# I don't want a 1 X....



## Wankel7 (Jan 5, 2006)

It is time to replace my 2009ish Trek Top Fuel XC bike...beyond time actually. 

I love to spin, climb steep, and not walk my bike. All of the XC bikes I have looked at seem to have 1X drivetrains. My current triple crank has a better climbing gear than any of them. 

Are there are any XC bikes left that still have two or three rings up front?

I would love to keep it under 27lbs, dual suspension, and no more than 6K....

Thanks!


----------



## rangeriderdave (Aug 29, 2008)

I think you are going about it the wrong way. Find the bike you like ,make deal with the shop to swap out for a triple.they should do it at little to no cost to you. If you haven't you should look at a gear calculator .The differences are in the low percentages .


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Do the math- you can get a 1x with nearly the same range as a triple, and there are tons of bikes with doubles. Unless you are literally climbing walls like Spiderman, there's no need for a triple with modern drivetrains.

If you really want it, you can get unused front derailleurs and shifters at a dime a dozen now because everyone is ditching theirs.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Even if 1x has a one-tooth difficult gear...it still will make you stronger.


----------



## kazlx (Jun 13, 2005)

Your reasons are unfounded. Like already mentioned...you can get pretty much all the same ratios with a current 1X drivetrain. Try it. You won't go back.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> Do the math- you can get a 1x with nearly the same range as a triple, and there are tons of bikes with doubles. Unless you are literally climbing walls like Spiderman, there's no need for a triple with modern drivetrains.
> 
> If you really want it, you can get unused front derailleurs and shifters at a dime a dozen now because everyone is ditching theirs.


This.

For a concrete example, my 26" bike tends to alternate between a 22/32 and 22/34 granny, my 29er has a 22/36 granny and my 27.5" has a 1x with a 28t ring and 42t granny cog.

Something they all have in common is very close to the same granny gear. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

1x has some serious compromises, but low range gearing is not one of them. You should be able to hit the low gear you want with a 1x just fine.



rangeriderdave said:


> they should do it at little to no cost to you.


No. Shops are not charities.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Anything close to the same ratio in gearing will only make you stronger, as has been already stated.

1X drive trains are lighter in weight and as simple as it gets. 

For $6K, you can get a stellar XC or trail FS bike that weighs no more than 27 pounds.

Fear not Grasshopper, give the new technologies a try.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Note that a few of the new bikes CANNOT accommodate a front derailleur.

I have concerns about this as well. It's always possible to get low gearing with a small enough chainring, but only at the expense of the high gears, and I need them too, because I ride to my rides.

Methinks there be some wide-range ("pie-plate") cassettes in our future.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

The 'Eagle' has landed!!

-----------------------------------------------------------
Damage: 14' Kona Process 134, 12' Transition Bandit 29er


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

if the frame has ISCG05 tabs you can put a Hammerschmidt on it, though there is a small weight penalty but you will never see the front chain rings or ever worry about mis shifting as with conventional front derailleurs


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I guess I have to live with topping out at 19 mph.

I actually do find that 28/11 is a bit low for me when I have my dropper post down and I'm on a certain kind of descent - has to be fast, but also roll. So I guess if I try Enduro, love it, and want to make a more competitive bike, I'll have to either drop a low gear or get the next wider-range cassette - Shimano's 11-46 is due out this summer. SRAM already has a 10-50 out.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

This just about qualifies:

The Path Bike Shop | Orange County | CA | Bicycles | Mountain | Road | Custom Build | Repair | Bike Fit - Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt 799 MSL

Info


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I guess I have to live with topping out at 19 mph.
> 
> I actually do find that 28/11 is a bit low for me when I have my dropper post down and I'm on a certain kind of descent - has to be fast, but also roll. So I guess if I try Enduro, love it, and want to make a more competitive bike, I'll have to either drop a low gear or get the next wider-range cassette - Shimano's 11-46 is due out this summer. SRAM already has a 10-50 out.


I saw one in a shop just yesterday. Hella light, and freaking expensive!!


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

The aluminum Top Fuel is shown with a double in some models so a triple is an option. Check with Trek's online chat if the carbon frame is compatible. A carbon frame build up will get you the light bike with the stuff you want. Negotiate a discount with a manager only. 
If you ride in your middle ring except for climbing I'd go triple over double for no front shifts. A 38t double means lotsa front shifts during your non climbing segments.

More TF info-
Review: Trek Top Fuel 9.8 SL | BIKE Magazine

If you go 100mm fork I'd look at the Charger damper SID 2017 models in Boost.
With a 40mm id rim wheel you'll be able to try some of the 29+ tires in the future.


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

I did the 1x versus 2x mental mind game a short time ago.
To play the devils advocate a bit.
High end to low end range of a 1x can match a 2x drive train but what the 2x offers is closer ratios. For a lot of riding, a 1x is fine as you really only need the granny gears occasionally, but I ride a lot of forest service, fire roads, etc... (tour divide type of riding) where there can be a lot of long drawn out ascents as well as flats. The closer ratios of a 2x allow me to shift up or down a gear as the grade changes and keep a comfortable cadence. With my current gearing I have a low end of 24/36 (.66) and a high end of 40/11 (3.636).

I also looked at weight and cost. I was able to pick up XTR 2X10 components much cheaper that one of the newer 1x11 arrangements and the weight difference was not that great. I know that there is added complexity of the front derailleur, but I've never had issues with them. They just work.

My 2 cents FWIW.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> SRAM already has a 10-50 out.


$350-400, no thanks.

Nothing wrong with 1x but if the op wants 2 rings then go for it, choice is a good thing.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Nothing wrong with a XT 2X and plenty of bikes still come spec'd with them. I strongly suggest you do the math on the gear inches of what you have now and what you would get with a modern wide-range 1x..you will be suprised and likely not loose much (you will loose something...they ARE a compromise vs. 2x/3x). I love my 1x (older gen 11-36 w/a 32) but next bike will have the newer 11-speed to get a little more range.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

I think this thread needs to have this for reference:

Bike Gears calculator


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> $350-400, no thanks.
> 
> Nothing wrong with 1x but if the op wants 2 rings then go for it, choice is a good thing.


yea that is a joke, my sworks stumpy originally came with XX stuff and the cassettes were such poor quality it was absurd, as in chipped teeth in the first week of use. @ $300 a pop it didn't take long to swear off that stuff. 2x is definitely a possibility and maintaining cadence is a plus. I drool over a Pivot Mach 4 carbon, maybe without the di2 etc it comes in near $6k

BikeCalc.com - Bicycle Gear Inches Chart


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

The way I have done the eval is to create a spreadsheet with my current gearing and then run the numbers for the 1x I am looking at. Easy. I use Sheldon Brown's calculator. Easy to see what you gain/lose and then you can make an informed decision. I think most folks are going to miss low end vs. high end when leaving the 2x/3x world. I rarely if ever use my top ratio (32/11) but use my bottom ratio (32/36) quite often and was left wanting more grunt on the low end this year during a trip to the mountains with sustained climbing for ~1 hour/2000' (I did it, but was gassed for the second big climb of the day). A 32 with a 42 in the back would have been perfect.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

When people first started doing it as a conversion I decided to wait. It seemed more elegant to me but I know I like my granny gear. Spiderless cranks becoming more available (and my new bike shipping with it in the first place!) are what pushed me over the edge.

But I'm really tempted to make my 2x10 XC bike 1x11. Maybe this winter if I decide to race next year.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I think it comes down to this- 

If you can deal with a little lower top end gear, and I think most people easily can, then a ~400% ratio 1x11 or modified 1x10 with a 11-42 cassette is just dandy. If you really want the ~500% range most 2 or 3x's offer you either need to stick with multiple rings or pony up the big bucks for SRAM Eagle.

For now I'm really enjoying 2x because of the high quality/cheap parts factor but I suppose if you're dropping 6k on a bike that may not be an issue.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Agreed. At some point, you are better off with a 2x...front derailleurs work great nowadays and there is nothing wrong with having 2 rings instead of a 10-50.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

bakerjw said:


> I did the 1x versus 2x mental mind game a short time ago.
> To play the devils advocate a bit.
> High end to low end range of a 1x can match a 2x drive train but what the 2x offers is closer ratios. For a lot of riding, a 1x is fine as you really only need the granny gears occasionally, but I ride a lot of forest service, fire roads, etc... (tour divide type of riding) where there can be a lot of long drawn out ascents as well as flats. The closer ratios of a 2x allow me to shift up or down a gear as the grade changes and keep a comfortable cadence. With my current gearing I have a low end of 24/36 (.66) and a high end of 40/11 (3.636).
> 
> ...


^^This.

This Sram Pie Tin bullsh*t on the back wheel is just that....bullsh*t. The "complexity" of a front derailleur? :lol: Simple. Quit using Sram FD's. They suck and have always sucked. 1x will "make you stronger". :lol: Go get a single speed for a little more than the price of Srams new Pie Tin. Problem solved and you'll have another bike. N+1. Profit.

I saw the brand new bestest most awesomest Treks in my friends shop the other day. All with 2x drivetrains. Yeah...it's dead. :lol:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I gotta say that since 10-50 is only SRAM Eagle and the cassette costs $300, it's still more of a "modest proposal" drivetrain than one I'd seriously consider.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Shimano XT 2x (including the Di2) is a likely candidate for my next ride. Shimano front shifting is flawless.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

And a step up to the XTR is absolute nirvana!


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

TiGeo said:


> Shimano XT 2x (including the Di2) is a likely candidate for my next ride. Shimano front shifting is flawless.


It is kine of nice to top over a sharp hill, one-shift that front derailleur and go full-bore.


----------



## EBG 18T (Dec 31, 2005)

It's all preference. I am running a 30T front with XTR 11-40 cassette with great range for XC use for me. The other bike (now the wife's) has a double up front (24T-36T) with 11-36 cassette. Both work fine, both shift well.

I used to run XTR 3x9 w 11-32 and used it all over the US at XC & 24HR races. Since going to a 1x11 I don't feel I am missing anything. With the clutched rear derailleur there is no chain slap and drivetrain is even quieter.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

i tend to agree with baker and sack above. although both my bikes are 1x it is a function of where and how I ride. if i were still in SoCal backcountry I'd want that 2x setup, or even the fire roads at MTRP are serious grades.

mid-atlantic just not an issue unless you spend a lot if time in certain parts of GWNF, which i have not.

if Di2 comes down to lower models I will seriously consider over a 1x with 60t in the back. at some point you might as well have both a SS Bike for the "character building", an E Bike for fun and goofing, and then your "go to" bikes that are sone combo of 1x, 2x, Di2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

My 1x bike is also my first multi-release bike. I'm surprised to care about that function, but it does a lot to make up for losing that big front shift.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

What is "multirelease"?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

TiGeo said:


> What is "multirelease"?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I am guessing that he means that the shifter can quick shift through several gears at a time. Like Shimano XTR does.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

XT 10 speed shifters have multi-release. It allows you to shift to gears from larger cog to smaller cog with one pull. You can also shift one if you like. Pull a little and it will go one gear, pull a little more and it will jump two.

I use it all the time when I crest hills or when I'm going down a slight grade I'll hit it a couple times.

You can also shift all the way from 10 to 2 in two full thumb swipes.

I like Shimano shifters A LOT.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Got it. Sounds like a nice feature. I just go..click click click!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Yeah - I poo-pood multi release because really, how long does each click take. Paired with a nice cassette with good timing between the shift gates, I'm really flying across gears.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

l'oiseau said:


> XT 10 speed shifters have multi-release. It allows you to shift to gears from larger cog to smaller cog with one pull. You can also shift one if you like. Pull a little and it will go one gear, pull a little more and it will jump two.
> 
> I use it all the time when I crest hills or when I'm going down a slight grade I'll hit it a couple times.
> 
> ...


I believe that XTR will jump 3 gears with one long pull.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Curveball said:


> It is kine of nice to top over a sharp hill, one-shift that front derailleur and go full-bore.


Likewise, it's kinda dumb climbing up in the middle ring and the easiest rear gear and having to dump the front AND shift the rear to get to the next lowest ratio. I remember how I always had to monkey-motion that gear-shift, to get to the granny. Dumb. I just want an easier gear and simplicity. That's what 1x does.

With the front cogs available now and rear cassettes for 1x, people are putting lower gears on their bikes than they ever had with 2 or 3 chainrings, yet they beg for easier pedaling. Well, there are always E-bikes.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

TiGeo said:


> Got it. Sounds like a nice feature. I just go..click click click!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I have 10spd shifter without that function on my other bike. click, click, click works fine, but if you try the multi-release, it actually works better. It does a pretty clean shift in one stroke.



Hawg said:


> I believe that XTR will jump 3 gears with one long pull.


Might be. XTR is above my pay grade...


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

Swing a leg over the Pivot 429Trail with 2X. I have one and it climbs fine and has the lower gearing that I need. I tried a 1X and just couldn't climb with it. Maybe being an old fart has something to do with it


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

bakerjw said:


> High end to low end range of a 1x can match a 2x drive train but what the 2x offers is closer ratios.


this is probably the pivotal distinction that must be made when choosing between a 1x and 2x drivetrain. your riding style and terrain will tell you what's more important.

for me, I don't live near mountains but I ride some trails that have seriously rocky, rooty technical climbs out of river ravines and rolling terrain with lots of boulders and ledges. I ride single-speed at least 50% of the time, and throw a 1x9 setup when I get sick of the SS setup. since this has always been my drivetrain, I never learned to spin gears, I mash everything. so the jumps on a 1x9 (32x11-34) drivetrain and lack of a gear that with give me the "right" cadence don't bother me. but for a ride who knows how to use lots of gear combos effectively, having a 2x or even 3x up front is terribly useful. those people are probably better, faster, more efficient riders than me for it, too. I like the simplicity of the 1x and just pedal harder with the going gets tough and it never bothers me that I don't have a better gear, but for someone who knows how to use more gears, I can see how this would be frustrating.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> this is probably the pivotal distinction that must be made when choosing between a 1x and 2x drivetrain. your riding style and terrain will tell you what's more important.


I prefer the cheaper parts, longer service life, superior chain retention, smoother suspension action, and greater efficiency a 2x system offers. Don't care about tight ratios.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I like to think I have really clean pedaling technique.

Big jumps really only bother me on the road, in a pace line or maybe doing intervals, though. Stuff just changes to often on my trails too.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Yeah - I poo-pood multi release because really, how long does each click take. Paired with a nice cassette with good timing between the shift gates, I'm really flying across gears.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


I shift a lot when I ride and really like the multi-release XT shifters that I put on my bike. It's definitely a cool feature.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Not a Campy fan, but Campy has had it on high-end road shifters for years. It's a feature with no consequential benefit, IMO.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Finch Platte said:


> I saw one in a shop just yesterday. Hella light, and freaking expensive!!
> 
> View attachment 1082531


YAY! Light AND expensive....I hope it isn't durable. (Of course, I have my eyes on it as well.)


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm not a fan of Grip Shift, but the new stuff works really well on a 1x setup. You can shift the entire cassette almost instantly. Not sure if SRAM makes it in 11-speed, but it was great for the 10-speed setup I was using for a while.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

unless you go Eagle, 1x ends up being heavier than ancient 3x9
also think of all the unsprung mass of cheaper wide range cassettes
isn't the new 11-46 XT something like 580 gm, whereas an old 9 speed 11-32 XT was something like 250 gm (and XTR was likely under 200 gm for 8 speed)


----------



## jsharpe (Jan 15, 2006)

Dirtrider127 said:


> Swing a leg over the Pivot 429Trail with 2X. I have one and it climbs fine and has the lower gearing that I need. I tried a 1X and just couldn't climb with it. Maybe being an old fart has something to do with it


I'll chime in here to +1 the "old fart" factor. As a card carrying member of that group I also ride at reasonably high elevations (can't compete with those Bolivians . My house is at 9600' and I typically ride up from here with lots of long climbs and decents. I'm really spoiled by my old triple (22/32/44) which has a range of more than 650%. I did a 38 mile loop yesterday with about 6800' of elevation gained and lost. The combination of my age, the elevation where I mostly ride, and grade of the trails I like all factor into wanting as much range as I can get.

While i'm intrigued by the 1x12 Eagle and could easily match my low end, giving up that much on the top end isn't something I'm eager to do. 500% is great for a 1x but still way short of what's possible with more rings.

The weight savings is somewhat interesting, but my current 100mm FS 27.5 daily ride (Blur XCc) with the weight penalty of all those triple components comes in at exactly 21lbs including pedals, a full load of Stan's, cycle computer stuff, and a bit mud thrown in to even it out. So it's light enough already that shaving a bit more wouldn't really matter.

Bottom line for me is what others have already said. I.e 1x (or even single speed) is great for lots of people depending on their ability and where they ride, but there are still a few of us that appreciate what a substantially wider range can offer and I hope companies continue to engineer things that can deliver different options. (E.g Race Face with their G4 Next SL cranks that offers great options for 1, 2 or 3 rings).


----------



## jsharpe (Jan 15, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm not a fan of Grip Shift, but the new stuff works really well on a 1x setup. You can shift the entire cassette almost instantly. Not sure if SRAM makes it in 11-speed, but it was great for the 10-speed setup I was using for a while.


I _am_ a fan of Grip Shift and was pleased to see that SRAM is offering that option for the Eagle. Although see my other post about why it still probably isn't the best options for me. I do agree about the convenience of slewing threw a stupid number of gears in either direction though.


----------



## powert01 (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/mojo_3/
http://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/mojo_hd3/
http://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripley_29/
Here are three options with 2X...

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## powert01 (Sep 12, 2013)

Configure these with Deore XT and you are at $6100 MSRP. 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## powert01 (Sep 12, 2013)

If you go 1X you can get under $4000 easily. 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

After converting to 1x, I'll never go back. Outside of a serious life changing injury, I can't see a use for it.

But there are a lot of bikes on the showroom floor at my LBS with Shimano 2x systems. I don't see how that is hard to find. What you like is what you like.



ccm said:


> unless you go Eagle, 1x ends up being heavier than ancient 3x9
> also think of all the unsprung mass of cheaper wide range cassettes
> isn't the new 11-46 XT something like 580 gm, whereas an old 9 speed 11-32 XT was something like 250 gm (and XTR was likely under 200 gm for 8 speed)


I weighed my parts before and after, I lost a full pound converting my 2x10 to 1x.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm very happy with my 2X10. I don't see a
reason to change.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ccm said:


> unless you go Eagle, 1x ends up being heavier than ancient 3x9
> also think of all the unsprung mass of cheaper wide range cassettes
> isn't the new 11-46 XT something like 580 gm, whereas an old 9 speed 11-32 XT was something like 250 gm (and XTR was likely under 200 gm for 8 speed)


No, not even close. I'm on 1x, 30x11-36 XT cassette, I don't have a front derailleur, front shifter, front cable/housing, and 2 front chainrings. That's some pretty serious weight savings. I may not have the biggest gear ratio, but a wolf-tooth 1up isn't any significant weight gain due to being aluminum, and going to a Sram 1x11 setup weighs about the same as what I run now (cassette would be a little lighter, derailleur a little heavier).

You don't need a 11-46t cassette, you could run an 11-42, a 30t chainring, or a 28t chainring, etc. People seem to forget that just a few years ago, somehow they survived with 32 and 34t cassettes, the 34t if you wanted "extra range". How does that compare these days to running 30t on a 42t cassette or larger? Those 36 cassettes were fairly recent additions, although short-lived..


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Remember...the wide range is more than the bottom end....those 46 etc. cogs allow you to run a larger chainring for more top end. A 28/11 isn't going to cut it for some folks.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
I was thinking about that the other day. I'm thinking about changing my XC bike over to 1x, since I like it a lot on my trail bike. But I really like my 22/36 granny. I get close enough, I think, if I do a 26t ring but I'm finding I do run out of top end on my trail bike now and then. I don't race it, so whatever. But on the XC bike, I'd hate to lose a drive for the line or a singletrack entrance because I ran out of gears. 11-46 gives me a little more range to raise that top end a bit.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

1X for this grumpy old man and will never go back to a front derailleur. In past 3 years my riding group has all switched over to 1X and universally love it. If the OP was a friend of mine I'd try to convince him to make the change as well. It doesn't make any difference to me if people love their old tech, but it's going to dry up eventually when 10-50 makes it down to GX level in 4 years or so.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I really hope they (I mean SRAM and Shimano) continue to offer 1x10 for years to come... for those of us who don't need the extra weight, complexity or gearing of 1x11 or 12. I'm sure that won't be the case though...

As a guy at my LBS shop said, you can have 11 (soon 12) or 1... nothing in between.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

l'oiseau said:


> I really hope they (I mean SRAM and Shimano) continue to offer 1x10 for years to come... for those of us who don't need the extra weight, complexity or gearing of 1x11 or 12. I'm sure that won't be the case though...
> 
> As a guy at my LBS shop said, you can have 11 (soon 12) or 1... nothing in between.


Sunrace makes a decent 10 speed 11-42 cassette and they still make 8 and 9 speed stuff as well. Normally wear parts like chains, rings and cassettes are available so I think they will keep making it. There is still good quality 9 speed stuff out there.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The 6-speed stuff out there is probably better than it was when it was the hot new thing.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> 1X for this grumpy old man and will never go back to a front derailleur. In past 3 years my riding group has all switched over to 1X and universally love it.


What sort of hills do you have? Do you all drive to the trails or ride there?



Travis Bickle said:


> If the OP was a friend of mine I'd try to convince him to make the change as well. It doesn't make any difference to me if people love their old tech, but it's going to dry up eventually when 10-50 makes it down to GX level in 4 years or so.


In 4 years they will be selling us "picodrive": 10-50 but 1/3 smaller, smaller teeth on the cogs, smaller links on the chain, and all made out of titanium. 🏦


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

andytiedye said:


> In 4 years they will be selling us "picodrive": 10-50 but 1/3 smaller, smaller teeth on the cogs, smaller links on the chain, and all made out of titanium. ?


I think you're on to something, there. We'll call it 'Picco de Biko'


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

andytiedye said:


> What sort of hills do you have? Do you all drive to the trails or ride there?


Ahh yes, the "hills". Nevermind the fact that SSers somehow manage to get up hills, the 1-by setups we are using now are geared the same or lower than the 22-34 and 22-32 triple setups that were popular just a few years ago. Somehow we managed to make it up hills with those triple setups, so we should do just fine with the same or lower gear ratios on 1-by. One thing I like is that in races, it's much easier to just have to worry about shifting with one hand. You might be able to drop more gear range with a well-adjusted derailleur (3x was always a trainwreck for derailleur operation, 2x was a little better), but it is always over shooting or undershooting the gear you are looking for in a race by a significant amount. Being able to work the gear ratios and just go up and down a few gears on one ring makes a big difference to me.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

andytiedye said:


> What sort of hills do you have? Do you all drive to the trails or ride there?
> 
> In 4 years they will be selling us "picodrive": 10-50 but 1/3 smaller, smaller teeth on the cogs, smaller links on the chain, and all made out of titanium. ?


We have mountains and I can hit the trails 5 Min from my house or ride the road 9km to another system. I have the same granny as my old 9 speed 26er.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

One thing about gearing...it always seems worse until you actually try it i.e. granny gear differences going from multi to 1x. I will also say that after riding with my 1x (32 w/ a 11-36) in the mountains for the first time last month, 4 tooth difference wasn't quite enough for sustained climbing of ~2000' in 4ish miles. I'm a strong rider..I needed more gear but certainly made it without a bunch of drama. With a 1×11 (32 w/ a 11-42) I would have had plenty of gear (10 tooth difference) or even just a 30 in the front.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

Fwiw, I'm with the op. There are other advantages to having a fd other than wider gear range. Having the lower gearing available during climbs doesn't prevent me from using higher gearing. Nor does it prevent me from single speeding an xc trail.


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Check this out - you can even compare side by side - you don't give up much with 1x11 - https://www.gear-calculator.com/

Or look here:


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

tealy said:


> I rode 1x for a year and hated every minute of it. It was a nightmare. More money. More chain drops. More rear derailleurs ripped off. More friction in the granny. More cross chaining. Less range. More wear on the chain ring. Constant double and triple shifting. Awful in every way.
> 
> Switched back to 2x and never been happier. **** I'd even run a 3x. Those drive trains are perfected. Run them for years with no issues.


Amazing the differences people will get. Mine is flawless. Yes...I get a little more wear but the shifting is spot-on. Zero chain drops. Glad you are back on what works for you...2x is certainly, as you say, perfected at this point.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

tealy said:


> I rode 1x for a year and hated every minute of it. It was a nightmare. More money. More chain drops. More rear derailleurs ripped off. More friction in the granny. More cross chaining. Less range. More wear on the chain ring. Constant double and triple shifting. Awful in every way.
> 
> Switched back to 2x and never been happier. **** I'd even run a 3x. Those drive trains are perfected. Run them for years with no issues.


I dropped a chain in my last XC, but that was the only one I have had in 700 miles on that bike (all hard riding). I haven't lost a derailleur yet in about 2200 miles. I rarely use my 42, but when I do it is totally smooth.

I don't get the how you can have to require more double/triple shifting, and complain about less range. Those two things are basically opposites. You have to shift more with a 2x or 3x since the steps are closer together. The same reason I don't like riding a CX that is 2x, too much shifting.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Single front derailleur shifts can address terrain changes that require clicking up or down through a few cogs.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

But you should be able to grab a few gears on the rear faster than you can change chainrings with the f. der.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

TiGeo said:


> But you should be able to grab a few gears on the rear faster than you can change chainrings with the f. der.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


No. Not in my experience.

That's exactly why I won't consider 1x. Plus simultaneous shifting for even bigger instant ratio changes.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rlouder said:


> No. Not in my experience.
> 
> That's exactly why I won't consider 1x. Plus simultaneous shifting for even bigger instant ratio changes.


