[Closed] 2x10 help me understand why

Using the front mech less, more options for bash guards and chain devices, less of a gap between ratios and lighter weight, especially if you do 1x10. Not that i'd get rid of an 8 or 9 speed setup to 'upgrade', but I will go 1/2x10 when i next need new shifters etc.

Surely you will use the front mech more, I tend to sit in the middle ring quite a lot at this time of year, 2x10 would split this. Not convinced by the weight saving of <50g.
Good point on bash guards.
I CAN see the point of 1x10 as that saves all the front mech stuff, just less convinced by 2x10

Better chainline with only 2 rings, more usable gears without changing chainrings all the time.

Saying that, I now have 3 bikes which all 1x9 or 1x10 and don't see the point of a front mech at all...

GB

Where exactly is the weight saving....comparing comparable level 'xc' chainsets (albeit from different manufacturers)....

X9 double = 881g
Shimano XT triple = 853g

Do Shimano even do 'XC' double chainsets other than XTR???

2 rings at the front makes sense to me: the 'middle' ring will cover most occasions, leaving the inner/granny ring for those moments when i'm just too proud to walk.

but i still don't see why 10 at the back is better than 7/8/9...?

Depends on the rider really doesn't it. I have no use for a 22t inner, so a double provided more usable ratios. Saying that I then found I did 95% of my riding in the outer ring, so like Gee I've now gone single ring and find it great.

I wouldn't go back to a triple for anything. Would probably use a double on a non-race bike for more versatility.

timwillows - Member

Surely you will use the front mech more, I tend to sit in the middle ring quite a lot at this time of year, 2x10 would split this. Not convinced by the weight saving of <50g.

Also ground clearance, which doesn't matter to some people of course but can be worthwhile for others. If you end up with a gear change right in the middle of your preferred ratios, you've chosen the wrong rings tbh.

Surely you will use the front mech more, I tend to sit in the middle ring quite a lot at this time of year, 2x10 would split this. Not convinced by the weight saving of <50g.

A triple is not designed to be used in one ring over the full range of the casette, as there will be front mech rub and a poor chain line. If the ratios are right on a 2x10, you can use every ring on the casette in both rings, hence your should only be changing on the front rings with big changes of terrain.

but i still don't see why 10 at the back is better than 7/8/9...?

I rode a Remedy recently with a 2x10 setup, it works well as either front ring will run on any of the back rings. Plus as far as I understand, it means an easier life for the rear suspension (and designer) due to the lack of difference between the front rings.

And front shifting was good, probably as there isn't a pile of difference on ring sizes.

And while if buying new a new bike I would consider a 2x10, where I'm sat with a full XTR 3x9 - I'm not changing in a hurry

A triple is not designed to be used in one ring over the full range of the casette, as there will be front mech rub and a poor chain line. If the ratios are right on a 2x10, you can use every ring on the casette in both rings, hence your should only be changing on the front rings with big changes of terrain.

Using 2x10 and every ratio on the cassette will give a worse chain line than the middle of the triple and every ratio of the cassette.

Surely sitting in the middle ring of a 3x9 is pretty similar to the set up a single ring front?

Would front shifting be potentially worse as greater than the 10 tooth difference found on 3x9, not necessarily by much, but a little

Using 2x10 and every ratio on the cassette will give a worse chain line than the middle of the triple and every ratio of the cassette

Perhaps, but it is an more acceptable compromise that is designed into the 2x10 setup if I understand it correctly. That's in contrast to the 3x9 setup which theoretically needs more shifting between front rings to maintain an 'acceptable' chain-line etc.

In the real world I don't think it is all too important. I ride 2x9 and the chainline is not ideal, but it works and I don't miss the little ring at all.

And then there is 3 x 10 to think about... which apparently is more efficient and powerful...

Shimano:

The Big S say that having a wider gear range at the back, more closely spaced gears at the front, and improved rear mechs and shifters, creates smoother and more intuitive shifting, more efficient and powerful pedalling, and allows the rider to stay in the middle and largest chainrings for a higher proportion of the time.

