# Bailout Gearing? What's the point?



## drdocta (Feb 10, 2017)

When I see bikes with a 30x50 option or 28x46 option I can't seem to figure out how that is helpful. Even at 32x42 (current bailout gear) on the steepest of climbs I am spinning so much that I would rather have a little more torque in the next gear or simply walk my bike as that much spinning feels so inefficient. 

I thought that they were for very steep technical or difficult climbs but I can't seem to make that work. Is there another reason why these things exist? I can out-walk myself with less effort than I could riding up a climb in something crazy like a 28x50


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2017)

Fair question indeed because @ some point there's diminishing returns IMV. My current bailout setups for two bikes= 22x34 and 22x36 respectively, hence if i'm unable to maintain momentum due to climb severity or loss of traction....... i dismount and walk it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I have a 28-42, and a friend has 28-46. I rarely use the BOG, but when I do it's much faster than walking. The friend is younger and fitter, but when you live in a place with steep, long climbs, and ride multiple long days it's a great thing to have. What I never need is taller gears.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

regional context is needed in these discussions. mountains?


----------



## MozFat (Dec 16, 2016)

Planned 4 hour exploratory ride turns into six hours with the mother of all climbs to get back out to the trailhead


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

14% average 1 mile climb will necessitate a BOG. This is my normal climb with 20+% sections and I like to spin. I was able to get bye with a 30x42 but the 32x50 is much nicer.


----------



## chasejj (Sep 22, 2008)

I laugh whenever I see this kind of thread. My only thoughts would be that the OP never climbs really steep stuff or is coming from such amazing level of fitness that to use such a gear would mean the climb is essentially a vertical wall. Why do you care?
I run a 26T AB Oval with a 50T cog. This is to allow use of smaller rear cogs as much as possible with all the climbing I do. At 55 with 6 knee surgeries and resultant pounds I have no issue that a good walking pace will beat me up a steep hill. So what. At least I am not pushing my bike. Nothing sucks more than hike a bike. 
I guess I could just say **** it and get an E-bike, but I prefer to ignore the gear shaming and ride on.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

I do 30x42 since I found 32x42 too hard, I dont know why you think thats too much spin, its very fast compared to walking.


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

^^^Agreed, not to be rude to the OP but he doesn't have old man legs like I do. The 32x42 is a good all around gear but having it even lower is better. That's why I jave a 24x42 as my granny.

I so wish I didn't need these low gears, and I wish we had these back in '88!


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

LOL. Gear shaming. :thumbsup: I'm going to steal that.


----------



## HSracer (Jun 30, 2013)

https://www.strava.com/segments/611883

This is why a huge bailout gear is nice. I have done it with 32x42 and it is entirely possible, but it sucks. Something like 34x50 would be much better.


----------



## drdocta (Feb 10, 2017)

Not trying to gear shame! 

It's probably a lack of skill thing but I simply feel like the diminishing returns hit me hard at 24x42 (my old bebe gear) and I was spinning so fast that no matter how slow the bike was traveling up a climb I couldn't actually get any real forward movement going. I'd end up so slow I would lose control over obstacles. Now in 32x42 I feel like that's as slow as I can go while still pedaling in a straight line up a hill. 

I'm thinking though, since I have none around me, that if I was going up a steep and relatively smooth hill where I didn't have to worry about navigating around obstacles that an easier gear might be manageable. Is that when a bebe gear would make the most sense or is it just my lack of balance at super slow speeds that is the real issue?


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

Have to confess that I'm a terrible climber and that's why I have a 28x42 on my bike, do I use the 42 all the time? Nope, but is good to have it when the going gets tough or the legs are toasted.


----------



## chasejj (Sep 22, 2008)

Well- I use the 26x50 on the steepest smooth climbs I ride and always TRY to avoid it by dropping down on my cassette depending on how I feel that day or if I am chasing my god damn 17 and 12yo kids who seems to fly up every hill, much to my actual shame. Even my dog circles back and looks at me like some sort of slow POS.

I would agree that the pace in that low a gear on technical stuff is a decision that typically will cause a dismount and walk.


----------



## ethierjung (May 30, 2017)

32x50 if I need it...ever....some day. :thumbsup:


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

My bailout gear is still faster than walking. Plus, I'm on a bike
ride not taking a hike.


----------



## gmats (Apr 15, 2005)

John Kuhl said:


> My bailout gear is still faster than walking. Plus, I'm on a bike
> ride not taking a hike.


Well said. I run a 2x11 set up. 20/30 chainrings and 10-42 cassette. Yup. I can say I rode it all instead of walking, no matter how steep. And riding that slow takes skills. Anyone can get off and walk.


----------



## HPIguy (Sep 16, 2014)

If you're having trouble making it work, then just ditch the gears all together. 

In all seriousness, I love my SS, but my squishy bike has a 26x42 bailout that gets used a LOT. We have some steep, long climbs that reward you with steep, long descents. I'm a slow climber anyway, and I'd rather save some energy to have fun going down.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2017)

John Kuhl said:


> My bailout gear is still faster than walking. Plus, I'm on a bike
> ride not taking a hike.





gmats said:


> Well said. I run a 2x11 set up. 20/30 chainrings and 10-42 cassette. Yup. I can say I rode it all instead of walking, no matter how steep. And riding that slow takes skills. Anyone can get off and walk.


now now no walk shaming either because we all do it from time to time. An ailment, age, fitness level may prevent one from clearing a climb (or two) until another day.
I too enjoy slow climbs and the skills it takes to pick lines in order to maintain motion but i'm not overly proud if i must dismount either.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

28/46 here. Though I don't get into the 46 very often it's a mental thing of sill trying to ride it versus walk it.

I have to agree on trying to deal with any tech in that gear though... I'm big and slow but if I mash in that gear by mistake I better have my chest damn near on the bars or I'm going over backwards.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

Got 30x42. Use it a fair bit on steep, loose climbs and / or when I'm toasted or need to recover while still climbing.

I really want a 30x46 TBH.

I've always had low granny gears.

ATM I'm around 100kg in my riding kit, which doesn't help, and I won't be getting much lighter...


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Calling the lowest gear a bailout gear suggests it is used only in special desperate situations. I use mine (28/42) quite regularly. Perhaps "granny gear", still disparaging, is a more appropriate term.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

30x46 here (on a 26x4) and wouldn't mind a lower bailout sometimes. Long and/or steep climbs definitely necessitate a low gear. Especially if you're loaded with camping gear. I'd rather ride than push.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

My lowest gearing is 28x42 on a 27.5, my wife's is 26x42 on a 27.5, both with 175 mm cranks. If I were on a 29er, I'd be running 26 up front. Those low gears get used!


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

OP, while I don't like the huge cogs of 1x setups these days and don't like to spin for spinning sake, that is just my preference, prefer a double and 36-11 cassette. Just a little FYI of the gearing you're referring to....22/34=18.8 GI, 22/36=15.9 GI, 24/34=20.5 GI, 24/36=17.3 GI, 28/42=19.3 GI, 30/42=20.7 GI, 32/42=22.1 GI, 28/50=16.2 GI, 30/50=17.4 GI, 32/50=18.6 GI. GI=Gear Inches. These are based on a 29" wheel, for comparison sake, the low gear for 26ers used to be 22/32=17.9 GI back in the day, then it went to 22/34=16.8 GI.

So in comparing what is being used commonly these days on 29ers, is not actually far off what was used back on 26ers, actually it's normally a bit harder and my theorum behind that is the gained traction you get with 29ers, allowing you to push a bigger overall gear - I switched from a 22/32/44 ring setup when I got my first 29er to a 24/34/46 because I could pedal a gear or two harder on the climbs than when I was on a 26er from the added grip/traction.

Well my hat's off to you if you can seriously balance and pedal 20-42 without tipping over, seriously, that less than 14 gear inches :eekster: I yes, I also believe walking is a last ultimate resort, if you can stay on the bike turning the cranks over and keep moving forward/up, then much better than walking your bike up a climb.



gmats said:


> Well said. I run a 2x11 set up. 20/30 chainrings and 10-42 cassette. Yup. I can say I rode it all instead of walking, no matter how steep. And riding that slow takes skills. Anyone can get off and walk.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

drdocta said:


> When I see bikes with a 30x50 option or 28x46 option I can't seem to figure out how that is helpful. Even at 32x42 (current bailout gear) on the steepest of climbs I am spinning so much that I would rather have a little more torque in the next gear or simply walk my bike as that much spinning feels so inefficient.
> 
> I thought that they were for very steep technical or difficult climbs but I can't seem to make that work. Is there another reason why these things exist? I can out-walk myself with less effort than I could riding up a climb in something crazy like a 28x50


Because riding is always better than walking.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

there are climbs

then there are real climbs

then there are real climbs with steep chundery bits where a BOG will 
let you down and you require a harder gear just to navigate it

being able to dump into the BOG and spin out for a chunk of yards
between the hard parts where a BOG will wreck your uphill flow
helps a ton on real climbs


----------



## jimbowho (Dec 16, 2009)

I've been on 1x for about 10 years, I even have a 91 Stumpy 1x7. My new FS bike I decided grip shift 22-30-40 SLX with a 11-36 Outback. I don't feel any shame, but I do get all giddy fiddling with my options. I actually feel kind of stupid for sticking with 1x for so long. No cross chain issues for me. Since I have a long cage I might even go with 11x40ish if I wear out my COG. 

I was racing a stinkbug up a hill one time and almost got dropped


----------



## HPIguy (Sep 16, 2014)

jimbowho said:


> I was racing a stinkbug up a hill one time and almost got dropped


Now that's funny! Sig worthy even.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Our trails don't have long climbs, so bailout isn't really need around here. It's definitely geographical.

My lowest gearing was like 24/36 on a 29er and I thought it was uselessly low. I quickly ditched that.

My lowest gear on my rigid is 36/36 (on a 29er) and that does get to me at times. I'm not in my best shape now and I've been riding that bike a lot, and it's been hurting me a lot. Still, it's a long way from a SS ~2:1 ratio.

My other bike 30/36 (on a 29er) is much more friendly for this area. It's not a bailout, but it's a comfortable gear I can sit and climb with and not feel too beat up. I also can still stand, and get up over step and stuff without having to shift to a smaller cog out back. Lower than that I can't keep my balance and/or traction.

It's all about finding what works for you. I'd definitely go to a 42 or 46 out back if I had more than 100' vert at a time.

I still love my 1x (10 - still on good 'ole 10) and both my bikes have perfect gearing for what I use them for.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

-F


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Sideknob said:


> when I'm toasted or need to recover while still climbing.


This is pretty much why for me.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

Is it only me, or do the bail out gears on the new cassettes all look like the old spoke protector pie plates everyone was in such a hurry to remove from their new bikes to keep from looking like a newb?

Someday when I am old my knees may take issue with this method, but I still prefer to stand and mash over sitting and spinning. I find that the torque from a gear that is too low usually ends up creating rear wheel traction issues for me. Additionally, a higher gear will typically allow me to get up a ledge or stair section or over an obstacle like a log more easily than a lower because the amount of travel from one pedal stroke propels me farther up or over the obstacle on the initial approach.

The lowest gearing I typically can use effectively is about 18-19 gear inches. Last summer, a 3 day bikepacking trip involved two 75 mile 8000' elevation gain days with 65lbs of bike/gear/water and I found that my 24x32 low gear kept me from having to walk.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

drdocta said:


> When I see bikes with a 30x50 option or 28x46 option I can't seem to figure out how that is helpful. Even at 32x42 (current bailout gear) on the steepest of climbs I am spinning so much that I would rather have a little more torque in the next


My 29HT has a lowest ratio of 20x34. That equivalent to the 30x 50 which is the same as 22x34 on a 26" wheel. The 22/32/44 and 11-34 on the traditional 9spd triple.

