The extremes are only "less extreme" by half the distance between chainrings.

Well big/big becomes the equivalent of middle/big in terms of chain line.

Going 44/34 generally makes horrible noises when running a triple, going into 42/36 on XX things continue to run perfectly smoothly. Have you actually used XX, or is this the usual STW 'assumed knowledge'?

Njee20. I think we might be alone in this particular thread in having used 2 x 10 for quite a while now. There does seem to be a bit of assumed knowledge happening elsewhere here!

One of 2 things is happening:

1) Having tried and tested 2 x 10 XX for quite a few months now, we really understand the benefits, despite the fact that we are both prepared to see the drawbacks of some of XX (not connected with the 2 x 10 concept by the way).

or

2) Based on no experience of the kit, and a theoretical rather than practical understanding, everybody else is right.

I know which I believe!

This isn't a case of the Emperors New Clothes. I am not trying to justify the expense. Honestly, if I had just spent that much on XX and didn't like it, I would be telling everybody to avoid the same mistake. I genuinely believe 2 x 10 is a step forward, and that comes from experience in mud, in snow, in dust, on a hardtail, on a full susser, so I feel quite well informed to make these comments.

Sturmey Archer 4 speed off road anyone? an old bloke still uses it on The Three Peaks none of this 2×10 nonsense

Alfine 11 speed = the future

Edric – Funny, don't remember seeing him on the podium? (and before anybody starts, I know it's not about the bike etc!)

I have said it before. The point here is getting out and enjoying riding whatever you have. Price, condition, etc etc none of it matters. What matters is the miles and the smiles. If you can't afford, or chose not to buy the latest kit, fine. If you can, that's OK too, although some people do seem to take offence and assume that it's 'willy waving', or that because you have a nice bike, you can't possibly ride it. Me, personally, I am interested in the technical as well as fitness/social/exploration elements of the sport and make no apology for it.

However the original point of the thread (remember that – it seems to have been lost somewhere along the way) is that if you are going to release new gear based around a 10 speed rear cluster, or if you are going to buy new gear (which nobody is obliged to do of course!) based around a 10 speed cluster, then why not make the most of the concept?

Nobody has said that you need any of this to have fun on a bike. But, since Shimano have launched something new, it is natural to comment on it, what with this being a bike related forum. I just think they have missed a trick and put themselves a year behind SRAM.

SRAM launched the glagship in 2010, with the trickle-down groupsets in 2011. Shimano have chosen to launch the flagship in 2011 (XTR will be announced soon), and a bit of a rehash of everything else, which may yet turn into a full trickle down of XTR in 2011 or 2012. Shimano could have at least caught up with SRAM, but have chosen not to.

There is far more innovation in XX, XO, X9 and X7 than has been displayed by Shimano in today's release. Hence another point of the original thread. When will we see XTR and the real changes?

Of course I've not used it njee20, I'm just trying to get you to state something meaningful, which you now have!

Of course I've not used it I have no idea what I'm talking about njee20

Hope you don't mind me paraphrasing…

Ummm….has anyone mentioned that you could just take the big ring off?

I've never said I had experience of 2 x 10 have I, nor made made any statement based on or assuming such knowledge?

Whereas the OP has implied it stops pedal bob 🙄

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

Ummm….has anyone mentioned that you could just take the big ring off?

Of course, and that's what plenty of people have done in the past (me included), combining with a big 10 speed cassette gives you a wider range of gears with smaller jumps. Same as 9 speed did really.

Again, if you don't want it, here's a shock idea, don't buy it!

But he doesn't say that he did have pedal bob with a 3×9. I assume that was in reference to the comment that bikes are designed to be ridden in the middle ring, which is in fact dependant on pivot placement.

Wow there Cynic-al! I like 2 x 10, but I have never implied it has magic powers!

What I said was that I haven't notice pedal bob, but I ride a suspension system not reknowned for it, and without a pivot position in line with a theoretical middle ring.

I have never implied it as the cure for pedal bob. That would be stretching it a bit far.