Just gone 2x10 on the 29er to get the 36t rear cassette. Everywhere was out of stock of the 9 spd 36t ones.

Needed to replace the full drivechain as it was knackered & mate was selling his new 3x10 set up to repalce with lighter stuff at a bargain price.

Will prob lose the inner ring depending on how i get on with the bigger rear cassette but for now my knees will appreciate me not having to grind out the climbs 🙄

mainly because front mechs are still shite.

Maybe speed of shifting and simplicity? ...just like I would not use a triple on a road bike using straightforwards 2 x 10 with a Compact---but I`m still use a 3 x 9 on MTB as have it all set up and cost of changing outweighs the benefit IMHO; road bikes came as 2 x 10 btw 🙂

When you go 2X10, you keep your same bottom end, you're just losing top end.

The top end where unless you're an XC racer on a very smooth surface, you're not going to use it. Roads don't count, this is MTB we're on about here.

The average joe, who rides their local woods/peaks/trail centre etc, etc, will only use the top end on unexciting stuff or roads.

Dual ring allows use of a good bashguard if need be, a chain device of some sort to keep you going in the rough, less chain so less slap, shorter mechs (they will come once people realise they don't need 3X10)so nicer chain tension, more clearance over rocks and logs, weight can be saved.

I see lots of pros for dual ring, only one for triple, which is the spread, which isn't even useful to most.

I don't see it as an argument, 2x10 simply wins.

But i hate front mechs and complications like that, im 1x9.

I don't understand it either, I ran 2x9 since about 2003, as I rarely get into the big ring, and routinely smack it into rocks n stuff, so I have a bash ring.

Now I ride 2x1. Figure that out nicho's!

alot of the doubles are coming with a 42 up front though. so the clearance over a triple is not a great lot tbh. suppose it depends how high or low your bb clearance is my on one has quite a high bb so even with a triple i can clear a fair height.

I do tend to use the top gears, blasting down some of the big grassy descents round here

2x10 help me understand why

Well manufacturers have just ran out of ideas. So they need something to make you spend more cash. I have been riding 2*9 for ages, and I can't remember when is the last time I have used the 32/11 on the trail. What I don't understand though, is why you can't get a 11/36 cassette in the XT range... Oh hang on a minute... You can but in 10 speed (see what I have done here).

Juan has just summed up why I've gone 10 speed at the back. I want the 36t cassette on the 29er due to the gearing up issues that 29ers have & my knees being weak.

If they had done it in a 9 speed I'd still be running that. 🙄

bigsi - Member

If they had done it in a 9 speed I'd still be running that.

And that sums up why you can't buy one 😥 SRAM have been relatively straight up about it at least, Shimano on the other hand claimed that it wasn't possible to run a 36T with a 9-speed mech, then quietly released the 12-36 cassette. Very poor play from both though.

You can get the 12-36 9spd cassette then swap the little cogs off another cassette apparently but never tried that- it's still a low end cassette though and heavy.

Do people find with 1x setups i.e. with no front mech that the chain tends to come off? One of my buddies riding this setup had that problem all the time...

When I came to put my new bike together, my previous bike had a triple chainset, but the largest usable ring was 32t. The 42t was a tooth-less mess of an expensive aluminium bashguard 😆

For me "why" is pretty simple. First, I neve use the top couple of gears on a 3x setup offroad and on the rare bit of road I could use them I'll just freewheel. Makes no real difference. Add in better clearance and potentially lower Q-factor and youre onto a winner

As to shifting between rings, I find that I just use the 'big' most of the time and small only for extended climbing so don't find I shift that much.

Had to look up Q-factor (bicycles) on Wiki, still not sure if a 2x10 is better, or even what better might be.

In summary then lots of people telling me that the downside is not too great, but little convincing stuff on the upside. Might go 3x10 for my next drive replacement.

2 words then.

Bash guard.

Ok John, good point. Just never found the need for one, perhaps chalk is too soft for me to need one 🙂