Now how effective is that low ratio? Can be very effective and is about has low as can be used. My cadence puts me at 3.5 to 4.5 mph in this gear. Not fast, but faster than walking at 2.5 mph. It also allows me to spin up certain climbs rather than power up. Depends on the nature of the ride as well and how many miles I have ridden or if I have my bikepacking gear on the bike. For short 1-2 hr rides a 32x42 will probalby be ok. But for a 50-60 mile ride with 7000ft of climbing that super low ratio is very useful.

BTW... I know how to pull a big gear if I need it as I also Singlespeed.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

drdocta said:


> .I'm thinking though, since I have none around me, that if I was going up a steep and relatively smooth hill where I didn't have to worry about navigating around obstacles that an easier gear might be manageable. Is that when a bebe gear would make the most sense or is it just my lack of balance at super slow speeds that is the real issue?


Steep and smooth means you can use a small gear and spin up. However the more technical the climb the less the really low bail out gear helps due to nature of the terrain. Not all trails are the same and so if you want gears it nice to have useful range.


----------



## fearnow (Feb 4, 2013)

Somebody is always shaming something. Enter Shamer Shaming! The new trend where everyone loses!

I'll let myself out.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

drdocta said:


> Not trying to gear shame!
> 
> It's probably a lack of skill thing but I simply feel like the diminishing returns hit me hard at 24x42 (my old bebe gear) and I was spinning so fast that no matter how slow the bike was traveling up a climb I couldn't actually get any real forward movement going. I'd end up so slow I would lose control over obstacles. Now in 32x42 I feel like that's as slow as I can go while still pedaling in a straight line up a hill.
> 
> I'm thinking though, since I have none around me, that if I was going up a steep and relatively smooth hill where I didn't have to worry about navigating around obstacles that an easier gear might be manageable. Is that when a bebe gear would make the most sense or is it just my lack of balance at super slow speeds that is the real issue?


Honestly, I run a 32x34 and if I have to slow my cadence to under 45 bpm, guess what? You can get off and walk faster.

If you want to do epic mountain grinds, sure the mega 1x grannies will do you good (We habe none of those things here)

I like the 32x34 or 34x34 in rock climbs, because if you stall you can never be in a stupid gear and can always punch your way out.

The Negative is pushing that around all day hurts.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Read that BS all the time, never understand it  If it was only about how fast you can go, then why not just get a dirt bike :skep:



mattyice said:


> Honestly, I run a 32x34 and* if I have to slow my cadence to under 45 bpm, guess what? You can get off and walk faster*. .


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

LyNx said:


> Read that BS all the time, never understand it  If it was only about how fast you can go, then why not just get a dirt bike :skep:


Do you want a close up shot of my gearing? What's BS about it? I'm not shaming anything. It fits the terrain. We average about 100'/mile. So I and others find this gearing adequate for the terrain. There are areas in MA that you'll not even gain 1000' in a 20 mile ride, but you'll still get your legs caved in just fine.

If I were running 8000' gain climbs I'd want more gears.

Same thing with road bikes in our area, a strong rider (myself not being one of them) will rarely leave their big ring, even summiting our dinky mountain.


----------



## gmats (Apr 15, 2005)

nvphatty said:


> now now no walk shaming either because we all do it from time to time. An ailment, age, fitness level may prevent one from clearing a climb (or two) until another day.
> I too enjoy slow climbs and the skills it takes to pick lines in order to maintain motion but i'm not overly proud if i must dismount either.


Absolutely. Yes. I certainly didn't make that statement to hate or put a line of competitiveness out there. I'm a true believer of everyone's got their thing and as long as it's fun, no grief on anyone else. Mountain biking certainly shows there are 1000's of different ways to get out there and have fun. Life is too short to waste it on arguing about what I or anyone else thinks is best because there is no one answer. Please, I apologize if my statement was mis-construed. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

Gearing discussions need wheel size mentions. The difference betqeen 27.5" and 29" is almost the same as 2 chainring teeth. My 27.5" bikes are 34×10-42, my 29" will be 32×10-42.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Back when we had 3 rings, I never used the largest gear in the back with the granny gear, it was just too low to be practical. Riding in the easiest gear and staying upright on a steep climb was damn near impossible and then throw in any tech at all and there was simply no way. More than often, on the steepest and nastiest climbs, the 2nd or 3rd gear was the way. Then I started riding more aggressively and stopped using the granny gear with 36t cassettes, that became a bit of a chore, but I quickly adapted and then the 36 felt like my "bailout" after my brain was reprogrammed. 

I do concede that there are those out there that need very low gearing. Sometimes it's an older person, or someone that's out of shape and trying to improve, or someone that doesn't care to improve and is just out to enjoy a little. They are generally very slow and they'll be spinning a very easy gear and barely moving up a slight incline, but I'd rather see those people out riding bikes than not, so there is definitely a place for the low gearing. How we achieve that is the question, do you just keep boosting the rear cog size? Do they need (at those speeds) as much range as a faster rider? Probably not. The 28x44, 46, 48 or 50 should be fine.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

I don't think I've ever ridden a gear that's actually slower than walking.

When it comes to dismount, remount time, and actually pushing a bike up a 25%portion of fire road, walking is always slower.

So basically I disagree with the premise

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Jayem said:


> Back when we had 3 rings, I never used the largest gear in the back with the granny gear, it was just too low to be practical. Riding in the easiest gear and staying upright on a steep climb was damn near impossible and then throw in any tech at all and there was simply no way. More than often, on the steepest and nastiest climbs, the 2nd or 3rd gear was the way. Then I started riding more aggressively and stopped using the granny gear with 36t cassettes, that became a bit of a chore, but I quickly adapted and then the 36 felt like my "bailout" after my brain was reprogrammed.
> 
> I do concede that there are those out there that need very low gearing. Sometimes it's an older person, or someone that's out of shape and trying to improve, or someone that doesn't care to improve and is just out to enjoy a little. They are generally very slow and they'll be spinning a very easy gear and barely moving up a slight incline, but I'd rather see those people out riding bikes than not, so there is definitely a place for the low gearing. How we achieve that is the question, do you just keep boosting the rear cog size? Do they need (at those speeds) as much range as a faster rider? Probably not. The 28x44, 46, 48 or 50 should be fine.


It depends a lot on the terrain you ride. I'm not that old and defiantly not slow.
Spinning a 22x32 with my 26x2.35 tire nets 5.4mph. Double the speed of walking. Some 25+% grades I would attack in the 32 front, but the long grinding fire road was always in my lowest gear. 
If traction is a problem you need to gear up and use momentum. Otherwise your preferred cadence dictates your gear. I like to climb between 90 and 100 rpm.
Most of the guys I ride with grind up climbs at 40-60 rpm and have gears left, while I zoom past at 95 in my lowest gear.
I do high cadence drills and feel more comfortable and efficient spinning.
Anyway my 32x50x29=22x32x26.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I rode up a trail last weekend on which the first mile had an average 21% grade, max of 45% grade. It took us an hour to go that first mile! I was wanting a lower gear that day. I'm pretty sure I could've walked it faster.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

If I could climb at 45 BPM I'd be in this year's Tour


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

mattyice said:


> Honestly, I run a 32x34 and if I have to slow my cadence to under 45 bpm, guess what? You can get off and walk faster.


 If my lowest gear was 32x34 and I was at 45 rpm cadence it would be pretty slow. However with a lower gearing you can be at 80 rpm cadence and still moving.

The misconcpetion comes from the idea that once you get 45 rpm you stall. The truth is that you "fall over" speed and speed where walking it the same as riding tend to come to 3.5 to 4 mph. That is typical low end ratio for old school 3x9 systems and pretty close to the area you see in these super low gears.

The think to remember is nobody pedals at 45 rpm in a 22x46 gear. The whole point of that ratio is to spin fast at 80-100 rpm. It really amazing what you can climb with that gearing if you have traction.

BTW... when I single speed my ratio is either 34x19 or 34x20 and I will stall out at about 4.5 mph. If it get so steep I can't pedal any more I am about that speed. Of course there I am standing and pushing on the pedals with all my strength. Very different style of riding really as compared to geared.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

tfinator said:


> I don't think I've ever ridden a gear that's actually slower than walking.
> 
> When it comes to dismount, remount time, and actually pushing a bike up a 25%portion of fire road, walking is always slower.
> 
> ...


There was a race I did where it a was damn close. 45 mile 5:30 min race. start of lap 3 there was a 2 mile 8-12% grade dirt road climb. By the 3rd lap I was gassed and legs were beat. I exitied the climbing ST and got to the dirt road and got off walked after a few pedal strokes. In fact I pulled out a clif bar and started eating it why pushing. I was pretty much even with a guy riding in granny. When the grade leveled out slight he pulled a bit, but when I pitched up I was pretty close to even. I had ridden that prior two laps and this was my slowest up that climb, but I go to eat my clif bar on the way. No way I could do that pedaling. So that saved time at the top because I needed to eat it anyway and the road after it leveled off was too fast and rocky to eat safely.

Even so 3.5 mph is about as slow as it make sense to pedal. You can walk at 2.5 even up a grade and it can make sense to change the muscle group so that when you can ride again those muscles will be rested.

This really applies when you putting long long rides where optimizing recovery is a important to being fast as it pure strength and fitness.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Still don't get it, the point of riding a bicycle is to ride the bicycle, not walk it like a dog ut: Seriously, as long as I can keep moving forward/up a climb and remain on the bike pedaling and not walking, then I'm accomplishing what I go out to achieve. Who gives a flvck about racing or if walking up that section is faster, that is not mountain biking, that is mountain walking :skep:



JoePAz said:


> *Even so 3.5 mph is about as slow as it make sense to pedal. You can walk at 2.5 even up a grade* and it can make sense to change the muscle group so that when you can ride again those muscles will be rested..
> 
> 
> > Quote Originally Posted by mattyice View Post
> > Honestly, I run a 32x34 and* if I have to slow my cadence to under 45 bpm, guess what? You can get off and walk faster.* .


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

The point of a bail out gear is to bail out.

Hope this knowledge I've shared helps!


----------



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

LyNx said:


> Still don't get it, the point of riding a bicycle is to ride the bicycle, not walk it like a dog ut: Seriously, as long as I can keep moving forward/up a climb and remain on the bike pedaling and not walking, then I'm accomplishing what I go out to achieve. Who gives a flvck about racing or if walking up that section is faster, that is not mountain biking, that is mountain walking :skep:


The whole point of racing is to cross the finish line in the least possible amount of time, it doesn't matter how you get there.

Regular rides = personal preference. I don't like walking my bike but sometimes have to if the grade is too ridiculous, I'm not ashamed.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

This is posted in the General Forum, not the XC Racing forum, it was not specified as a race specific question, hence it wold be thought it referred to general riding, but replies were given assuming that that's what's important and nothing else matters.



J.B. Weld said:


> The whole point of racing is to cross the finish line in the least possible amount of time, it doesn't matter how you get there.
> 
> Regular rides = personal preference. I don't like walking my bike but sometimes have to if the grade is too ridiculous, I'm not ashamed.


----------



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

LyNx said:


> This is posted in the General Forum, not the XC Racing forum, it was not specified as a race specific question...


I know but it's still ok to mention xc racing in the general forum, we're big enough for that I think. JoePAz seemed to be making a general observation that happened to take place in a race and I thought it was relevant. I didn't mean for my previous post to infer that what's best for racing is best for everyone else.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

JoePAz said:


> If my lowest gear was 32x34 and I was at 45 rpm cadence it would be pretty slow. However with a lower gearing you can be at 80 rpm cadence and still moving.
> 
> The misconcpetion comes from the idea that once you get 45 rpm you stall. The truth is that you "fall over" speed and speed where walking it the same as riding tend to come to 3.5 to 4 mph. That is typical low end ratio for old school 3x9 systems and pretty close to the area you see in these super low gears.
> 
> ...


Believe me, I would rather stay on my bike and suffer than dismount. 99.8% of our riding I'll have the power and lungs to keep my cadence over at least 65, which is fine. There is stuff that demands a slower cadence and I'll grind it out.