So when you reach the end of your cassette, you instantly wish you could drop down an entire order of magnitude, rather than go to a slightly easier gear? In other words, in your car, do you usually down shift from 5th to 2nd?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Single front derailleur shifts can address terrain changes that require clicking up or down through a few cogs.
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


If that were true, cars would have 3 gears instead of 8 or 10, but in reality, as you approach a grade, the change isn't instant, so you downshift AND keep pedaling, going through multiple gears until you reach your "sustainable gear". Shifting down through the entire range to this gear instantly will make you lose speed and time.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rlouder said:


> Having the lower gearing available during climbs doesn't prevent me from using higher gearing. Nor does it prevent me from single speeding an xc trail.


What I find most interesting is that people keep claiming that they were ruining and riding lower gearing.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Jayem said:


> If that were true, cars would have 3 gears instead of 8 or 10, but in reality, as you approach a grade, the change isn't instant, so you downshift AND keep pedaling, going through multiple gears until you reach your "sustainable gear". Shifting down through the entire range to this gear instantly will make you lose speed and time.


I actually do find multiple gear shifts useful on my bike, though I'm more likely to double-shift the rear. Most frequently, it's transitioning between pedaling seated and standing. That's about a three cog difference for me if the grade change is modest. On a mellower day, I might also do it on a trail with much steeper switchbacks than straight sections.

I don't care enough about my driving to have a manual. But now and then I floor it and my car downshifts twice.

I'm actually in the "yay 1x" camp at this point. Though I think the multi release function on my shifter is pretty cool.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

Only bike I run a 1x on is the cyclocross bike I race. Just makes sense when you think of the mud and gunk, plus cross courses don't have the terrain like mountain biking does. Mountain biking... I'm 2x all the way. Just bought a new XC race bike with a 2x11. I like the variety and expanded chance of having the right gear where I can spin a happy cadence for my knees. I'm not a masher, and I see a whole lot of mashing going on with people running 1x.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Jayem said:


> So when you reach the end of your cassette, you instantly wish you could drop down an entire order of magnitude, rather than go to a slightly easier gear? In other words, in your car, do you usually down shift from 5th to 2nd?


I do this occasionally on my road bike (2x)...top of hill...in granny ring....spin up cadence and slam into the big ring.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

sooshee said:


> Only bike I run a 1x on is the cyclocross bike I race. Just makes sense when you think of the mud and gunk, plus cross courses don't have the terrain like mountain biking does. Mountain biking... I'm 2x all the way. Just bought a new XC race bike with a 2x11. I like the variety and expanded chance of having the right gear where I can spin a happy cadence for my knees. I'm not a masher, and I see a whole lot of mashing going on with people running 1x.


Yep....1x would be really good for CX racing b/c you don't need a huge range and the climbs are only short and punch. I have considered converting my CX/gravel machine over but use it as a road bike occasionally so want to keep the big range.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Jayem said:


> So when you reach the end of your cassette, you instantly wish you could drop down an entire order of magnitude, rather than go to a slightly easier gear? In other words, in your car, do you usually down shift from 5th to 2nd?


Good analogy - I still drive a stick and you are correct, one at a time! Bike aren't cars though and you can inject a large power spike to get through the larger jump in ratios better than your car can.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I often do a double-shift (click click) when I stop a hill on my 1x to get enough gear to step on it...I don't see this as a big deal. On the climbing end, I just shift continuously as I start to loose speed/slow cadence when the climb starts until I reach the appropriate gear. On a multi ring, I would have likely been in the middle ring so same, but if in the big ring, I would have grabbed 2 more in the back before dumping the front to avoid a large increase in cadence which could result in loss of traction..its really the same (to me).


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Jayem said:


> So when you reach the end of your cassette, you instantly wish you could drop down an entire order of magnitude, rather than go to a slightly easier gear? In other words, in your car, do you usually down shift from 5th to 2nd?


Those are entirely different gearing applications. Where I live, many of the trails are half-buried in brush with trees on either side making for extremely limited sight lines. That makes it difficult to see an upcoming rise or drop in the terrain and rather hard to anticipate gear changes. Very significant slope changes are hidden until you're right there and then having the ability to instantly make big gear changes is rather nice to have.

That's a condition particular to my part of the world and the desire for those sort of gear changes may not work so well in other areas with longer sight lines and the ability to anticipate large slope changes.


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

TiGeo said:


> Yep....1x would be really good for CX racing b/c you don't need a huge range and the climbs are only short and punch. I have considered converting my CX/gravel machine over but use it as a road bike occasionally so want to keep the big range.


Yeah, I once went on a gravel group ride, and none of us had ridden the roads before and didn't realize the amount of climbing. Here I am on my 1x cross bike with a 40t and 11-32 cassette, mashing up these insane climbs for 20 minutes at a cadence of probably 30... my knees hated me for weeks! I do have a 2x cross bike I've been meaning to change the cassette and chainrings on to make it more road/gravel friendly, just haven't gotten around to do. I race SS cross mostly, so at least on cross courses I'm use to standing and just mashing up punches and climbs that it doesn't bother me as much. It has translated ok over to MTB on some things, but for those long extended climbs I like to spin fast.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

To do 1x on my gravel/CX rig, it would be a 11-40 cassette with a 42t..that would be close to the range I get with a 11-32 and a 50/34 (my CruX has compact gearing...much more range than the standard CX 36/46 with a 11-28). I would loose my top 3 ratios in the big ring...honestly I hardly ever use them.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

mack_turtle said:


> Do the math- you can get a 1x with nearly the same range as a triple, and there are tons of bikes with doubles. Unless you are literally climbing walls like Spiderman, there's no need for a triple with modern drivetrains.
> 
> If you really want it, you can get unused front derailleurs and shifters at a dime a dozen now because everyone is ditching theirs.


I run a triple and running the numbers you can't get the range of a 3x9 with a 1x11. You can get the low end, but will lose the top end. Most riders tend to lose a little on both and call it good. The new 1x12 might be better, but these are costly now. Even so I think there is little downside to a front derailuer if the frame will accept one. Some new frames don't.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Jayem said:


> ...People seem to forget that just a few years ago, somehow they survived with 32 and 34t cassettes, the 34t if you wanted "extra range". How does that compare these days to running 30t on a 42t cassette or larger? Those 36 cassettes were fairly recent additions, although short-lived..


 I lived with 34t cassette since 2003. However I also had 22t front small ring and had 26" wheels. The 36t cog counter acts the 29" wheel increase in diameter. Riding in 22/34 or 22/36 is slow, but handy for that long grind. 3.9 mph is still faster than walking at 2.5. I will also say the nice thing about a triple is like having 1x9, but also having low gears when you really need them or big gears for that 25mph pavement spin. In doing races like the Whiskey 50 I have spent extended time(2 hr 12 mile climb) in 4mph to 6mph range which is perfect for that 22t granny and near the end of the race there is a 25-30 mph pavement spin to finish the race where the big gears really help.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

How many people _realistically_ need the high gear on a 3x?


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

RS VR6 said:


> How many people _realistically_ need the high gear on a 3x?


I have a 3x9 on my 29er HT. I want the top end on that. On my 5" trail bike my big end ratio is just a 32x11 with 27.5" wheels. It has 22/32 2x10. I am giving up top end on that, but so far it seems ok given the way I ride that bike. Still need to ride it more to determine if I can get by with that. With trail bike I got it with a 1x10 with a 32t and 11-36. Climbing in some trails was just too tough in the 32x36 and I considered many options staying 1x, but in the end 2x was so much cheaper. I can still ride it like a 1x10 with 32t, but have that nice bailout when going up something really steep of if just want to cruise up vs powering up a climb. The 5" trail bike is more of "casual" climbing bike anyway, but my 29er HT is make for speed. Fast climbing or long killer climbs. For the occasional XC race, Endurance race, super long ride or bikepacking trip.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

RS VR6 said:


> How many people _realistically_ need the high gear on a 3x?


I rode 3X for a very long time and rarely used the big ring. It probably wasn't worth the complexity.

In my opinion, 2X is a pretty good way of doing things and 1X may be even better (or not) depending on the rider and their individual circumstances.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I've got two bikes. A 29r HT (1x10) and a 275 FS (1x11). Both bikes run 1x. 30T and 11-42 HT, 10-42 FS.

Riding in So Cal...sometimes I wish I had a lower gear...but pretty much never a higher gear. If a climb is steep enough that it requires me to use the 42 to get up, coming down will take me beyond 30mph (if the trail will allow it) without having to pedal. Unless you've got miles and miles of straight fire road descents...not sure how much use the big ring on a 3x you'll actually use. I've had 3x, 2x, now 1x. Not looking back. Every time I get back on my road bike...it reminds me of how dirty front shifting is.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

RS VR6 said:


> How many people _realistically_ need the high gear on a 3x?


Approximately 0%, need and want are two different things though.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

This thread is entertaining. One point is made and then it's buried by another. And so on, and so on...


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Jayem said:


> If that were true, cars would have 3 gears instead of 8 or 10, but in reality, as you approach a grade, the change isn't instant, so you downshift AND keep pedaling, going through multiple gears until you reach your "sustainable gear". Shifting down through the entire range to this gear instantly will make you lose speed and time.


No road has a grade that changes a suddenly as anything you would see on a mtb trail.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Hawg said:


> This thread is entertaining. One point is made and then it's buried by another. And so on, and so on...


It is funny. I really don't see anything wrong with people preferring one over the other. But the justifications are pretty silly.

Just pick the one you like best. I prefer 1x, suits my riding.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

tealy said:


> 6 reasons why the front derallieur kicks ass.
> 
> 1) You're bombing down a hill in a high gear but then the trail switches to steep uphill. DUMP DOWN A CHAINRING NO BIGGIE.
> 
> ...


All points related to flat or downhill well taken. However, I would guess most of us aren't using 5 inch travel trail bikes to speed down wide, graded fire roads. The stuff I ride needs technique, and there is no need to pedal with how steep / technical it can get.

When I had a 2x in would frequently over power the FD during those oh **** moments. The FD gets overpowered and won't shift unless you take pressure off and then you stall out and you're toast.

No need to think about cross chaining. Chain is quieter as it's shorter and doesn't hop up and down as much, and the chain rings are narrow wide so never drop a chain. Shimano shifter lets you come up the cassette 3 gears at a time, come down 2 at a time. Lose 2 pounds of weight and all of the cable mess. Lose one more thing to go wrong on the trail.


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tealy said:


> Shifting 101. Don't shift under power, brah.
> 
> Goes to show. People love 1x because people don't know how to shift.





tealy said:


> I rode 1x for a year and hated every minute of it. It was a nightmare. More money. More chain drops. More rear derailleurs ripped off. More friction in the granny. More cross chaining. Less range. More wear on the chain ring. Constant double and triple shifting. Awful in every way.
> 
> Switched back to 2x and never been happier. **** I'd even run a 3x. Those drive trains are perfected. Run them for years with no issues.


Aren't you the person that mentioned blowing up derailleurs when you ran 1x?

I've been on the same two XX1 RDs and cassettes since late 2013. Good number of chains, but at <$20, maintenance is not an issue.

A rider, like a car, should have a good, broad power band. For me, it's 60-120rpm. Above that in short stints. I can go on a road group ride with a 34T * 10-42T on my 29er and keep up no problem.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

6 reasons why the front derailleur can suck a fat one.


1) You're bombing down a hill in a high gear but then the trail switches to steep uphill. DUMP DOWN A CHAINRING THEN CURSE AND SWEAR AS YOUR CHAIN DROPS PAST THE GRANNY AND YOU HAVE TO STOP WHILE SOME KID ON HIS 1X PLOWS PAST YOU.

2) You get to the top of a steep ass hill and now there's a sweet downhill. PUSH UP A CHAINRING NO BIGGIE, JUST LISTEN TO THAT SWEET MUSIC OF GRINDING GEARS WHILE TRYING TWO COORDINATE TWO SHIFTERS AND A DROPPER POST.

3) You're cruising down a fire road having a breather between trails, then suddenly out of nowhere some dirt-roadie-strava-douche SHIFTS INTO BIG RING AND BLOWS PAST YOU SO HE CAN HOLD YOU UP ON THE NEXT SINGLETRACK WHEN HIS FRONT DERAILLEUR FAILS AGAIN.

4) You're riding in the alps and want to leisurely spin up all day and then slay downhill on the way back. YOU BROUGHT YOUR ROAD BIKE TO THE ALPS, WTF WERE YOU THINKING! GO HOME AND GET YOUR 1X MOUNTAIN BIKE. 

5) You're a cargo loser and want to carry a lot of things with a beard for instagrams likes. WTF ARE YOU HAULING CARGO ON YOUR MOUNTAIN BIKE FOR, GO HOME AND GET YOUR CARGO BIKE WITH FRONT DERAILLEUR YOU MUPPET.

6) You want an affordable drive train that works. GO BUY A SRAM GX 1X, DON'T OVER COMPLICATE THAT **** WITH EXTRA SHIFTERS AND CABLES!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

David R said:


> DON'T OVER COMPLICATE THAT **** WITH EXTRA SHIFTERS AND CABLES!


If a front derailleur is too much complexity for you, you probably don't belong on a bike.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Uh, ohhh! Now the flaming begins... :lol:


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

tiretracks said:


> If a front derailleur is too much complexity for you, you probably don't belong on a bike.


That's why I ride a rigid brakeless fixie singlespeed with solid plastic wheels/tyres.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Who in the multi-ring camp have actually ridden a 1x? Your opinions are valid.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

David R said:


> COMPLICATE THAT **** WITH EXTRA SHIFTERS AND CABLES!


You describe all these issues, and in all my years of riding with a front derailleur, I've had none of them. Maybe I just keep my bikes in a tuned and well-working condition...



TiGeo said:


> Who in the multi-ring camp have actually ridden a 1x? Your opinions are valid.


Me, me, me!  Not extensively, but I have ridden them. I actually had my best experience with 1x on a Salsa fat bike demo. But fat biking in snow is a weird thing, much like my love for 1x in cyclocross.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

David R said:


> That's why I ride a rigid brakeless fixie singlespeed with solid plastic wheels/tyres.


You too?



Hawg said:


> Uh, ohhh! Now the flaming begins... :lol:


:madman:



Le Duke said:


> Aren't you the person that mentioned blowing up derailleurs when you ran 1x?


I'm on my same X01 and XX1 with roughly 2000 miles. One bent hanger...but that would have happened on an 8 speed.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

tealy said:


> Shifting 101. Don't shift under power, brah.
> 
> Goes to show. People love 1x because people don't know how to shift.


Racing 101. Shi(f)t happens.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

TiGeo said:


> Who in the multi-ring camp have actually ridden a 1x? Your opinions are valid.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I tried a 1x10 and went back to 3x. I ride a mtb like a road bike though, high cadences. I think the 2 and 3x's are good for "aerobic dirt", miles long uphill grinds. It's nice to have the closer gear spacing to keep the cadence up. I can also see the attraction of the 1x in some cases, horses for courses.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

mack_turtle said:


> No road has a grade that changes a suddenly as anything you would see on a mtb trail.


And no trail I've encountered changes grades so suddenly that your speed stops that abruptly. Have to shift a few gears at once, sure. Have to drop the chainring? Any time I can remember that means too little resistance and pedaling that causes you to spin too fast, resulting in lost speed.


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

tiretracks said:


> I tried a 1x10 and went back to 3x. I ride a mtb like a road bike though, high cadences. I think the 2 and 3x's are good for "aerobic dirt", miles long uphill grinds. It's nice to have the closer gear spacing to keep the cadence up. I can also see the attraction of the 1x in some cases, horses for courses.


That's my biggest thing, the high cadence. I ride the same way! I do have a single speed, and try to get out on that to train myself to be more use to the low cadence work, but on my geared bikes I like all the options for the perfect cadence!

Honestly, if I lived in a different geographical area than Wyoming, like say maybe the midwest or south, I could see doing 1x as it's rare to be climbing for 20+ minutes.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

sooshee said:


> Honestly, if I lived in a different geographical area than Wyoming, like say maybe the midwest or south, I could see doing 1x as it's rare to be climbing for 20+ minutes.


??

Why? Are you saying you rode lower gear combinations with 2 and 3x? It simply isn't so. How do SSers climb? Is it even possible?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

sooshee said:


> That's my biggest thing, the high cadence. I ride the same way! I do have a single speed, and try to get out on that to train myself to be more use to the low cadence work, but on my geared bikes I like all the options for the perfect cadence!
> 
> Honestly, if I lived in a different geographical area than Wyoming, like say maybe the midwest or south, I could see doing 1x as it's rare to be climbing for 20+ minutes.


I like a high cadence too.

I stuck a small ring on the front of my 1x setup. Gear spacing on 1x11 is no different than it is on my 2x10.

TBH, I often shift up and down multiple gears at a time off-road. Given a choice, I climb trails. So the grade changes can be a little more abrupt. And the difference between my seated and standing cadence is about three cogs if I'm not changing the speed I'm traveling.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

ccm said:


> unless you go Eagle, 1x ends up being heavier than ancient 3x9 also think of all the unsprung mass of cheaper wide range cassettes
> isn't the new 11-46 XT something like 580 gm, whereas an old 9 speed 11-32 XT was something like 250 gm (and XTR was likely under 200 gm for 8 speed)


totally wrong. I've done 1x conversions from 2x and 3x. have you? my recent 2x conversion to 1x saved 1 pound 10 ounces (park tool scale, yes, I took pics).

xg-1195 is 286g. that's the X0-level 11 speed 10-42 cassette. people get excited about how heavy the NX-level cassette is, but there are many other options.

triple cranks are much heavier than 1x spiderless. then you have the front derailleur, front shifter, cable housing.

it's absurd to try to say that 3x9 is the same weight.

...

separate myth in this thread is that 2x is closer ratios than 1x. it can be, if you want, and you keep it to 11-36 cassette. (hell, why not 11-32 if you like tighter ratios so much - then you'll get the 11-12-14 that only one 11-36 10 speed cassette offers.)

11-36 ten speed is actually the same percent changes as 10-42 except for a nasty 10->12 jump at the bottom of the cassette. you can use a shimano 11-42 11 speed instead, if you want. but then if you're using shimano 11-46, or anything wider, now you are in the same ratio changes as SRAM 10-42 11s or 10-50 12s.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

First trail ride on my recent (and LAST) 3x10 bike:

About 100 yards in my front derailleur spins loose into my big chainring and not only snaps my chain and bends my derailleur but takes out my big ring.

I fixed the chain and bent the derailleur to work and stay in the middle ring so at least I could ride, but it wasn't a pleasant experience.

Totally a fluke, but it could happen to you!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

l'oiseau said:


> First trail ride on my recent (and LAST) 3x10 bike:
> 
> About 100 yards in my front derailleur spins loose into my big chainring and not only snaps my chain and bends my derailleur but takes out my big ring.
> 
> ...


Fluke? Sounds like an assembly or maintenance issue.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> Fluke? Sounds like an assembly or maintenance issue.


Yeah, isn't a fluke an improbable occurrence? How many times have you heard of that kind of thing happening?

It's cool you were able to deduce assembly or maintenance of the bike based on that little bit of info.

FWIW it was relatively new bike that had only about 100 miles of road riding on it and had been chainring shifted many, many times.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

l'oiseau said:


> Yeah, isn't a fluke an improbable occurrence? How many times have you heard of that kind of thing happening?
> 
> *It's cool you were able to deduce assembly or maintenance of the bike based on that little bit of info.
> *
> FWIW it was relatively new bike that had only about 100 miles of road riding on it and had been chainring shifted many, many times.


It's a simple deduction that anyone can (and should) make. The only way this is possible is if the front derailleur is a clamp-on, and the clamp is loose. They don't break. It's difficult but not impossible to cross-thread. When a derailleur cage breaks, the clamp stays in place and you lose the chain, but the derailleur doesn't go into the chainrings.

Therefore, it's almost certainly the clamp.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

ColinL said:


> It's a simple deduction that anyone can (and should) make. The only way this is possible is if the front derailleur is a clamp-on, and the clamp is loose. They don't break. It's difficult but not impossible to cross-thread. When a derailleur cage breaks, the clamp stays in place and you lose the chain, but the derailleur doesn't go into the chainrings.
> 
> Therefore, it's almost certainly the clamp.


It surely was the clamp where it twisted, but I've seen a number of bikes that had the derailleur twist out of alignment but never take out themselves and a chainring.

Should one diligently check the tension of the clamp every ride?

I've ridden 3Xs since I started riding. I never once touched a derailleur clamp.

So are you trying to prove something here? My only point is that CAN NEVER happen with a 1X.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

l'oiseau said:


> It surely was the clamp where it twisted, but I've seen a number of bikes that had the derailleur twist out of alignment but never take out themselves and a chainring.
> 
> Should one diligently check the tension of the clamp every ride?
> 
> ...


Then we should all be riding single speeds.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> Then we should all be riding single speeds.


Maybe so... still a 1X.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

ColinL said:


> totally wrong. I've done 1x conversions from 2x and 3x. have you? my recent 2x conversion to 1x saved 1 pound 10 ounces (park tool scale, yes, I took pics).
> 
> xg-1195 is 286g. that's the X0-level 11 speed 10-42 cassette. people get excited about how heavy the NX-level cassette is, but there are many other options.
> 
> ...


In the ~1/2 dozen I have done, they are all lighter than the 2x/3x they replaced. Verified with a proper scale before and after. Sometimes almost a pound. These are with 11-36 cassettes. I realize some of the 1x11 cassettes can be portly (as are the newer cheaper 1x groups by SRAM) but you should still lose the weight of a front derailleur, cable/housing, shifter, and chainrings which is not chump-change.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> Fluke? Sounds like an assembly or maintenance issue.


Agreed...unlikely to be a fluke. I have never seen a f. der. move...ever...

Front derailleurs are very reliable at this point...the 105 one on my gravel/CX bike works flawlessly. As has been mentioned, f. der's do require some learning/practice to get them to shift smoothly...this was always the worst to have to explain to customers in the shop...trimming, etc. Its not a set-and-forget, it requires some thought.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

TiGeo said:


> Agreed...unlikely to be a fluke. I have never seen a f. der. move...ever...
> 
> Front derailleurs are very reliable at this point...the 105 one on my gravel/CX bike works flawlessly. As has been mentioned, f. der's do require some learning/practice to get them to shift smoothly...this was always the worst to have to explain to customers in the shop...trimming, etc. Its not a set-and-forget, it requires some thought.


So you are saying I should have faulted my LBS, who assembled said bike, after I rode it for 100+ miles with no faults and because it self destructed the first time it rode on some single track?

Good luck with that...

And if a front derailleur never moves... ever... how does it require any maintenance to keep the derailleur from moving?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Ok, here is a good table to look at I put together to help me decide if I want to go 1x on my CX/gravel bike. As you can see, I loose a pultry 92g (mainly b/c I am going from a light-weight 11-32 to a heavier 11-40 cassette) but I do loose some. I loose the top 3 ratios in my 50t but actually gain a little bit on the bottom end - I very rarely use those top 3 gears and would only on a full-on road ride and likely going DH. I also show that going from the 11-32 to the 11-40 just gains a tooth jump between gears. As was mentioned above, 1x in itself isn't necessarily causing the larger jumps...its just based on the cassette you choose and some 2xs are coming with this same cassette so there be no difference in that area. If you want tight ratios, get a road cassette. Science...it works.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

l'oiseau said:


> So you are saying I should have faulted my LBS, who assembled said bike, after I rode it for 100+ miles with no faults and because it self destructed the first time it rode on some single track?
> 
> Good luck with that...
> 
> And if a front derailleur never moves... ever... how does it require any maintenance to keep the derailleur from moving?


Yes, during assembly, you always hit all the nuts/bolts. Very few shops do a really good job assembling bikes and it sounds like it just worked its way loose and moved likely b/c they never gave it any attention during assembly. I have assembled hundreds of bikes when I worked at shops. If I had a bike with 100 miles on it, I'm going back to the shop and asking them to handle it.


----------



## Mike Aswell (Sep 1, 2009)

Can we all just agree that people who ride _X_ are total #$%& hats.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Mike Aswell said:


> Can we all just agree that people who ride _X_ are total #$%& hats.


For the most part. Push bike riders get a pass though.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Dumb 3x's are stupid. Once I rode a 1x and my knee exploded!!! :eekster::eekster::eekster:

The best riders *always* have 2 [email protected]


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

l'oiseau said:


> So are you trying to prove something here? My only point is that CAN NEVER happen with a 1X.


Prove something?

You're the one telling the story and quoting someone who replied with a very obvious and natural observation. I'm not here to judge how often this can happen, because I've _never_ heard of it before so that puts the occurrences at exactly one.

Clamps do not loosen on their own. Therefore, the clamp was improperly installed. That's what the first person said and you snarkily stated that it was quite a deduction from such a small amount of information.

Again. Not a huge leap of logic. Not a wild conclusion. It's obvious.

..And back to the topic at hand.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Jayem said:


> And no trail I've encountered changes grades so suddenly that your speed stops that abruptly. Have to shift a few gears at once, sure. Have to drop the chainring? Any time I can remember that means too little resistance and pedaling that causes you to spin too fast, resulting in lost speed.


I outlined just such a scenario in post #86 where sudden, unforeseen grade changes happen.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^In that case, you would have stop pedaling for a brief time hitting the front shifter to drop the chain to the granny while ghost pedaling to get it down there. The odds are, if this is so extreme you are f'd anyway and the 1x guys are goign to not fare much better as they have to force the chain up the cassette over multiple cogs. I have never experienced this running 1x since 2012. This is a good case for the grip shift crew or even...gasp...thumbies! You could shift the entire cassette at once!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

tiretracks said:


> For the most part. Push bike riders get a pass though.


My daughter will be relieved. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## sooshee (Jun 16, 2012)

Jayem said:


> ??
> 
> Why? Are you saying you rode lower gear combinations with 2 and 3x? It simply isn't so. How do SSers climb? Is it even possible?


