioner does not have cables and shifters so it cant be subject to the same problems as a functional rear d. I have gone through two X.9's and replaced the pulleys on the second in less time than I have used the Paul Melvin. And I ride the bikes equally.

I rock a 2x1 setup and it makes perfect sense for me because I can single speed to the trails on the road, then put the chain on the smaller ring, and ride a loop or two, then back on the big ring and pedal home. It is actually perfect.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

thats not my commuter  my commuter is singlespeeded fendered khs montana.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

rigidftw said:


> thats not my commuter  my commuter is singlespeeded fendered khs montana.


not to derail, but did you use a tensioner to SS the montana?

i have one that i've been thinking about grinding the dropouts/hub axles on...


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

ferday said:


> not to derail, but did you use a tensioner to SS the montana?
> 
> i have one that i've been thinking about grinding the dropouts/hub axles on...


nope. i bought it with the slightly sloping dropouts grinded a bit. 34:13 fiits just right, 36:13 not at all.


----------



## EstebanRapido (Jun 4, 2010)

I'm not surpised to see this question at all. After I switched to single speed I was a little disappointed about the few hills I could no longer climb. Of course the hills I can climb make me feel like Da Man! So I always thought I would be great to have a 2x1. Just so I could pop down to the 22 tooth for a climb. But I'm not throwing extra parts on the back of a SS bike. Then my bike build dream came into focus. I want build a single speed all mountain bike with the Hammerschmidt. Yeah it would be pricey but I would be nearly ideal for a guy like me.


----------



## Orkje (May 3, 2006)

> So I always thought I would be great to have a 2x1. Just so I could pop down to the 22 tooth for a climb. But I'm not throwing extra parts on the back of a SS bike.


Actually, A 2x1 works pretty well. I used it for a while, but without a front derailer. I just switched the gear manually. I know having a tensioner at the back takes away from the pure simplicity and enjoyement of a true singlespeed, but it's still way different from having a bike that you can shift without thinking. I did not lose the 'singlespeed approach', so to speak. To each his own.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

EstebanRapido said:


> I'm not surpised to see this question at all. After I switched to single speed I was a little disappointed about the few hills I could no longer climb. Of course the hills I can climb make me feel like Da Man! So I always thought I would be great to have a 2x1. Just so I could pop down to the 22 tooth for a climb. But I'm not throwing extra parts on the back of a SS bike. Then my bike build dream came into focus. I want build a single speed all mountain bike with the Hammerschmidt. Yeah it would be pricey but I would be nearly ideal for a guy like me.


as i may have said somewhere before, i rode my 3speed as a 2speed manual, kicking the chain around. that was very good and with drop bars climbs were less of a problem. the small gear was 36:16 and the big one 46:16.

did you consider the width of the hammerschmidt? i almost hated all these htII cranks because of their wideness.


----------



## GeoKrpan (Apr 7, 2007)

*How about a 1x5?*

Screw on a 5 speed freewheel in place of the single speed freewheel.
Re-space the axle to move the hub to the left to make room for the wider 5 speed freewheel.
Dish the wheel to center it between the stays. Hopefully, you won't run into a problem with spoke lengths.
Get a chain tug with a built in derailleur hanger.
Run a full length cable housing from the shifter to the derailleur.
I would use a simple friction thumb shifter like the one at Bike Nashbar for 99 cents.

The success would hinge upon the ability to move the hub far enough to the left to make room for the 5 speed freewheel.
I think it would not be possible with some 120mm flip flop hubs because of the width of the cones but it might be possible to find a narrower cone for the left side.
I have a 120mm flip flop hub with cartridge bearings and hence, no cones.
I'm pretty sure it WOULD work with this hub.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

BShow said:


> Front Derailleurs are a pain in the ass, they're finicky and they're much more likely to mis-shift resulting in a dropped chain... why would you purposely include one on your bike when you dont need to? That Paul chain tensioner thing on the rear is essentially a non-functional rear derailleur... it's subject to the same type of issues that a functional rear derailleur is and is only marginally lighter than an actual short cage derailleur. Aside from that, you can get close to the same gear ratios using a wide range cassette and you'd have a lot more useable gear range.
> 
> 3x1 setup makes absolutely no sense at all.


BShow's superior thinking is evident in his comments above.

Still hoping this thread gets moved to the drivetrain forum where it belongs.

--sParty


----------



## hoolie (Sep 17, 2010)

*Sweet ideas all around*

I logged on to post a snippy reply and was amazed at the awesome ideas people have and the positive feedback! been riding single speed Niner as my carbon squish collects dust for the last year so I'm commited CA single speed rider (crushing hills/mtns). Those are great-really like friction shifter on seat tube. Not my style but would love to ride around once or twice. Great community.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Sparticus said:


> Still hoping this thread gets moved to the drivetrain forum where it belongs.


Yeah, I've been wondering why this thread is in the *single* speed forum.


----------



## EstebanRapido (Jun 4, 2010)

rigidftw said:


> as i may have said somewhere before, i rode my 3speed as a 2speed manual, kicking the chain around. that was very good and with drop bars climbs were less of a problem. the small gear was 36:16 and the big one 46:16.
> 
> did you consider the width of the hammerschmidt? i almost hated all these htII cranks because of their wideness.


I can't imagine it being any wider then a two a three ring crank set.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

EstebanRapido said:


> I can't imagine it being any wider then a two a three ring crank set.


yup, sorry. shimano xt crank (770) has a q-factor of 175 and the hammerschmidt fr 177, am has 169.


----------



## brownrl (Jan 7, 2011)

Thread revival... a few questions before I go ordering parts...

Currently I run a 29er SS 32/20. Thinking about trying out 3x1. 22/32/42 / 18? Maybe 2x1?

I have some hills to contend with. Well not really hills... walls... Some I can power up with pre-speed, luck, determination, hulk mash! Others sorry there's just no way. 200m+ 17% rock gardens...

I have bad back disc that I need to nurse too... I need to stop the HULK Mash stints.

So I would love to drop down to a 'granny' 22/18 and putts my way up.

I am also the only one with the cahonas to do SS in my region so I find myself riding with geared people a lot. Thus, on the flats I max out and SPIN! ~23kph So I would love to rock out the 42/18 hit 30kph.

So my questions:

With this "Melvin" it can cover 20 teeth upfront?

It will keep the chain on the back cog for the different lines upfront?

Am I being delusional?

I am not looking to get the best of 3 worlds. I know the bike will no longer be SS. But I love the bike. It's steel, heavy, and I don't want to buy another bike, and given the hell mud conditions around me I would prefer to not run a traditional RD. I like the low maintenance of 1 rear cog. Plus my rear hub is a SS hub.


----------



## mmm...bicycles (Sep 30, 2007)

It can cover 20 teeth up front. But that is the max so your chain will be loosey goosey on the 22t and really taught on the 42t. I have used it alot with 32 and 44. It works great but in some rock gardens I would drop the chain off the 32t. But that was with out a front Derailleur holding the chain in place. 

The chain line will work. It is no different that having a derailleur. Just set it up so that the 32t has a straight chain line. If you ride alot with the 42t you might see some premature wear on the teeth. (they can get really sharp).


----------

