Really love the idea of the double xc chainset and tried a Middleburn Duo early in the year and wasn't impressed! Shift quality very poor! Currently using XT with granny ring removed but toying with the idea of the FSA Afterburner double.Seen a few guys use a road mech.How do you convert a road mech from bottom to top pull? Worth doing or see if my XT will work instead?
Thanx Max

I may be wrong, but im pretty sure i once saw a Dura Ace rear mech on Dan Athertons 4X bike. Not that thats of any use but i guess it lets you know it can be done.

Most MTB front mechs are now a clever design that allows you to run them either top or bottom pull. Road front mechs are always bottom pull cos the cables are downtube routed. So the answer to How do you convert a road mech from bottom to top pull? is 'you can't'. I'm sure there's some MTB mechs available specifically for double chainrings but any normal mech should work fine anyway so long as the limit screws are correctly set.

Stick with the XT and screw in the limit screws. A road mech is designed for larger rings than you are using so will be as much of a compromise as a limited MTB mech. If you are planning on running slightly smaller outer ring there is now an SLX double front mech but I think it is limited to a 36 outer.

You can use a small roller device mounted on the seat tube that the cable runs under and back up to the mech. Cyclocross bikes use them sometimes. See them HERE

However I would just stick with an MTB mech if you are using MTB rings, possibly an SLX double specific mech.

You would need a Speen adapter. You can get them from here the German uberblingsters here

More efficient that the roller device. They have a version for most front mechs. Its fairly common on weightweenie hard tails which require a top pull front mech.

the mechverter, as MrP says, will do the job.

mtb shifters pull too much cable for road mechs, but you can get it to work okay with two rings by using the limit screws.

I'd stick with the mtb mech myself. But I agree, Duo shifting is terrible.

That is a nice neat solution JamesP, thanks for pointing that out.