It's going back to what's been said in this thread multiple times... there's less of a difference between gears with a 2x (and 3x), so I can find something that matches my preferred cadence easier, which is 80-90rpm for sit and spin climbing. If I have to drop a lot below that my knees ache horribly (and no, it's not a bike fit issue), especially in races 4-8+ hours long.

Good gosh, it's ok for someone to like 2x. I'm not telling everyone they have to run 2x. It's just what I like, and why I personally like it in my unscientific personal opinion. I"m going to go ride my 2x11 bike now!


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Agreed...2x is nice and glad you like it. Have you ever spent meaningful time on a current 1x system? The difference between gears is based on the cassette as shown in my example table above. For instance, the XT 2x uses the same cassette as the 1x so gear jumps are the same in each of the two chainrings, the overall range is what changes, cadence shouldn't be an issue unless the low end isn't low enough which seems to be the concern by many.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

TiGeo said:


> For instance, the XT 2x uses the same cassette as the 1x so gear jumps are the same in each of the two chainrings, the overall range is what changes, cadence shouldn't be an issue unless the low end isn't low enough which seems to be the concern by many.


Yes, we have both said that. Probably others as well.

Humans don't shift a 2x (or 3x) drivetrain sequentially. We shift the cassette until it isn't adequate, and then shift the chainring, and then nearly always need to immediately shift some more on the cassette.

I realize that Shimano Di2 does shift sequentially. Yeah, cool. Anyone running that can hardly complain that SRAM 1x is too expensive.

So, is a 2x11 cassette really closer spacing, when operated by humans, than a 1X? Only if you use an 11-36 or less cassette. If you're using 11-42, 11-46, or a 3rd party cassette with even larger range.. UH NO. 2x11 is not closer ratios than SRAM 1X.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

I'll end this right now.



1x LOOKS SO MUCH COOLER!!!!!!!

Front derailleurs and multiple rings are f*****g ugly and only belong on road bikes or cargo bikes.


/thread.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

TiGeo said:


> Who in the multi-ring camp have actually ridden a 1x? Your opinions are valid.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I guess my opinion is valid then since I have a single ring on one of my bikes (Chilcotin) and a double on another (Warden).

I run a 30-42 on the single ring and it is fine for fire-road climbs and not-too-steep technical climbing. I can get up most steep punchy root-infested climbs too but it takes some effort. I do like the simplicity, chain retention and ground clearance of the single speed.

My Warden is my pedally bike and I find the double setup to be much more versatile. I use the small 26-tooth ring most of the time but can easily shift to the big ring for fire-roads or flatter trails. For the type of riding I use this bike for the extra gear range and closer gear spacing work better than a single would.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Its valid b/c you have actrually tried the subject matter of the thread rather than speculate. Ride on!


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

David R said:


> I'll end this right now.
> 
> 1x LOOKS SO MUCH COOLER!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


See I'd say the opposite, I think 1x looks completely silly...but thats just a personal aesthetic preference and nothing performance related.

They have opened a bunch of new trails here over the last couple of years, less fireroads connecting double track with sections of singletrack to 99% singletrack, which is nice, no long super grinders or fireroad decents. I was quite surprised to find that I was riding all of them in the middle ring (due to me being lardy and unfit crappy). I considered going 1x and I could totally see it working if all I did was ride the trails, but (I try, not as much as I like, but I do try) to ride to the trails and other places and just find I run out of top end on my 2x10 bike (not because I'm awesome, just where and how I ride). So 1x would be even worse that that.
Eagle is getting close and I can see I'd get 1x in the future and have it usable(wish they'd make bigger rings though, maybe a 40T), but really at the moment I'm happy with 3x9, gives me loads of gears and I don't have any issues, I mean if Im going to have a front mech for 2x, may as well have that extra ring up front anyway.

I think it depends on where and how you ride, I can totally see how people can be more than happy with 1x, but also how it may not meet the needs of everyone. 
I don't know why people get so upset when someone finds that someone else doesn't use what they use or prefers a different setup, ride what you feel comfortable riding.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^People get upset b/c so many people say things without having any experience to back it up.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

JoePAz said:


> I run a triple and running the numbers you can't get the range of a 3x9 with a 1x11. You can get the low end, but will lose the top end. Most riders tend to lose a little on both and call it good. The new 1x12 might be better, but these are costly now. Even so I think there is little downside to a front derailuer if the frame will accept one. Some new frames don't.


This.

Plus, you should have a chain guide and a clutch derailleur to keep the chain from jumping off, so there goes most of your weight savings.

I need low gears plus ride my bike on pavement at times, so I need both low and high gears. 1x won't work for me. I don't even like 2x systems.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> ^^^People get upset b/c so many people say things without having any experience to back it up.


Yeah OK thats a fair point, but then again, you can calculate the ratios and you know what you currently use to see if it would work for you.
I can see I'l have 1x(probably 11) in he future on one of my bikes, but if I only had 1 bike, then I probably wouldn't.



MikeDee said:


> This.
> 
> Plus, you should have a chain guide and a clutch derailleur to keep the chain from jumping off, so there goes most of your weight savings.


apparently the new chainrings do a good job of holding the chain so no need for guides...I mean you can drop a chain with a deralleur as well.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> This.
> 
> Plus, you should have a chain guide and a clutch derailleur to keep the chain from jumping off, so there goes most of your weight savings.
> 
> I need low gears plus ride my bike on pavement at times, so I need both low and high gears. 1x won't work for me. I don't even like 2x systems.


350 miles in and I haven't thrown a chain yet. My bike did ship with a clutch derailleur, so I've had that going for me. Though when I forgot to turn it back on, the only result was that my chain was a little noisier that day.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

I've had one dropped chain in >18 months on my 1x (wolftooth + T clutch, no guide), which is less than the average number I'd have per ride with my old 3x set up if I was hammering over rough stuff...


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

MikeDee said:


> This.
> 
> Plus, you should have a chain guide and a clutch derailleur to keep the chain from jumping off, so there goes most of your weight savings.
> 
> I need low gears plus ride my bike on pavement at times, so I need both low and high gears. 1x won't work for me. I don't even like 2x systems.


Been on 1x since 2012 so that's about ~2.5K miles with about 3 chain drops. And...I don't have a clutch-derailleur. And...I dont' have a chain guide. Not necessary for "normal/average" riding...the DH stuff...ok, maybe.

I drop my chain on my CX/gravel bike with 2x all the time (to the inside)...but not really a fair assessment b/c that has road components and I am taking it offroad.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

mik_git said:


> Yeah OK thats a fair point, but then again, you can calculate the ratios and you know what you currently use to see if it would work for you.
> I can see I'l have 1x(probably 11) in he future on one of my bikes, but if I only had 1 bike, then I probably wouldn't.


I disagree - you need to ride it to understand how it works and how you will like it.


----------



## bigkat273 (Jan 16, 2008)

TiGeo said:


> I disagree - you need to ride it to understand how it works and how you will like it.


This^ 
I'm sure most will agree that the switch is very weird feeling at first. Especially if you dropped a number of teeth up front. The gear ratio/gear inch charts can't help you anticipate this. Having said that though, glad I went 1x.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

I went from a 2x to a 1x on my main ride and couldn't be happier. With the 2x, I would rarely use the inner ring and when I did, it would only be the upper 2-3 cogs, seemed like a waste to have a front shifter, derailluer and another chainring just for that. I built my own 1x system where I use a 36t chainring and a 11-46 cassette. I get almost all the range as my 2x, with a better shifting, lighter and quieter drivetrain.
For those who use 2x, 3x systems, that's ok, but I think your missing out on a better drivetrain on not at least trying a 1x


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Hurricane Jeff said:


> I
> For those who use 2x, 3x systems, that's ok, but I think your missing out on a better drivetrain on not at least trying a 1x


I went from 1x to 2x and I'm not missing anything.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

As mentioned though 1x _is_ the most stylish and chicks totally dig it. I was forced to revert to 2x because I was constantly being propositioned which made made my wife insanely jealous.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I went from 1x to 2x and I'm not missing anything.


You can say that because you have actually used both...glad you like your 2x.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Hurricane Jeff said:


> I went from a 2x to a 1x on my main ride and couldn't be happier. With the 2x, I would rarely use the inner ring and when I did, it would only be the upper 2-3 cogs, seemed like a waste to have a front shifter, derailluer and another chainring just for that. I built my own 1x system where I use a 36t chainring and a 11-46 cassette. I get almost all the range as my 2x, with a better shifting, lighter and quieter drivetrain.
> For those who use 2x, 3x systems, that's ok, but I think your missing out on a better drivetrain on not at least trying a 1x


This is my feeling as well on 3x. Granny for top 2 cogs, middle for all but bottom 2 cogs, and big for bottom half. 1x with a larger ring and wider range cassette sorts it all out.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## cacatous (Dec 1, 2013)

Jayem said:


> Likewise, it's kinda dumb climbing up in the middle ring and the easiest rear gear and having to dump the front AND shift the rear to get to the next lowest ratio. I remember how I always had to monkey-motion that gear-shift, to get to the granny. Dumb. I just want an easier gear and simplicity. That's what 1x does.


This! I'm not that interested in max speed, I'd like gravity to do that for me


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

fatcat said:


> if the frame has ISCG05 tabs you can put a Hammerschmidt on it, though there is a small weight penalty but you will never see the front chain rings or ever worry about mis shifting as with conventional front derailleurs


I had a Hammerschmidt. It was cool and all but there was very noticeable drag in the higher gear. Really, really noticeable. I think the Hammerschmidt is only good for downhill bikes which mine was not. it was heartbreaking using it anywhere but on downhill segments when I ran out of gears on the smaller drive...there is no drag on the smaller setting.


----------



## terrasmak (Jun 14, 2011)

My bike was 3x when I bought it, went 2x pretty quick. The big ring was just useless. Then I started to try not using the small ring, after a couple months I never used the small ring. Then I removed it , now my bike is 1x and good to go.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

hambocairns said:


> This! I'm not that interested in max speed, I'd like gravity to do that for me





Jayem said:


> Likewise, it's kinda dumb climbing up in the middle ring and the easiest rear gear and having to dump the front AND shift the rear to get to the next lowest ratio. I remember how I always had to monkey-motion that gear-shift, to get to the granny. Dumb. I just want an easier gear and simplicity. That's what 1x does.
> 
> With the front cogs available now and rear cassettes for 1x, people are putting lower gears on their bikes than they ever had with 2 or 3 chainrings, yet they beg for easier pedaling. Well, there are always E-bikes.


2x is dead, i know, but it continues to amaze me how 2x confused good riders. Pick a big chainring that hits the top gear you need for smooth descents or to pedal in to big jumps. Choose a cassette that will hit the low gear you need mid-descent. Now pick a granny that hits the low gear you need for your longest/steepest climb. Easy. You shouldn't touch your FD unless it's a sustained climb.

Enjoy better efficiency, fewer wear items, improved chain life, longer service intervals, tighter suspension action, quieter drivetrain... oh well. It's dead.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

scottzg said:


> 2x is dead, i know, but it continues to amaze me how 2x confused good riders. Pick a big chainring that hits the top gear you need for smooth descents or to pedal in to big jumps. Choose a cassette that will hit the low gear you need mid-descent. Now pick a granny that hits the low gear you need for your longest/steepest climb. Easy. You shouldn't touch your FD unless it's a sustained climb.
> 
> Enjoy better efficiency, fewer wear items, improved chain life, longer service intervals, tighter suspension action, quieter drivetrain... oh well. It's dead.


Beta-max had better quality than VHS.....


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

scottzg said:


> 2x is dead, i know, but it continues to amaze me how 2x confused good riders. Pick a big chainring that hits the top gear you need for smooth descents or to pedal in to big jumps. Choose a cassette that will hit the low gear you need mid-descent. Now pick a granny that hits the low gear you need for your longest/steepest climb. Easy. You shouldn't touch your FD unless it's a sustained climb.
> 
> Enjoy better efficiency, fewer wear items, improved chain life, longer service intervals, tighter suspension action, quieter drivetrain... oh well. It's dead.


I bikepack... sometimes long long long drawn out grades. For me the 2x works great and I think that the key is to get as much spread between the front sprockets as is possible. I manage a 24/40 and it spread the range beautifully.
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

ColinL said:


> Prove something?
> 
> You're the one telling the story and quoting someone who replied with a very obvious and natural observation. I'm not here to judge how often this can happen, because I've _never_ heard of it before so that puts the occurrences at exactly one.
> 
> ...


Again we base everything on the almighty MTBR poster who has now been informed that it can happen but that because they have only ever heard of it once, it must be exactly as they speculate. What caused the derailleur to shift PERFECTLY and not misalign or destroy itself in the first, oh, 50 shifts? It was a 3X being ridden on the road so it had plenty of gear changes on the FD.

So um, screws do not come loose eh? You might want to tell that to whomever invented saftey wire and loctite. The blind arrogance, of which you are conveying, is what sparked my "snarky" comment.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Deleted.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Did a typical ride today. Used my 22x34 triple low gear. Used my 44x11 gear on the pavement. I don't want a 1x.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

bike industry now telling me i need 1x, ok thanks


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

obey^


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

natrat said:


> bike industry now telling me i need 1x, ok thanks


"You will be assimilated"


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I just recently added more than one gear to my bike, nine of them, at the moment. I don't want or need much more range than that but i know some do.

Ride what works for you and leave everyone else alone. It's nice to see that there's a simple, reliable option in 1X that works for most people and it probably is a better option for many riders, hense it's popularity. But there are lots of reasons why more gearing options are better for some, which is fine.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> I just recently added more than one gear to my bike, nine of them, at the moment. I don't want or need much more range than that but i know some do.
> 
> Ride what works for you and leave everyone else alone. It's nice to see that there's a simple, reliable option in 1X that works for most people and it probably is a better option for many riders, hense it's popularity. But there are lots of reasons why more gearing options are better for some, which is fine.


I would say that 9s is more reliable than 11s in the back.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

MikeDee said:


> Did a typical ride today. Used my 22x34 triple low gear. Used my 44x11 gear on the pavement. I don't want a 1x.


Maybe that's your problem. Too much riding on the pavement 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

SDMTB'er said:


> Maybe that's your problem. Too much riding on the pavement
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I live 2-3 miles from the trailhead. It's stupid to drive over there.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

scottzg said:


> 2x is dead, ........ better efficiency, fewer wear items, improved chain life, longer service intervals, tighter suspension action, quieter drivetrain... oh well. It's dead.


WHAT???
unless you are spending big$$$$ on cassettes you are adding a ton of unsprung weight when you 1X, so how does that improve suspension action?
all the 1x I've heard are noisy in the big cog compared to 2x or 3x with big cog small ring (makes sense since more lateral chain deflection ie. cross chaining)
Bicycle Science back in the 1980s compared drive chain efficiency of smaller cogs to larger cogs (their test set up used straight chain lines and maintained equal gear inches by changing both front rings and back cogs to keep effective gear the same) and found that once your rear cog got smaller than 14 teeth, drive train efficiency decreased exponentially
improved chain life?? really??


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> Did a typical ride today. Used my 22x34 triple low gear. Used my 44x11 gear on the pavement. I don't want a 1x.


This covers why I have a triple as well. I sometimes ride to the trails, and sometimes I throw the big, fat slicks on and just ride the bike on the road. If it weren't for that, I'd go 2x, but probably not 1x. Sounds like the only difference between your setup and mine is the chainrings (I run a 26-36-48 up front, 11-34 9sp cassette in back).

Generally, I ride it like a 2x. If I'm on the road, it's middle ring and big ring. If I'm on the trail, it's middle and granny. It's also well enough spaced that if I'm working to avoid cross chaining, as I come up a hill, going from 2/3 to 1/4 is a reasonable step down in gearing and can be accomplished with a single click on each side (and vice versa going back up through the gears on the flats).


----------



## Tommybees (Dec 25, 2014)

Hard to imagine why the roadie pro's have not figured this out yet. I think even the flat time trial bikes are set up 2x on flat courses on the Tour DF. Just think, dropping 1# on a 14# bike is pretty damn neat. Maybe the roadies are not as buff as the mountain crowd or maybe they just have sore knees. What was the other reason, oh yeah, the shifting is not very reliable. Hum, something is not quite right here.

Anyway, best guess is 1x lovers don't ride road much and 1x haters come from road. I think it 2x+ lovers are comfortable with the preparation required in shifting and the mental side of cadence/endurance and so there is an upside that is worth it. That and the need to preserve the knees, at least for me. In the end though, which ever allows you to ride more and have more fun is all that matters. That is unless you race and then it really confusing.

I have noticed that on average my 1x buddies moan when I suggest that we go to a new location to ride. I guess buying and slapping on different front rings is not worth going somewhere new.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Road pros are already skating on the minimum weight regulation. It gives them (really their promoters) a different attitude about weight.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

ccm said:


> WHAT???
> unless you are spending big$$$$ on cassettes you are adding a ton of unsprung weight when you 1X, so how does that improve suspension action?
> all the 1x I've heard are noisy in the big cog compared to 2x or 3x with big cog small ring (makes sense since more lateral chain deflection ie. cross chaining)
> Bicycle Science back in the 1980s compared drive chain efficiency of smaller cogs to larger cogs (their test set up used straight chain lines and maintained equal gear inches by changing both front rings and back cogs to keep effective gear the same) and found that once your rear cog got smaller than 14 teeth, drive train efficiency decreased exponentially
> improved chain life?? really??


You misread me, 2x has a bunch of advantages, they're just not as easy to understand as 'lighter and simpler.'



Tommybees said:


> Hard to imagine why the roadie pro's have not figured this out yet. I think even the flat time trial bikes are set up 2x on flat courses on the Tour DF. Just think, dropping 1# on a 14# bike is pretty damn neat. Maybe the roadies are not as buff as the mountain crowd or maybe they just have sore knees. What was the other reason, oh yeah, the shifting is not very reliable. Hum, something is not quite right here.


The nominal extra power consumption and wide ratios of 1x isn't significant for recreational riders on inefficient MTBs, but it's a big deal to a pro on a road bike. Also, who cares about shedding a 1/4lb when you're already at UCI weight limit?


----------



## bigkat273 (Jan 16, 2008)

Yea the UCI has a 14.99 lb minimum weight requirement on road bikes. Most team mechanics even add mass to the bike to make this weight.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I don't know if that's often the case. But a few years ago, everyone started using power meters, which I think was enabled by stuff getting lighter. Also more aero frames and deep-section wheels. If weight is something you budget out, more telemetry and less air drag seem like good places to spend it; dropping a length of chain in the seat tube is embarrassing.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I don't know what road riding has to do with MTB gearing? I ride to the trails but setup my bike for mountain biking, not commuting to the trail head. I still have a 2X on my cross bike that sees road duty with slicks, but it has nothing to do with my MTB preference. I ran my Reverb with my old 9 speed stuff but to get the remote under the bar on the left it required some Dremel work. Once I went 1X everything just worked together instead off getting in the way. To me working the dropper is more important than shifting.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> I don't know what road riding has to do with MTB gearing?


If someone is riding 10+ miles to the trailhead I could see why it might be a consideration but I totally agree that it seems a little silly to alter your normal mtb gearing for just to accommodate a few miles of pavement commuting. Silly to me anyway, which is why I wouldn't do it.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

There's a lot of loop rides in my area that couldn't be done without incorporating pavement. Ridgecrest on Mt. Tam is an example. Some loops on Mt. Diablo are another. Oakland-Berkley Hills too. On some of the group rides I used to do, I'd be dropped on the pavement if I had a 1x. All depends on where you ride and how fast you want to go. If I lived in the Midwest or Florida, where there are no real mountains, maybe I'd have different gearing. Maybe if I were 20 years younger too.


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

I really dont care what others ride. 1x 2x 3x I think that all said systems are good. I like the 2x especially for big jumps up and down. I can maintain a higher gear and drop when I suffer a bit on climbs as I crest I can shift up with a big jump right away. I like this as it is the same on my road bike. Not saying I would never own 1x but certainly not going to modify my bike to go in that direction. I think some of the new bikes especially boost will not have room for a front derailleur. I know that is the case with the new Rouge 160.. I am not sure I will buy my next bike simply off of one specification. I would lean toward bikes with 2x but if I found a 1x i liked better that would be my choice


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

My 32/11 top end is not too slow for a road ride...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

bigkat273 said:


> Yea the UCI has a 14.99 lb minimum weight requirement on road bikes. Most team mechanics even add mass to the bike to make this weight.


Motors and batteries!


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

Gallo said:


> I am not sure I will buy my next bike simply off of one specification. I would lean toward bikes with 2x but if I found a 1x i liked better that would be my choice


race face makes a carbon crank Next that you can run 1,2 or 3x where you can swap out spiderless chainrings for spiders w/ 2 or 3 rings. Super light weight too so i would include that in any new bike i was thinking about


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I want to meet the casual mountain biker who puts out enough watts to push a 44x11 gearing to 40 or so miles per hour.

On flat ground I can comfortably push maybe 20, but since my town is all horse trails, I ride in the dirt to/from my local riding area, which is about 17 MPH. I am not spinning out at all with 34x11 1x. Now I did nearly spin out today on a single track descent on my XC bike...at 30 MPH (32x10 1x 29er). 

Who is seriously pushing 30 MPH or faster on the road? That is hard work on my TT bike, and unsustainable. I was in a group ride Tuesday on my SS commuter CX bike, I was going 27 MPH with 42x15.

Again, run what ever set up you like. But no one will ever be able to convince me that I need a 44x11 on my mountain bike. 2x maybe (though not interested personally).


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Sidewalk said:


> I want to meet the casual mountain biker who puts out enough watts to push a 44x11 gearing to 40 or so miles per hour.
> 
> On flat ground I can comfortably push maybe 20, but since my town is all horse trails, I ride in the dirt to/from my local riding area, which is about 17 MPH. I am not spinning out at all with 34x11 1x. Now I did nearly spin out today on a single track descent on my XC bike...at 30 MPH (32x10 1x 29er).
> 
> ...


This x100. I have never understood the lack of upper end argument when going 1x.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> I want to meet the casual mountain biker who puts out enough watts to push a 44x11 gearing to 40 or so miles per hour.
> 
> On flat ground I can comfortably push maybe 20, but since my town is all horse trails, I ride in the dirt to/from my local riding area, which is about 17 MPH. I am not spinning out at all with 34x11 1x. Now I did nearly spin out today on a single track descent on my XC bike...at 30 MPH (32x10 1x 29er).
> 
> ...


Yes... Correct!

It takes ALL my power to push my 36x11 on my 29er with 2.2 Ikon fast rolling tires.  This is on asphalt, flat-ground. I'm sure some strong racers could push this on dirt, but not for very long. 44x11 uh uh..

I used to use a 44x12 on my 26ers... going downhill! On the road. No way I could even push that on the flat, and I never even used my big ring on the dirt.

I built a hybrid MTB last year and with cyclocross tires I found out with a touring 3X (48/36/26) and a 11-36 cassette I was never pushing on a flat, paved road beyond 19 unless I was heading down a hill.

I also found on the low end that 26x36 was just WAY too low for my area. It just didn't do anything but cause me to whack my pedals into things or spin the rear tire.

I moved on from that bike and just ride my 1x10 rigid XC bike on asphalt if I want to. My gears are 36x11-36. I find most of the time cruising on flats I'm using 36x13/15. I can't really get going like 30mph down hills pedaling, but that doesn't matter. I let gravity do the work down hills. For me, pedaling's for flats or going up.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

I did a little thinking on my setup (currently 26/36/48 with 9sp 11-32 rear). If I ran an 11sp 11-40 or 11-42 rear and a 32 / 46 double up front, I'd have almost the same overall range as I do now, but with one problem: only ditching 1 chainring up front doesn't make up for the heavier 11sp cassette. The end result would actually end up being heavier than the 9sp triple. A 1x11 with a 36t up front would work fine for me on most trails though, so if I end up building up a roadie, that might be a consideration. 

As far as why the fast gearing is useful, I've pushed 20 - 25 mph on flat or slightly downhill fire roads before. And when I throw the Big Apples on and put it on pavement, I tend to pedal pretty constantly unless I'm on a very long ride (when my top gear was a 42/11, I spun it out a few times on long downhills and was forced to coast). Part of it is my riding style. On pavement, I tend to push for speed. If my legs feel up to pushing a taller gear and going a bit faster, I'll grab the next gear and just go with it. 

My HT with slicks actually makes a pretty decent road bike (although not as fast as a real roadie) and it handles well with weight on the rack, so having the ability to swap tires and use it for a decently long pavement ride is nice. I've done 30+ miles on it before in that config and it keeps up with a lot of people's road setups surprisingly well. That wouldn't be the case if I gave up the big ring though, as getting to 30 mph in a 36/11 (on a 26er) wouldn't be sustainable for more than a very short sprint (at 120rpm cadence). With the 48/11, that same speed can be done at 90 rpm, which on flat ground in a group or on a mild downhill is sustainable for much longer.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Sidewalk said:


> I want to meet the casual mountain biker who puts out enough watts to push a 44x11 gearing to 40 or so miles per hour.


I know, a relatively casual 90rpm would propel a 29'er to over 30mph and even a fully juiced Lance Armstrong in his prime couldn't maintain that pace for long.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> If someone is riding 10+ miles to the trailhead I could see why it might be a consideration but I totally agree that it seems a little silly to alter your normal mtb gearing for just to accommodate a few miles of pavement commuting. Silly to me anyway, which is why I wouldn't do it.