Same thing with a road bike, you may roll with guys that can push a 2x in the big ring the whole time and you're just trying not to dunk into the little ring on your 3x. Some can, some can't. Get the gears that work for you.

We roll with two single speeders, one on a 32x22 (27.5)and one on a 32x20 (26). So for me 32x22 is 4 gears in, just to put it in perspective or you're feeling like a baby. I've tried to run a whole ride 33x22 on my 33lb Banshee (26) and it is absolute hell.

I can push my bike down to about 28-30bpm from the saddle. It's not comfortable but I can do it. And it's certainly not fast.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

There are several factors in play: wheel size and crank length. I run a 28 with an 11-46 cassette and 165mm cranks on my 27.5in all mountain. On my DH and hardtail, which are 26" wheels, I run a 32t chainring (the DH bike has a 11-28 cassette), and the hardtail will have either a 42 or 46 tooth cassette. 

Oh I have asthma and had my share of injuries (old and broken). I hate climbing or pushing, and I climb at the speed of a moving track stand, so I'll take all the help I can get. 

I found the 28T too spinny on the 26" wheels. My DH bike has a 36t right now, but I'd like my knees to last so that's getting replaced with a 32t. 

And all my bikes run 165mm cranks because my hips otherwise hate me. So that impacts gearing too.


----------



## gmats (Apr 15, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> The whole point of racing is to cross the finish line in the least possible amount of time, it doesn't matter how you get there.
> 
> Regular rides = personal preference. I don't like walking my bike but sometimes have to if the grade is too ridiculous, I'm not ashamed.


Yup. Exactly. Racing is a different story. Get to the finish line as fast as possible. This again is why I said earlier there are 1000's of different kinds of riders and rides.


----------



## jummo (Sep 8, 2005)

Sometimes I have to get off and walk, up and down. These are not instances where more gears is the answer.

You should have gearing that suits you and the terrain you ride.

Now that wasn't so hard was it?


jummo


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Thankfully, there are lots gearing options and price levels.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

LyNx said:


> Still don't get it, the point of riding a bicycle is to ride the bicycle, not walk it like a dog ut:


One of my friends says "If you are not doing some HAB (Hike a Bike) you are just riding your bike." He also says "If there was no HAB involved the views probably suck"

I don't like HAB, but it happens some times. If you are out for an adventure then you might end up hiking some. Even with the most bailout gearing.

The ride I have planned for tomorrow is 55 miles and will have some HAB on it. Not sure how much becuase I have not ridden it all, but there is one steep switchback section where I bet I will be walking. I will try to ride as much as I can on my 20x34 or 20x30, but I doubt I will clear it. Afterall I have 55 miles to ride an can blow it all on a 1 mile climb. The guy I will riding with has 1x11 with 26x46 low gear. He will be using as well I bet. Both of us will be on sub 24lb HT bikes.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Another thing not being discussed is tire selection. Slower rolling selections, like Minions, play into the need as well. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2017)

LyNx said:


> Still don't get it, the point of riding a bicycle is to ride the bicycle, not walk it like a dog ut: Seriously, as long as I can keep moving forward/up a climb and remain on the bike pedaling and not walking, then I'm accomplishing what I go out to achieve. Who gives a flvck about racing or if walking up that section is faster, that is not mountain biking, that is mountain walking :skep:


take a breathe of fresh air:skep:.......yes riding is what we do and why the activity attracts us. I'll state again i have no shame in walking / pushing my bike, or as you state mountain walking.......who gives a flvck!!  And if you sir are unable to maintain momentum upward then what transpires?? do you just sit there? do you lay your trusty steed down and walk to the top?? or perhaps turn around and head back down because your physically unable to clear a climb?? do tell because rest assured i know of climbs you cannot clear and will wait for you to step off to do some mountain walking.ut:


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2017)

JoePAz said:


> One of my friends says "If you are not doing some HAB (Hike a Bike) you are just riding your bike." He also says "If there was no HAB involved the views probably suck"
> 
> I don't like HAB, but it happens some times. If you are out for an adventure then you might end up hiking some. Even with the most bailout gearing.
> 
> The ride I have planned for tomorrow is 55 miles and will have some HAB on it. Not sure how much becuase I have not ridden it all, but there is one steep switchback section where I bet I will be walking. I will try to ride as much as I can on my 20x34 or 20x30, but I doubt I will clear it. Afterall I have 55 miles to ride an can blow it all on a 1 mile climb. The guy I will riding with has 1x11 with 26x46 low gear. He will be using as well I bet. Both of us will be on sub 24lb HT bikes.


yup HAB happens, even for world class mtb'ers.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Yes, obviously there will be climbs I cannot make either because of how steep or tech they are or because I don't have the fitness to make it, but I will never voluntarily get off my bike because I determine it is "faster" to get off and walk vs fighting to claw my way up a climb. Different strokes, for different folkes, but if I'm still managing to have forward/upward momentum on a climb and am not about to pass out, I'm going to keep trying to pedal up it.



nvphatty said:


> take a breathe of fresh air:skep:.......yes riding is what we do and why the activity attracts us. I'll state again i have no shame in walking / pushing my bike, or as you state mountain walking.......who gives a flvck!!  And if you sir are unable to maintain momentum upward then what transpires?? do you just sit there? do you lay your trusty steed down and walk to the top?? or perhaps turn around and head back down because your physically unable to clear a climb?? do tell because rest assured i know of climbs you cannot clear and will wait for you to step off to do some mountain walking.ut:


----------



## MCHB (Jun 23, 2014)

My fatbike is geared low (24 in the front and 12-36 in the rear; how it came setup) and I use the full range. All of the trails here are uphill until you get sick of going uphill or flat rail trails. Everytime I think "It'd be nice to have more top end!" I remind myself "Oh yeah, I wouldn't use it..." Downhill I coast. Uphill I grunt as is. When the trail gets to steep to pedal I push. When all else fails, I









He's leggy enough to get me up anything! :thumbsup:


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

I think "bailout gearing" is perhaps a misleading term.

No doubt many of us use the very lowest combo all the time, and a lot more than we use the highest combo.


----------



## Bigjunk1 (Sep 17, 2016)

Bailout is not a good term. Gears are gears and a full range high to low is needed to do everything. Biking 4mph up hill is still 2 times as fast as walking 2mph uphill pushing a bike. Plus, pushing your $5000 bike up hill makes you look like a total doofus ( especially when a kid on a $100 Huffy rides by you ).


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I haven't used my BO for quite a while, or my top end for that matter.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

My head is spinning more than the pedals, I'm 3/4 the way up a technical climb that kills me. I suck at extended climbing, and I'm gonna dab or pass out trying not to. And then, just when I need that one extra gear to get me over the top, what do I do? I shift it to 11... (apologies to Nigel)


----------



## Scottie5150 (Mar 10, 2004)

chasejj said:


> I laugh whenever I see this kind of thread. My only thoughts would be that the OP never climbs really steep stuff or is coming from such amazing level of fitness that to use such a gear would mean the climb is essentially a vertical wall. Why do you care?
> I run a 26T AB Oval with a 50T cog. This is to allow use of smaller rear cogs as much as possible with all the climbing I do. At 55 with 6 knee surgeries and resultant pounds I have no issue that a good walking pace will beat me up a steep hill. So what. At least I am not pushing my bike. Nothing sucks more than hike a bike.
> I guess I could just say **** it and get an E-bike, but I prefer to ignore the gear shaming and ride on.


Agreed, perspective is key. I live on the Front Range of Colorado and I'm fat. BOG is mandatory.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

JoePAz said:


> Even so 3.5 mph is about as slow as it make sense to pedal. You can walk at 2.5 even up a grade and it can make sense to change the muscle group so that when you can ride again those muscles will be rested.
> 
> This really applies when you putting long long rides where optimizing recovery is a important to being fast as it pure strength and fitness.


The opposite may apply if one is trying to reduce wear and tear on the knees. Riding a very low gear uphill is easier on the knees than walking.



LyNx said:


> Yes, obviously there will be climbs I cannot make either because of how steep or tech they are or because I don't have the fitness to make it, but I will never voluntarily get off my bike because I determine it is "faster" to get off and walk vs fighting to claw my way up a climb. Different strokes, for different folkes, but if I'm still managing to have forward/upward momentum on a climb and am not about to pass out, I'm going to keep trying to pedal up it.


↗↗↗⤴⤴⏫This too.⏫⏫↖↖↖↖


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

I followed an event some years ago where there was a variety of cyclists/runners involved. The organisers started the cyclists off first and they quickly spread apart as the quicker riders surged off the front up the very long steep hill. The runners started off behind the cyclists with a starting time gap of 2 minutes. The strongest 3 runners over took the whole cyclist field by the top. It was the most impressive thing I have ever seen in a cross code situation. I respect walking if you have to, and I don't feel ashamed if I have to. My asthma won't let me ever be a climber, but I find a super low gear frustrating as my lung function/spin ratio does not work well. I instead walk, lower the breathing levels and just enjoy the larger view of a day in the hills as an overall experience.

Eric


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

LyNx said:


> .. but I will never voluntarily get off my bike because I determine it is "faster" to get off and walk vs fighting to claw my way up a climb. Different strokes, for different folkes, but if I'm still managing to have forward/upward momentum on a climb and am not about to pass out, I'm going to keep trying to pedal up it.


There are times I have been on long HAB sections where what is in my ability to ride vs walk is such that it faster to just do a extended HAB rather than ride for 20-30 yards get off and push over a section and then ride for 20-30 yards again. I hit one of those this weekend. Trail was steep, loose, narrow, rocky and overgrown. There were spots I might have been able to ride ride for 20-30 yards going 100% anaerobic or be a high risk of crashing. Instead I was easier to just keep walking and faster overall. Still this section of trail was really a poorly maintained hiking trail barely suitable to even that.

For me I want enough gears to ride a much as possible, but there is also no shame in walking sections of trail if I must. What I don't like doing is not having the option to spin when I need to. This is very important during long rides where you need to conserve energy and muscle strength. That said I do like Singlespeed riding as well and that seems like the complete counter argument. In may ways it is, but there a purity to having only one gear. I tend to believe if you do chose to have gears might as well bring a big range to help you and make all those dangly bits worth while. If you are just going to be stand and mashing up climbs then just dump all the gears.

BTW... for me with the way I ride I have come to the conclusion that at 28t chainring and 10-42 will give me almost all the gears I need for general rides. Bikepacking I will put a 26t on the bike and if I am in a fast race (like 24hrs Old Pueblo) maybe a 30 or 32t chainring.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

A bike adds weight. At a certain grade running without a bike is more efficient than riding. But running with a bike always sucks and is less efficient.
I have been passed by a runner before


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

It's all terrain and fitness dependent. We all know of single speeders who can smash things I hike a bike. I remember this specifically happening at one race when I thought I was in great shape. I found 32x34 and my SS at 32x20 works for 99% of the riding that I do. I couldn't imagine me taking this to the front range though.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Rod said:


> It's all terrain and fitness dependent. We all know of single speeders who can smash things I hike a bike. I remember this specifically happening at one race when I thought I was in great shape. I found 32x34 and my SS at 32x20 works for 99% of the riding that I do. I couldn't imagine me taking this to the front range though.


Yeah, I don't think I've seen any SS here in the Front Range, come to think of it. I struggle enough with gears no matter where I ride. Kinda questioning my logic in doing trail riding in the Front Range. It's serious business here.


----------



## jeffreyjhsu (Jun 22, 2004)

gmats said:


> Well said. I run a 2x11 set up. 20/30 chainrings and 10-42 cassette. Yup. I can say I rode it all instead of walking, no matter how steep. And riding that slow takes skills. Anyone can get off and walk.


Gee, Where did you get 20/30 chainrings? They'd be ideal for me. I've got 22/32 and 40 cogs on back.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

stripes said:


> Yeah, I don't think I've seen any SS here in the Front Range, come to think of it. I struggle enough with gears no matter where I ride. Kinda questioning my logic in doing trail riding in the Front Range. It's serious business here.


