[Closed] 2x9 and front shifting

Bumpity bump

Was getting terrible chainsuck on my Marin Mount Vision and a Shimano mechanic at the Classic Weekender said I'd need new chainring and chain (it had a new chain on it at the time). Turned out to be a stiff link and a quick twiddle with the chain splitter sorted it.

As I rarely ever used a 40+t ring the effect was small. Any shifts up were taken by the fact I upped the gap between the 2 remaining rings.

I also got chain suck on 2x9 due to knackered front rings.

However IMHO 2x9 dies all I needed so having a bash and chain device was more of a win for overall riding.

I went 2x9 many years ago on my XC race bikes, but just ditched the inner ring as I never used it, but then I'm a grinder not a spinner and mainly ride SSs.

A new drivetrain may well solve everything, tbh. replacing just the chain or just the rings when the chain is well worn (specifically: stretched) will be counterproductive and cause more woe.

I've gone 2x9 on my Five - I needed a new crankset for the singlespeed, so bought a Deore trekking crnakset - basically, a Deore chainset with 26, 36, 48 rings. Sold the big ring, fitted singlespeed chainring bolts and the remaining two rings to my XT cranks, and off I went. It works a treat. I shift a lot less - I barely need the granny where I am - and am just getting to the point where the chainrings are starting to look really worn. Currently torn between buying new Deore rings (They're cheap as chips) or going 1x9 (34 or 36 at front, 11-32 at rear).
Unless you use the 44 loads, I wouldn't go for three chainrings.
2x9 is worth a try - although it'll take a couple of rides to get used to the new gear range.

Just spent an hour doing the same as footflaps (although i am clearly harder / moreof a cheapskate) as mine is 2x8. 😉

Back to the op IME chainsuck is more likely something worn in the drivetrain. Always find chainsuck a bigger issue when shifting than JRA. I can see 1x9 making a difference here but not sure about 2x9. Of course for tru filth proof i reccomend 1x1.....

Chainsuck can happen even on a 1x, so not sure 2x will solve the problem.

2x is a nice alternative to 3x however as it's a fairly similar range. Better still if you go from 3x9 to 2x10 with a bigger range cassette at back (e.g. 11-36). Though I found with 2x systems like SRAM's there's actually a lot more shifting up and down as instead of it being a big I don't use, middle I was mainly in + granny I only use for seriously steep climbs it's now two rings I'd use equally. Additionally mine was 26/39 at front and it's a fair step between those rings which is not smooth shifting at all.

Oh, and for the love of god, stay away from 120BCD 2x systems!! (*cough* SRAM)... unless you have no plan to ever change the chainrings or convert to 1x.

I had 2x9 and now 2x10. While I think it's great, it won't solve chainsuck in itself.

As to the amount of shifting between rings, I tend to stick in the 'big' one almost all the time and am considering going 1x10.

2x9 here. 22-36 up front, 34/12 on rear. Steel hardtail, it works just fine

I switched to 2x9 last winter. Completely new drivetrain. Suffered horribly from chainsuck from a few rides in and I never figured out why. Tried everything I could but had to replace both chain and chainrings before it stopped happening (touch wood).

So no, 2x9 isn't magically less chainsucky than 3x9. Change your drivetrain and sacrifice a black rooster at midnight, that might sort it.

Change your drivetrain and sacrifice a black rooster at midnight, that might sort it.

Aye; that seems to be the long and the short of it. When I next need to change everything, will be going for a steel inner (regardless of 2x9 or 3x9) as the inner being worn doesn't help.

Ultimate answer is a hub gear, but budget won't stretch to that...

Andy

27/40 here - and use them like 2 ranges of 9, rather than changing the front a lot.

So if it is hilly I am on the 27 and shift around at the back, then when flat or downhill, I am on the 40.

So I don't seem to change the front much.