Agreed. Everyplace is different but when I am heading down I am definitely not thinking about trying to go 30 MPH while pedaling - gravity does its thing and you would quickly die if you tried to go down all the rocky **** we have here at that speed. 30T is plenty for me.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

Sidewalk said:


> I want to meet the casual mountain biker who puts out enough watts to push a 44x11 gearing to 40 or so miles per hour.


it's not about doing 40 mph, its being able to pedal at low cadence and low watts on long sustained downhills, go faster than coasting while keeping your legs warm (because of my 3x I was able to catch two guys who started an hour ahead of me on the last day of the AZTR since I had a gear to surf the front of the blizzard), or back in the old days of Mammoth Kamikaze/Blackcomb style downhill races, being able to spin a big gear up to speed out of each corner increased mid straight coasting speed substantially


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

Really, with modern manufacturing techniques and electronic shifting, a 3x can be made as light or lighter than 1x
sub 200 gm cassette compared to high 200 gm for Eagle or 580 gm for XT
lighter rear derailleur since don't need a long cage or much or any clutch for chain control (electronics or a skilled rider would prevent big-big or small-small so not much chain would need to be wrapped. By only using 3 to 4 cogs for each ring could easily design system so that only 10 links of chain would need to be wrapped), shifters would be no different if electronic (or add 100 gm for an old style non-push-push shifter), plus 100 gm for front derailleur minus weight of chain keeper, plus two chainrings (but can be lighter since don't need narrow wide)


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

On a 26" wheel bike, a 30x42 gives 18.6 gear inches. A 22x34 gives 17 gear inches. So much for a 1x giving the same low gear as a 3x. A 30x11 is 71.6 gear inches, which equates to 20 mph at 94 rpm cadence. EZ to spin out on any downhill. 

What is so great about a 1x?


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

No wonder you all hate triple (doubles) and love 1x, you don't know how to work those gears! Stop putting it in the 44x11 for the flats! 

There are a few places on rides I do that I'm totally spun out on a 44x11 , now of course I could just coast down the hills, but I figure I road up this sucker, Im gunna have some fun riding down (riding to/from the trail on the road). Bearing in mind, thats on a 26er and me spun out isn't that high an rpm.
Looking at the ratio charts, yeah Eagle hits pretty much everything, well enough to happily live with it anyway, but, well $$$$$$$$$$. Other 1x's (XT 8000) covers what I'd need on the trails and sure I could live with it elsewhere, and more than likely have it in the future. But until the spare cash comes along, I can also happily live with what I have.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

MikeDee said:


> On a 26" wheel bike, a 30x42 gives 18.6 gear inches. A 22x34 gives 17 gear inches. So much for a 1x giving the same low gear as a 3x. A 30x11 is 71.6 gear inches, which equates to 20 mph at 94 rpm cadence. EZ to spin out on any downhill.
> 
> What is so great about a 1x?


I can spin out my 30x11 on my 29er on flats. So?

I never run out of gear on trails - downhills where I hit more than 20mph on singletrack I'm not pedaling at all, I'm usually trying NOT to brake.

All depends on your application. If I rode that bike on the road 30x11-36 would be unacceptable. For the trails I ride, it is perfect. In fact I could do without the 11 - I don't think I've ever used on an actual trail.

There is not an one-size-fits-all front ring that works for everyone IMO. Some people may want a 30, some may want a 34 with a wider range cassette.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

ccm said:


> Really, with modern manufacturing techniques and electronic shifting, a 3x can be made as light or lighter than 1x


Naive, and wrong.

3 spiders and 3 chainrings weigh a lot more than a single direct-mount ring. So the cranks will always be far heavier for a triple.

The good 11 and 12 speed cassettes are expensive, I get that, but they are not that heavy compared to 10 or whatever it is you're comparing for your triple. (Triple cranks no longer exist above the retail store level of equipment - which is total crap.) There are now inexpensive 11 speed wide-ratio cassettes, but they're very heavy, which brings the total back up to near a _double_ but still not what a triple crankset weighs.

These points have both been made before. I don't know why you want a 3x9 11-32, but you probably better buy some spare parts on eBay.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> On a 26" wheel bike, a 30x42 gives 18.6 gear inches. A 22x34 gives 17 gear inches. So much for a 1x giving the same low gear as a 3x. A 30x11 is 71.6 gear inches, which equates to 20 mph at 94 rpm cadence. EZ to spin out on any downhill.
> 
> What is so great about a 1x?


One of my personal quirks is that I like high cadences. I'm using a 28t chain ring to keep my 18 GI low. But pedaling productively at over 20 mph on the road is really no big thing for me. Except that riding at over 20 mph on a more upright bike with wide flat bars and 2.3" knobbies is a lot of work. I had more of a point... Oh yeah - TiGeo keeps saying people should give losing some granny gears a chance. I hear that from other people too. I think that my high cadence is part of why I really miss that 18 GI low despite being a pretty in-shape rider. But if I give up a top gear to keep that low, I get that top gear's speed back by pedaling faster, so it's kind of a wash.

Really, though, I'm not that interested in trying to convince people that 1x is right for all applications or that it doesn't give up something. My basic argument is that it has as much range as it needs for mountain biking, the right chain ring puts that range where I want it, and in exchange for giving up some gears that weren't useful to me I'm getting really impressive reliability and simplicity in use and the real estate for a shift lever shaped dropper remote.

I'm glad there are some 11-46 cassettes available and coming out. I was a little surprised to find myself missing a higher gear on rolling descents, and while my sprint is pretty pathetic by the end of a race, if there's anywhere a high gear is useful on a mountain bike it's on a XC course that has a few asphalt sections linking the singletrack. If I do a XC season next year, I may match my XC bike's cockpit and drivetrain to what my trail bike has.

I don't feel badly served by my double. I always thought triple was a little excessive. I certainly wasn't going to hop on at 1x9, or even 1x10 with an 11-36. But I think it's really matured now.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

ColinL said:


> These points have both been made before. I don't know why you want a 3x9 11-32, but you probably better buy some spare parts on eBay.


In my case, the 3x9 11-32 isn't the only way to get the range I want, but I already had the 9 speed XT rear, so buying the XT triple crank made sense when I upgraded the cranks.

If I had to do it all fresh, I'd probably run a 2x11. But from where I am now, it doesn't make sense to switch unless I wear out a bunch of my current stuff and can't replace it. There would be a pretty significant cost in switching and I wouldn't save any weight in the process (assuming a similar quality drivetrain was used), so what's the point?


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

XT and XTR still come in triples...3x11


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

mik_git said:


> XT and XTR still come in triples...3x11


Shhhhhhhh


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mik_git said:


> XT and XTR still come in triples...3x11


Keep this on the down low so demand doesn't drive prices up.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

haha, I think I'll buy some 3x11, (in di2 for syncro shift) just to freak people out...


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

31 miles of monstercross'n this morning on my new 1x gravel/CX bike conversion - running a 42t ring with a 11-32 cassette. ~2K' elevation gain. Mostly offroad (double track, rocks, roots, sand, etc.) with one ~3 mile section of rolling tarmac. To give an idea, my average speed was 14.3 so a relatively fast ride for this kind of riding - most folks use a mountainbike. Worked AWESOME! No chain drops...even over some v. rough sections with roots/rocks. The 11-32 was actually fine for 90% of it but a few climbs I had to get out and huff it...the 11-40 I ordered will be perfect and honestly, even an 11-36 would probably be fine. Overall, very pleased with the Wolf Tooth parts. I didn't miss that front derailleur and the 50/34 once...even on the road section...I just don't need that much high-end. The drivetrain was silent even in the granny. #1x4lyfe


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Does no one appreciate the added rollover clearance of using a single, small ring? I know I do.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

My CX / gravel bike had 2x10 with 48 and 34t rings on front. I rode some singletrack with it and scraped the big ring on several rocks. I replaced both rings with a 38 n-w ring and don't miss the double setup.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Nice. Yes, offroad the 50 was kind of big but never hit it.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

My second MTB had a 50T big ring and I hit it a few times over the years but it was never enough of an issue to change it out.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm terrible at riding over logs of any significant size and I'm not a huge fan of gnarly rock gardens with big rocks, so chainring hits are pretty rare. I think I hit my old 42t once or twice in several years. Haven't hit the 48t on anything yet, although I'm looking into bashguard options for it just in case.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Shayne said:


> My second MTB had a 50T big ring and I hit it a few times over the years but it was never enough of an issue to change it out.


When was this? I dont think I have ever seen a mtb with a ring that big. Skills or not, most people would bash a hell out of that on trails.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

l'oiseau said:


> Does no one appreciate the added rollover clearance of using a single, small ring? I know I do.


I've chewed the 44 on my 'B' bike pretty badly but it still works. Since it's supposed to be a "save me money" bike, I'm leaving it on until it presents a problem. Then probably a BBG bash guard. I think I'd be fine with the 32/11 as my tallest gear.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Man - you guys need to ride over bigger logs and rocks - I hit my 36 bash guard (probably about the size of a 38 ring) regularly.

I don't think I've ever hit my 30


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

l'oiseau said:


> Man - you guys need to ride over bigger logs and rocks - I hit my 36 bash guard (probably about the size of a 38 ring) regularly.
> 
> I don't think I've ever hit my 30


That is why I originally went 1x from 2x, I hit the 39 chain ring on a rocky drop. I was still really new to dirt back then, I am hitting stuff WAY harder now. I haven't hit my 34 yet.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

when i was learning i bashed my bashring all the time; cracked 2 of them. Nowadays i never touch the bash, despite riding about the lowest bike on the market with a 36t. Sometimes it drags over steep rock rolls.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> When was this? I dont think I have ever seen a mtb with a ring that big. Skills or not, most people would bash a hell out of that on trails.


Ha, I still have a bike with a..I think its a 53T on the front. But I think it has a 12 or maybe a 13 on the back But then that was when racing DH we'd have sections of fire road where you wouldn't think twice about doing 60-70km/h and non index thumb shifters meant you coud actually make the shift from a 38 up to the 50+. That and it was better than the biopace ring it replaced, although they seem to have made a comeback these days


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> When was this? I dont think I have ever seen a mtb with a ring that big. Skills or not, most people would bash a hell out of that on trails.


1992
Shimano XT crankset 50-38-26


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

With an 11-28 I'm sure.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

l'oiseau said:


> Does no one appreciate the added rollover clearance of using a single, small ring? I know I do.


That's something a singlespeeder would say.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> With an 11-28 I'm sure.


11 wasn't available yet 

And that's still my preferred cassette range 11/12-27/28. If I can't ride it with a 28T it's too slow for me to be riding.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

50t big ring sounds nuts. I was a kid in 1992 riding a Huffy coaster brake bike at that time. Biopace and modern oval rings are not the same thing, though. I occasionally hit the bash ring on my 32t single ring, I can't imagine what a hassle a ring bigger than 44t would be on the ledge-y trails around here.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I don't think anyone 'round here is actually riding over logs and such with 50T rings, but the stuff I ride regularly has plenty of tooth marks from people hitting.

I tend to be a little conservative with that. If it's my first time over and it looks tall I'll check the clearance before I hit it riding. And well, sometimes I still catch the bash ring if I don't hit it just right.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Logs, OK, but I see lots of rocks with chainring marks


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Our wood is harder in the east... well some of it... 

Yes, rocks get it too - but I can't tell if those scrapes are from pedals, cranks or chainrings.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Warning: Philosophical post.

Disclaimer: I love old school bikes. I love XC. I used to ride 30 miles of road to ride 5 miles of single track.

Honest Truth: As much as I like riding a rigid bike now and again, I gotta say, I have no interest in going back to:

Rim Brakes
Fixed Seat Posts
Grip Shifts
Bar Ends
Elastomer Suspension Forks

3X was awesome back in the day when it was the norm. It worked. Still does. Rim brakes worked too. So did Grip Shifts. So did bar ends. So did (fill in the blank).

But some things you just don't want to go backwards on. I kind of feel that way with chainrings. Once you have a bike working with it, it doesn't entice you to go back to multiple rings.

I can see if you are doing epic road/trail rides or bikepacking where a 2X or maybe even 3x might be the cheaper, simpler alternative, but as far as where MTB has gone, I don't think that is the norm. For those riding mostly offroad with their MTB, I think it's nice to ride as hydraulic disc brakes. It just feels right.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

Grip shift? It's not just on old & cheap bikes. There's some pros using it.

- Use any brakes you want, put the lever wherever you want, regardless of the cylinder size

- Sweep the whole cassette up or down

- Keep your thumb(s) on the grip instead of pressing a shift lever: you're already covering or using your index finger on the brakes - grip strength suffers enormously when you use your thumb to shift

- Can easily bunnyhop, wheelie and manual without accidental shifting, with minor practice


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ColinL said:


> Grip shift? It's not just on old & cheap bikes. There's some pros using it.
> 
> - Use any brakes you want, put the lever wherever you want, regardless of the cylinder size
> 
> ...


Love Grip Shift, won't use anything else.


----------



## cellery (Jul 24, 2015)

Sheldon Brown online gear calculator. Google it, use it - see that your concerns about 1x are overblown. I was on the fence too before I researched it.

I'm on a 32 x 11-42 on a 29er. My low gear is like a few GIs higher than when I had a 24x36 "standard" 2x. I don't miss it; I don't walk it anywhere I didn't before. The lack of chain slap on my non-existent front derailleur and the saved effort of not having to soft-pedal into a front shift has allwed more steady state effort for climbing comfortably in a slightly higher gear. This is hard to understand until you try it. I suggest demo'ing a 1x bike in the steepest areas you ride to see if it's for you.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I know some people love them (grip shifters)... I have an ongoing joke about them in my mind - I could never adapt to them.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

cellery said:


> Sheldon Brown online gear calculator. Google it, use it - see that your concerns about 1x are overblown. I was on the fence too before I researched it.
> 
> I'm on a 32 x 11-42 on a 29er. My low gear is like a few GIs higher than when I had a 24x36 "standard" 2x. I don't miss it; I don't walk it anywhere I didn't before. The lack of chain slap on my non-existent front derailleur and the saved effort of not having to soft-pedal into a front shift has allwed more steady state effort for climbing comfortably in a slightly higher gear. This is hard to understand until you try it. I suggest demo'ing a 1x bike in the steepest areas you ride to see if it's for you.


Pretty much nailed it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

On that topic, I am trying to get rid of some 3x9 XO (or are they X9?) grip shifters...


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> Pretty much nailed it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


One thing you guys are ignoring. 1x relies on having many gears on the cluster to get the range. The more gears on the cassette the more sensitive to adjustment, wear and tear, cable problems, dirt, mud, etc. it becomes. Chains get weaker. While the crank end is simpler, the derailleur end is not. I'm not convinced an 11x drivetrain is something I want on my mountain bike.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Stick to 1x10.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

1X10 saves lives


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> One thing you guys are ignoring. 1x relies on having many gears on the cluster to get the range. The more gears on the cassette the more sensitive to adjustment, wear and tear, cable problems, dirt, mud, etc. it becomes. Chains get weaker. While the crank end is simpler, the derailleur end is not. I'm not convinced an 11x drivetrain is something I want on my mountain bike.


That argument works if you were talking about singlespeeding as alternative, but not when you're talking about the teensy tiny difference between 10 and 11 speed. You're also advocating the increased complexity of having another derailleur, cable and shifter as some sort of move towards simplicity and reliability.

Getting rid of the front derailleur clattering noise is enough reason to change on it's own.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

richde said:


> That argument works if you were talking about singlespeeding as alternative, but not when you're talking about the teensy tiny difference between 10 and 11 speed. You're also advocating the increased complexity of having another derailleur, cable and shifter as some sort of move towards simplicity and reliability.
> 
> Getting rid of the front derailleur clattering noise is enough reason to change on it's own.


I have used 7 through 10 speed Shimano mountain bike drivetrains. In my experience, the less gears you have in the back, the better it shifts.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> I have used 7 through 10 speed Shimano mountain bike drivetrains. In my experience, the less gears you have in the back, the better it shifts.


Good for you, so have I. My 11-speed stuff has been set and forget, 10 AND 11-speed, Shimano AND SRAM. I was a bit of a late adopter though, I only have about 1200 miles on each 11-speed setup, barely touched them since assembly. I know I can't be the only one either. Maybe it's you?

The idea that 90's era stuff worked as well as modern drivetrains is downright laughable.

What are you going to tell us next, that those old, wider, chains were more durable?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

My 10 speed 1x has been flawless in its operation over and 4 years and has required about zero fuss in terms of adjustment. This isn't speculation.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

MikeDee said:


> I have used 7 through 10 speed Shimano mountain bike drivetrains. In my experience, the less gears you have in the back, the better it shifts.


I still own my first MTB, a trek 830 with biopace chainrings and 3x7.

it shifts like s..t.

there is no comparison to 1x11.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

I gotta say, I also have my first mtb an 89 diamondback apex and yeah, i shifted crap then, shifts crap now. Well it shifted fine then, but seriously you had to adjust everything every second ride (if not every or mid ride) the little friction/index shift button nearly wore off.

But having said that once I went to 8 speed with rapid fire plus and hyperdrive in '94 I wouldn't say that shifting got much better between then and now. And I'd say my 9speed stuff shifts better than my 10 speed. Its just a little faster and crisper (but my 11 speed is better than my 10 speed ultegra, but thats di2 over mechanical). 
Thats on the rear, my 2x10 deffinately shifts better than any triple I've used. But really it all seems to work pretty well these days.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

richde said:


> Good for you, so have I. My 11-speed stuff has been set and forget, 10 AND 11-speed, Shimano AND SRAM. I was a bit of a late adopter though, I only have about 1200 miles on each 11-speed setup, barely touched them since assembly. I know I can't be the only one either. Maybe it's you?
> 
> The idea that 90's era stuff worked as well as modern drivetrains is downright laughable.
> 
> What are you going to tell us next, that those old, wider, chains were more durable?


They are most assuredly more durable. The outer link plates have gotten thinner and the chain pins are flush with the outer plates, thereby making it easier to pry off the outer link plate. http://velonews.competitor.com/2016...plained-compatibility-queries-answered_392163


----------



## kazlx (Jun 13, 2005)

My 1x11 shifts like butter and has been maintenance free for months now. It's not the problem you are making it out to be. 2x and 3x are going to go away permanently at some point, except for maybe just the Wal-Mart grade stuff...


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

kazlx said:


> 2x and 3x are going to go away permanently at some point, except for maybe just the Wal-Mart grade stuff...


I seriously doubt that. There's enough people still buying them that they won't disappear. They'll definitely become less common as not everybody wants / needs them, but there are plenty of use cases that don't work well with a 1x.


----------



## kazlx (Jun 13, 2005)

Even if they don't go away, they'll be uncommon enough to be obscure. Even the friends I've had that were anti-1x for some reason, have switched and they won't be going back. Personally, I could care less what people ride, but 1x definitely fills a need that wasn't attainable years ago and that need applied to probably 90%+ of riders.

OP is perfect example. 'Doesn't want' 1x, but sounds like he's never ridden one.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Stuff I read on this forum a few years back made me think 1x would never work for me.

Then I actually rode my bikes, figured out what gears I had, what I used, and took the plunge. Took me a little iteration to find the perfect chainring for each one, but it wasn't hard. And I'm using 10spd 11-36 on both my bikes. Going to a 40+ tooth on the rear gives you a lot more options. 11spd... forget it. 12spd, no need for anything else... although I kind of think when you get up into a 50 tooth driven cog we might have lost the balance...


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Shayne said:


> And that's still my preferred cassette range 11/12-27/28. If I can't ride it with a 28T it's too slow for me to be riding.


You know it takes two cogs to make a gear ratio eh?


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

comptiger5000 said:


> I seriously doubt that. There's enough people still buying them that they won't disappear. They'll definitely become less common as not everybody wants / needs them, but there are plenty of use cases that don't work well with a 1x.


I don't think 2x will go away, but definitely 3x, at least from the big S companies.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> I don't think 2x will go away, but definitely 3x, at least from the big S companies.


I thought the same for a while, but then again, Shimano still offers the parts to build a 3x11 if you really wanted to. Looking at the parts involved, if they're offering a double, it's not much extra work for them to offer a triple. Just have to leave space for the 3rd chainring on the cranks and be able to have a 3rd stop on the front shifter.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Building a 3x will soon be like it used to be for folks rigging up a 1x and will stay around for those that want them. Over and over...you just have to do the math yourself on a gear calculator, make a spreadsheet, and evaluate what you are actually losing. You don't loose much going 1x and you gain some simplicity and lighter weight. My 11-40 w/a 42 gravel 1x conversion is done. Works great. I'm not missing those 2 top ratios and the wider spacing between ratios. Probably didn't need that 11-40...an 11-36 or 11-32 would probably suffice 95% of the time for me.


----------



## ideate (May 28, 2016)

I'm a 2x fan but I don't use a front derailleur.

My current range using 34t+22t rings and a regular 10sp 36t cassette is:

22x36: 0.611 = awesome for my fat ass
........
34x11: 3.091 = still good for pinging downhill

Where as on a single ring setup I was:

32x42: 0.762 = little bit harder to climb with
........
32x11: 2.909 = spinout easier on downhill

Which looks like nothing in terms of these fractions but you do feel it in the real world.

When I was on my 1x32t ring, I'd spin out in 11t and it'd crunch and carry on when I was in 42t. 2x for me is way better and less hassle. The obvious downfall of 2x setup for me is the manual hand changing of the front ring which I don't mind because 80% of my time I don't need it.. but when I do, it's there.

Plus I get all the advantages of a 1x setup.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^So you manually put the chain on the granny? Why in the world would you not just run a f. der.? Kind of the like the "dinglespeed" some of the SS guys use. The case you show is a case for 1x11. You can run a bigger front ring to get back the loss of the upper ratios and you go bigger in the back (11-42, 46, etc.) to get the low end.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

Manual front shifting makes sense if you use the bike in a way where you only need 1 ring or the other on a 2x and rarely have to switch mid-ride. And in that situation, it gives you a good bit of the weight savings of a 1x, as you ditch the front derailer and shifter.


----------



## ideate (May 28, 2016)

TiGeo said:


> ^^^So you manually put the chain on the granny? Why in the world would you not just run a f. der.? Kind of the like the "dinglespeed" some of the SS guys use. The case you show is a case for 1x11. You can run a bigger front ring to get back the loss of the upper ratios and you go bigger in the back (11-42, 46, etc.) to get the low end.


Did you even read my post? Or understand ratios? More like a case for 2x10.

I did run 11-42 for a while but I didn't like it.


Too much derailleur stretch and clanking (didn't feel nice).
Couldn't have the range I wanted.

Sure I could run a bigger front ring (36t>) but then I'd have to run something like a rear 60t cog (to get an equivalent range) which would look ridiculous and probably wouldn't work anyway.















This is why I like my current setup..


I hardly ever need to change to the 22t but it's there when I need it.
I have a cleaner cockpit and less crap on my bike (but still an awesome range).
During regular use it's just like a 1x setup with crisp shifting along the 11-36 cassette.
It's cheap.
It's not passive aggressive like your comments.

In essence, I've put a *smaller *btch cog on the front instead of a *bigger *btch cog on rear. The only downside in my situation is that when I'm about to climb, I need to roll the chain down to the 22t ring which I think is better than having to deal with a front derailleur and it's mess OR a clanky skipping stretching rear derailleur on a 40 plus tooth cog.

I see it as the best of both worlds.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

TiGeo said:


> My 11-40 w/a 42 gravel 1x conversion is done. Works great. I'm not missing those 2 top ratios and the wider spacing between ratios. Probably didn't need that 11-40...an 11-36 or 11-32 would probably suffice 95% of the time for me.


That sounds pretty sweet.

My 'cross bike has pretty much settled on a 46/34 crank and 11-32 9-speed cassette for gravel and messing around on trails. I think 11-28 is marginally better for competition and a fair amount better for road.

The setup you're describing - I don't know that I really need that 46/11 top gear. I don't think I'd give up anything else.

Are you doing SRAM or Shimano shifters and derailleur?

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

ideate said:


> Did you even read my post? Or understand ratios? More like a case for 2x10.
> 
> I did run 11-42 for a while but I didn't like it.
> 
> ...


Wasn't being passive agressive, just never seen a 2x with no f. der. A 34 with a 46 is pretty close to your granny and that was my point about not loosing too much on the bottom end (I have to run the gear inches). Run what you like...wasn't judging just surprised.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

ideate said:


> Sure I could run a bigger front ring (36t>) but then I'd have to run something like a rear 60t cog (to get an equivalent range) which would look ridiculous and probably wouldn't work anyway.


If your wallet's fat then range is no longer an issue, a 30t ring with 10-50 will equal what you have now. A lot of your other reasons for 2x are valid, I use it because components are cheap and it works great. I find the front derailleur to be a handy thing though and well worth the few hundred g's.


----------



## cellery (Jul 24, 2015)

ideate said:


> View attachment 1085955
> View attachment 1085956
> 
> 
> this is why i like my current setup..


lol, 10/10


----------



## cellery (Jul 24, 2015)

I do agree there is a point at which things start getting a little silly with 1x. Do we really need a 48-52-56 combo or somesuch on a 13-14 speed cluster mated with a 36+ chainring to maintain high-low range before rear wheel weight, derailleur cage length vs. chainwrap become a problem? How will SRAM and shimano keep innovating on drive-trains aka get $$ without continuing the more is better ethos. At that point I would hope affordable gear boxes would be in sight.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

kazlx said:


> Even if they don't go away, they'll be uncommon enough to be obscure. Even the friends I've had that were anti-1x for some reason, have switched and they won't be going back. Personally, I could care less what people ride, but 1x definitely fills a need that wasn't attainable years ago and that need applied to probably 90%+ of riders.
> 
> OP is perfect example. 'Doesn't want' 1x, but sounds like he's never ridden one.


If people would put away their pride, 1x would work for just about anyone. You just have to use a 28 or 30t chainring.

But everybody wants to pretend that losing 1-2 mph off the top end, which they only use on some form of road or similarly straight smooth path, is going to ruin their MTB ride.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> They are most assuredly more durable. The outer link plates have gotten thinner and the chain pins are flush with the outer plates, thereby making it easier to pry off the outer link plate. http://velonews.competitor.com/2016...plained-compatibility-queries-answered_392163


Sigh....

http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/02/19/bikerumor-shimano-chainwear-challenge-the-results/



> Results:
> 
> If you have ever had the chance to listen to a Shimano Technical guru wax poetically about chains, chain construction, and chain wear, then our results probably won't surprise you. Simply put, the 10 speed chains lasted longer. Quite a bit longer, in fact. Even the difference between the worst performing 10 speed chain and best performing 9 speed chain was still 225 miles. The difference between Bob and Chris (both endurance racers of similar skill and size) was a whopping 470 miles


But keep thinking that all that new fangled stuff doesn't work as well as the old stuff.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

richde said:


> If people would put away their pride, 1x would work for just about anyone. You just have to use a 28 or 30t chainring.
> 
> But everybody wants to pretend that losing 1-2 mph off the top end, which they only use on some form of road or similarly straight smooth path, is going to ruin their MTB ride.