I can only image. I live in a very remote forest so my riding is serious business for my region. Within an hour, there's virtually no elevation and we can ride the trails on a road bike if we choose to do so. I can ride there and push a 32x16 and have no need for gears, ever.

On the other hand, I rode a 20% grade for .3 of a mile and it wasn't much fun. I thought of this thread as I was climbing it.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Because folks need these gears to pedal these new-school low/long/slack/#enduro bikes uphill. I agree; a 32/42 is a low-ass gear...I have a 32/40 and rarely use it.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

TiGeo said:


> Because folks need these gears to pedal these new-school low/long/slack/#enduro bikes uphill. I agree; a 32/42 is a low-ass gear...I have a 32/40 and rarely use it.


I have a Banshee spitfire, which is 'pretty new school, long, low, and slack' and I have no problem pushing a 34-34 1:1 on tha ol girl.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

TiGeo said:


> Because folks need these gears to pedal these new-school low/long/slack/#enduro bikes uphill. I agree; a 32/42 is a low-ass gear...I have a 32/40 and rarely use it.


The 22/32 or 22/34 grannies of the 8 and 9 speed days were lower.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

TiGeo said:


> Because folks need these gears to pedal these new-school low/long/slack/#enduro bikes uphill. I agree; a 32/42 is a low-ass gear...I have a 32/40 and rarely use it.


And for me, it would kill my knees. And there are other dependencies: crank length, bike type, fitness, personal health issues, where they ride, etc. In Florida I ran much taller gears--in Colorado I can't seem to have enough.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Rod said:


> there's virtually no elevation and we can ride the trails on a road bike if we choose to do so. I can ride there and push a 32x16 and have no need for gears, ever.
> 
> On the other hand, I rode a 20% grade for .3 of a mile and it wasn't much fun. I thought of this thread as I was climbing it.


We have climbs like that (and steeper) every ride here in the Santa Cruz Mountains.



TiGeo said:


> 32/42 is a low-ass gear...I have a 32/40 and rarely use it.


That would be like 3rd gear on my bikes. I don't use that gear much either. I do nearly all of my climbing in the bottom 2 gears.



stripes said:


> And for me, it would kill my knees. And there are other dependencies: crank length, bike type, fitness, personal health issues, where they ride, etc. In Florida I ran much taller gears--in Colorado I can't seem to have enough.


Same here. I once had gearing similar to what Tigeo runs, and it was really putting the hurt on my knees. Pushing big gears on steep hills always does that to me.


----------



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

I found something novel: I've got 3 rings up front, 24-32-42, which lets me use an 11 through 36 cassette. Even with having to add a derailer in front, this is much less expensive than a wider range cassette and weights about the same. This gives me the ability to climb with only an occasional hike-a-bike and to ride very fast when the trail is level or slightly downhill. I suspect that in a few years, this will become the norm.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Nah, the 3x setup on true MTBs was dropped for several good reasons, one big one was clearance going over stuff with those 42-46t big rings, they will never come back  However 2x, that's another story, IMHO, a 22-36t 2x setup keeps the big ring small enough for good clearance, while still allowing you a monster gear for road/flat trail sections and DHs.



Bruce in SoCal said:


> I found something novel: I've got 3 rings up front, 24-32-42, which lets me use an 11 through 36 cassette. Even with having to add a derailer in front, this is much less expensive than a wider range cassette and weights about the same. This gives me the ability to climb with only an occasional hike-a-bike and to ride very fast when the trail is level or slightly downhill. I suspect that in a few years, this will become the norm.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

LyNx said:


> Nah, the 3x setup on true MTBs was dropped for several good reasons, one big one was clearance going over stuff with those 42-46t big rings, they will never come back  However 2x, that's another story, IMHO, a 22-36t 2x setup keeps the big ring small enough for good clearance, while still allowing you a monster gear for road/flat trail sections and DHs.


Or just wait a few years until 12 spd is less expensive and run a 36 or 38 up front with a 10-50 out rear.

I honestly don't have the legs to push a 36-11 (with a 29" MTB tire) even on asphalt for very long.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

l'oiseau said:


> Or just wait a few years until 12 spd is less expensive and run a 36 or 38 up front with a 10-50 out rear.
> 
> I honestly don't have the legs to push a 36-11 (with a 29" MTB tire) even on asphalt for very long.


With 29" Minions or 27.5" 2.8" Rekons I'm hard pressed to spin out on my 7 mile paved/singletrack commute with a 26T Oval and 9T rear. Could I spin a bigger front and not blow up, sure, I've done it with 30. However, I don't care about climbing fast at all so the 26T works and leaves me with the legs for the downhills when I get to the top.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

What is pointless is forum gearing recommendations from riders who don't know you, or your terrain. It's right up there with saddle reccomendos.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

It's about the people, not the terrain or the bike. There are people that can't ride up the slightest incline without being in 28-50, for whatever reason. There will always be a market for this.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

I'm now on 1x11 from a 3x8 and I'm planning on stepping it up, feeling the difference for sure but I really don't or hadn't planned on changing anything to 'fix' it. I feel it in the climbs but I'm working on it. Never was a strong climber or went out of the way to go up anything other than a gradual incline but I'll feel better about taking on the challenge versus buying compensatory. I'm not terribly shamed by walking some if need be, most of the riders I'm with are stronger, more athletic and 15 years my junior.

I don't blame anyone for getting gearing that better matches their wants or expectations though. 
Whatever you gotta have to make it work and keep it fun. I do want a bit of a workout, it's part of my plan.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I ain't telling anyone what gears to run, but with a 50 out back, you can get away with a pretty big chainring... assuming you can actually push that on the flats or down a slight grade.

And just when I was saying wait a couple years... presto...

SRAM GX Eagle drivetrain first ride review - Mtbr.com

I'd surely invest in this over a 2x11.

WTBS, if I had an Eagle cassette, I'd probably run a 32 or a 34t chainring, just because of the top end.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Nah, a 1x setup will NEVER have the close gear ratios a 2x setup has, NEVER and I like close gears, let's you get exactly the gear you need most of the time, instead of having to compromise for the gear you need most of the time to say you're hanging with the cool kids. Also, I will NEVER put a cog on my bike that is bigger than my rotor or the biggest ring I ever ran on the front of a 2x setup 



l'oiseau said:


> Or just wait a few years until 12 spd is less expensive and run a 36 or 38 up front with a 10-50 out rear.
> 
> I honestly don't have the legs to push a 36-11 (with a 29" MTB tire) even on asphalt for very long.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

This thread has nothing to do with 1X vs 2/3X. Bail out gears are available on all. I believe there are multiple threads touting the superiority of 1X.


----------



## gmats (Apr 15, 2005)

Travis Bickle said:


> What is pointless is forum gearing recommendations from riders who don't know you, or your terrain. It's right up there with saddle reccomendos.


Yup. Well said. That's the beauty of mountain biking. Each person can have what works for them.


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

Everyone's physical ability is different. I'm still running good ol' reliable 2x9 and my 58 year old knees appreciate my 22-34 bailout.


----------



## MozFat (Dec 16, 2016)

I don't see why this is even a thing. There are almost endless options so you can tailor your gearing to suit your own ability, bike and local terrain. If you don't need a 50 get a 46, 42 or 36 and stop worrying what others roll with


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

In YOUR opinion 


Travis Bickle said:


> This thread has nothing to do with 1X vs 2/3X. Bail out gears are available on all. * I believe there are multiple threads touting the superiority of 1X*.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

gmats said:


> Yup. Well said. That's the beauty of mountain biking. Each person can have what works for them.


That's the beauty of mountain biking forums. Each person can tell others what should work for them.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

LyNx said:


> In YOUR opinion


No, the threads really do say this. Obviously not everyone agrees, but the majority does. I was just stating a fact, not promoting 1X.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I like to have a bailout "granny" just in case. There are those days when I'm just not feeling it, bonk, or maybe just very lazy. It's nice to have one more click.


----------



## Bigjunk1 (Sep 17, 2016)

I think 2-3x will be the future, not 1x. With bikes being so much easier to make light giving up capability for weight makes less and less sinse. 1x is new and exciting but it will wear off fairly quick.
1x has it's purpose (racing) but people will miss their gear range and smaller jumps.


----------



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

Bigjunk1 said:


> I think 2-3x will be the future, not 1x. With bikes being so much easier to make light giving up capability for weight makes less and less sinse. 1x is new and exciting but it will wear off fairly quick.
> 1x has it's purpose (racing) but people will miss their gear range and smaller jumps.


I doubt it, as Travis mentioned it seems that the vast majority of people who have tried 1x prefer it over their previous multi-chainring drivetrain.

And 3x ain't never coming back!


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Bigjunk1 said:


> I think 2-3x will be the future, not 1x. With bikes being so much easier to make light giving up capability for weight makes less and less sinse. 1x is new and exciting but it will wear off fairly quick.
> 1x has it's purpose (racing) but people will miss their gear range and smaller jumps.


Sorry to say Bigjunk1, but in 5 years they won't even make front derailleurs for mountain bikes anymore. Not that you will be able to buy a bike that will take one anyway.


----------



## MozFat (Dec 16, 2016)

Back to the future. I'm happy with 2x. My location I get around on the big ring 95% of the time, but am happy to have the little ring there for the odd occasion


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Bigjunk1 said:


> I think 2-3x will be the future, not 1x. With bikes being so much easier to make light giving up capability for weight makes less and less sinse. 1x is new and exciting but it will wear off fairly quick.
> 1x has it's purpose (racing) but people will miss their gear range and smaller jumps.


That is not what I'm seeing when I visit the LBS. With GX Eagle, and a 50t BOG Sram has put another nail in the front derailleur's coffin. The big range is coming to mid range 1X.


----------



## burtronix (Jun 5, 2006)

What's "bail out gear"? Is that the gear your in right before your bike crashes & burns? Or maybe the gear you shift into on your pedal-boat when it starts to take on water?

Now "granny gear" I can understand. It's the gear you use when you have the legs & cardio of a granny. Our when you're doing a sustained climb as steep as granny's backside when she's sitting in her rocker.

I think the need for granny gear comes generally down to 4 factors:
1) How steep is your version of steep?
2) How long is your sustained climb?
3) How technical is your steep sustained climb?
4) How "fit"are you? This obviously incorporates factors of size, weight, age, musculature, genetics, & cardio fitness.
4a) How technically proficient (pedalling efficient over technical features) are you?

Any 2 or more of these factors can affect your need for granny gear.

Here's my strategy for ascending sustained steep technical climbs.

I use granny gear whenever it makes sense to retain some reserve power. Before encountering a set of technical features, I will shift up & build momentum. I do navigate technical sections better in a higher gear, but it takes a lot out of me. After the technical set, I shift back down to granny in order to recover before the next set.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

Why all the hate for triples? I have two bikes with them still, and nothing beats my Suntour Microdrive 42/30/20 combo with the 7spd 13-34 friction on the rear. 

My Ibis in the profile pick has a kickdown two, 32/24 up front and no FD, I kick it with my foot to granny and then pick it back up by hand when riding after I reach a portion of the climb that gets easier. Learned that in my second race, it was either money for the entrance fee or a new FD, I wanted to race instead.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

burtronix said:


> What's "bail out gear"? Is that the gear your in right before your bike crashes & burns? Or maybe the gear you shift into on your pedal-boat when it starts to take on water?


It's the one you shift to when your heart rate hits 220, you feel like you are going to puke, and your legs burn like the fire of a thousand hells.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

unicrown junkie said:


> Why all the hate for triples? I have two bikes with them still, and nothing beats my Suntour Microdrive 42/30/20 combo with the 7spd 13-34 friction on the rear.
> 
> My Ibis in the profile pick has a kickdown two, 32/24 up front and no FD, I kick it with my foot to granny and then pick it back up by hand when riding after I reach a portion of the climb that gets easier. Learned that in my second race, it was either money for the entrance fee or a new FD, I wanted to race instead.


