So, SRAM redesign everything for 2011 and introduce 2[/u] x 10 across the range (the real reason for 10 speed anyway).

And Shimano? Looks the same, still triple up front (completely missing the point of 10 out back), and no sign of XTR which is where the real step change seems to have been made.

SRAM 2, Shimano 0 (and one of SRAM's points was a Shimano Own Goal!)

They are really playing catch up now. Having invested in XX, I was slightly nervous about Shimano coming out with something amazing, but my XX suddenly already looks better than what Shimano have up their sleeve.

So, when will we see some XTR?

If all that matters to you is "next years greatest new thing", fair enough.

2 x 10 may not be for everyone, lets see how many are still riding it in 5 years.

Have you tried 2 x 10? It's not a question of "next year's greatest new thing", it has some distinct advantages that 3 x 10 completely misses. You can achieve the same gear range with much faster front shifting and a narrower Q factor, and less weight. All that Shimano have done is add the weight of 10 out back, whilst keeping the weight and complexity of 3 up front.

I guess you have a mobile phone? And a car? Perhaps a computer since you have posted your comment? Would you prefer a horse, a telegraph and an abacus perhaps? Once upon a time everything that we now take for granted was just "next year's greatest new thing". Even people who still talk with fondness about 8 speed forget to realise that once upon a time it was 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and even 1 speed when it was the only option rather than a conscious choice. All of them were dismissed as "next year's greatest new thing" once.

There'll be a double chainset I reckon, they've just released the triple first.

On a triple I use the middle ring ~95% of the time. I am guessing that on a double, neither of the two rings would be smack bang in the middle of my preferred gearing range, so I would end up front-shifting a lot more.

That's why I ditched the big and small rings and went 1×9 – I think that's the main benefit of 10spd, 1×10 with an 11-36 cassette would make it a lot more feasible for a lot more people.

Njee, you may be right, but from the spy stuff released a few weeks ago, a double XTR was listed, but not in XT and SLX.

Given what SRAM have announced, I just think Shimano have missed a trick. It'll be 2012 before they catch up with 2 x 10 for the masses.

Poppa, I thought the same before I gave it a go. All I would say to anybody is don't knock it until you have tried it. It is very intuitive, very simple to pick up and offers all of the range of 3 x 9 without the wasted gears.

All that Shimano have done is add the weight of 10 out back, whilst keeping the weight and complexity of 3 up front.

I think their argument is that by making the chainrings at the front closer to each other in diameter and having a larger block. FS bikes will work slightly better as you'll spend more time in middle ring which is the ring the pivot points are optimised around and both big and little ring will be closer to this sweet spot.
Whether it's noticeable in practice remains to be seen.

does anyone care? if you want 2×10 then go sram or you could mix and match sram chainset with shim 10speed stuff..

you still have to pedal

I am running 2 x 10 on a full susser with no adverse pedal induced feedback.

Agreed, you can happily use a mix'n'match of SRAM and Shimano, but I am sure Shimano would rather you used their stuff throughout, which makes it even stranger that they haven't launched it.

They need to swallow their pride and follow SRAM. Wouldn't be the first time. Just because somebody beat them to it, don;t be different just for the sake of it.

solarider – Member
Have you tried 2 x 10? It's not a question of "next year's greatest new thing", it has some distinct advantages that 3 x 10 completely misses. You can achieve the same gear range with much faster front shifting and a narrower Q factor, and less weight.

No, but I tried 2 x 9 and didn't see the point. I'm not overly disappointed with the speed of my front shifting, I'm not bothered about a few grams or a few mm of Q-factor (Jeez do you believe everything marketeers tell you?).

Yes I am still happily on 8 speed, but ride tubeless, and I browse the web on a phone. I guess my point is that not all "advances" are worth bothering about.

Forget ratio's. Have any of them put time and money into making a BB that doesn't turn into bobbins after a months worth of mud.?

am running 2 x 10 on a full susser with no adverse pedal induced feedback.

WTF it cuts out pedal bob whatever next!

I am running 2 x 10 on a full susser with no adverse pedal induced feedback.

Yes, but you can also find people who say that are running 1 x 3 set-ups and 1×1 set-ups without adverse effects. And i'm sure they are.
What you now have is a different option to try, that's all.

You really are cynical aren't you!

8 speed may be fine, but there's no top end 8 speed stuff out there, so it weighs more, which to me, matters. The fact my 10 speed transmission is lighter, with a wider spread of gears makes it better in my opinion, totally aside from marketing crap, it also shifts a hell of a lot better, but I imagine that's the placebo effect of marketing and actually some 8 speed Alivio shifters from 1923 would actually shift better. I have no longevity issues, it works perfectly well in muddy conditions. You clearly have your opinions, if you don't want 10 speed that's just fine, why contribute to a thread about it?

2 x 9 does miss the point, just as 3 x 10 does.

The 10th cog out back gives you:

1) a small downhill gear, and
2) a large spinning gear, and
3) a usable range in between

9 compromises one of those three things.

3 x 10 achieves them but with a large, unecessary overlap of gears thrown in for good measure. That's my point. By all means release 10 speed out back, but make the most of what it offers by improving front shifting through a double set up. Whether it's just XX or whether the shiting is inherently better on 2 rings up front, the real revelation of 2 x 10 is at the front. All the back does is facilitate the 2 rings up front without losing gear range.

the sram xo & x9 2×10 groupsets look very nice over on bikeradar.

1. Who cares?

2. Not everyone can afford to spend £1000 on new groupsets for ALL their bikes and even if they did would they really sit hunched up by their laptop worry "OH NO….what will Shimano bring out next week?!"