And for some of us, sucking up that pride would mean needing a second bike because the first one went from reasonably effective at some occasional road / flat path riding to being useless for doing it over any distance.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

comptiger5000 said:


> And for some of us, sucking up that pride would mean needing a second bike because the first one went from reasonably effective at some occasional road / flat path riding to being useless for doing it over any distance.


30-10 makes your mountain bike useless on the road?


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

Jayem said:


> 30-10 makes your mountain bike useless on the road?


For more than a short run between a parking lot and a trailhead with the knobbies on, I'd definitely find that to be not enough gear on a regular basis. If I'm on a long ride, I don't want to be spinning a fast cadence and burning up a ton of energy, so I'll gear up a good bit on the flats and downhills.

It's common for me to cruise on pavement in a 48/16, which is equivalent to that 30/10. Add a little down hill and I'm up another gear or 3. If I'm just out for a short ride to get some exercise in but have limited time (and not enough time to drive out to a trail), I'll push harder and will often end up pushing a 48/14 on the flats and just going as fast as my legs are willing to go.

Plus, on long rides, the slight efficiency improvement from bigger gears and less cross chaining might add up to something (probably not noticeable, but it's certainly not hurting). And at a minimum, the parts will wear better, which saves me money.

Basically, 1x is not for everyone. It does not, can not and will not do everything no matter what people think. There are a lot of situations 1x does work for, but for the rest, there's 2x and 3x. And at this point, it seems like it's cheaper and not a weight penalty to just run a 3x with less gears in back compared to a 2x11. And there's no ground clearance difference, as you'd be removing the smallest chainring rather than the biggest when going from 3x to 2x (as the bigger cassette would remove the need for the granny ring).


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

A 32/11 is plenty of top-end for most of what I do. Would be nice to have a little more occasional, but I have a road and a gravel/CX bike for that.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Jayem said:


> 30-10 makes your mountain bike useless on the road?


You can only cruise at 23mph at 90rpm using a 29x2.3, totally worthless. Not using SRAM means that you'd top out around 20mph, which is pretty damn fast to be pedaling a MTB on level ground.

Edit: If you're strong enough to maintain those sort of speeds on level ground, you're also probably strong enough to move up to a bigger chain ring....which gives you even more top end.

Only some people seem to care about how fast they can pedal their bike downhill on a dirt road, which makes sense, since that's not what a MTB is really meant for anyways.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

richde said:


> You can only cruise at 23mph at 90rpm using a 29x2.3, totally worthless. Not using SRAM means that you'd top out around 20mph, which is pretty damn fast to be pedaling a MTB on level ground.
> 
> Edit: If you're strong enough to maintain those sort of speeds on level ground, you're also probably strong enough to move up to a bigger chain ring....which gives you even more top end.
> 
> Only some people seem to care about how fast they can pedal their bike downhill on a dirt road, which makes sense, since that's not what a MTB is really meant for anyways.


SO what you're saying is that people can only ride their bike in the same way you do, can only enjoy the same sort of riding you do, should only have a top gear thats useful on the flat and if they are not doing what you do, then they are doing it wrong...oh and lets assume everyone is riding a 29er while we're at it.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

richde said:


> Sigh....
> 
> http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/02/19/bikerumor-shimano-chainwear-challenge-the-results/
> 
> But keep thinking that all that new fangled stuff doesn't work as well as the old stuff.


BS test as there are too many uncontrolled variables. Plus, this is a test of chain wear, not strength. Do you believe everything that the bike industry says to make you think the old stuff is obsolete/no good and convince you to spend your hard earned money on new gear? Are you an industry shill?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> That sounds pretty sweet.
> 
> My 'cross bike has pretty much settled on a 46/34 crank and 11-32 9-speed cassette for gravel and messing around on trails. I think 11-28 is marginally better for competition and a fair amount better for road.
> 
> ...


Shimano stuff for me. Actually rode a fast 25 on gravel/fireroads today...it's fine but you do lose some of the precision of closer spaced gears to he able to fine-tune your cadence. I think the 11-32 will go on for CX racing or anything relatively flat.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

MikeDee said:


> BS test as there are *too many uncontrolled variables.* Plus, this is a test of chain wear, not strength.


Name some uncontrolled variables in that test that you would have changed. Go on, I'll wait right here.

Yes, of course it's a wear test. When chains stretch, they wear gears faster than friction alone otherwise would, because the chain doesn't fit the gear evenly any more.

Testing strength is pretty pointless. The load limit of a new chain is many times higher than any person can produce on a bicycle. It's what happens to that limit after the chain is worn. And then if you do snap it, what have you proven? Probably that you're a ham-fisted goon who shifts under heavy load too often. Possibly, you've proven that the chain is worn AND you like to shift under load.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think I can break a 9-speed chain about one time in three with the right bad shifting technique.

I think I could do that to a 10-speed chain too, or an 11-speed if that bike had a front derailleur. 

Certainly the static strength of a chain doesn't play for me. If a trackie can't break a 3/32" chain, who am I to think I can?

I find wear a more plausible idea, though I can't say I've noticed a difference in practice.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

ColinL said:


> Name some uncontrolled variables in that test that you would have changed. Go on, I'll wait right here.
> 
> Yes, of course it's a wear test. When chains stretch, they wear gears faster than friction alone otherwise would, because the chain doesn't fit the gear evenly any more.
> 
> Testing strength is pretty pointless. The load limit of a new chain is many times higher than any person can produce on a bicycle. It's what happens to that limit after the chain is worn. And then if you do snap it, what have you proven? Probably that you're a ham-fisted goon who shifts under heavy load too often. Possibly, you've proven that the chain is worn AND you like to shift under load.


Wipperman did a controlled laboratory wear test. Do a test like that.

Measure the force it takes to pull off a side plate. A testing lab could do that.

I agree though that if you shift under heavy load often, you will probably break any chain.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

I can catch dirt trails pretty much right out my door, but most of my rides start with a 1-4 mile ride on pavement. I have just went from a 2x to a 1x on my main bike, running a 36t chain ring and a 11-46 cassette, thought I would miss the 2x, not a chance. I can ride the road at 18-20 mph easily, and still have 2 gears left on the cassette, but I can efficiently spin a high cadence also.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> BS test as there are too many uncontrolled variables. Plus, this is a test of chain wear, not strength. Do you believe everything that the bike industry says to make you think the old stuff is obsolete/no good and convince you to spend your hard earned money on new gear? Are you an industry shill?


I must have missed your well documented scientific study that says otherwise.

If you don't want to buy new stuff, just say you're cheap. Nobody will look down at you.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mik_git said:


> SO what you're saying is that people can only ride their bike in the same way you do, can only enjoy the same sort of riding you do, should only have a top gear thats useful on the flat and if they are not doing what you do, then they are doing it wrong...oh and lets assume everyone is riding a 29er while we're at it.


If you're not on a 29'er, which I used as an example because the low end is HIGHER than anything else, you can use a bigger chainring to shift the gear ratios to where you want it. But these are all minuscule differences that are indicative to how dumb the entire argument is.

Point being, you're not maintaining 20mph on a MTB on level ground, and if you are, you can certainly push a bigger gear while climbing.

But, if you think pedaling downhill on the street (literally) at over 25mph is important, have fun with it.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> Wipperman did a controlled laboratory wear test. Do a test like that.
> 
> Measure the force it takes to pull off a side plate. A testing lab could do that.
> 
> I agree though that if you shift under heavy load often, you will probably break any chain.


Uh, you were the one that made the claim...do your own homework.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

richde said:


> Only some people seem to care about how fast they can pedal their bike downhill on a dirt road, which makes sense, since that's not what a MTB is really meant for anyways.


And for what MTB is meant for? Please let me hear this, because I really would love to know what MTB is meant for. Lift accessed dh tracks only? 30% hour long uphills only? Please... give me a break. This what you (or me) ride is not THE ONLY thing that mtb is meant for. People are different and ride different things. And some of us, just ride everything, so personally I actually have to climb 30% for 1+h, and get down relatively flat fire road in single ride, with everything in between... pretty much every ride. And 20mph on flat forest singletrail is no big deal, yet I still need relatively easy gear when you have 1500 height meters of ascend to get over in less then 6km, and in those cases 1x is not really best option.
But as it fits you, I'm sure it has to fit everyone else, or they don't use mtb the way it's intended to be used, as obviously only your way of riding is the right way of riding and using mtb.
PS: Just check some xc/marathon race stuff... Jolanda Neff is winning XCO World cup with 2x, Karl Platt and Bulls team won Cape Epic this year with 2x.... I guess they are either not strong enough or they don't know how to ride bike properly because they use 2x right? Or maybe, they just figured out they use what fits >THEM< best and not what companies tries to sell you, because you are "smart" enough to believe marketing department anything they say


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

richde said:


> You can only cruise at 23mph at 90rpm using a 29x2.3, totally worthless. Not using SRAM means that you'd top out around 20mph, which is pretty damn fast to be pedaling a MTB on level ground.


In spreadsheet world theory sure. In the real world a 3:1 gear ratio is going to need a lot more than 90 rpm to top 20mph on level ground.



richde said:


> how fast they can pedal their bike downhill on a dirt road, which makes sense, since that's not what a MTB is really meant for anyways.


Interesting that this is the definition of the documented beginning of the sport.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Shayne said:


> In spreadsheet world theory sure. In the real world a 3:1 gear ratio is going to need a lot more than 90 rpm to top 20mph on level ground.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but whether on a spreadsheet or in the real world a 30/10 on a 29'er with 2.3 tires will propel you to exactly 23.37mph @ 90 rpm.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

:madman:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I tried pedaling to over 20 mph a couple times on my ride the other day. 28/11 on a 27.5" wheel. It wasn't a big deal. I was on downward-trending asphalt. Certainly I can hit those kinds of speeds on any of my bikes, but even on a road or track bike, sustaining 20 mph for any length of time without a paceline or a hill is a lot of work for this mid-pack amateur.

When I'm descending a forest road at that kind of speed, I'm mostly just trying to keep it rubber side down. Also, I'm annoyed that I'm wasting vertical I probably had to work for on riding a road.

I guess on my road bikes I like to be able to pedal to somewhere in the mid-30s before I run out of gear. Around that speed on a descent, someone with my power output is better off getting in a tight tuck than pedaling. And much as I hate to admit it, I'm not one of the people who can sprint at over 40 mph.

I think that road performance is one of the places where we'll just have to agree to disagree, though - all I want my mountain bikes to do on the road is not annoy me when I ride a few miles on the road to get to a trail. It doesn't bother me that there are a few short stretches of road where I have to pedal at a little higher than my comfortable cadence on my way to a trailhead. So those in the camp of wanting to be able to keep up with a road group ride on their mountain bikes aren't going to sell me on multi ring drivetrains with that kind of argument, and I'm not going to be able to convince them to just buy a damn road bike for that kind of thing.

Bottom line is that there are nice new 6-speed freewheels available decades after they went out of vogue. I don't think the parts to maintain a 2x or 3x drivetrain are going away anytime soon.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Shayne said:


> That doesn't account for drag from the tires or wind resistance.


It doesn't need to account for wind and rolling resistance, it's just simple math. I'm not sure why your results didn't match but I suspect there must have been an error with your speedo.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> It doesn't need to account for wind and rolling resistance, it's just simple math. I'm not sure why your results didn't match but I suspect there must have been an error with your speedo.


My bad, you're right.
I was mixing power into the equation


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

yeah it's jsut ratios, if there is a diffrence, then there is an issue with one of the variables, not external forces. They'll change power needed for certain gears/speeds. If you're doing 22mph in a certain gear at 90rpm, then you'll do the same speed uphill, downhill, flat,windy o mater what. It's the power needed to do that which changes

EDIT...too slow


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

If you're on really solid hardpack or something decent rolling, maintaining 20 mph on flat or slightly downhill ground isn't super hard. Spin a good cadence as you run through the gears getting up to speed, but once you're there, go up a gear or 2. If you can maintain the speed at a moderate cadence, you'll be able to do it for longer than a high cadence before you start to burn out your legs. 

I certainly don't have the strength / stamina to do 20+ on dirt for an hour, but on a set of trails I used to ride regularly, most of the trails were connected by fire roads. When I was on the flat and slightly downhill sections, I'd tend to sprint along at 20+ for the minute or 2 it took to get to the next trail. And it was only 3 miles on the road to get to the trails, so I usually just rode the bike there instead of driving it there. 

At this point, we've got a lot more choices of drivetrains than we ever have. And that's a good thing. It means it's possible to analyze your riding and then pick out the simplest or most effective drivetrain that'll meet your needs. 

In my case, I made a bit of that optimization when I changed from a 22/32/42 triple to a 26/36/48 triple. I gave up some low gears that I never used anyway, gained more top end that I don't really need but might be nice to have, but the big thing is, I shift the front a lot less (even though I tend to only use 5 gears when in each ring to minimize cross chaining). So other than weight, that removes most of the downsides of having a triple for my use case (and I can use a medium cage derailer for more clearance and to keep weight down a little via shorter derailer and less chain length, which brings the weight disadvantage of the triple down a bit). 

If I'm out on technical trails, it's rare for me to leave the granny ring now, rather than shifting in/out of it regularly. On most other dirt riding, I'm in the middle ring unless I come up to a steep climb. It's only on the road or really fast pedaling dirt where I shift the front somewhat regularly (middle ring for climbs and slower flat sections, big ring for a lot of the flats and any downhills).

Keep in mind, the setup I'm describing is on a 26er, so the effective gearing is slower than on a 27.5 or 29er.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

comptiger5000 said:


> If you're on really solid hardpack or something decent rolling, maintaining 20 mph on flat or slightly downhill ground isn't super hard. Spin a good cadence as you run through the gears getting up to speed, but once you're there, go up a gear or 2. If you can maintain the speed at a moderate cadence, you'll be able to do it for longer than a high cadence before you start to burn out your legs.


Speed depends on numerous factors but 20mph is difficult for me to maintain for more than a few minutes even on buff trails. As for cadence I think you have it backwards, the fastest riders maintain a high spin and it's a rarity to see an elite rider with a slow cadence.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

You lot must have some amazing trails to ride needing such a wide spread of gearing. I'm "making do" with 30T in the front and 11-40 on the back (27.5"wheels) and it's perfectly adequate for the vast majority of my riding. I think my next drivetrain will have a 10-42T Sram 11spd cassette and that's plenty of range for me. I actually have an easier granny gear than every bike I owned up until the mid 00's, and while I've lost a bit of top end I really couldn't care less about pedalling my bike at higher speeds than 30-11 allows, be it on the road, forest road or trail. As someone said, if I'm going fast enough to spin out that gear I'm usually far more focused on staying upright than going faster!


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^spot on mate.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

I have rings for x1 and x2. Even when using the x1 I don't take the granny off because I'd have to remove my crank to do that. And unless the cranks are covered in mud, I try to not remove them when I don't need to.

My x2 cable housing, shifter and front der are completely installed, then removed as one unit and put in a bag. When ever I want to use it, I remove the left grip and slide the shifter on and re-install the grip. Then I attach the f-der to the seatpost and tie the housing back with Velcro(Velcro holds all my cable housing on for easy removal of components). Five minutes of tuning and it's ready to use with my Blackspire x2 setup(26/36).

My cranks are installed on a 68mm shell with 4.5mm of spacers on drive side and 2.5 on non-drive side. So when I switch out the middle ring to use x1, I put 2.3mm spacers between the chainring and crank arms. Which moves my chainring within 2.6mm high of TDC between 5th and 6th gear(or, 2.6mm closer to 6th gear).

TDC - I use "Top Dead Center" on bikes like I do timing for cars. On a 10 speed cassette, TDC is dead center between 5th and 6th gear. "High" of TDC is more toward 6th gear. Low of TDC is more toward 5th gear. 1st gear being the largest cassette cog.

Why settle for just one, when you can have to advantages of either, depending on terrain!

- Pretend for a moment you're out in undiscovered country using your x1 when you meet an unfortunate and challenging climb. Well, for me, If I can't make it up with a x1 32/36, I can dirty-finger to the granny 26t and continue my climb. Once I reach the top, I just dirty-finger back to the x1 ring. Does not happen much, but granny is there if needed. And I try really hard to never dirty-finger!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

pdxmark said:


> I have rings for x1 and x2. Even when using the x1 I don't take the granny off because I'd have to remove my crank to do that. And unless the cranks are covered in mud, I try to not remove them when I don't need to.
> 
> My x2 cable housing, shifter and front der are completely installed, then removed as one unit and put in a bag. When ever I want to use it, I remove the left grip and slide the shifter on and re-install the grip. Then I attach the f-der to the seatpost and tie the housing back with Velcro(Velcro holds all my cable housing on for easy removal of components). Five minutes of tuning and it's ready to use with my Blackspire x2 setup(26/36).
> 
> ...


Hey, if that's what you like, that's great but I just don't see the purpose of you ever running a 1x. Sounds like you go to a lot of trouble without any real benefit that I can see. What do you see as the advantage of a 1x for you?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

pdxmark said:


> Once I reach the top, I just dirty-finger back to the x1 ring. Does not happen much, but granny is there if needed. And I try really hard to never dirty-finger!


I like it. I try not to dirty-finger anything either.

but really, if you can ride in the bigger ring 99% of the time and only need the granny to bail you out on the occasional gnarly climb, it sounds like a FD is not really needed. I might try that myself.


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

Ya'll confused me so much I says screw it. I going 11x2. That way I can be on both bandwagons HAHAHA
Now I just need a 30t 64bcd inner ring


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

im pretty new to any kind of serious mountain biking. im no spring chicken anymore, i have a 2013 trek marlin with an ancient 3x8 drivetrain. i just purchased a framed marquette 27.5+ bike with a gx drivetrain.

before making that decision, i took a look at what i currently have, what trails i ride, then looked at the gearing differences between the 2 bikes.

heres the link to see the gear ratios: Bike Gears calculator

i live in MN and theres no huge climbs or downhills around here. also, the shortest gear ratio on the bike (.71) is enough to allow me to climb a shorter 40% grade while seated (xc geo and long stem on the marlin help). i generally stay in 42/13 (3.54 ratio) on flat gravel roads and i avg around 18mph on 1.5 hour rides. when im riding singletrack, i can count on one hand the number of times the 42t ring has been used.

i found that the gears (any chainring/cassette combo) i use most often on my ancient xc bike are: .71, .93, 1.05, 1.20, 1.42, 1.52, 1.75, 2.06, and 2.34.

on the 27.5+ 1x bike, its gear ratios are: .79, .92, 1.04, 1.19, 1.38, 1.58, 1.84, 2.08, 2.37, 2.77, and 3.22. (32/10-40)

as you can see, the 1x drivetrain gives up very little except on the very top. i do lose a slight amount of short gearing but honestly, i couldnt tell a difference between the bikes. also, some of the gear ratios i listed for the trek required shifts on both derailleurs.

for me, 1x11 suits me perfectly. i looked at what i currently have, where and what kind of trails i ride, and how fast i ride.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

pdxmark said:


> - Pretend for a moment you're out in undiscovered country using your x1 when you meet an unfortunate and challenging climb. Well, for me, If I can't make it up with a x1 32/36, I can dirty-finger to the granny 26t and continue my climb. Once I reach the top, I just dirty-finger back to the x1 ring. Does not happen much, but granny is there if needed. And I try really hard to never dirty-finger!


i dont know what tire size you use. making an semi-random guess at your drive train (26-36/11-36 - 10 speed?) comparing gear ratios, you lose little to nothing at all when using a 1x11 (30/10-42) drive train and 27.5 tires.

Bike Gears calculator

what you "lose" in spacing in some areas of the cassette, you gain in other areas when using the 1x11 setup. even the top end isnt that bad. you only lose 1 gear.

and the best part, no dirty fingers.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

For this of you front derailleur aficionados, where do you put the dropper remote? If you don't use a dropper just ignore this as I don't want to get this topic derailed, pun intended.

When I still had a front shifter I had to do some derailing on the shifter paddles to get the remote in a decent position and then the shifter wasn't in an optimal position. I have found that dropping is more important to me than shifting and gear range.

I just installed a Raceface Southpaw lever and the ergonomics mimic a shifter paddle, which feels perfect and intuitive.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I have a top-of-the-bar dropper lever on one of my bikes, and it used to have a FD/shifter. It was never quite optimal for hitting the dropper lever. The front shifter and derailleur are gone, and still, the top-o-the-bar lever still isn't the easiest to use when riding.

I have a Fox Transfer on my other bike with the Fox under-the-bar lever which is positioned just like the front shifter lever would be. It's almost brainless to use on the fly. I adjust my post as much or more than I change gears with that configuration. That bike is, always was, and always will be 1x.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Travis Bickle said:


> For this of you front derailleur aficionados, where do you put the dropper remote? If you don't use a dropper just ignore this as I don't want to get this topic derailed, pun intended.
> 
> When I still had a front shifter I had to do some derailing on the shifter paddles to get the remote in a decent position and then the shifter wasn't in an optimal position. I have found that dropping is more important to me than shifting and gear range.
> 
> I just installed a Raceface Southpaw lever and the ergonomics mimic a shifter paddle, which feels perfect and intuitive.


I'm running gripshift and a gravity dropper, so the lever extends over the bottom of the shifter on the underside of the bars. GD makes a lever that is angled to play nicely with gripshift.

Goofy parts selection, i know, but for me durability/simplicity/serviceability > fashion


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

scottzg said:


> I'm running gripshift and a gravity dropper, so the lever extends over the bottom of the shifter on the underside of the bars. GD makes a lever that is angled to play nicely with gripshift.
> 
> Goofy parts selection, i know, but for me durability/simplicity/serviceability > fashion


hardly anyone else running grip shift... but hey, since this is a 1X thread, I thought I'd mention an issue I had converting from 2x grip shift to 1x.

SRAM helpfully includes a left grip that is the same type and overall length as the right shifter when you buy a 1X grip shifter. However, I had problems after so many years of riding 2X (and 3X before that, and BMX long ago..) locating my left hand in the proper position on the grip by touch alone.

which lead to issues reaching my front brake lever. I have it set up perfectly for 1-finger operation and if my hand isn't in the right spot, the reach is poor.

I really needed a flange there. So, I bought a set of ODI Xtreme grips and use only one. It has a small (compared to grip shift) flange but it's more than enough to get my left hand in the correct place.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

ColinL said:


> hardly anyone else running grip shift... but hey, since this is a 1X thread, I thought I'd mention an issue I had converting from 2x grip shift to 1x.
> 
> SRAM helpfully includes a left grip that is the same type and overall length as the right shifter when you buy a 1X grip shifter. However, I had problems after so many years of riding 2X (and 3X before that, and BMX long ago..) locating my left hand in the proper position on the grip by touch alone.
> 
> ...


Back when i ran 1x i would wind a wrap of electrical tape on the left handlebar. I could feel it under the grip (esi racer edge or chunky) and it did the same thing.


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

All drivetrains are compromises. I'm just learning that the Southpaw lever and reliability of my N/W ring are more important to me than the gears I've given up.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

tealy said:


> I'm proud to use a wide range of gears that cannot be achieved with 1x.


You do know that this is just cycling?


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

travis bickle said:


> you do know that this is just cycling?


how dare you!!!!


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

xblitzkriegx said:


> i found that the gears (any chainring/cassette combo) i use most often on my ancient xc bike are: .71, .93, 1.05, 1.20, 1.42, 1.52, 1.75, 2.06, and 2.34.
> 
> on the 27.5+ 1x bike, its gear ratios are: .79, .92, 1.04, 1.19, 1.38, 1.58, 1.84, 2.08, 2.37, 2.77, and 3.22. (32/10-40)
> 
> as you can see, the 1x drivetrain gives up very little except on the very top. i do lose a slight amount of short gearing but honestly, i couldnt tell a difference


.79 and another 10% for the bigger wheels and tires going from 26 to 27 +
makes it more like .87 on a 26er. I know I could never run gearing like that on the steep stuff out here. My knees told me so in no uncertain terms.



Travis Bickle said:


> For this of you front derailleur aficionados, where do you put the dropper remote?


Dropper above, shifter below, the way it came from Marin. Hasn't been a problem.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

One of my pet peeves is ratios. Hard to compare gears on different wheel sizes. Gear inches take into account wheel size and even tire size.

My favourite calculator.

BikeCalc.com - Bicycle Gear Inches Chart

Don't worry about what a gear inch is, just compare the numbers.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

the website i posted automatically adjusts the gear ratio based on wheel size. click on one of the links i posted and change the wheel size and youll notice the ratios will change. that allows direct comparisons.

ive used that website as well and its just as good, both achieve the same thing. in fact, i use both fairly equally.

here, i made a chart comparing 3 identical drivetrains with tire size being the only difference: Bike Gears calculator

i like this website because it allows direct comparison between different size tires and drivetrain configs.

it also allows you to put things in perspective. for example above, going from 26" to 29" wheels nets you a massive 1.8mph top speed increase at 80rpm.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

andytiedye said:


> .79 and another 10% for the bigger wheels and tires going from 26 to 27 +
> makes it more like .87 on a 26er. I know I could never run gearing like that on the steep stuff out here. My knees told me so in no uncertain terms.


im not sure i follow your thinking? 32/10-46 on a 26" wheel would allow you even shorter gear, not taller. low gear would be .76 instead of .79 and top gear would drop to 3.20 instead of 3.32 compared to a 27.5" wheel bike.

for me, the ideal set up is going to be (eventually) a 30/9-44 setup with 27.5+. ill keep a good low gear and lose "half a gear" compared to the ancient 3x8 setup i am used to. honestly, my 42/11 almost never gets used unless its on a paved road since theres little to no downhills long enough around here to get speed on.