Sounds like it works better than a SRAM FD.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

unicrown junkie said:


> Why all the hate for triples? I have two bikes with them still, and nothing beats my Suntour Microdrive 42/30/20 combo with the 7spd 13-34 friction on the rear.
> 
> My Ibis in the profile pick has a kickdown two, 32/24 up front and no FD, I kick it with my foot to granny and then pick it back up by hand when riding after I reach a portion of the climb that gets easier. Learned that in my second race, it was either money for the entrance fee or a new FD, I wanted to race instead.


FD's are for kids. Runwhacha brung!

I don't even care if this is true, I'm going to rep you as often as I can for this savagery.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Ricko said:


> Everyone's physical ability is different. I'm still running good ol' reliable 2x9 and my 58 year old knees appreciate my 22-34 bailout.


And the gear inches on your 22/34 are the same as a 32/50 on the Sram Eagle.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

The new 1x systems are so slick and reliable. To those that are naysayers....have you ever ridden one? I have been on a 1x10 for 5 years and just recently went from a 11-36 to an 11-40 (with a 32 up front). The 40 is nicer for long steep climbs. My next bike with have Eagle with a 34.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Gasp4Air said:


> That's the beauty of mountain biking forums. Each person can tell others what should work for them.


lol

and I especially want their input when it's race time and I know they will give me solid, helpful advice.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

l'oiseau said:


> It's the one you shift to when your heart rate hits 220, you feel like you are going to puke, and your legs burn like the fire of a thousand hells.


lol, 
You make it sound so fun. 
Maybe the bailout gear is in the mind of the beholder, thus when I'm puking with legs burning fire of a thousand Hells,

the bail out gear is the gear I was last in when I quit riding

for e v e r !

:lol:


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

What no one has mentioned is high altitude. At 5,000 or even 10,000 feet I can spin a 32x36 and get up most climbs, however that same climb at 12,000 feet absolutely kills me. At that altitude my body only can do 50% of the power I can do at 5,000 to 8,000 feet and it makes a big difference to have a super lower option when climbing up high. This probably does not come up most places, but in the summer that is a normal ride here in Colorado in any of the mountain towns.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Tinker was running a 32 or, gasp, even a 30 when running 1x11 (obviously now on Eagle). And yes, he's still fast, still destroying endurance events.

Interview: XC racing legend Tinker Juarez - Mtbr.com

I'm on a 32T oval (just went oval and liked it more then I expected) on 1x11 42 on 29". I was contemplating 30T because there are a few places I was stalling out on occasion, and walking is NOT faster. These were always in technical climbing sections. I'm hoping the oval will continue to pay off, I won't find out until I go race a spot I had trouble with in the past (January?) and see how I do.

I'm not insanely powerful, but I well above average.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

30t 10-XX or 32t on a 11-XX is the smallest i would go..

I run a 30t oval on 10-42 and its way more useable range than the stock 32 my bike came with. If i got a 50 i would go 34t on the crank. Little lower ratio for climbing but alot more top end for gravel grinding commuting to the trailhead and fire roads. 

I have a 30 11-42 on my fatbike, and i can easily over spin it in the 11. Couldnt imagine on my mtb.


----------



## GuitsBoy (Sep 24, 2013)

I cant believe how many people find walking to be a viable option in mountain biking. Walking is an absolute option of last resort. Tipping over to the side and spending ten minutes puking in the fetal position is preferable to walking your bike up a hill. Sure, in many cases, walking may be faster, but you might as well store your testicles in a fanny pack at that point. 

If only I were a better rider, I would berate you all further! 

Good humored chop busting aside, do you not feel the sense of accomplishment to make it to the top of the hill without having put your foot down? Unless its a race, and hiking is a calculated decision, I'd rather slowly sit and spin and triumphantly celebrate making it to the top by pedaling, knowing next time will be just a little bit faster. Assuming my heart hasn't exploded through my chest yet, of course.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

TiGeo said:


> The new 1x systems are so slick and reliable. To those that are naysayers....have you ever ridden one? I have been on a 1x10 for 5 years and just recently went from a 11-36 to an 11-40 (with a 32 up front). The 40 is nicer for long steep climbs. My next bike with have Eagle with a 34.


I've really been hemming and hawing over upgrading my 1x9 to the 1x10 with 11-40 x 32. Part of me wants to dude up, part of my old man self wants more gears.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

mattyice said:


> I've really been hemming and hawing over upgrading my 1x9 to the 1x10 with 11-40 x 32. Part of me wants to dude up, part of my old man self wants more gears.


Why not keep the 9?

Sunrace 9 Speed Cassette 11-40 Compatible With Shimano and SRAM Silver Color | eBay

No idea on the quality, but that oughta last you until you are ready for Eagle GX


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

mattyice said:


> I've really been hemming and hawing over upgrading my 1x9 to the 1x10 with 11-40 x 32. Part of me wants to dude up, part of my old man self wants more gears.


Compromise. Go with a 34 and 11-42 with a Sunrace cassette. That's what I have on my trail bike (27.5).


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

GuitsBoy said:


> I cant believe how many people find walking to be a viable option in mountain biking. Walking is an absolute option of last resort. Tipping over to the side and spending ten minutes puking in the fetal position is preferable to walking your bike up a hill. Sure, in many cases, walking may be faster, but you might as well store your testicles in a fanny pack at that point.
> 
> If only I were a better rider, I would berate you all further!
> 
> Good humored chop busting aside, do you not feel the sense of accomplishment to make it to the top of the hill without having put your foot down? Unless its a race, and hiking is a calculated decision, I'd rather slowly sit and spin and triumphantly celebrate making it to the top by pedaling, knowing next time will be just a little bit faster. Assuming my heart hasn't exploded through my chest yet, of course.


As a person that had 2x10 and had to walk alot of hills even with 24x36 when i was starting out. I hate walking. I never want to do it again. I prefer biking! I do find a huge satisfaction making ridiculous climbs and not putting a foot down. Now with 1x, i love it. Also love getting to a point you keep clicking for a lower gear and dont have one so you have to hunker down and suck it up.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

GuitsBoy said:


> I cant believe how many people find walking to be a viable option in mountain biking. Walking is an absolute option of last resort. Tipping over to the side and spending ten minutes puking in the fetal position is preferable to walking your bike up a hill. Sure, in many cases, walking may be faster, but you might as well store your testicles in a fanny pack at that point.
> 
> If only I were a better rider, I would berate you all further!
> 
> Good humored chop busting aside, do you not feel the sense of accomplishment to make it to the top of the hill without having put your foot down? Unless its a race, and hiking is a calculated decision, I'd rather slowly sit and spin and triumphantly celebrate making it to the top by pedaling, knowing next time will be just a little bit faster. Assuming my heart hasn't exploded through my chest yet, of course.


Y E S

Ideally, we should all be trying to do that.
I'll walk the bike some in steeps if I have to and over some tech terrain I'm not comfortable risking a crash on.

I know this is counter to practicing and getting better at it or 'working on it' but not all my rides right now are for that purpose. I'm still getting used to a new bike, 1X11 on a 30# hardtail coming from 3x8 . I'll get to those workshop days soon.


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

I wouldn't say I'm a naysayer with regard to the new 1x10 or 11 gearing, I'm sure it works great. I had a new set of XO 9sp shifters on the shelf that I got a good price on a few years back so I decided to rebuild my drivetrain last winter with all the same stuff. I was able to find good prices on cassette, rings, rear der and chain and went the 2x9 route again.



TiGeo said:


> The new 1x systems are so slick and reliable. To those that are naysayers....have you ever ridden one? I have been on a 1x10 for 5 years and just recently went from a 11-36 to an 11-40 (with a 32 up front). The 40 is nicer for long steep climbs. My next bike with have Eagle with a 34.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Great! Enjoy what you have for sure. Over and over in the 1x vs. the world discussions however it is often said/implied that 2x systems have a wider range (read...lower granny..that seems to be the big concern) than a 1x. I would say often that is the case but with Eagles and 1x11s hitting a 46 in the back, its really about the same in terms of a granny. My first 3x7 in 1991 had a 24/28 granny (26" wheels)....I survived it but am glad I have a 32/40 on my 29er now!


----------



## WoEpiscopo (Oct 29, 2016)

As a recent 1x user, I can't believe I ever ran a 2x set up beforehand. I run a GX drivetrain and only, maybe twice, have I ever felt like I truly needed an extra gear. The Eagle 1x12 is a very cool looking set up, but I demoed a bike with that setup and just felt like it was a really unecessary gear to have. Sometimes you just gotta tell your legs to shup up and push on.


----------



## Jovian (Jun 18, 2013)

I absolutely need it at times. Sometimes you want to push it and do a longer ride, I know I have that gear to get me out if I need it.

I also dont work on my fitness, I just ride a few times a week. When I had the 32x42 I sometimes wished I had one more gear (or a 30t), now with the 32x50 its never a problem.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> The new 1x systems are so slick and reliable. To those that are naysayers....have you ever ridden one? I have been on a 1x10 for 5 years and just recently went from a 11-36 to an 11-40 (with a 32 up front). The 40 is nicer for long steep climbs. My next bike with have Eagle with a 34.


This guy gets it. The point of a 50t cassette is to use a bigger chainring to make your tall gears taller.


----------



## WoEpiscopo (Oct 29, 2016)

The 1x is just so much more efficent (for me at least) and I feel like I have better clearance. Plus there's less for me to break, which happens more than I like to admit.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I spec'd an 11 - 46 for my build because, well, where I live and ride we have some seriously steep and frikkin' grueling climbs and I'm not getting any younger.


----------



## Bitingtires (Dec 12, 2015)

I recommend you ride the HardCOEre100 (100miles, 20k ft elevation) in October and we talk afterwards.


----------



## thumper07 (Feb 24, 2011)

I'm not a super fast rider, just an average Joe. But, I've raced 12 Hours of Tsali 4 times on my 34x34 single chainring 29" hardtail. There are some pretty steep climbs in the Nantahala mountains at Tsali, NC and I don't have much problem. I lose momentum on the last of the 3rd lap (10 mile loops) on some of the big climbs and have to get off and walk, but in my defense I'm 50 years old.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I have ridden singlespeed most of the time and am riding 34x11-36 now. the last long ride I did left me in agony for several reasons. after I was gassed, I had to get to a trail head that requires a climb up a bunch of switchbacks. this is not in the mountains, mind you, this is a creek bed in Central Texas. I got in my easiest gear and just grinded up that hill just fast enough to not fall over. a larger cassette or a second, smaller chainring might have come in handy at that moment.

I might pick up a second chainring like a 24t and just bolt it on my cranks, just in case. no FD mechanism, just manually derail the chain and put it on the small ring for those "Oh crap I am going to die out here but I have to keep going" situations.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

mack_turtle said:


> "Oh crap I am going to die out here but I have to keep going" situations.


I feel like that on every ride... I don't think gearing matters that much.

But seriously, I'm a bit confused... how did it become more difficult going from a SS to a wide range (well wide a few years ago) cassette? Tackling different terrain?

Are you actually pushing that 34x11?

I've been thinking about my 11t sprocket on my trail bike a lot. I never use it. I think maybe once testing my bike on my street. On a trail, never, ever, ever... don't think I've ever used 13 or 15 either... too many damn clicks to get there, dhs not long enough. And this is with a 30T up front. Everyone's rides are different, but I think I could ride with a 26 up front and actually use more of my gears. Just something to think about...


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Bitingtires said:


> I recommend you ride the HardCOEre100 (100miles, 20k ft elevation) in October and we talk afterwards.


Um, yeah, that's not going to happen. I won't even do the Cascade Triple Crown of ~50 mi. and 11k elevation.


----------



## Stalkerfiveo (Feb 24, 2015)

nvphatty said:


> Fair question indeed because @ some point there's diminishing returns IMV. My current bailout setups for two bikes= 22x34 and 22x36 respectively, hence if i'm unable to maintain momentum due to climb severity or loss of traction....... i dismount and walk it.