But, now you mention it, I am sure a 2 x 10 setup could negotiate peace in the Middle East, blow the Icelandic cloud away and cure poverty in Africa……….Asking it cure pedal bob is a bit much though.

I can see that 2×10 would offer weight and ratio advantages, but it aslo encourages teh conditions that cause most weat to chains and chain rings.

Small Small cause so much problem because the degree of engagement is less putting more strees on fewer places.

Have you read Sheldon?

I've actually considered running 2×9 with a wide ratio block but to be fair I'm going to be shifting crazily the whole time at the front to use the gears that I use the most having looked at gear inch tables for teh gears that I tend to use most.

Crikey, that's a bit anal, I just pedal the bike and think 'hmmm, I just did 3 hours in the big ring, these ratios seem to work well'!

What I will say is that I run out of gears in the middle ring and the outer takes some winding up during a race, that's why I asked about different size rings.
I also notice drag when I'm forced to use a poor ratio.
I really like the idea of the 39? doing all the work of the middle and outer.
Is the XX designed to be used big/big small/small?

Sheldon (RIP) was a good egg and his writings are generally accurate, but he died before XX was really out there.

Technology has moved on even in the short time since his unfortunate demise.

I can give you direct feedback having used the stuff. It is silent (whereas my 3 x 9 did used to grumble in low gears). Chain overlap is not an issue (which it was with 3 x 9). I'm a convert, and when the time comes to change, I would recommend it to anybody.

Oldgit – XX is inddeed designed to be used big/big, small/small. And it works too. Believe the hype. No noise, quick shifts. It's great. In this sense, you actually have a wider range of useable gears in each front ring, so you shift less in the end. The big ring on a 2 x 10 doesn't quite do the same job as the middle and outer on a 3 x 9, but not far off.

As I said earlier, I am not sure how much of this is down to XX, how much will genuinely trickle down, and how much is purely down to the double up front.

cynic-al,

running 2 x 9, 26/38 front, 11-32 rear (I think).

38-11 is more then enough, that I've never been able to see exactly what speed I spin out on mostly cause I stopped using a computer ages ago, but also because I rarely get it up to that gear. I have a feeling its somewhere in the region of 35mph, though.

So unless I've got a huge road descent down a mountain to the trails, or I have normal roads to the trails, and just fancy going at 40mph all the way there (likely..), its not a problem at all.

I shall enquire about the trade price tonight.

Only thing now is running one MTB all year round on XX or the cheaper? 2011 version.

That said I've just put a £200 order in with him for drivetrain consumables. And he reckons my XTR shifters are on the way out. See what I'm doing here 🙂

Trade prices on XX are pretty hilarious sadly!

Bum.

The cassette is the really daft bit, if you can hold out until a conventional cassette is available it will certainly be a fair cheaper option than the PowerDome one.

Oldgit – I can see exactly what you are doing there!

To me, the benefit of XX has all been down to the quick front shifts and the usefulness of the 2 x 10 concept. Since this has now / is about to trickle down, I would go at most for X0, and probably X9. At the very least go for a cheaper cassette. By the looks of it, XX will be the only carbon chainset, but that in itself is no great revelation. The chainrings and front mech (which look very similar on new X0 but just with alloy arms) are the bit that matters.

XX is the ultimate bling, but now that the tricle down has started, I would wait a bit for that to be available. It just isn't worth the premium unless every single gramme counts and you must have the best. I make no apology for having expensive taste in bikes, so for me it was worth it, plus I have been riding it for 4 months vs waiting another few months more for the trickle down effect to happen.

Must admit I was getting all cocky untill I saw the casette price.
Everything looks about double XTR except the chainset which ain't too bad.

This full ti one is far cheaper ironically, but doesn't come in the 11-36.

Don't be fooled. Current XTR prices will go up when the new stuff is announced.

It is already expensive, but since price doesn't seem to have been a barrier to XX, and they want to elevate XTR to 'supergroup' status again, I have a feeling that whilst individual components may vary, the total groupset price will be in line with XX.