1x will never fit everyones bill. it could turn into a compromise if you try. 2x and 3x can offer better ratios at the extremes where 1x simple cant. i do feel that those are circumstantial and that 1x can work with most peoples trails if some thought is put in to how and where youre riding.

its not better, its just an option.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

I meant that .71 on a 26er (which I assumed your "ancient XC" to be) is a LOT lower than .79 on a 27+. .79 on that bike would be like .87 on a 26er. My first MTB came with gearing like that. Everyone said, just ride it like that, you'll get stronger. I didn't get stronger. My knees got sore instead. This went on for over a year before I got the low gearing I needed for the hills here (.7).

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

oh i see. my ancient xc bike is a trek marlin 29er (29x2.125) with 22/32/42 x 11-36 megarange cassette. on a 29er, it gives me a .71 low range. eventually, my new bike (27.5 x 3) will move to a 30t x 9-44 with a .75 low range. the current set up is 32t x 10-42, yielding a .84 low range. i have to be honest, i havent really missed the .71 vs the .84. i can certainly tell a difference but its basically in between the old 3x8's 26t and 34t rear sprockets. 22x26 on a 29er yields .94. 

the website i use for gearing bases all gear calcs relative to a 26" wheel. in other words, when you use the site, every ratio gets converted to a 26" so you can compare different size wheels. you dont have to extrapolate the gear ratios because the wheelsize changes, the website does it for you. 

a .79 on a 29er will be the exact same effective ratio as a .79 on a 26er. youll also notice that youll have to gear down on the 29er to achieve that, if you play around with the gearing. it really is a great website that automates a lot of things for you and takes the guesswork out of gear. also, you dont have to look over giant friggin charts like the other website thats popular.

i understand the need to make sure you have the best gearing for your particular situation. it makes sense and sometimes 1x cant cover it without too much compromise. sometimes 1x has gear steps that are too awkward for a particular terrain. that makes sense too. however, i think 1x works for more people than they realize or care to admit.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

andytiedye said:


> I meant that .71 on a 26er (which I assumed your "ancient XC" to be) is a LOT lower than .79 on a 27+. .79 on that bike would be like .87 on a 26er. My first MTB came with gearing like that. Everyone said, just ride it like that, you'll get stronger. I didn't get stronger. My knees got sore instead. This went on for over a year before I got the low gearing I needed for the hills here (.7).
> 
> Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


This is exactly why gear inches are better. They take into account wheel and tire size.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

i give up. ive explained at least 2 times now that the website ive linked takes different wheel sizes in to account, negating any extra calculation and showing you true gearing. /picard facepalm


----------



## bigkat273 (Jan 16, 2008)

xblitzkriegx said:


> i give up. ive explained at least 2 times now that the website ive linked takes different wheel sizes in to account, negating any extra calculation and showing you true gearing. /picard facepalm


It's OK it get it.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

xblitzkriegx said:


> i give up. ive explained at least 2 times now that the website ive linked takes different wheel sizes in to account, negating any extra calculation and showing you true gearing. /picard facepalm


This reminds me of people arguing about the term "clipless pedals."

"Gear inches" is a term that has been used for over a hundred years. It doesn't rely on people's understanding of a specific wheel size to make sense.

I get that the particular web site you found does those awkward decimals in terms of a particular wheel size, and can convert other sizes. But I don't want my 29er to have 26" wheels.  Anyway, you're not going to convince me or probably anyone else who's done these calculations for different bikes in gear inches or meters development to switch systems unless yours can offer something better or easier to use.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I guess I have to live with topping out at 19 mph.


Sure, if the fastest you can turn a crank is 90rpm

I rode single speeds exclusively for a good number of years and could easily hit 25mph with a 34x17 on 26" wheels


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

juan_speeder said:


> Sure, if the fastest you can turn a crank is 90rpm


The key to this is how much energy you're going to burn at that speed (or how long you want to maintain it). Turning a decent but not overly fast cadence (80 - 90 rpm) is definitely less tiring than doing the same speed spinning like crazy at 110 rpm (which is pretty much seated sprinting territory, IMO).


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I did a little track cycling and can hit higher cadences too. But I do lose efficiency and I know that for a lot of people who haven't done track or other singlespeed riding, 90 rpm is plenty. The "powerful legs" crowd even find it a bit high.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

If I give up my 2x for 1x, I lose the macroshift ability. But I still have to use individual clicks downshifting on xt8000. Nah, sticking with 2x. If I could crank down 3 gears in a pull I might consider it.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

Schulze said:


> If I give up my 2x for 1x, I lose the macroshift ability. But I still have to use individual clicks downshifting on xt8000. Nah, sticking with 2x. If I could crank down 3 gears in a pull I might consider it.


with the sram drivetrain, you can cycle up to 5 gears at once. for practical usage, you can go thru the entire cassette with 2 full lever swipes. getting back to high gear requires a single click per gear. in practice, it doesnt bother me. dumping gears is far more important imo. again, 10 gears dumped in 2 lever swipes, and quickly too. quicker than you can with a front & rear derailleur.


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Schulze said:


> If I give up my 2x for 1x, I lose the macroshift ability. But I still have to use individual clicks downshifting on xt8000. Nah, sticking with 2x. If I could crank down 3 gears in a pull I might consider it.


I'm not sure I follow. I can swipe my full cassette with 2 full and one small swipe of the thumb with a very old (now) XT shifter.



tealy said:


> there's nothing more absurd than getting to the top of a hill and having to trigger up like 8 times to get into the right gear for a descent.


Again, I'm lost? I trigger two or three times to get going in a descent gear from my lowest (two dual shifts and maybe single or another dual depending on how steep the hill is) - this is with a 10 speed, and in case you missed, I'm usually going from 1st (biggest cog) to 4th to 6th - any jump beyond that is too much IMO. I bet I could do this quicker than you could actually shift and jump a chainring and I've change my ratio much more.

Where I ride most of the time, literally, our biggest single ascents are like 100' of vert. But our terrain is often very undulating and steep. My need to cycle from climbing to descending or flat ratios is very high cycle. I go from 1st to 5th and vice-versa quickly and countless times on a ride, and I still find a 1X much easier to shift and to ride in general.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

l'oiseau said:


> Where I ride most of the time, literally, our biggest single ascents are like 100' of vert.


Here, I'm usually climbing for over an hour, and I ride to my rides.
Need the mega range of 3×.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

andytiedye said:


> Here, I'm usually climbing for over an hour, and I ride to my rides.
> Need the mega range of 3×.


That describes my riding and I've got a spread of 18.6 to 70.6 gear inches which is more than I really need. Not a whole lot of pedalling going on on my descents. Less brakes = more speed most places. On the descents I do pedal a few strokes of 65" max is enough. I occasionally hit 50km/h on single track, which always scares me a bit


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

tealy said:


> I see now. 1x is great if you don't care about going fast. Some people aren't interested in pedalling downhill.
> 
> Beast mode people are.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

^so what you really saying is even 1x is useless. All we really need is a SS whith the one gear we can use to get up all the hills, then that's it.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

What I'm saying is that (IME) gearing is never a deciding factor when it comes to downhill speed on a trail.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

I wouldn't agree with never, but I'd agree with usually... just like this thread, I'd agree with usually 1x will be good for most situations, but there will be the odd occasion/person/trail/ride where it won't be enough. Just like it's not normal to win a WC without a chain.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> What I'm saying is that (IME) gearing is never a deciding factor when it comes to downhill speed on a trail.


On singletrack, I fully agree. If I'm out riding fire roads and other smoother surfaces, pedaling down the hills definitely leads to going faster (as my top speed is no longer regulated by what won't get me hurt or me being a wimp, but simply by gravity + power vs wind drag + rolling drag).


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

The only reason to pedal beyond 20 mph is if you need to add even more speed to hit a jump.

In such situations, you probably do know that 28x11 isn't going to be adequate, and you don't want to pedal 120 rpm before a jump if you can help it.

Everyone else... yeah, it's nice to pedal beyond 30 mph going down a fire road. And you might actually _need_ to do that in a race. Outside of a race, though? Sit down and coast. Take a drink from your hydration pack. Rest a moment.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I'd say I tend to focus more riding the features of the trail than pedaling like a maniac when descending. I tend to see the same thing with pro Enduro and WC DH riders. I'm not comparing my skill to them, but it is some validation that there are better ways.

I also do not see the appeal of pedaling 30mph down a fire road. I just coast and relax, it's not the main thing I'm trying to ride. 

And as far as XC racers, seems to be plenty (maybe every?) on the WC using 1x. They surely have the need to pedal down something like that more than I do, and they surely need the low range climbing gears.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

l'oiseau said:


> I also do not see the appeal of pedaling 30mph down a fire road. I just coast and relax, it's not the main thing I'm trying to ride.


For me, it depends. If I'm out riding fire roads because the single track is all soggy from a rain the day before, I'll tend to pedal down them and go for speed. Same applies if they're between trails I'm riding and I'm a bit short on time and can't be out for more than an hour or 2. If I've got lots of time, I'll save the energy and just coast down the hills.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

If you can spin out a 30-11 for a jump downhill, you are doing the train gap.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

andytiedye said:


> Here, I'm usually climbing for over an hour, and I ride to my rides.
> Need the mega range of 3×.


with a 32/9-44 1x setup, you could effectively equal the bottom end of a 3x 24-32-42/11-34 setup and lose less than a gear on the top end in terms of gear inches.

24/34 on a 650c 3" wide tire is 20.2", vs. 20.4" for 1x. top end for 3x, 42/11, is 108.8", and 44/13 is 92". top gear for the 1x 32/9 is 101.4".

as for super short gearing, using 22/42 is complete overkill, even on a 29er. at 30rpm cadence, youre moving approximately 1.3mph. im far from in shape but even i dont need anything that low geared lol.

1x setups cover a lot more than people are willing to admit or realize. however, there are still times that 2x or 3x will be better. thats going to be a niche situation however.

too many people plan for "what if" and not enough for "what do i ACTUALLY ride?". 1x is not the only answer, but it is a compelling answer for most. unless its a 50t 1x12 cassette. thats just ridiculous. e13's 9/44 is like 11% off from a 12 speed, weighs 50-60g less, and saves you $60-$100.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

e13 cassette looks interesting. It'll get me pretty close to the Eagle's top and low end with a 32T vs having to use a 36T with the Eagle.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

indeed, and youll save weight on both ends of the drive train doing it.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I just got a rigid fork installed on my old bike and find myself tempted to follow up on that by making it a singlespeed. So I was clicking around a bit and reading about singlespeed drivetrains.

Surly had a couple things to say about little gears, which have come up both for geared mountain bikes and for BMX. Their bottom line was that they like 18t cogs as a minimum and suggest using chain ring selection to get the right gear ratio.

There are some things that make small cogs less bad in a multi speed context. But I think 11t is already on the small side. They always feel rough to me if I'm really working it. Which is rare in that cog if I have a few chain rings. Even one more tooth feels a lot better IMO.

So I guess I have a little more sympathy with gigantic cogs to get a wide range. Another drivetrain I'm tempted to try is 1x11 on my XC bike with a 28t cog and 11-46 cassette, though I'm a little worried about making the jumps bigger.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

using single speed advice doesnt apply to geared drivetrains. surly's advice is based on the fact that you only have one cog to use. wear and chainwrap on the cog become more important. 11-10-9 teeth cogs dont get that much use compared the middle range of the cassette. even the small end doesnt see that much use comparatively speaking. 

i went from 3x9 to 1x11 and the jumps are imperceptible save for the 12-10 jump. it doesnt brek my cadence or concentration because im rarely going fast enough to need 32/10 on a trail.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

xblitzkriegx said:


> using single speed advice doesnt apply to geared drivetrains. surly's advice is based on the fact that you only have one cog to use. wear and chainwrap on the cog become more important. 11-10-9 teeth cogs dont get that much use compared the middle range of the cassette. even the small end doesnt see that much use comparatively speaking.
> 
> i went from 3x9 to 1x11 and the jumps are imperceptible save for the 12-10 jump. it doesnt brek my cadence or concentration because im rarely going fast enough to need 32/10 on a trail.


I guess that's why e13 went with the 9T even though SRAM said it wasn't the smoothest. Your typical rider just isn't going to spend that much time that gear.

I've done the 3x8/9, 2x10, now 1x10 (30/11-42) and 1x11 (30/10-42). I used to think that I'd miss the big ring on the 2x since I "used" it all the time. It wasn't until I went 1x did I realize that I didn't need it...with the exception for those random couple seconds where I would top out. In those moments, I would just coast. 1x is an absolute win on rolling terrain. The 1x works for me everywhere I ride. I don't miss the 2/3x and I certainly don't miss the clanking that goes along with the front derailleur.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

xblitzkriegx said:


> using single speed advice doesnt apply to geared drivetrains. surly's advice is based on the fact that you only have one cog to use. wear and chainwrap on the cog become more important. 11-10-9 teeth cogs dont get that much use compared the middle range of the cassette. even the small end doesnt see that much use comparatively speaking.
> 
> i went from 3x9 to 1x11 and the jumps are imperceptible save for the 12-10 jump. it doesnt brek my cadence or concentration because im rarely going fast enough to need 32/10 on a trail.


The singlespeed thing is kind of a tangent. What I'm really thinking about is the polygon effect.

The "you don't use it much" argument doesn't carry a lot of weight for me if it's a 1x drivetrain. I'm all the way at the top of my gear range fairly frequently now. If my smallest cog was a 9, that would mean my top three cogs felt rough and I'd be in one of them even more.

I'll be curious to see how things go over the next few years. Maybe the market will speak and 9t cogs are here to stay this time. Maybe they'll disappear by 2018. Maybe Shimano will try a small, metric chain pitch again and we can have 18-88 cassettes in a reasonable envelope.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## noobbiker888 (Jul 12, 2015)

IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine, but why don't you detail the grade and lengths of your climbs? How often do you hike the bike while others are climbing the hill? My old bike 3x9 ($800 HT) had a range of .62 - 3.82. My new used high end one 1x11 (2.2k) the ratio is only .77 - 3.24. I thought I could lose the tougher gear steps to get better climbing, but after a couple rides, I now realize I can't just go to a smaller chainring, as I can't afford to lose the most difficult gear and spin out on less-steep downhills. If I'm going from a $800 entry-level hard tail to a nice used 2.2k bike, it just doesn't make sense to compromise and get a less capable bike (gear-wise) if it would really make a difference in how I could enjoy the uphills climbs and enjoy going down fast. Sometimes I want to enjoy the flowers and coast going down, sometimes I really want to push it, and have that freedom of choice. Isn't one of the reasons we love bikes is for the speed?
I'm going to go from 1x11 to 2x now that I realize going to a smaller front chainring is not enough.


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

noobbiker888 said:


> IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine, but why don't you detail the grade and lengths of your climbs? How often do you hike the bike while others are climbing the hill? My old bike 3x9 ($800 HT) had a range of .62 - 3.82. My new used high end one 1x11 (2.2k) the ratio is only .77 - 3.24. I thought I could lose the tougher gear steps to get better climbing, but after a couple rides, I now realize I can't just go to a smaller chainring, as I can't afford to lose the most difficult gear and spin out on less-steep downhills. If I'm going from a $800 entry-level hard tail to a nice used 2.2k bike, it just doesn't make sense to compromise and get a less capable bike (gear-wise) if it would really make a difference in how I could enjoy the uphills climbs and enjoy going down fast. Sometimes I want to enjoy the flowers and coast going down, sometimes I really want to push it, and have that freedom of choice. Isn't one of the reasons we love bikes is for the speed?
> I'm going to go from 1x11 to 2x now that I realize going to a smaller front chainring is not enough.


Same with me. 2x9 just wasn't cutting it for me really. Low gear was good, but the top I spun out to much. 26/36 chainrings 26" wheel. So going 2x11 and with the larger cassette, I'll up to a 28/40 and life should be grand.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

noobbiker888 said:


> IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine


That's quite the contradiction there, and you're assuming that 1x users don't climb big grades without walking.

As you said, it's not a compromise at all if you don't need more gears. I use 2 chainrings now with nearly a 500% range and it's more than enough for the trails I ride, and some of the trails I've ridden are plenty steep. Next drivetrain change I'll probably go 1x with a ~400% range based on the fact that I rarely use my highest or lowest gears now.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

noobbiker888 said:


> IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine, but why don't you detail the grade and lengths of your climbs? How often do you hike the bike while others are climbing the hill? My old bike 3x9 ($800 HT) had a range of .62 - 3.82. My new used high end one 1x11 (2.2k) the ratio is only .77 - 3.24. I thought I could lose the tougher gear steps to get better climbing, but after a couple rides, I now realize I can't just go to a smaller chainring, as I can't afford to lose the most difficult gear and spin out on less-steep downhills. If I'm going from a $800 entry-level hard tail to a nice used 2.2k bike, it just doesn't make sense to compromise and get a less capable bike (gear-wise) if it would really make a difference in how I could enjoy the uphills climbs and enjoy going down fast. Sometimes I want to enjoy the flowers and coast going down, sometimes I really want to push it, and have that freedom of choice. Isn't one of the reasons we love bikes is for the speed?
> I'm going to go from 1x11 to 2x now that I realize going to a smaller front chainring is not enough.


I'll climb 5000' over 8 to 10 miles with a 30x42 low, and I'll still be climbing while everyone else is walking, and I'll only spin out my 30x11 on steep paved downhills, so who cares? Answer enough?


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

A lot of you prob did the 1x10 ghetto ride. I'm just setting one up right now:

-11-40 Sunrace Mx3 10 sp cass. (NOT very light), 
-XTR 10 sp rear derailleur, long cage--no Wolf Tooth adapter necessary
-XTR 10 sp right shifter, 
-Shimano XT M8000 crank and 
-XT 30T 96BCD ring. 

OP, this is a very economical way to go 1X...well, if you look for good prices.
Remember though the 1x11 Deore XT M8000 crank's must match up with a Shimano
30T M8000 or Wolf Tooth 30T that says its for the M8000 crank, the 96 BCD isn't the same as others. I will test her out come this Labor Day Wknd in Big Bear Lake CA...hopefully I won't run into idiot riders who flat out without a spare tube/tools


----------



## velo99 (Apr 18, 2014)

There are plenty of 2x out there. Rumor has it the 2x is making an inroad because riders are spinning out and 2x is the easier change to make. 
True 1x is more simple and a bit lighter. However it doesn't require the wholesale changes that can still leave one lacking the gearing you want. 
Your bike, your money.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

noobbiker888 said:


> IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine, but why don't you detail the grade and lengths of your climbs?


It's true, hills were totally un-climbable a few years ago when we had 22t grannies paired to 32 or 34t chainrings.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

noobbiker888 said:


> IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine, but why don't you detail the grade and lengths of your climbs? How often do you hike the bike while others are climbing the hill? My old bike 3x9 ($800 HT) had a range of .62 - 3.82. My new used high end one 1x11 (2.2k) the ratio is only .77 - 3.24. I thought I could lose the tougher gear steps to get better climbing, but after a couple rides, I now realize I can't just go to a smaller chainring, as I can't afford to lose the most difficult gear and spin out on less-steep downhills. If I'm going from a $800 entry-level hard tail to a nice used 2.2k bike, it just doesn't make sense to compromise and get a less capable bike (gear-wise) if it would really make a difference in how I could enjoy the uphills climbs and enjoy going down fast. Sometimes I want to enjoy the flowers and coast going down, sometimes I really want to push it, and have that freedom of choice. Isn't one of the reasons we love bikes is for the speed?
> I'm going to go from 1x11 to 2x now that I realize going to a smaller front chainring is not enough.


Was that bike a 26er? If so, 30t plus e13 cassette would get you .69 - 3.40. youre not gonna miss that tiny bit of gearing on the top. It's not even half a gear lol. 29er? 28t plus e13 cassette would change to .71 - 3.45. the difference is so minute that it's irrelevant.


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

l'oiseau said:


> And as far as XC racers, seems to be plenty (maybe every?) on the WC using 1x. They surely have the need to pedal down something like that more than I do, and they surely need the low range climbing gears.


You can't really compare the average rider to a WC XC racer, or any elite XC racer for that matter. They don't need low gearing because they can produce the power to use a large chain ring.



Jayem said:


> If you can spin out a 30-11 for a jump downhill, you are doing the train gap.


That's what I was thinking...



AndrwSwitch said:


> So I guess I have a little more sympathy with gigantic cogs to get a wide range. Another drivetrain I'm tempted to try is 1x11 on my XC bike with a 28t cog and 11-46 cassette, though I'm a little worried about making the jumps bigger.


For me, the wide jumps are good. On a closer ratio cassette, I constantly find myself needing to shift 2-3 gears, with an XX1 I only need to go 1-2 gears in most cases.

Close ratio is great on my TT bike, sucks in the dirt.



noobbiker888 said:


> IMHO 1x is a compromise. For those who don't need more gears, fine, but why don't you detail the grade and lengths of your climbs?


There really isn't a like for like comparison. To me, the compromise is weight and ground clearance. Power isn't the problem as I spin out on steep climbs before I need more gears. But I am not your average MTB'er, so the hills I climb and descent have no relevance.

If you find the need to carry a 2x or 3x, then I am not going to tell you otherwise. That is, unless I ride with you and actually see that you are carrying dead weight (likely with most 3x riders).



juan_speeder said:


> I'll climb 5000' over 8 to 10 miles with a 30x42 low, and I'll still be climbing while everyone else is walking, and I'll only spin out my 30x11 on steep paved downhills, so who cares? Answer enough?


Yes 

I maxed at 30.5 MPH in a race today with a 32x10 XX1, I never spun out.



velo99 said:


> There are plenty of 2x out there. Rumor has it the 2x is making an inroad because riders are spinning out and 2x is the easier change to make.
> True 1x is more simple and a bit lighter. However it doesn't require the wholesale changes that can still leave one lacking the gearing you want.
> Your bike, your money.


A friend of mine just picked up a new Scalpel that came with 2x. While he has converted the last several bikes to 1x, he did take advantage of the smaller chain ring in a race today. I've never heard him complain of spinning out.

And funny enough, his fitness has increase by leaps and bounds since last year when we met. He has lost tons of weight, and is going WAY faster everywhere, especially up. So enjoying the extra range for lower gearing shows how hard the trail is we raced on.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The 2X that I see are lower end models, or older bikes, there is no resurgence.


----------



## noobbiker888 (Jul 12, 2015)

xblitzkriegx said:


> Was that bike a 26er? If so, 30t plus e13 cassette would get you .69 - 3.40. youre not gonna miss that tiny bit of gearing on the top. It's not even half a gear lol. 29er? 28t plus e13 cassette would change to .71 - 3.45. the difference is so minute that it's irrelevant.


Is a 29er. Even with the e13, 0.71 ratio is not good enough for some of the steeper sections of the local trails I usually ride. Yeah I could pay a lot for an e13 or even the SRAM Eagle, but that'd still be compromising. I'm going to go 2x by just adding an extra chainring (for under $300 in extra parts), with a current 1x11, that'll give me 0.58 - 3.65, pretty awesome range. Not that I'll need that 0.58 but that's just the outcome due to my existing 1x11 and the new 24T/26T.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

On a 29er the E13 cassette with a 26t is as high as 32/11
And almost as low as 22/40


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> The 2X that I see are lower end models, or older bikes, there is no resurgence.


If you consider BMC TeamElite, Cannondale Scalpel, and other such similar carbon race bikes lower end models, I want to see what you consider high end!


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> The 2X that I see are lower end models, or older bikes, there is no resurgence.


There're some high end bikes with 2x Di2 out and aboot. There's a Trek set up like that at my most local shop.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> You can't really compare the average rider to a WC XC racer, or any elite XC racer for that matter. They don't need low gearing because they can produce the power to use a large chain ring.


A Closer Look at Nino Schurter's Custom Carbon Scott Scale 27.5 Mountain Bike

A bit old as I believe he's on a 29er now.

36 or 38 up front, 11-42 11 speed out back. So that means he's probably running a 34 or 36 with the 29er. Still a bit higher that what most of us use, but as I was replying, they have more need to pedal fast down hills. Going to 10-42 with a 32 up front gives you nearly the upper range that those guys (were) using with a lower climbing gear.

I'm honestly a bit confused by going lower than 30/42 with a 29er (and it's lower gearing on a 27.5 or 26). You have to spin so much RPM just to keep moving when you are lower than that it doesn't make much sense to me. I can get off and walk the bike faster. And if I'm spinning that kind of RPM through technical stuff, I'm never going to keep timed and not hit my pedal on something.

If you are climbing long brutal climbs, you'll always want a lower gear. But at some point it's just not getting you anywhere.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

l'oiseau said:


> A Closer Look at Nino Schurter's Custom Carbon Scott Scale 27.5 Mountain Bike
> 
> A bit old as I believe he's on a 29er now.
> 
> ...


I've got no use for anything lower. I have friends that pedal a 28T, but we do have some steep punchy climbs. As recreational riders they don't care about getting to the top fastest, but staying on the bike. That's why we ride, right?

Now in a race, I try to stay on because it is fastest. Though in a couple of endurance races I have jumped off to get my heart rate down, but I think I've got my strategy cleaned up so I hopefully won't have to do that anymore. On my XC yesterday I spun the rear and had to jump off, but it was an insane steep climb with loose dirt (I made it the other 2 laps). Anything lower and I still wouldn't have made it. My trail bike is a 34/11-42 650b. But I got a great price on the 34, but at 31 pounds and full suspension without lockout, it hurts on the climbs 

and I believe the guys like Nino who are running Eagle are pushing a 38 still. So a 38-10 going down hill? That's fast.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

If I have a nice spin going in my 28/42, that's around 5 mph. I can ride a lot more 12-minute miles than I can run, especially on the grades and trails that I choose that gear for. 4 mph is a pretty brisk walk, or in that awkward walk/jog range.