Uh yeah, your 22/36=.61 where a 28/46=.608 so it's basically the same gearing except the 1x system weighs less than your 2x. People just hear "46" or "50" and get images of dinner plates in their heads and immediately scoff.

But yeah, I'll take 30/42 or 28/42 on a 27.5 bike any day when I plan to ride 30+ miles and climb 5k feet. Is 28/42 basically walking speed? Sure! But it means I didn't lose the time it takes to dismount and remount once on a flat spot AND my calves aren't on fire from hiking a 30% grade!


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Heck 28 42 is faster than i can hike something i need that gearing for. 46t puts me about walking speed if im spinning it (well kind of spinning, some force behind it hauling my fat ass up)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I've got a bike with a 30/42 and 30/44. I'm 145lbs (pre gear) and use the bailout gear all the time. It can be sporadically or the entire length of whatever I'm trying to get up. So Cal has lots of long climbs and often climbs on climbs. Sometimes a hill can be too long to muscle up or I just want to save some energy for the way down. I know guys that will just grit grind up a long climb with a high gear...just to have their legs barely hold them up on the way down.


----------



## dustyyoungblood (Jul 6, 2016)

Mass to power ratio of the rider is an important detail, as well as terrain. 

I am 6' tall and 235lb right now. Which makes me a fatass. With a 30t front 9-44 I still feel I could use 2 teeth lower gear. Most of the trails I ride here in SoCal have some pretty steep and fat guy breaking relentless climbs. 1500' in 3.5 miles has me in the HR red zone in this gearing, and if it's hot or I am tired I might need to walk some. I don't like walking, but when it's steep enough that I can't turn the low gear without bonking I gotta figure a lower gear might help. No? 

I know once the extra 30lbs is gone I'll have no issue with the 30t, and might go 32t. But for now I am out of the necessary leverage to climb my hills.


----------



## dustyyoungblood (Jul 6, 2016)

GuitsBoy said:


> I cant believe how many people find walking to be a viable option in mountain biking. Walking is an absolute option of last resort. Tipping over to the side and spending ten minutes puking in the fetal position is preferable to walking your bike up a hill. Sure, in many cases, walking may be faster, but you might as well store your testicles in a fanny pack at that point.
> 
> If only I were a better rider, I would berate you all further!
> 
> Good humored chop busting aside, do you not feel the sense of accomplishment to make it to the top of the hill without having put your foot down? Unless its a race, and hiking is a calculated decision, I'd rather slowly sit and spin and triumphantly celebrate making it to the top by pedaling, knowing next time will be just a little bit faster. Assuming my heart hasn't exploded through my chest yet, of course.


I hate walking, but it happens. What area of the world are you with this no walking attitude? Many of the best trails i have enjoyed pretty much REQUIRED some walking even by the ultra fit riders.


----------



## dustyyoungblood (Jul 6, 2016)

Anyone promoting 2x or 3x for MTB riding is ****ing stupid, nostalgic, or just poor. 

The 1x11 systems of narrow/wide are so much better. The components I am running now are the best drivetrain I have ever used, hands down. Never dropped a chain yet either, no guide. Just a wolftooth 30t ring and kmc doc chain. It's amazing


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

dustyyoungblood said:


> Anyone promoting 2x or 3x for MTB riding is ****ing stupid, nostalgic, or just poor.
> 
> The 1x11 systems of narrow/wide are so much better. The components I am running now are the best drivetrain I have ever used, hands down. Never dropped a chain yet either, no guide. Just a wolftooth 30t ring and kmc doc chain. It's amazing


I don't really give a **** what you think (sounds like you're new to this hobby), but i'm running 2x9 for good reasons.

-A new drivetrain costs me <100$. New XT chainrings, chain and cassette. Let your replacement interval lapse and ruin your gears... whatever.
-My gear range is greater than yours.
-The gearing is more intuitive. In my big ring i'm pushing ~1:1 when i'm near the bottom of the cassette. That's where you wanna be for negotiating obstacles. I can push that gear up any hill, at least for a while.
-better chainline when i'm climbing. (also descending)
-with a 2x chainguide i have silence on the descent, no chainguide drag climbing, no dropped chains, and no noisy drivetrain in the muck, unlike 1xwhatever.
-no clutch to wear out or adjust or interact with my rear suspension


----------



## Alex.Grecu (Oct 8, 2016)

RAKC Ind said:


> 28/46 here. Though I don't get into the 46 very often it's a mental thing of sill trying to ride it versus walk it.
> 
> I have to agree on trying to deal with any tech in that gear though... I'm big and slow but if I mash in that gear by mistake I better have my chest damn near on the bars or I'm going over backwards.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Hi,

what is the smallest cog you are running? 10 or 11? Does the 28t provide enough for descending/riding flat? Thank you


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

richde said:


> This guy gets it. The point of a 50t cassette is to use a bigger chainring to make your tall gears taller.


Yes....folks seem to be obsessed with the low gear...Eagle gives you so much range including top end which you lose on many 1x systems. 34/50 is a LOW gear.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

I hope I'm doing it right.

Want to get in shape and be a decent climber but I'm not going out for contests, long dist rides or any lofty goals.... just recreational rides with friends in the 8 to 15 mile range and some uphill in Colorado. 

We are mostly in the 7000 to 7500 elevation and my bike is just as I got it with no changes... about 30.4 # hardtail and 32x42 1x11 on 27.5 x 3.0. 
Hoping to stick with it as it came and not mess with the drive train. I've had a couple of walks but the guys I ride with are 8 and 16 years younger and I don't walk much more than they do. I think I just need to throw myself into the climb exercise a bit more regularly.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

l'oiseau said:


> But seriously, I'm a bit confused... how did it become more difficult going from a SS to a wide range (well wide a few years ago) cassette? Tackling different terrain?


there was a perfect storm of bad things happening that made that ride so hard: these trails are a bit more difficult than what I usually ride, riding for longer than I usually do, riding with two guys who are stronger than I am, riding with people on "trail" FS bikes while I am on a heavy steel hardtail, rationing my water at the end because I didn't bring enough, and only bringing 250 calories of food (one Clif bar) on this ride when I probably burned 2700. "I've made a huge mistake." add all those together and you get that dead feeling toward the end when you just shift down and spin until the end.

totally my fault for not planning better but that is when I would want a "bail out gear." otherwise, 34x11-36 is more gear than I really need.


----------



## dustyyoungblood (Jul 6, 2016)

scottzg said:


> I don't really give a **** what you think (sounds like you're new to this hobby), but i'm running 2x9 for good reasons.
> 
> -A new drivetrain costs me <100$. New XT chainrings, chain and cassette. Let your replacement interval lapse and ruin your gears... whatever.
> -My gear range is greater than yours.
> ...


Nah you got my statement wrong. Cost not being a Factor.... the new stuff is SOOO much better performing. Your profile says you started riding in 2000, which makes you to green to remember 7 speed. 3x7 was bullet proof, and the wear factor was a very long life. Plus I never remember breaking a 7 speed chain. That's the reason it's still used on budget bikes. it's bomb proof. But the chain are heavy, very heavy. Once we got to 10 speed, or even 9 for that matter broken chains became an issue.

plus with 2x or 3x the chainline affects your suspension characteristics differently, who wants that?

You pay a ton of $$$ for good 11 speed stuff for it's performance. Not longevity.

Here is what I am running now, and it's by far the best drivetrain I have ever used. Lots of sand and water crossing, no dropped chain, no guide, no missed shifts, quiet, and quick acceleration. Very very happy and could never consider ever having a FD ever again.

1x11
KMC DLC chain
E-13 9-44 cassette
Wolftooth 30t cinch
Box RD and shifter

that's $600 worth of marketing ******** that works great and is a joy to pedal.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I love these pointless gearing arguments😀


----------



## GuitsBoy (Sep 24, 2013)

dustyyoungblood said:


> I hate walking, but it happens. What area of the world are you with this no walking attitude? Many of the best trails i have enjoyed pretty much REQUIRED some walking even by the ultra fit riders.


New York's great atlantic sandbar.... Some hills can be pretty steep, but you're hard pressed to find anything approaching 200 ft vertical in a single climb.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

dustyyoungblood said:


> You pay a ton of $$$ for good 11 speed stuff for it's performance. Not longevity.


You lost me there. The good stuff all shifts the same, I'll take durable and reliable over novelty any day. Here's why i'm riding my backup bike right now-









Fancy junk.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

dustyyoungblood said:


> You pay a ton of $$$ for good 11 speed stuff for it's performance. Not longevity.


No, YOU pay a ton of money because you decided you wanted to. 
Don't drag sensible people into this mess.


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

I think you forgot about back in '89 when using a Shimano chain was about the worst thing one could do, talk about breaking. Hyperglide came out in the fall of 88 and it quickly beat the crap out of their own chains so bad that the only sensible choice was a basic Sedis. Now of course it's SRAM chains, my how times change.

So far I don't see 10spd being significantly weaker, my how technology has changed that part. I'm thinking of converting my 7 and 8spd stuff to use 10spd chains since I could just buy a 10 pack and make it easier on what to store in the garage.



dustyyoungblood said:


> Nah you got my statement wrong. Cost not being a Factor.... the new stuff is SOOO much better performing. Your profile says you started riding in 2000, which makes you to green to remember 7 speed. 3x7 was bullet proof, and the wear factor was a very long life. Plus I never remember breaking a 7 speed chain. That's the reason it's still used on budget bikes. it's bomb proof. But the chain are heavy, very heavy. Once we got to 10 speed, or even 9 for that matter broken chains became an issue.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> I love these pointless gearing arguments


No You Don't !!


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

mack_turtle said:


> there was a perfect storm of bad things happening that made that ride so hard: these trails are a bit more difficult than what I usually ride, riding for longer than I usually do, riding with two guys who are stronger than I am, riding with people on "trail" FS bikes while I am on a heavy steel hardtail, rationing my water at the end because I didn't bring enough, and only bringing 250 calories of food (one Clif bar) on this ride when I probably burned 2700. "I've made a huge mistake." add all those together and you get that dead feeling toward the end when you just shift down and spin until the end.
> 
> totally my fault for not planning better but that is when I would want a "bail out gear." otherwise, 34x11-36 is more gear than I really need.


Thanks for those details..... 
I so rarely do any big rides but I also believe I underrate nutrition even on shorter rides. Been pretty good about water but I also remember some times that was an issue.

All in all, I think I do pretty good for the 5 - 8 times per month 8 - 18 mile rides that are sometimes spur-of-the-moment but taking more into account or better planning could probably send me a bit father along with less effort.


----------



## Tommybees (Dec 25, 2014)

Funny that roadbikes continue to be dominated with 2x...guess they aint as smart as us. 

Or step size matters and finding the right gear is worth the grams to spin at a more efficient rpm. A typical 11x road set up is 11-26 teeth in the back; that's basically 1 tooth differential all the way up. A .5% grade change means at least one shift on the road.

So what gives, why do MTB'r hail the 1x as the holy grail. Prolly cause the terrain changes much more than 1% at a time and therefor big jumps in gearing match. For me I like to ride to my trails (road), I like to find the right RPM no matter what the terrain is like and I'm old so I need to keep the loads on the knees above the happy point. I currently ride my cheap, quite, mostly chain dropless 3x and it makes me happy to have it. The only downside for me is the my big ring occasionally doubles as a bash guard ;(. I easily autopilot front and rear shifts without thinking and the high majority of drops are on the downhills coasting over knarr. I just tap the FD and keep going.
I will definitely go 2x on my next upgrade.

And oh by the way, I took this rig on the HardCOEre last year....and still walked a few hills, especially the top of Bear Mt @ > 20% mile long grade. So don't tell me that 1x is better, just say that is has the same total range at a lighter weight with a higher cost. Then I fully agree.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Road race will never go 1x. They demand small steps. Mountain bikes also place different demands on drivetrains. Not losing your chain is much more important and a bigger problem on rough terrain.
The other big reason is the the front ring size determines the speed differential between gears. Small ring with big jumps = big ring with small jumps. Road riders need to optimize cadence over a smaller range at higher speeds.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I could honestly do with bigger jumps between gears. I'd use more of them if I did, but most of the time it just ain't worth the extra clicks for a few pedal strokes in a small gear, and then have to get back where I was a few seconds later.