3. I dont see any reason for swapping my current XTR. It's light, it shifts well, its stiffer than others, the chainrings last ages (compared to XT) and it was chuffin cheap when bought.

4. What's the REAL benefit of 2*10 I rarely ever come out of middle ring anyway.

5. RIDE YOUR BLINGING BIKES FFS!

My feet stickout like a ducks when I ride so the last thing I want is a narrow Q-factor.

I think another problem is that 2X10 carries an XC Race tag. I liked the idea of 2X10 thinking that would be fine as 95% of my riding is done in 1X9.
However after doing some enduros I found I needed the rarely used outer and the granny.
So I'm sticking with a lightweight well working usefull 3X9 for now

I had a fling with a Duo and changing over the massive ratio difference was hopeless.

having said that the 11-36 cassette is of interest for 1×10

LOL Daffy.

I am currently sat at my desk. I have no chance of riding my bikes right now. I am doing the mind-numbing job that enables me to afford the "blinging bikes".

Come the evening, come the weekend, I can assure you that's exactly what I will be doing. Why do people assume that people with expensive bikes don't ride them?

Fair point njee20, I guess SRAM & Shimano are preaching to the converted, which I am clearly not.

a narrower Q factor

My rides are always being spoiled by not having a narrow enough Q factor.

How are those ratios working in the real race world. On paper one looks like outer to granny and the other middle to granny I ask because most races I do use the middle and outer.

Can someone explain to me why 2×9 is so much worse than 2×10?

I have a 6 speed tourer, which has anoying gaps in the gears, but TBH can't tell the difference between 9s and 10s on the road.

I'll probably end up 2×10 as 2×9 suits me (26/38 up front) and suspension bikes will just move the pivot upto the 38t chainring and rely on propedal in the granny.

I do agree with the above commment about always being between gears though. On the road a compact means I'm always shifing up/down the front and always seem to have the chain crossed.

I like 9s over 8s for the lack of gaps, but cant say I regularly fall into the gaps in 9s. And still have an 8s drivetrain from my 4x bike which was used as even with no maintenance it always shifted and never skipped.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

I do agree with the above commment about always being between gears though. On the road a compact means I'm always shifing up/down the front and always seem to have the chain crossed.

That is my concern. And I'm not gonna blow £££ on stuff to find out!

Can someone explain to me why 2×9 is so much worse than 2×10?

It's not frankly, I've run 2×9 since 2006, however 10 speed does allow either a slightly higher top gear, or slightly lower bottom gear.

WTF is a "Q Factor"

i still ride 8 speed on the Hustler – 10 is for gayers

WTF is a "Q Factor"

I dunno but now I've heard of it I'm just not going to enjoy riding my bike again until I can get a narrower one. 😛

quack factor

HTH

Q-factor is the distance between the pedals.

In general, a narrow q-factor allows greater power output, and it's better for your knees and what not. It's a big thing on the road, and it looks to be coming to MTBs too, it's a big plus of BB30 systems as well.

How are those ratios working in the real race world.

I find the ratios pretty good, running 28/42 with an 11-36 XX cassette, doing the Southern XC at the weekend I dropped into the inner ring about 2-3 times in the race, running a 44 outer with a 34 I'd have spent a lot more time in the middle, particularly considering big/big becomes unusable.

this thread is as bad enough as listening to two of my mates talking about head angles and angle changing bearing kits….

in fact i might point them this way as they'd be well into it 😆

Having invested in XX, I was slightly nervous about Shimano coming out with something amazing,

Why, because you're worried that someone else in the car-park might then have a 'better' bike than yours??

FFS.

of course it is, does it take into account different body builds then??? load of bollo x i'm going to cover my ears now and start singing a song

Glad to see that the STW cavemen have moved into the thread. Cue the end of sensible conversation and the usual ill-informed, jealous comments!

Yes, Talkemada, "invested". It cost a lot, it's nice kit and has definite benefits. That constitutes an investment in my book. It's an investment in a sport that I enjoy. Last time I checked that was well within the law of the land. I would never argue that you can have fun on cheaper kit, older kit, fewer gears etc etc, but it is each to his own. I chose to spend what I work hard to earn on kit that I feel provides me with a benefit. You clearly have some sort of chip on your shoulder about that, and it's probably best kept to yourself isn't it?

I never belittle anybody getting out and riding on any bike, but this good grace only sems to extend down the food chain. You have a nice bike, people heckle and begurdge it. You have a nice car, people key it. This country is full of bitterness.

Just get out, ride however many gears you run, with whatever Q factor, with whatever thoughts are running round your head! This is a forum supposedly for enthusiasts. I can never understand why people being enthusiastic about a sport that we supposedly share on common always attracts such negativity. Still, I guess that's life!

What song? I cant think of one for myself, maybe there is an XX song with an unbeleivable narrow Q factor, I am going to see if Simon Cowell has anything to offer on Twitter..

Dual ring is the way to go. Really don't understand people who feel they need 27 gears and a huge range.

njee20 – Member
Q-factor is the distance between the pedals.

In general, a narrow q-factor allows greater power output, and it's better for your knees and what not. It's a big thing on the road,

Any data/evidence that it matters a jot? If so I'd imagine it would have been a HUGE thing for years.

Yet more marketing TRIPE.

You have a nice bike, people heckle and begurdge it. You have a nice car, people key it. This country is full of bitterness.

😆

I think he was more taking the piss about the ridiculous neurotic worrying about Shimano coming up with something better than what you've got, rather than being jealous of having nice kit.

If you've splurged loads of money on good stuff why not just enjoy it instead of fretting that there might be something better around the corner?

RealMan – Member
Dual ring is the way to go. Really don't understand people who feel they need 27 gears and a huge range.

If your rides may include a decent stretch of road, I would disagree.