I can't say I have any problem ratcheting with that gear when I'm on more interesting trails. Sometimes I think it's really more about pushing off from my pedals and then bringing the bike back under me than pedaling the bike when I'm getting up onto ledges.

Something I've noticed about duathlon and cyclocross is that running can be really leg-sapping. I'm not sure why. I run a few miles a week and that's fine. My best guess is it has something to do with changing modes of effort mid-activity.

Anyway, I don't think the component manufacturers are taking notes about which chain rings people on the Internet don't like. So as long as some other people are also buying 28s, I'm not worried. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> If I have a nice spin going in my 28/42, that's around 5 mph. I can ride a lot more 12-minute miles than I can run, especially on the grades and trails that I choose that gear for. 4 mph is a pretty brisk walk, or in that awkward walk/jog range.


12 min/mile is my 50 mile pace 



AndrwSwitch said:


> Something I've noticed about duathlon and cyclocross is that running can be really leg-sapping. I'm not sure why. I run a few miles a week and that's fine. My best guess is it has something to do with changing modes of effort mid-activity.


That's why triathletes do "brick workouts", where you ride then run off the bike to practice what it feels like. It is more mental in my opinion then physical. You have to switch from riding 20+ MPH to running. combine the high effort and the low speed, it mentally it is tough. If you can mentally separate the sports, I think you will do better. I mentally break it down into three separate events, they just happen to fall in line with each other


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I was actually just reading about it. It sounds like there's some physiological stuff going on too - if I'm riding my bike, my circulatory system and muscular firing patterns support that. If I hop off and try to run up a hill or yank on some running shoes and do a run leg, my body's still in cycling mode.

I'm not sure how much bricks ever helped me. At least the way my legs feel when I've been riding hard and try to run wasn't a surprise. 

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

l'oiseau said:


> I'm honestly a bit confused by going lower than 30/42 with a 29er (and it's lower gearing on a 27.5 or 26). You have to spin so much RPM just to keep moving when you are lower than that it doesn't make much sense to me. I can get off and walk the bike faster.


Really? How fast do you walk (up a steeeeep hill pushing a bike)?

FWIW, pedaling a loooow gear uphill is easier on the knees than hike-a-bike.


----------



## locolucas (Sep 1, 2016)

I just switched to a 1-x system on a suggestion from a friend, I was skeptical as you are but I must say i will never go back, keep weight down and where you might lose some gear ratios the ease of not having to worry about front shifting balanced it out for me.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

andytiedye said:


> Really? How fast do you walk (up a steeeeep hill pushing a bike)?
> 
> FWIW, pedaling a loooow gear uphill is easier on the knees than hike-a-bike.


there absolutely is a speed at which it's easier to walk. it's somewhere below 3 mph, certainly by 2 mph, depending on your ability to balance and manage traction. so, extremely deep gearing is not that useful.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

bikes are for riding not for pushing

I don't care if you can walk faster, sometimes I just want to clean a climb for the challenge and sense of accomplishment


with a variable gradient climb, you can be faster and more energy efficient staying on your bike rather than getting on and off constantly


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

ccm said:


> bikes are for riding not for pushing
> 
> I don't care if you can walk faster, sometimes I just want to clean a climb for the challenge and sense of accomplishment
> 
> with a variable gradient climb, you can be faster and more energy efficient staying on your bike rather than getting on and off constantly


well, duh. but if I am walking, it's NOT because I don't have low enough gearing. it probably is because the climb is extremely technical, and I don't possess elite trials-riding skills. once you have stalled on a tech climb, that's often the end of riding it until the difficulty and/or grade subsides.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

ColinL said:


> there absolutely is a speed at which it's easier to walk. it's somewhere below 3 mph, certainly by 2 mph, depending on your ability to balance and manage traction. so, extremely deep gearing is not that useful.


About the same for me, but at that speed I'm in 24×36 and I'm on a 26er.
30×42 on a 29er at that speed would seem like a knee-destroyingly low cadence.


----------



## weisoseis (Apr 10, 2016)

Sup kids! South Florida chiming in here, Miami to be exact. We have a few man made trails down here, Virginia Key, and Amelia Earhart. I just went 1x10 on my 29er from a 2x10. Ditched the 36/28 for an absoluteblack 32t with an 11/36 cog set.








I haven't gone out on the trails yet, but I think this will be perfect for me. I weighed all the hardware that came off, and it's just over a pound. I can't wait to hit the trails!

Time is an invention...


----------



## fatcat (Mar 11, 2006)

*Done. My 1x10 Ghetto Conversion! Hoo Ray!*

Sorry LBS' across the USA but I bought all the parts (except
a chain and a bottom bracket at my LBS) from eBay. But they were actual bike shops on eBay, I'm guessing ones that buy in volume.

So for the OP who posted back in July, yes, Marsha Brady, you can still be pretty and be a bi*ch. The 1x10 Ghetto version is affordable, alive & well.

1. Get a *Deore XT M8000* crank--yes, nice and black. You can't afford an XTR one anyway and why would you on an older bike. Its also a decent weight.
The great thing about the new M8000 is that the ring bolts are located inside the crank ears so you don't see the bolts and it won't look like you just slapped a 32T on an old crank.

2. New *XT or Deore Bottom Bracket*, don't use your old one unless you like starting out the new school year with your older brother's backpack from 2012 covered with old s*men stains.

3. *Deore XT M8000 32T ring*. I bought the 30T because its on a freeride bike and it needs more help than if it were on a trail bike. Its a 96 BCD. Its a tad heavier than a Wolf's Tooth alloy ring but its $20 cheaper and I admit it looks pretty fly for a white guy.

4. 10 speed *XTR Rear Derailleur Large cage*. An XT is fine but derailleurs are pretty cheap so why not get Shimano's flagship. I did have to get a larger metric B screw for the next item which was...

5. 10 speed *Sunrace CSMX3 11-40 *cassette. Sunrace claims its light, they probably also think Amy Schumer would look good in a bikini. Its not very light, the 11-42 is prob heavier, this 11-40 is about the same weight as a Shimano 11-36 Deore or SLX.

6. 10 Speed *XTR Right shifter.* I say why not XTR. The XT's are $20 bucks cheaper but hey lookit this way, thats about 2.5 beers at a pub.
How long does 2.5 beers at a pub last versus an XTR shifter? Plus it matches your XTR deraileur, homeboy.

So after a couple hours of nicely taking your sh*t 3x9, 2x9, etc apart and reinstalled with these parts with a new 10 speed chain (Dyna Sys) soon to be "dino-saur" knowing Shimano, you have a decent drivetrain. Plus the crank and ring are 11 speed ready, but thats what you hate so you won't have to go there....well at least not today. Ride on bro.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

andytiedye said:


> About the same for me, but at that speed I'm in 24×36 and I'm on a 26er.
> 30×42 on a 29er at that speed would seem like a knee-destroyingly low cadence.


Not so much about knee destroying, but impossible to balance/remain upright on steep stuff, not enough power to get over any technical bits interspersed in the climb. When bonking on mildly steep stuff, sure, it's hard to have too low of a gear, but when climbing anything remotely steep or technical, the lowest gear is usually a bad choice. This is the biggest reason we usually avoided the 22/34 combo back in the day, it was a little too low to be useful, but when 29ers came out they revised to 36t cassettes, so you weren't totally screwed.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

hambocairns said:


> This! I'm not that interested in max speed, I'd like gravity to do that for me





fatcat said:


> Sorry LBS' across the USA but I bought all the parts (except
> a chain and a bottom bracket at my LBS) from eBay. But they were actual bike shops on eBay, I'm guessing ones that buy in volume.
> 
> So for the OP who posted back in July, yes, Marsha Brady, you can still be pretty and be a bi*ch. The 1x10 Ghetto version is affordable, alive & well.
> ...


I'd be seriously bummed to give up my XT cassette. Those things shift awesome and last forever. I'd also have a tough time justifying that XTR biz and then have the RD so far away from the cassette. Good set up is more important than the fanciest parts.

Also think it's a bummer that new cranks don't have a provision to run a bash ring. No chainring protection is silly on a properly ridden MTB, and although taco bashes are alright, i prefer the extra strength/durability of a bash ring. Especially as BB heights keep dropping- i rarely tag my bashring now, but when i do it's on rock rolls and the like where i don't expect it and it gets draaaaaagged.

Not a dig against your choices, just discussion!


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

Well, I put 2x11 on my bike today. And what a difference!!!! Same chainrings, 26/36 but from a 11-32 to a 11-42 Cassette. Ya, 26-42 is a bit too low, but overall I love it. Now to find a 30T 64BCD 2x chainring....


----------



## telemike (Jun 20, 2011)

To calculate gear inches, a measure of pedaling ease that can be compared across different wheel and tire sizes, multiply the tire diameter by the number of teeth in the chainring and divide by the number of teeth in each sprocket. 

To visualize the actual spread of gears, plot on a logarithmic scale. Then, the distance on the paper for each gear will reflect visually how much easier or harder the gears are. Note that the tire diameter is NOT the wheel size and varies a lot between tire sizes and profiles for even the same wheel size.

I like a low gear of no more than 17 or 18 gear inches. The high is not so important unless you're on the road or a really fast gently sloping trail.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

banditpowdercoat said:


> Well, I put 2x11 on my bike today. And what a difference!!!! Same chainrings, 26/36 but from a 11-32 to a 11-42 Cassette. Ya, 26-42 is a bit too low, but overall I love it. Now to find a 30T 64BCD 2x chainring....


I don't get this...

So you are using the same chainrings and have essentially only added lower gearing which you say is too low (which I definitely agree with, 26/36 is too low for me).

What is better?

Also I don't see the point in using a 30/36 double up front. You'd be almost better just splitting the difference and benefiting from a better chainline of using just one chainring. 32 or 34?


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

Because I need the 36 for the trips to the trails. Acctually thinking of 38. My rides are flat and lots of hills. You don't ride here do of corse you don't see the point. 


Sent from my iPhone while my Heli plays with the gophers


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

l'oiseau said:


> You'd be almost better just splitting the difference and benefiting from a better chainline of using just one chainring. 32 or 34?


Seriously? Better chain line with 1x then with 2x? Really? Well that explains why 1x is so popular... reality and logical thinking is useless nowadays and all we do is trust PR gigs coming from bike companies. 
But just for little sanity check... go to your bike, and try to get another bike with 2x somewhere to compare things. Then put chain on biggest gear on your 1x bike and biggest cog and smallest chainring front on 2x bike and compare chainline. Repeat this with smallest cog on 1x and smallest cog and biggest chainring on 2x bike. You might actually get idea how absurd your claim about better chainline with 1x is


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

A lot of people ride mainly the big ring on a 2x...and when they do that...they'll cross chain in the big ring/cog combo. If you do that...your chainline will be worse off than a 1x. No?


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

l'oiseau said:


> .I'm honestly a bit confused by going lower than 30/42 with a 29er (and it's lower gearing on a 27.5 or 26). You have to spin so much RPM just to keep moving when you are lower than that it doesn't make much sense to me. I can get off and walk the bike faster.





andytiedye said:


> Really? How fast do you walk (up a steeeeep hill pushing a bike)?
> 
> FWIW, pedaling a loooow gear uphill is easier on the knees than hike-a-bike.





ColinL said:


> there absolutely is a speed at which it's easier to walk. it's somewhere below 3 mph, certainly by 2 mph, depending on your ability to balance and manage traction. so, extremely deep gearing is not that useful.





andytiedye said:


> About the same for me, but at that speed I'm in 24×36 and I'm on a 26er.
> 30×42 on a 29er at that speed would seem like a knee-destroyingly low cadence.


l'Oiseau and Jayem must be going much faster than 2-3 mph. Probably twice as fast.



Jayem said:


> Not so much about knee destroying, but impossible to balance/remain upright on steep stuff, not enough power to get over any technical bits interspersed in the climb. When bonking on mildly steep stuff, sure, it's hard to have too low of a gear, but when climbing anything remotely steep or technical, the lowest gear is usually a bad choice. This is the biggest reason we usually avoided the 22/34 combo back in the day


I was very glad to have such low gears, and used them on all the steepest parts.
Same with 24×36 now.

I tried 24×30 on my first bike for almost a year. No bueno. Knee pain for days or weeks after riding. 20×32, 22×34, 24×36 Knees OK.

If it's that steep AND technical, there's just no way I could ride it.


----------



## weisoseis (Apr 10, 2016)

primoz said:


> Seriously? Better chain line with 1x then with 2x? Really? Well that explains why 1x is so popular... reality and logical thinking is useless nowadays and all we do is trust PR gigs coming from bike companies.
> But just for little sanity check... go to your bike, and try to get another bike with 2x somewhere to compare things. Then put chain on biggest gear on your 1x bike and biggest cog and smallest chainring front on 2x bike and compare chainline. Repeat this with smallest cog on 1x and smallest cog and biggest chainring on 2x bike. You might actually get idea how absurd your claim about better chainline with 1x is


Relax, spacers can fix the center line on a spider mount, or center mount. So instead of getting this _ = 
You get this - =

Time is an invention...


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

banditpowdercoat said:


> Because I need the 36 for the trips to the trails. Acctually thinking of 38. My rides are flat and lots of hills. You don't ride here do of corse you don't see the point.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone while my Heli plays with the gophers


Seems to me if your low 42 is already too low, you could have went to a 46-11 cassette with a single up front and got the gearing you wanted i.e. run a 36 or 38 up front and still have a really low climbing gear.



RS VR6 said:


> A lot of people ride mainly the big ring on a 2x...and when they do that...they'll cross chain in the big ring/cog combo. If you do that...your chainline will be worse off than a 1x. No?


Kind of what I meant. If you really want to use all 22 gears on a 2x11, you wind up in some circumstances with a worse chainline that with a 1x11.

I was thinking of this specific example where he was talking about a really narrow spread in the chainrings i.e the 30/36. Maybe I'm just not understanding running that close of spacing on a 2x.

If it were me, I'd ride all the time on the 30 for trails and all the time on the 36 for road or whatever? In that sense, the 30 might have a less ideal chainline for the overall cassette width than the 36.

I rode 3X for years. I had a specific set of gears I would use depending on the ring. Usually no more than fourth on the granny and no less than fourth on the big ring. Chainline is better that way, but you don't use the whole cassette.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

weisoseis said:


> Relax, spacers can fix the center line on a spider mount, or center mount. So instead of getting this _ =
> You get this - =.


Not really... spacers move front chainring to be positioned in middle of cassette, basically same thing as middle chainring in 3x is. Now if you look this quick drawing, which chainline is better in extreme positions? The ones from green (1x) chainring or the ones from yellow (2x)? 







PS: Yes I agree if you are riding big chainring front, big cog back, then 1x chainline is better, but most of us never really ride that sort of combo. In any other case, 2x chainline is a lot better then 1x chainline... no matter of spacers, unless you would be moving spacers on the fly


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

andytiedye said:


> l'Oiseau and Jayem must be going much faster than 2-3 mph. Probably twice as fast.


Not really - I think I'm usually around 3-4mph.

I do get going real slow sometimes, like near stall. This is on real steep sections and I actually stand up in my lowest gear. It's not always the most successful. If it's really dry or loose I'll likely spin. It's much better to get some momentum and hit those in a bit higher gear with more speed... but sometimes the body say no.

And thing is, I found I would spin seated with the lower gears in that kind of stuff.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

primoz said:


> Not really... spacers move front chainring to be positioned in middle of cassette, basically same thing as middle chainring in 3x is. Now if you look this quick drawing, which chainline is better in extreme positions? The ones from green (1x) chainring or the ones from yellow (2x)?
> View attachment 1092895
> 
> PS: Yes I agree if you are riding big chainring front, big cog back, then 1x chainline is better, but most of us never really ride that sort of combo. In any other case, 2x chainline is a lot better then 1x chainline... no matter of spacers, unless you would be moving spacers on the fly


I was actually considering biasing my 1x setup to have a better chainline in the lower gears.

This was essentially me thinking of optimizing my setup to the gears I spend more time in, which are the larger cogs.

I'd have to try it and see if there are any issues when I get all the way into 11, like it wanting to jump back up...

I don't know that I ever really use my 11 on my dedicated trail bike.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

banditpowdercoat said:


> Well, I put 2x11 on my bike today. And what a difference!!!! Same chainrings, 26/36 but from a 11-32 to a 11-42 Cassette. Ya, 26-42 is a bit too low, but overall I love it. Now to find a 30T 64BCD 2x chainring....


Some of the first 2x cranks had those, when SRAM thought the demand was from racers who didn't need a granny rather than trail riders. Though they may have had a funny bolt pattern. I think Surly might do something too. Granny rings don't "know" if they're part of 2x or 3x drivetrains, so you don't need to worry about that. Though sometimes there are problems with older chainring designs and narrower chains for greater numbers of cogs, so check into that.

Six teeth is a pretty small shift. You'll be doing a bit of an experiment. Front derailleurs for double cranks are so simple I doubt you'll have a problem.

Like some other posters, I do find this a slightly puzzling drivetrain. How many cogs did you have before? What was the motivation for your change? What's the big improvement?

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thinking about putting an 11-42 11-speed cassette on my 2x10 bike. But the big reason for me is to get rid of my front derailleur at the same time. Funny enough, I'd probably go with that 26t ring you thought was too low.  But I have a pretty rapid cadence.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

primoz said:


> PS: Yes I agree if you are riding big chainring front, big cog back, then 1x chainline is better, but most of us never really ride that sort of combo. In any other case, 2x chainline is a lot better then 1x chainline... no matter of spacers, unless you would be moving spacers on the fly


I find myself doing that fairly frequently. I really liked the 32t ring on my 26" bike. Between the 22/36 crank and 29" wheels on my 2x10 bike, those gears are on bigger cogs now. If I'd pieced together the crankset from separate parts, I'd probably have gone with 22/32, like what people were doing before all the stock double cranksets came out.

Big/big doesn't bother me as much as small/small. It's a less screwed up, quieter chainline. So there's that.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

l'oiseau said:


> I don't know that I ever really use my 11 on my dedicated trail bike.


On my 1x11, I use my 11t cog pretty frequently. I don't spin it out on trails, so I don't see it as a problem. But choosing a chain ring in a size that's not trying to prove anything makes that highest gear a more useful ratio.

I certainly still spend more time in low gears. Climbing takes longer. And I ratchet more in low gears too. Pedaling over something with tight clearance just doesn't seem to come up when I'm riding at the speeds that those high gears go with...

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

l'oiseau said:


> Seems to me if your low 42 is already too low, you could have went to a 46-11 cassette with a single up front and got the gearing you wanted i.e. run a 36 or 38 up front and still have a really low climbing gear.
> 
> Kind of what I meant. If you really want to use all 22 gears on a 2x11, you wind up in some circumstances with a worse chainline that with a 1x11.
> 
> ...


Possibly yes. BUT, I did not know at the time of purchase. And already have my chainrings and I got a good deal on my Sunrace cassette and they were out of the 11-46. So, the choice was made to try the 11-42. The main reason for switching was my 9spd cassette and rear mech were worn the heck out. I needed new stuff regardless. And I wanted a rear mech with a clutch. Chainrings were just changed. I priced it out and it was not much more to go 11x over 10x with the parts I chose. Also, I might just end up going 1x next year. Who knows. Maybe I will change to a 11-46. But I have to get some miles on this setup, See what I like and don't like. Also have to get my legs back into shape as I havent ridden since spring. So testing right now is kinda useless as I will be using the granny more.



AndrwSwitch said:


> Some of the first 2x cranks had those, when SRAM thought the demand was from racers who didn't need a granny rather than trail riders. Though they may have had a funny bolt pattern. I think Surly might do something too. Granny rings don't "know" if they're part of 2x or 3x drivetrains, so you don't need to worry about that. Though sometimes there are problems with older chainring designs and narrower chains for greater numbers of cogs, so check into that.
> 
> Six teeth is a pretty small shift. You'll be doing a bit of an experiment. Front derailleurs for double cranks are so simple I doubt you'll have a problem.
> 
> ...


My crank is orig a 3x, removed the largest ring for bash guard. SO chainline in the 36 is pretty much optimum. I am buiding a AM style bike out of this Stumpy. I have and will continue to use it for shuttle and Lift assist runs as well as Technical XC trails we have here in Revelstoke BC. My cadence sux. I can not spin fast, and my power is low right now too as previously said.

Like I posted above. I'm not against fully going 1x and it was a possibility from the start. But using what I have now with some new tech, I have to see where I need to go from here. Maybe when legs get a bit better, I could just use a Absolute Black 36 oval and be happy. I don't quite know yet.

Ya'll gotta remember too, This is on a 2007 Stumpjumper.FSR Comp. Ya I know its old and new comes ready to go. But I like upgrading, it's a sickness, and it is much easier on my wallet right now.

Got a huge Heli lifted run happening on Sunday. Be about 15Km Ridge running and Hikabike, then a 11KM downhill back. That should be a good test.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Big/big doesn't bother me as much as small/small. It's a less screwed up, quieter chainline. So there's that.


Actually big/big is nearly always much worse chainline than small/small. Small/small is often makes more noise though due to a slacker chain and front derailleur adjustment bias.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> On my 1x11, I use my 11t cog pretty frequently. I don't spin it out on trails, so I don't see it as a problem. But choosing a chain ring in a size that's not trying to prove anything makes that highest gear a more useful ratio.
> 
> I certainly still spend more time in low gears. Climbing takes longer. And I ratchet more in low gears too. Pedaling over something with tight clearance just doesn't seem to come up when I'm riding at the speeds that those high gears go with...
> 
> Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


The operative word in my statement was "know"  I'm not actually sure how much I get in that 11 or at all on a trail. I know I'm not grabbing for more gears beyond it, but I might actually hit it now and again.

I have a good feel on my lower gears, and obviously feel when I hit the stop and run out of lower ones, but sometimes those higher ones, whatever one I'm in is what it is. It doesn't matter as much as the lower ones.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I was a little surprised the first time I tried to shift up from my highest gear. On double and triple drivetrains, it's been pretty much useless to me. Between lowering it and having a dropper post on my newest bike, suddenly it matters. Go figure.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## weisoseis (Apr 10, 2016)

primoz said:


> Not really... spacers move front chainring to be positioned in middle of cassette, basically same thing as middle chainring in 3x is. Now if you look this quick drawing, which chainline is better in extreme positions? The ones from green (1x) chainring or the ones from yellow (2x)?
> View attachment 1092895
> 
> PS: Yes I agree if you are riding big chainring front, big cog back, then 1x chainline is better, but most of us never really ride that sort of combo. In any other case, 2x chainline is a lot better then 1x chainline... no matter of spacers, unless you would be moving spacers on the fly


I live, and ride in south Florida, man made tech trails, and maybe 10% on paved roads with the family. I just made the switch to 1x (32x11-36) a week ago. I've gone riding twice to two different parks (Virginia key, and Amelia Earhart) with the new set up. I used the entire cog of 10 (11-36) on both parks, with the majority of the time being in the middle gears of the cog. I went with a 1x setup because in my situation, I was looking for a cleaner, less cluttered, lower maintenance, leg power building arrangement. As to the chain line situation, it's very quiet in every gear. Quiet to me translates to good or acceptable chain line position, I don't know if my 32t absoluteblack chain ring has something to do with it, but it works well for my needs. Now, you might be on to something with your comment about "moving spacers on the fly", a system that moves your chain ring into optimal position for the best chain line angle would be genius, for those that need it, or want it.

Time is an invention...


----------



## philreske8614 (Apr 25, 2016)

I ride a 2x10 28-40. One bike with xt and one with xtr. One point no one seems to be mentioning is the ability to a whole bunch of gears with 1 shift instead of 4. This to me is sooo valuable and simple. I don't want to shift more I want to shift less. 

Shimano Xt and slx work as good as xtr. While anything lower than the highest level in sram-land works like ****. I'll stick with my low maintenance 2x10 setup. 
+1 to the poster who said Sram fd's suck... They do. 

Also, FD's arent hard to setup or tune. I've built 4 bikes over the past few years all with fd's. I think the talent of the local bike shop has a lot to do with fd experiences as well.

With that being said, I think 1x could work if they make shifters be able to jump 4 gears in both directions in one stroke. Still I wouldn't change my 2x10 to a 1x at that premium but i would at least consider it on my next build/replacement if they fixed that issue. Hopefully shimano takes the reigns here because I hate sram and do not trust their products. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

weisoseis said:


> I went with a 1x setup because in my situation, I was looking for a cleaner, less cluttered, lower maintenance, leg power building arrangement.
> 
> Now, you might be on to something with your comment about "moving spacers on the fly", a system that moves your chain ring into optimal position for the best chain line angle would be genius, for those that need it, or want it.


You can get what you wanted and more, (and cheap,) with a single speed.


----------



## weisoseis (Apr 10, 2016)

Zowie said:


> You can get what you wanted and more, (and cheap,) with a single speed.


Hehe...

Time is an invention...


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

It's official. I am super happy with the 2x11 I got. I rarely shift the front. Into granny ring for all the climbing and single tracks Larger ring for around town and the big downs. Love the gear spread of the 11. 


Sent from my iPhone while my Heli plays with the gophers


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

philreske8614 said:


> I ride a 2x10 28-40. One bike with xt and one with xtr. One point no one seems to be mentioning is the ability to a whole bunch of gears with 1 shift instead of 4. This to me is sooo valuable and simple. I don't want to shift more I want to shift less.


Obviously that's subjective, but with many of those 2x and 3x setups we realized we could stay within the range of a cassette if it was just a little easier on the bottom end and a little faster on the top end, so rather than shifting to the granny to just use the last 3 gears or to the big ring to use the other last 3 gears, we've mostly found that our riding is easily encompassed by the gear range of 10-42 or so. Different strokes of course, but one thing that isn't quite so subjective is front derailleur performance. It's just not the same as the rear derailleur, having worked in a shop for some time and mountain biked for a much longer time, it's just not a very good mechanical design, under extreme power it often doesn't want to drop, like you might experience in a race. 2x improved on 3x in this regard, but you can see the trend.