I also don't need a ton of steps down for climbing. I wind up in the same gear in the end, less shifts would be nice.

I could probably be happy with a 6 or 7 speed but with the same range, maybe a little less high speed gearing.

There's just too much demand in MTB to meet everyone's needs. Some people want a huge range and small steps (pointless for me) and some people want a range for trail speeds and can adjust cadence to meet riding needs. I probably switch between my lowest gear and a midrange gear without using the ones in between 90% of the time.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

I don't have a bailout gear. I have a low gear that I have to use sometimes. I'm 65. I live in the Wasatch range. It's not unusual to be on a steep grade at almost 10,000 feet. If I can get slow in spots long enough to get my heartrate back down below 185 or so, I can make the climbs. If not, I'm walking. I'd rather crawl up, on my bike, than walk up even if that's faster. I'm using a 28/42.


----------



## Pho'dUp (Feb 6, 2004)

Because some of us are fat. <<<<uses 2X 9spd 22x36


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

Pho'dUp said:


> Because some of us are fat. <<<<uses 2X 9spd 22x36


And only ride once a week.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

MSU Alum said:


> I live in the Wasatch range.


Having ridden in the Wasatch a long time ago, I'm more than a bit jealous of you. That place rocks!


----------



## dustyyoungblood (Jul 6, 2016)

The parameters for effective gearing for Road bike is no comparison to MTB for gearing trends.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

I'm riding a 1x11 30 # steel h/t as 32 / 42 and it kicks me a bit on the climbs but I figure the work will make me stronger if I get our ore regularly. Most riding here starts at 6800 t0 7000. 
Not quite 57 y/o , 5"10 and about 175#

Working nights, I sometimes get into a sleep deficit mode a few times a week.
I'll just keep making excuses until I get out more often.


----------



## noose (Feb 11, 2004)

alexbn921 said:


> Road race will never go 1x. They demand small steps. Mountain bikes also place different demands on drivetrains. Not losing your chain is much more important and a bigger problem on rough terrain.
> The other big reason is the the front ring size determines the speed differential between gears. Small ring with big jumps = big ring with small jumps. Road riders need to optimize cadence over a smaller range at higher speeds.


Exactly this. I don't ride road anymore because I find it too unsafe but the gearing demands are much different. Also, mtb gearing demands are very terrain dependent. I have short steep climbs on my main trail where i require more granny than my current 30x42 but many trails elsewhere never call for even that easy of a bailout. I'll never go 2x on a mountain bike again.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2017)

drdocta said:


> When I see bikes with a 30x50 option or 28x46 option I can't seem to figure out how that is helpful. Even at 32x42 (current bailout gear) on the steepest of climbs I am spinning so much that I would rather have a little more torque in the next gear or simply walk my bike as that much spinning feels so inefficient.
> 
> I thought that they were for very steep technical or difficult climbs but I can't seem to make that work. Is there another reason why these things exist? I can out-walk myself with less effort than I could riding up a climb in something crazy like a 28x50


Your profile has you listed in Cedar Park, Texas. Looking at a map, it appears that the closest mountain you have is at 1309'. Try riding around Lake Tahoe, up around 8500'...you'll figure out why some people prefer low gearing. Seriously though, it's all rider preference, your local terrain, your fitness level, age, past injuries, tolerance for pain...that's why we have options


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

In Colorado 8500 is pretty low if you live here. I don't usually really need the lowest gears until around 11,000 or 12,000 feet, you have 50% of your power at that elevation and need the super low gears.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2017)

Porkchop_Power said:


> In Colorado 8500 is pretty low if you live here. I don't usually really need the lowest gears until around 11,000 or 12,000 feet, you have 50% of your power at that elevation and need the super low gears.


That's only partially true...some of us live at sea level, not Colorado. The elevation will affect most people differently than someone who is accustom to elevation. With that said, this debate/thread is silly...too many variables. Run the gearing that works best for you :thumbsup:


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

Porkchop_Power said:


> In Colorado 8500 is pretty low if you live here.


Average elevation here in Colorado is 6800'. I would guess that a large majority of the population here in Colorado lives below that elevation. Front Range, where most of the population resides, is between 4900' (Fort Collins) and 6100' (Colorado Springs).


----------



## ashas (Jan 22, 2009)

I got 1x11 (32x42) drivetrain with my new bike in dec 2015. I didn't know how it would affect my riding, and I thought it's going to be rougher and harder than 2x10 (24&36x34) I rode for two years before that.

to be honest I just love 1x. I learned that insisting on going faster during uphills is just better for the bike and for the rhythm of the riding. 

I experimented and rode some really nasty uphills on both 42t and 36t cog and realized that picking up as much speed as possible with 36t just before uphill section and maintaining momentum, just plow through that section, is more managable than going with 42t, becoming slower and risk being stopped by a root or a rock that you just cannot cross with the front wheel and get stuck, dismounted, and possibly fall.

it comes at the cost of having to be really fit or being on the way of becoming really fit. yeah, well - nothing new, I know - but it really all comes down to that.

most of my uphills I'm in 36t cog back, as it provides enough torque while still being managable to maintain a decent rhythm of the riding, without me dying. especially if I'm on rooty and chundery trails. whenever I hit calmer part of trail, I go BOG and try to rest until the next obstacle and/or tech part. 

basically - more speed gives more stability, more torque gives more controlled ride.

also, I run Minions.

all this said - I'd like to try Eagle system, but I think I'd then put 34t chainring front, maybe even 36. might go for 34 oval, actually, if my frame will allow it, as it seems pretty snug with 32 already (YT Capra).


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

To go 1x effectively on the road they would need to be at a 13 speed cassette or more to get the narrow changes (1t) between jumps. Thing is, for your average joe rider (not a pro), 1x on the road works fine. I use 1x on my gravel/CX bike with no drama. 11-40 11-speed cassette with a 42t chainring. I have a lower ear than the 34/28 low I had on my double but lose some top-end and the small jumps between gears...I haven't missed it. Folks don't use the top end as much as they want to think they do. On my road bike (a 10-seed double), I rarely use my 50/11 unless I am in a group hauling ass.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I also think that the push to 1x has some to do with the fact that learning to efficiently use a front derailleur escapes most riders. This was always confusing for folks when I worked at an LBS - trying to explain the concept. I never had much issue with the front....heading into a steep climb, ghost/soft pedal and drop to the granny ring and at the top spin up the RPM then slam it up to the middle or big ring and go.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> I also think that the push to 1x has some to do with the fact that learning to efficiently use a front derailleur escapes most riders. This was always confusing for folks when I worked at an LBS - trying to explain the concept. I never had much issue with the front....heading into a steep climb, ghost/soft pedal and drop to the granny ring and at the top spin up the RPM then slam it up to the middle or big ring and go.


Most of the places that had me dropping to the granny, had me also shifting up 1-2 gears in the rear, and raising the dropper. Unfortunately, I only have two thumbs.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

TiGeo said:


> I also think that the push to 1x has some to do with the fact that learning to efficiently use a front derailleur escapes most riders. This was always confusing for folks when I worked at an LBS - trying to explain the concept. I never had much issue with the front....heading into a steep climb, ghost/soft pedal and drop to the granny ring and at the top spin up the RPM then slam it up to the middle or big ring and go.


  This.

What a lot of riders actually do is to avoid the granny ring as long as possible, so when they finally do shift into it, they are doing so in the largest cog, so they drop from a middling low gear to the lowest all at once. They also then have to shift the front under load.

This has less to do with skill than a macho thing around pushing big gears.


----------



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

I almost always do the double click when dropping into the small front chainring, meaning that I click both shifters simultaneously with my index fingers so it's not such a radical gear change. Sometimes even 2 clicks on the left and 1 on the right.

I never have any problems shifting into the small chainring mid-climb or while pedaling hard so I don't worry about starting a climb in the big ring and bailing later if I have to.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Thankfully, I will never have to shift the front again


----------



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

Thankfully I don't care too much one way or the other.

Bailout gearing, what's the point again?


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Travis Bickle said:


> Most of the places that had me dropping to the granny, had me also shifting up 1-2 gears in the rear, and raising the dropper. Unfortunately, I only have two thumbs.


Ahh, that explains why i don't have any troubles with front derailleurs; i'm all thumbs.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Thankfully I don't care too much one way or the other.
> 
> Bailout gearing, what's the point again?


I believe it is to slow the sinking of a very large vessel.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

sgltrak said:


> Average elevation here in Colorado is 6800'. I would guess that a large majority of the population here in Colorado lives below that elevation. Front Range, where most of the population resides, is between 4900' (Fort Collins) and 6100' (Colorado Springs).


Yeah I'm not sure where he gets the low elevations are 8500. That usually the max elevation I'm willing to pedal. Anything more than that kills me. And I live at 5600 feet.

I rode today from 6700 to 8300 feet. At just below 8000 I started really feeling it. And it doesn't mean I didn't use my granny gear earlier either.

Pedaling is hard work whether you're at elevation or have steep hills at sea level. Make it easy on yourself.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

stripes said:


> Yeah I'm not sure where he gets the low elevations are 8500. That usually the max elevation I'm willing to pedal. Anything more than that kills me. And I live at 5600 feet.
> 
> I rode today from 6700 to 8300 feet. At just below 8000 I started really feeling it. And it doesn't mean I didn't use my granny gear earlier either.
> 
> Pedaling is hard work whether you're at elevation or have steep hills at sea level. Make it easy on yourself.


In the interior, like WP, Breck, Crusty Butte, etc., that is probably spot on, many rides start out around 8000' and go up past 11,000', some past 12,000'. I do that every few years and I feel fine (I live at sea level). General fitness has a lot to do with it IMO.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I think this thread goes back to perspectives. I'm climbing on a 30-42 on one bike and can't fathom how anyone could want lower, in fact I'm considering going to 32-42, because at 30-42, when it gets real technical I stall out just due to not being able to generate enough speed/momentum in that gear. If I go slower, I fall over. So that's the end of it, right? But it's not, because the people that need to go to 28-50 are not riding the same terrain on the same bike at the same fitness level. Sure, if they tried to ride up these hills, even with 28-50, they wouldn't make it, but there are lots of hills where that is what makes it possible for them, they go slower, but they are able to ride. Just fast forward to when you are 60+ years old and still riding or out of shape and trying to recover. We tend to narrow our perception down to what we experience and I think that most people would be fine with a 30 or 32 x 10-42 11spd, but most people isn't all people and some of those people need specialized stuff, so again, there is definitely a purpose for bail-out gearing.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

Probably should of said that in the summer I pretty much only ride 8000 feet and above. Breck / Crested Butte / Winter Park / etc. all have base elevations of above 8500 feet. In the winter I ride front range where the trails are 5500-7500 feet. I personally really feel a loss in power above 10,000 feet, others don't seem to slow down as much but live year round at higher elevations.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Jayem said:


> I think this thread goes back to perspectives. I'm climbing on a 30-42 on one bike and can't fathom how anyone could want lower, in fact I'm considering going to 32-42, because at 30-42, when it gets real technical I stall out just due to not being able to generate enough speed/momentum in that gear. If I go slower, I fall over. So that's the end of it, right? But it's not, because the people that need to go to 28-50 are not riding the same terrain on the same bike at the same fitness level. Sure, if they tried to ride up these hills, even with 28-50, they wouldn't make it, but there are lots of hills where that is what makes it possible for them, they go slower, but they are able to ride. Just fast forward to when you are 60+ years old and still riding or out of shape and trying to recover. We tend to narrow our perception down to what we experience and I think that most people would be fine with a 30 or 32 x 10-42 11spd, but most people isn't all people and some of those people need specialized stuff, so again, there is definitely a purpose for bail-out gearing.