And, whilst the XX cassette is very expensive, it's not hard to see why given the extremely wasteful and lengthy manufacturing process. The result is light, stiff, and hopefully being steel long lasting, although time will tell.

I have like sooooooooooooooooo many problems from flexing cassettes WTF 😛

Actually why don't sram hear treat their XX stuff in the same manner as samurai swords?

Might cost a bit but would last ages.

You miss the point entirely. Since it is so hollowed out, and there isn't much supporting it, it could have been a bit flexible. It isn't a comment about cassettes being flexible in general.

Honestly, some people are sooooooo touchy!

You miss the point entirely. Since it is so hollowed out, and there isn't much supporting it, it could have been a bit flexible. It isn't a comment about cassettes being flexible in general.

Honestly, some people are sooooooo touchy!

Ah, I mis-interpreted.

Some folk has said it's an issue on regular cassettes TBF.

Just waiting for 1×11 to be honest, which will be Shimano 1 Sram 0 if the current Alfine is anything to go by.

Al don't bother my experience about njee is that he considers riding around a muddy field mountain biking.
He doesn't even ride with a camelback or a spare tube (I still am waiting for you to answer some of the question on the other thread by the way).

If you oppose a valid argument to him he will just rely on insults and get offensive. Just don't bother you and I probably know better than him…

As for 2×10 I am so gnar to the power of sick that I use 2×9 :p And it's been 6 years now 😀

Just saw the SRAM piccies on the homepage. I now agree with myself even more! Shimano have some catching up to do.

But i don't want 2X10. I'm not a skinny bastard who races carbon bikes around a field. 2X9 is plenty, 27 too many (for what I ride). I'm hoping that some strength training will rid me of the need for a small chainring. 1 X 9 would be great. No front derailleur, no LH shifter and a nice tidy short chain. And SRAM can **** off with those prices.
I just had an amazing rip around whites level in the middle chainring, hope the training works!

Sorry Juan, which was the other thread, I can't actually remember?

I'm pretty sure I'm quite a reasonable chap actually Juan, sadly there seem to be more people who side with me for the most part. Let me guess, that's just xenophobia?

Just don't bother you and I probably know better than him…

What's that based on then? Go on, as you obviously know me so well? Do you even know my name? It's used on here often enough!

I'm unsure of where I've said riding around muddy fields is mountain biking, again, a link would be nice. I believe you've been to this neck of the woods before, drop me an email next time, we'll go for a ride, you can show me some of your rad to the power sick skillz.

2×10 sounds just right for me. I rarely use the low gears on my current 3×9 setup and since I ride singlespeed quite a bit, I know I can muscle up a hill if I need to. Since I also ride TT bikes I've got used to closer spacing on the back. In fact I'd be tempted to use a road 10spd on the rear. Summit like a 11-28.

Shimano 10spd on XT and SLX link.

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.

Except you do lose gear range. However you like to spin it, you either have a 28/36 bottom (equivalent to 22/28) along with a slight loss at the top, or 11/39 at the top (equivalent to somewhere between 12 and 13/44) along with a slight loss at the bottom. I'd be tempted to try 2×10, but I do regularly use both bottom and top gears on my current range, and I'm sure I'd miss them more than I'd notice all these theoretical benefits of faster front shifting and that slight decrease in weight.

These days, unless you use proper roadie equipment you can go lighter with discs!

Roadie equipment?

http://clee-cycles.co.uk/cc/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_73/products_id/398
http://clee-cycles.co.uk/cc/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_73/products_id/475
http://clee-cycles.co.uk/cc/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/61_63/products_id/306

~190g rear, 160g front – what disc brake was it you were using which was lighter?

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

11-36 would be just as useful on 9 speed though. As far as I can tell the only reason there's not already an XT and 990 11-36 9-speed is that it's supposed to be a selling point of 10-speed so it's not in their interests to launch it for the old standard. Or perhaps I'm being cynical 😉

…actually I've now realised there isn't even a real decrease in weight with 2×10 assuming you're using an SRAM chainset, rather than one of the numerous lighter 3 ring chainsets available.