> Shimano Xt and slx work as good as xtr. While anything lower than the highest level in sram-land works like ****. I'll stick with my low maintenance 2x10 setup.
> +1 to the poster who said Sram fd's suck... They do.


I call BS on this, big time. First of all, XTR is a race spec that is mostly orientated towards XC racing, yes, there are some "trail" parts, but for the most part it's not really apples to apples. Across the board, there are some significant differences, differences that do make them feel and perform a little different, and to claim that anything less than XX1 shift's like poop? No way, not even close. You are way way biased here. I used to run shimano triggers for years, then I switched to SRAM. Yeah, the X5s I've used at times were kind of meh, but above that they've been solid. I've been trying to kill two X9 derailleurs for a few years now, they just won't die and they still work perfectly. That includes trips to CO and WA where I did DH, trips to the local DH mountain and all kinds of abuse in between. These have really come a long way from 15 years ago. My newest bike is an honest 1x11 setup (my other two are 1x10, since I don't really need the super-easy gearing, being an aggressive rider) and set up with X01 derailleur and X1 shifter, it's absolutely great. I don't think you really give credit to how far SRAM has come. I used to rag on them all the time for their shoddy ESP 9.0 derailleurs and some of the stuff that came after, crappy cassettes, boring cranks, but now they are dictating the drivetrain standards and technology, because their XD cassettes are significantly lighter than shimano's system, with more range. Then there's the carbon cranks. IMO, SRAM is ahead of shimano for drivetrain right now. Shimano's 1x11 system is kind of a "me too!" product.

I still love my shimano brakes, hubs (got a new XTR for my latest build and it's beautiful), and some other parts, but SRAM has really turned around, driving the market in many areas.



> Also, FD's arent hard to setup or tune. I've built 4 bikes over the past few years all with fd's. I think the talent of the local bike shop has a lot to do with fd experiences as well.


It's not necessarily tuning, it's some of the inherent properties and on some bikes, no matter how great of a mechanic you were, it just didn't work perfectly. Then there's suspension design. Turns out, if you don't have to worry about the chain varying between different locations relative to the BB and pivot, you don't need a lot of fancy virtual pivot stuff (FSR, VPP, etc) to try and compensate. 1x drivetrains simplifies suspension design and allows for some really good single pivot (with linkages to vary the rate) designs, which usually end up stiffer than FSRs and with less load on the bearings/linkages than the mini-link bikes. Of course, this may actually turn out to be a negative, because the companies like to always sell us the newest flashy complex thing, so something that looks more complex (like it's solving some sort of inherent suspension issue) might be more up your alley.



> With that being said, I think 1x could work if they make shifters be able to jump 4 gears in both directions in one stroke. Still I wouldn't change my 2x10 to a 1x at that premium but i would at least consider it on my next build/replacement if they fixed that issue. Hopefully shimano takes the reigns here *because I hate sram *and do not trust their products.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Noted.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Different strokes of course, but one thing that isn't quite so subjective is front derailleur performance. It's just not the same as the rear derailleur, having worked in a shop for some time and mountain biked for a much longer time, it's just not a very good mechanical design, under extreme power it often doesn't want to drop, like you might experience in a race.


IME dropping into the small chainring is just as fast and reliable as a rear shift, even while pushing hard mid-climb.

For sure front shifting isn't at the same level of precision as rear shifting, and shifting up to bigger rings requires a little extra time and technique but the ability to bail into the small ring is one of 2x's attributes IMO.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I really like my RaceMano drivetrain. I get a spiderless crank and the chainring that's realistic for my cadence, fitness and riding area, Shimano rear shifting, a broader selection of more economical cassettes, and no 10t cog or weird XD driver.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> IME dropping into the small chainring is just as fast and reliable as a rear shift, even while pushing hard mid-climb.
> 
> For sure front shifting isn't at the same level of precision as rear shifting, and shifting up to bigger rings requires a little extra time and technique but the ability to bail into the small ring is one of 2x's attributes IMO.


Except when your chain falls off.

I've never had a chain come off shifting to a lower gear on 1x.

I have had my chain come off on 1x though - twice. Once with just NW and a non-clutch derailleur. Second time with a NW AND a clutch derailleur. I've tightened the clutch and it hasn't happened again. But it can. Both times were descending chunk and didn't happen while shifting.

Bike drivetrains aren't bulletproof... yet.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

l'oiseau said:


> Except when your chain falls off.


In my case that has been such a rare event that I consider it a complete non-issue.

I'm not advocating for or against front derailleurs, only relaying my personal experience.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Chain drop is extremely rare for me on my 3x. 



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## philreske8614 (Apr 25, 2016)

l'oiseau said:


> Except when your chain falls off.
> 
> I've never had a chain come off shifting to a lower gear on 1x.
> 
> ...


You either had a crappy(Sram) FD or the person working on your bike has no idea what they were doing.

I completely stopped relying on bike shops because the lack of their ability to fix things with the exception of fork servicing and wheel building/maintainence. Plus i fix my friends bikes because their bike shops let them down too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## philreske8614 (Apr 25, 2016)

Jayem said:


> Obviously that's subjective, but with many of those 2x and 3x setups we realized we could stay within the range of a cassette if it was just a little easier on the bottom end and a little faster on the top end, so rather than shifting to the granny to just use the last 3 gears or to the big ring to use the other last 3 gears, we've mostly found that our riding is easily encompassed by the gear range of 10-42 or so. Different strokes of course, but one thing that isn't quite so subjective is front derailleur performance. It's just not the same as the rear derailleur, having worked in a shop for some time and mountain biked for a much longer time, it's just not a very good mechanical design, under extreme power it often doesn't want to drop, like you might experience in a race. 2x improved on 3x in this regard, but you can see the trend.
> 
> I call BS on this, big time. First of all, XTR is a race spec that is mostly orientated towards XC racing, yes, there are some "trail" parts, but for the most part it's not really apples to apples. Across the board, there are some significant differences, differences that do make them feel and perform a little different, and to claim that anything less than XX1 shift's like poop? No way, not even close. You are way way biased here. I used to run shimano triggers for years, then I switched to SRAM. Yeah, the X5s I've used at times were kind of meh, but above that they've been solid. I've been trying to kill two X9 derailleurs for a few years now, they just won't die and they still work perfectly. That includes trips to CO and WA where I did DH, trips to the local DH mountain and all kinds of abuse in between. These have really come a long way from 15 years ago. My newest bike is an honest 1x11 setup (my other two are 1x10, since I don't really need the super-easy gearing, being an aggressive rider) and set up with X01 derailleur and X1 shifter, it's absolutely great. I don't think you really give credit to how far SRAM has come. I used to rag on them all the time for their shoddy ESP 9.0 derailleurs and some of the stuff that came after, crappy cassettes, boring cranks, but now they are dictating the drivetrain standards and technology, because their XD cassettes are significantly lighter than shimano's system, with more range. Then there's the carbon cranks. IMO, SRAM is ahead of shimano for drivetrain right now. Shimano's 1x11 system is kind of a "me too!" product.
> 
> ...


In terms of shifting performance xt xtr and slx are all very good if not the same all exactly the same. The difference is in the weight and materials used to make the components. I cant talk to other Shimano components like brakes. This is not the case with sram.

Your point about FDs not working because the bike geometry/design/type is complete BS.

Sram leads the industry in ONLY 1 aspect and that's the topic we're talking about. Their forks and brakes are subpar and other companies lead those areas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

philreske8614 said:


> I
> Your point about FDs not working because the bike geometry/design/type is complete BS.


With only 1 chainring the designer knows exactly where the chain will be pulling from and can tune pedal feedback exactly as he wishes.

...their forks are subpar? :skep:


----------



## philreske8614 (Apr 25, 2016)

scottzg said:


> With only 1 chainring the designer knows exactly where the chain will be pulling from and can tune pedal feedback exactly as he wishes.
> 
> ...their forks are subpar? :skep:


How does that prevent FD's from working? 
The 2 topics are mutally exclusive.

Also, whatever you're trying to say doesn't make much sense. There is a standard chainline for 1x and 2x drivetrains for both boost and nonboost setups.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I never had many chain drops on 3X. Don't think I ever did on 2X but I didn't use it that long.

All I'm saying is I never had a chain drop due to a FD shift on a 1X *















*but I've dropped chains on 1X too


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

philreske8614 said:


> How does that prevent FD's from working?
> The 2 topics are mutally exclusive.
> 
> Also, whatever you're trying to say doesn't make much sense. There is a standard chainline for 1x and 2x drivetrains for both boost and nonboost setups.
> ...


not chainline.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Can't speak about the forks, since one of my bikes has an MRP fork, the other is a Lefty.

I can't stand Shimano XTR brakes, they suck. Which is funny, since I like the SLX. I had XO1 when I bought my bike, but they developed a leak so they replaced them with Guide RSC on warranty, and I really like those. 

I can't tell a difference between all the rear derailuers, they all seem to work about the same these days. Since I barely have a use for a FD, I can't speak about those. My road bike has one still, though I honestly almost never shift it (downtube Cyclone from 1985). And I am contemplating going back to 3x on my CX bike to make it more adventure oriented, but then again, do I really need a FD with a 11-36 cassette, and cheap 11-42 option? Going to ride around without it for a while and decide.


----------



## comptiger5000 (Jun 11, 2007)

Sidewalk said:


> And I am contemplating going back to 3x on my CX bike to make it more adventure oriented, but then again, do I really need a FD with a 11-36 cassette, and cheap 11-42 option? Going to ride around without it for a while and decide.


Depending on how much range you need, 2x might do the trick on that bike. The biggest advantage of going 3x at that point would be if you want a smaller range cassette for closer spaced gears.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I guess I have to live with topping out at 19 mph.


I run a 1x9, 32 front, and I can easily cruise at 25 mph and can get to 27 mph by spinning faster. If you feel the need to go faster or closer great ratios then a 2x or 3x system is the answer. I'm assuming this poster does not have a 1x system.

Since someone bumped this ancient thread and others will search for it, I felt compelled to chime in.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't want a 1x either

-often- use road segments to connect to trails 

and if it's within 15 miles
am pedaling, not driving to some place and parking to go ride....meh
so need me a big ring

here is typical MTB ride for me...with some road chunks to get across towns


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

127.0.0.1 said:


> I don't want a 1x either
> 
> -often- use road segments to connect to trails
> 
> ...


Needing a big ring is a myth. I can run 25mph, with ease, on my 1x with a 32 on the front. Top end is such a non issue that I want to try a 30 ring for closer gear ratios. I have two friends who run 32 1x on their converted mtbs going to road rides.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Rod said:


> Needing a big ring is a myth. I can run 25mph, with ease, on my 1x with a 32 on the front. Top end is such a non issue that I want to try a 30 ring for closer gear ratios. I have two friends who run 32 1x on their converted mtbs going to road rides.


so do I need to highlight my map with my >29 mile per hour sections ?

I need at least a 38x11 to bop across town or I get bored real fast at 150rpm +

I make most power right around 100rpm, which I can settle into when my suds are up

2.4's at 22psi

I am only gonna be in that big gear a short time, but I want it always. 'cuz I am always gonna be on some damn flat piece and and feeling punchy, or down a paved hill.

whatevah...truth be told I walk in a shop and look at the bikes and I don't even consider ones with a single front ring. it's shame the industry is catering to the cagers and not the old skool, no car having, have to ride roads to tha trails crowd


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

No, the bike companies are trying to cater to mountain bikers with their mountain bike lines. The front derailleur gets in the way in some designs and with the wide ranges available now they think loosing it is not a big deal. Short chain stays, big tires, and front shifting, pick 2. Well lots of bike engineers are dropping the front shifting. Shimano is still hoping that the front derailleur with DI2 is the answer but I think that SRAM has left them behind with Eagle. Other wide range cassettes from E13 and Hope are giving even more options. Some may not like it but but it is happening, just like all the other changes that were resisted by some. Even cross bikes are going 1X.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Also, design is heavily influenced by racing, right or wrong. DH is 1X, Enduro, and XC are predominantly 1X.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> Also, design is heavily influenced by racing, right or wrong. DH is 1X, Enduro, and XC are predominantly 1X.


Huh? So all are 1X according to that.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Pretty much. I'd speculate that the mountain biker who genuinely needs on a regular basis more range than a 10/11-42T cassette can offer is in the minority.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Pro racers of any kind with a front derailleur are in the minority.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> Pro racers are in the minority.


Ftfy.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Zowie said:


> Ftfy.


You don't agree that bike design is race driven?


----------



## philreske8614 (Apr 25, 2016)

The big issue I have with Sram ( and going 1x ) is The limitations of the shifter. Sram shifters are terrible compared to shimano. Before you all get butt-hurt over that statement, at the end if the day, they do work. But shimano shifters can be triggered in 2 directions and shifting to a smaller cog can be done in 2's.
Also shimano shifters are overall wayyyyyy smoother and quiter 
. 
Having a 1x12 sounds like the sweet spot but I want Shimano to make it and I want it electronic so if I hold the button down it will automatically shift through the cassette until I release the button.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

I'd like an E*Thirteen TRS 9-42 10 Speed Cassette, but they're like $250!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Even cross bikes are going 1X.


I would have liked that a few years ago. I think if I set up my 'cross bike with a 44t N/W, an 11-42 would cover me pretty well for gravel and trail riding and a 11-34 or so would handle road and 'cross.

My chain watcher was never great. I'm sure a N/W ring and clutch derailleur would do a better job.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> You don't agree that bike design is race driven?


I was stating that bike design is for the minority.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The number of riders who race is very small, but racing's influence is big. I don't race but the bike model I ride is raced.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> The number of riders who race is very small, but racing's influence is big. I don't race but the bike model I ride is raced.


I suspect that both sides of this divide perceive themselves as bigger than they are.

Probably about half of the people I ride with outside my team pin a number on at least every now and then. They don't necessarily train or build a season around it, but I think in an area with a good grassroots racing scene, it can be like going to a 5k, something I think a ton of runners do at least every now and then.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Even cross bikes are going 1X.


Cyclocross bikes started as 1x. It was only when they became the thing to have in the US that they got dumbed down to wider gearing, do it all, touring/gravel garbage that they are today.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

127.0.0.1 said:


> so do I need to highlight my map with my >29 mile per hour sections ?
> 
> I need at least a 38x11 to bop across town or I get bored real fast at 150rpm +
> 
> ...


If you're that strong, put a larger ring on the front of a 1x. Problem solved. Shimano 2x systems would work too.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

E* Thirteen is about to release a 9-46 11speed cassette that will be under 300gr. With a 26t chainring, your high would be close to 34/11 and low would be close to 22/38. 28t would be 36/11 and 22/36. A 30t would be close to 38/11 and 24/36. Less weight, and a modular cassette to replace only won parts.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Cerberus75 said:


> E* Thirteen is about to release a 9-46 11speed cassette that will be under 300gr. With a 26t chainring, your high would be close to 34/11 and low would be close to 22/38. 28t would be 36/11 and 22/36. A 30t would be close to 38/11 and 24/36. Less weight, and a modular cassette to replace only won parts.


Except I could buy 8 xt 11-36 cassettes for the price of one of those, not for me.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

The Leonardi 9-45 coming out is supposed to be 180.00 and 350gr. So only 4 xt 11-36


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

As cool as I think these new cassettes are. 11-36 works great for me. And even if I did switch to 11spd, it would be on my rigid road/gravel/single track bike and I know 11-42 would be more than adequate. I like it with 11-36. 11-42 I'd probably go back to a 38T chainring. Maybe I shouldn't sell the one I have 

I'd actually love an 11-36 in about 7 or 8 speeds for my dedicated trail bike... you know, while we are *****ing...


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Except I could buy 8 xt 11-36 cassettes for the price of one of those, not for me.


doesnt matter how many 11-36s you buy, it wont cover the range like the e13, its not as light as the e13, and its not modular.

the truth is that the 9-46 cassette (and the leo 9-45) are equalling a 2x setup in range without the weight of a 2x OR the eagle setup. the price can be a turn off but really, you dont need to replace cassettes yearly even if you neglect them.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

127.0.0.1 said:


> so do I need to highlight my map with my >29 mile per hour sections ?
> 
> I need at least a 38x11 to bop across town or I get bored real fast at 150rpm +
> 
> ...


32t/-9-46 on a 29x2.4" tire gets you 30mph at 100rpm and will still have a decent climbing gear on the bottom end.

in fact, that bottom gear is shorter than what i have on my 27.5x3.0 with a 32t/10-42 drivetrain. lol.

your situation is unique but still handled by a 1x setup.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

xblitzkriegx said:


> doesnt matter how many 11-36s you buy, it wont cover the range like the e13, its not as light as the e13, and its not modular.


It does cover the range with 2 chainrings, which is what I was talking about. The cassette itself is probably lighter than an e13 (I use 11/32) but there are a few hundred grams extra for shifters, derailleurs and such. I don't care.

And again, @ $35 a pop I don't care if they're modular. I like fresh drivetrains.

I'll probably go 1x when I wear my current stuff out but I'll stick with reasonably priced xt cassettes, most likely 11/42t.


----------



## xblitzkriegx (Jul 29, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> It does cover the range with 2 chainrings, which is what I was talking about. The cassette itself is probably lighter than an e13 (I use 11/32) but there are a few hundred grams extra for shifters, derailleurs and such. I don't care.
> 
> And again, @ $35 a pop I don't care if they're modular. I like fresh drivetrains.
> 
> I'll probably go 1x when I wear my current stuff out but I'll stick with reasonably priced xt cassettes, most likely 11/42t.


im not aware of many, if any, doubles that will cover an 32t+9/46 setup. a 24/34t+11/32 doesnt even come close. you either give up low end or top end compared to it.

from a budget standpoint, it makes sense. i dont think the extra cash on the cassettes is worth the money unless you have a need for the range. there are some examples in this thread where people try to come up with scenarios where 1x "wont work". some extreme examples are valid but most are covered if you look at it objectively. and the gear spacing isnt any worse than 2x or even 3x usually.

at some point, ill swap over to an 34t+9-46 setup but for now, 32t+10-42 is fine.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

xblitzkriegx said:


> im not aware of many, if any, doubles that will cover an 32t+9/46 setup. a 24/34t+11/32 doesnt even come close. you either give up low end or top end compared to it.


22/36 and 24/38 are very common stock setups, I'm using a sram 22/36t now.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Another plug for SRAMs drivetrain superiority: Most high end hubs have soft drive-shells that get scored and torn by the cassette. I'm not talking about loose-gear cassettes from 15 years ago, but modern XT and others, they still score the hell out of the splines on these cassettes (that use aluminum drive-shells to reduce weight) with the last couple gears and eventually you have to take a hammer to the drive-shell to punch out your cassette and the drive-shell is toast after a while. This has been a problem for years for anyone who uses high end hubs other than Shimano. Problem completely avoided with XD drive-shell.


----------



## philreske8614 (Apr 25, 2016)

Jayem said:


> Another plug for SRAMs drivetrain superiority: Most high end hubs have soft drive-shells that get scored and torn by the cassette. I'm not talking about loose-gear cassettes from 15 years ago, but modern XT and others, they still score the hell out of the splines on these cassettes (that use aluminum drive-shells to reduce weight) with the last couple gears and eventually you have to take a hammer to the drive-shell to punch out your cassette and the drive-shell is toast after a while. This has been a problem for years for anyone who uses high end hubs other than Shimano. Problem completely avoided with XD drive-shell.


Buy Sram, it's only compatible with sram cassettes. It'll fix a small issue but cost you 150$ AND limit your options.
I' rather buy a xd driver to fit a 10t then for this issue that rarely occurs when cassettes are tightened properly to specifications.

Also, anyone who's banging on their cassette/freehub body with a hammer deserves to but a new one. The cogs are super easy to remove with a chain whip.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

philreske8614 said:


> Buy Sram, it's only compatible with sram cassettes. It'll fix a small issue but cost you 150$ AND limit your options.
> I' rather buy a xd driver to fit a 10t then for this issue that rarely occurs when cassettes are tightened properly to specifications.
> 
> Also, anyone who's banging on their cassette/freehub body with a hammer deserves to but a new one. The cogs are super easy to remove with a chain whip.
> ...


Not always. I help out at a bike shop once in a while and I have seen them struggle to get a cassette off with a wall full of tools. The shop owner himself had to use a punch and hammer to pound them off.

He doesn't exactly want to be liable for damaging a customers bike.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

My experience with SRAM cassettes/drivers are recent and fairly limited, but working with them is a snap. The entire cassette slides on and you tighten the internal collar. That's it...no aligning the splines, lock rings, separate cogs, spacers, etc. I really like that the cassette is one piece.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

philreske8614 said:


> I' rather buy a xd driver to fit a 10t then for this issue that rarely occurs when cassettes are tightened properly to specifications.
> 
> Also, anyone who's banging on their cassette/freehub body with a hammer deserves to but a new one. The cogs are super easy to remove with a chain whip.


Not sure how long you've been doing this, but you fail to grasp the issue here.

Soft alloy drive-shell hubs, like CK, Hope, DT Swiss, and others, become "scored" by the cassette, even when it's a cassette with carriers, especially the last few gears, and these can and do "jam" into the drive-shell, even yes, when the gears are tightened correctly the whole time. There are plenty of pictures of this. Yes, the only way to sometimes remove them is get the drive-shell off and punch the drive-shell out of the cassette. This is avoided in lower-end shimano hubs with steel and their higher-end XTR ones use titanium drive-shells to avoid this. While the XTR hubs are very nice, a lot of people are biased against their cup-n-cone system (which works really nice and is easy to adjust if you've ever taken just a little time to do it). But there are lots of other hubs that offer advantages, like star-ratchet drives, ring-drive, etc., so lots of reasons to go with other hubs. Scoring the soft alloy drive-shell is the price we paid for some of these light hubs. They would work for a while, but eventually it gets bad enough you need a new drive-shell. Now, we don't have to make this sacrifice, because the XD interface completely avoids this problem. Progress.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Jayem said:


> Not sure how long you've been doing this, but you fail to grasp the issue here.
> 
> Soft alloy drive-shell hubs, like CK, Hope, DT Swiss, and others, become "scored" by the cassette, even when it's a cassette with carriers, especially the last few gears, and these can and do "jam" into the drive-shell, even yes, when the gears are tightened correctly the whole time. There are plenty of pictures of this. Yes, the only way to sometimes remove them is get the drive-shell off and punch the drive-shell out of the cassette. This is avoided in lower-end shimano hubs with steel and their higher-end XTR ones use titanium drive-shells to avoid this. While the XTR hubs are very nice, a lot of people are biased against their cup-n-cone system (which works really nice and is easy to adjust if you've ever taken just a little time to do it). But there are lots of other hubs that offer advantages, like star-ratchet drives, ring-drive, etc., so lots of reasons to go with other hubs. Scoring the soft alloy drive-shell is the price we paid for some of these light hubs. They would work for a while, but eventually it gets bad enough you need a new drive-shell. Now, we don't have to make this sacrifice, because the XD interface completely avoids this problem. Progress.


I'm a big guy that carries his weight very easily... i'll take the mild inconvenience of prying 2-3 cassette rings off over the frustration of dealing with SRAM cassettes that were never designed for my power output. That's ignoring that 10t is fussy and inefficient anyway...

Shimano's hubs- cheap, steel freehub, cup/cone... it's the best. Too bad their mtb freehubs don't ever last and i haven't had much luck with them not coming out of adjustment. YMMV

(i'm running XT cassettes on hope hubs on my mtbs and ultegra cassettes/hubs on my road bike- all these parts have >5k and work perfectly.)


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I have pretty good luck with cassettes that use a spider. I think it's really the cheap cassette/expensive freehub combination that's bad news. Though I'm not a big guy and favor high cadence. I'm happy with my W/kg, at least given what else is happening in my life right now, but I know there are people out there who weigh 50% more than me and mash to develop power. I can see how that would be harder on a freehub.

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

scottzg said:


> (i'm running XT cassettes on hope hubs on my mtbs and ultegra cassettes/hubs on my road bike- all these parts have >5k and work perfectly.)


About 2 seasons on my hope hub with nothing but XT cassettes. It's about done, I doubt it'll go through another cassette cycle. Had to punch it off the last time I took it off.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

FWIW, use two chainwhips to 'unlock' the cogs and they last a long time.

Gone through more than a couple cheap cassettes on Hope FH's...


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

W/Kg is different then just watts.

How much Kg are we talking Scott? I know some pretty damn fast people on Sram 1x. I am pretty light at around 140 pounds, so I don't need a lot of watts to push me up a hill.

With that said, I am going for a ride. On my CX 1x with Shimano style hub and Sram cassette...


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> W/Kg is different then just watts.
> 
> How much Kg are we talking Scott? I know some pretty damn fast people on Sram 1x. I am pretty light at around 140 pounds, so I don't need a lot of watts to push me up a hill.
> 
> With that said, I am going for a ride. On my CX 1x with Shimano style hub and Sram cassette...


I'm 180 on a sram 1x9. 34-11 x34 up front. I rip chains apart, I've ripped my chainring in half. Cassette is butter. On halo spin doctor hubs.

I even use the slow engagement of the halo hubs to powers mash the drive train if I have to double or triple pump through a rock section.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Sidewalk said:


> W/Kg is different then just watts.
> 
> How much Kg are we talking Scott? I know some pretty damn fast people on Sram 1x. I am pretty light at around 140 pounds, so I don't need a lot of watts to push me up a hill.


~1200w over 20 seconds, ~360 over an hour climb, on a borrowed powertap last year. I didn't screw with peak instantaneous power, but that was on a road bike. I weigh 215, so i'm not really as fast as those numbers imply. I'm a bit of a hack, too.

I have not owned sram 1x drivetrain parts, i dug me heels in to the shimano camp in the 9sp era.


----------