I just completed a long trip wth 250+ miles of riding and 27k of climbing in a few different rides. All 6200 feet and higher. Peaked at 12,450 ft. Many miles were on a 29er HT with 28t and 10-42. some on a 27.5 FS 5" bike with 22-32 and 11-36. my 28 and 10-42 11spd worked really well both racing 1 hour long sprint laps and even bike packing at 11k plus. The only place it became an issue was on 12% road climb where I simply ran out of gears. I had another rider pass me on his 2x10. I actually got out in front and pulled gap only to crack hard have to walk it. It took time, but eventually he caught me and passed me. I kept walking it and eventually the grade leveled out and could push the 28x42 again and almost caught him. This was on paved road, but a smooth dirt road could have been the same story. On the the trails the 28x42 was enough even loaded at elevation, but at some point I was going to walk it anyway. Going lower geared like I had on my old 20t front 34 rear I might have been able to ride slightly more of the single track, but in the end not very much. The one nice thing about the 1x is never needing to worry about which front ring you are in. You just ride. I never get the "change over" I was so used to with 2x an 3x systems. On the top end I never spun out the 28x10 ratio even during race conditions. At least on these trails the speeds were such that I never needed to pedal past that. I can spin out the 28x10 on certain places, but does it make difference? In a race maybe, but in general riding probalby not as those high speeds are not that common.

Now my 27.5 22/32 with a 11-36 needs some work. I will got 1x on that, but I have not dialed in the ratios yet. That bike has a different purpose than my 29HT so different gearing may suit it better.

I resisted 1x for a long time and in the end it could be an improvement. It is simpler and it does save weight. It also limits gearing and how that impacts you personally is not easy to gauge even when you run all the numbers. Is 1x12 better than 1x11? Maybe. 1x12 starts adding weight back in that 1x11 saved over 2x10 and 3x9 due to the large 50t cog, but does add range. How much range you need vs what you think you need is a tough call.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

JoePAz said:


> I just completed a long trip wth 250+ miles of riding and 27k of climbing in a few different rides. All 6200 feet and higher. Peaked at 12,450 ft. Many miles were on a 29er HT with 28t and 10-42. some on a 27.5 FS 5" bike with 22-32 and 11-36. my 28 and 10-42 11spd worked really well both racing 1 hour long sprint laps and even bike packing at 11k plus. The only place it became an issue was on 12% road climb where I simply ran out of gears. I had another rider pass me on his 2x10. I actually got out in front and pulled gap only to crack hard have to walk it. It took time, but eventually he caught me and passed me. I kept walking it and eventually the grade leveled out and could push the 28x42 again and almost caught him. This was on paved road, but a smooth dirt road could have been the same story. On the the trails the 28x42 was enough even loaded at elevation, but at some point I was going to walk it anyway. Going lower geared like I had on my old 20t front 34 rear I might have been able to ride slightly more of the single track, but in the end not very much. The one nice thing about the 1x is never needing to worry about which front ring you are in. You just ride. I never get the "change over" I was so used to with 2x an 3x systems. On the top end I never spun out the 28x10 ratio even during race conditions. At least on these trails the speeds were such that I never needed to pedal past that. I can spin out the 28x10 on certain places, but does it make difference? In a race maybe, but in general riding probalby not as those high speeds are not that common.
> 
> Now my 27.5 22/32 with a 11-36 needs some work. I will got 1x on that, but I have not dialed in the ratios yet. That bike has a different purpose than my 29HT so different gearing may suit it better.
> 
> I resisted 1x for a long time and in the end it could be an improvement. It is simpler and it does save weight. It also limits gearing and how that impacts you personally is not easy to gauge even when you run all the numbers. Is 1x12 better than 1x11? Maybe. 1x12 starts adding weight back in that 1x11 saved over 2x10 and 3x9 due to the large 50t cog, but does add range. How much range you need vs what you think you need is a tough call.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JoePAz again."

You gotta be the most real person on MTBR.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm still having trouble with the term "bailout gear." It's just one's lowest gear, right? It's not like I save a special low gear that I resort to only if all hell is breaking loose, like hitting the hyperspace button. I use my lowest gear if it's appropriate. If the going gets tough you just try to pedal harder for as long as you need to, right?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Nat said:


> I'm still having trouble with the term "bailout gear." It's just one's lowest gear, right? It's not like I save a special low gear that I resort to only if all hell is breaking loose, like hitting the hyperspace button. I use my lowest gear if it's appropriate. If the going gets tough you just try to pedal harder for as long as you need to, right?


Agreed

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Plus, riding 50lb fatbikes uphill is now a thing....


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Oh ya got some guys that bikepack on fat bikes lol. Was confused for a moment because with rack and small frame bag mine weighs in at 34lbs, only carbon is bars and fork. 4.7s on mulefuts etc. I couldnt imagine move a 50lb fat bike up any real hill lol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Nat said:


> I'm still having trouble with the term "bailout gear." It's just one's lowest gear, right? It's not like I save a special low gear that I resort to only if all hell is breaking loose, like hitting the hyperspace button. I use my lowest gear if it's appropriate. If the going gets tough you just try to pedal harder for as long as you need to, right?


Yah, i end up using my lowest gear for boring stuff that's steep. I use it a lot more when my legs are fatigued. Don't NEED it, but it's nice.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

I love nice short gearing as much as the next person, I've got 26" wheels, and 30t and 11-36 on the back. However on Sunday halfway through my normal loop I snapped my shifter cable. I got the high limit up as far as the 5th cog, and thought how will I make the climb out. Sure enough, much swearing, standing and light headedness and a did a 15 minute climb I normally do in the 36t cog.
Not something I want to make a habit of, but nice to know I could do it. Now a real hill, and at altitude, pass.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Nat said:


> I'm still having trouble with the term "bailout gear." It's just one's lowest gear, right? It's not like I save a special low gear that I resort to only if all hell is breaking loose, like hitting the hyperspace button. I use my lowest gear if it's appropriate. If the going gets tough you just try to pedal harder for as long as you need to, right?


That is exactly what mine is. I haven't used it in over a month, not even yesterday, with two rides and over 1300m of climbing. Sometimes its just not possible pedal harder, and it's their for those special occasions.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

TiGeo said:


> Yes....folks seem to be obsessed with the low gear...Eagle gives you so much range including top end which you lose on many 1x systems. 34/50 is a LOW gear.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Agreed. Related to this, the Eagle paves the way for the use of a bigger front ring, which MAY be a very significant factor for bikes with HUGE anti-squat, high pedal kickback, rearward travel suspension linkage designs. Like my 2015 Range, where the shock EXTENDS under high loads. I am running a 1x on it (the frame doesn't even have an FD mount) but the anti-squat does not begin to settle down until you run a 36 ring on the front. That said (which is why I said "MAY" earlier), while a 36 ring on an 11-42 works beautifully, not sure if the use of a 36 ring will have the same settling tendencies if used with the wider ratio Eagle cassette. Hmmm...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Nat said:


> I'm still having trouble with the term "bailout gear." It's just one's lowest gear, right? It's not like I save a special low gear that I resort to only if all hell is breaking loose, like hitting the hyperspace button. I use my lowest gear if it's appropriate. If the going gets tough you just try to pedal harder for as long as you need to, right?


Bingo! Thanks for going there. I've been pondering saying that exact thing. Just another stupid label someone decided to add to an extra low gear on the cassette. Oh, lets make it special by adding a name to it and another color. ut: I swear this sport gets more hipster with each passing year.

Build the bandwagon and they will jump on.


----------



## BeanMan (Jul 6, 2006)

High altitude.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Bingo! Thanks for going there. I've been pondering saying that exact thing. Just another stupid label someone decided to add to an extra low gear on the cassette.


I've never heard the term "bailout gear" except for this thread. It's just the lowest gear.

I guess we could start calling our highest gear the "peril gear." That adds a sense of drama too.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Maybe OP is running one of these...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I call it the granny gear. Or is that just on an old geometry bike?


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Bingo! Thanks for going there. I've been pondering saying that exact thing. Just another stupid label someone decided to add to an extra low gear on the cassette. Oh, lets make it special by adding a name to it and another color. ut: I swear this sport gets more hipster with each passing year.
> 
> Build the bandwagon and they will jump on.


Hah,, now wait a minute though.... if they called it My Little Sisters Gear, that would be worse wouldn't it? I really be offended then.... (having need for it quite a bit on my 1x11 boat anchor).


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

scottzg said:


> Maybe OP is running one of these...
> 
> View attachment 1145224


And with one of those do you have to stop to hand put the chain up on that ring? If so I'm all in, nothing like adding a bit more challenge to a ride.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Agreed. Related to this, the Eagle paves the way for the use of a bigger front ring, which MAY be a very significant factor for bikes with HUGE anti-squat, high pedal kickback, rearward travel suspension linkage designs. Like my 2015 Range, where the shock EXTENDS under high loads. I am running a 1x on it (the frame doesn't even have an FD mount) but the anti-squat does not begin to settle down until you run a 36 ring on the front. That said (which is why I said "MAY" earlier), while a 36 ring on an 11-42 works beautifully, not sure if the use of a 36 ring will have the same settling tendencies if used with the wider ratio Eagle cassette. Hmmm...


The front ring has a greater effect than the the rear cogs on that action. It's one of the arguments for why 2x might be better than 1x. I can find the reference if you want it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The front ring has a greater effect than the the rear cogs on that action. It's one of the arguments for why 2x might be better than 1x. I can find the reference if you want it.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Thanks. No need to dig anything up. I trust you are correct.

Thanks again.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Agreed. Related to this, the Eagle paves the way for the use of a bigger front ring, which MAY be a very significant factor for bikes with HUGE anti-squat, high pedal kickback, rearward travel suspension linkage designs. Like my 2015 Range, where the shock EXTENDS under high loads. I am running a 1x on it (the frame doesn't even have an FD mount) but the anti-squat does not begin to settle down until you run a 36 ring on the front. That said (which is why I said "MAY" earlier), while a 36 ring on an 11-42 works beautifully, not sure if the use of a 36 ring will have the same settling tendencies if used with the wider ratio Eagle cassette. Hmmm...


Yikes! Why would someone design a bike to require such tall gearing?


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

andytiedye said:


> Yikes! Why would someone design a bike to require such tall gearing?


I think to some, including the designers, high anti-squat is a blessing. Achieving that objective is seen as a success. To others, it is a curse. At least in certain circumstances.

I do not notice pedal kickback. Ever. And apart from short techy steep sections, I climb seated and in control, so the shock doesn't extend on me. Ironically, I think my Range is a much better climber than a descender. But that's not the fault of the linkage, but of the sub-par air sprung suspension components. Need coil...

Getting back to your comment, it's only some who do not like the high anti-squat linkage design. I tend to like it. For those who do not, the Eagle may assist by allowing them to run a bigger ring on the front, thereby negating some of the anti-squat tendencies.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Agreed. Related to this, the Eagle paves the way for the use of a bigger front ring, which MAY be a very significant factor for bikes with HUGE anti-squat, high pedal kickback, rearward travel suspension linkage designs. Like my 2015 Range, where the shock EXTENDS under high loads. I am running a 1x on it (the frame doesn't even have an FD mount) but the anti-squat does not begin to settle down until you run a 36 ring on the front. That said (which is why I said "MAY" earlier), while a 36 ring on an 11-42 works beautifully, not sure if the use of a 36 ring will have the same settling tendencies if used with the wider ratio Eagle cassette. Hmmm...


I totally agree with your point.

I don't know about the Range specifically, but horst bikes tend to have highest antisquat at the top of their travel that falls off in a linear fashion as you go deeper... they tend to need more AS at sag than is typical to not feel wallowy climbing.

My Patrol is another horst bike and it has a fair bit less AS than norcos tend to. Pedaling in the granny is very responsive but it's a touch mushy in the big ring (running 2x9). I like it; i only drop down to the granny for steady climbs and then it firms up. Neither chainring produces enough pedal feedback to be distracting.

It was interesting a few years ago when 1x exploded on the scene; some frames were clearly designed for 2x but specced with 1x.


----------

