Forum menu
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/shimano-xt-dyna-sys-10-speed-first-ride-review-25941
(Sorry for linking to the rival publication.)
They seem to feel that 3x10 is a bit pointless - bottom gear too low, chainline worse than 2x10. This is kind of what my feelngs were too.
Also , it sounds like they are saving 2x10 for XTR, which seems a bit stupid to me. I mean, a two ring chainset is hardly cutting edge so why not offer one now? We have to wait and pay XTR prices for the luxury of a two ring chainset!?
We have to wait and pay XTR prices for the luxury of a two ring chainset!?
Other 2 ring chainsets are available, in fact you can make any Shimano chainset a double, right now.
No need to wait.
Shirley the chainline on a triple without a granny isn't the same as on a bespoke double though? Doesn't seem like good business from Shimano.
Funny, I though the same thing when I saw it in WMB this month.
Currently, if I was to replace my current 3*9 XTR setup, it would be with XX.
Who's Shirley?
If you run a double you use the granny/middle ring positions though, so what is currently middle/big becomes big/big, making it more usable.
Agree that it's an odd choice and a double would've likely made more sense!
Shirley the chainline on a triple without a granny isn't the same as on a bespoke double though? Doesn't seem like good business from Shimano.
Eh? for example remove pouter ring, install 40T ring in midddle ring position using short chain bolts, install 28T ring in granny position, chain line unaffected.
Shimano are probably right though. The average biker on the trail rather than your average gloating internet powerhouse will need that lower gear.
Personally I'll be going 1x10 but that's just to show off how awesome I am.
Fair enough, I don't know that much about chainlines...!
I always assumed that on a double the 'ideal' chainline would be somewhere between the rings, such that you have a minimum deviation in either ring.
From what you are saying, I take it that you have the chainline optimised for the big ring.
Is that possible though? Isn't the chain too narrow for 9 speed chain rings, so you'd be reliant on what other cogs Shimano make available in the first instance.
From what you are saying, I take it that you have the chainline optimised for the big ring.
Try and stop think about it being the 'big' ring when is comes to adapted double set ups, with the larger ring in the middle position the normal problems associated with running big/big are not apparent.
Is that possible though? Isn't the chain too narrow for 9 speed chain rings, so you'd be reliant on what other cogs Shimano make available in the first instance.
Sorry I'm not sure at what you are getting at, If you mean do 10sp chains work on 9sp chainsets? Then yes, yes they do.
Ok... here is a crappy diagram of what I was thinking...
On a triple, chainline goes:
Ring 1: Ideal chainline - ring spacing
Ring 2: Ideal chainline
Ring 3: Ideal chainline + ring spacing
On a double, the chainline could be envisaged to go one of two ways:
Either...
Ring 1: Ideal chainline - ring spacing
Ring 2: Ideal chainline
or...
Ring 1: Ideal chainline - 1/2 ring spacing
Ring 2: Ideal chainline + 1/2 ring spacing
If you use both rings equally, option 2 would make most sense. If you use primarily the big ring, maybe option 1 would be best. If you use a triple crank with two rings, then you are limited to option 1.
So the decreased width of 10spd chains won't cause problems on 9spd sprockets?
As for the average rider needing the lower gear... 10spd cassettes go as low as 36 - surely on a 24/38 double this would be more than low enough!
So the decreased width of 10spd chains won't cause problems on 9spd sprockets?
Nope, I've been using 10 speed chains on my 9 speed set up for nearly 2 years! As they are a good chunk lighter than their 9sp equivalent.
Cool...
You can't use a 9spd chain on a 10spd though, as I found out when Halfords gave me one with my Boardman road bike. 🙄
Heh, correct.
re: chainline - your assumption is based on the middle ring having good chainline for the cassette. it doesn't really (it's actually some where inboard)
3 x 10 makes perfect sense, I mean there's people on here asking about running triples on road bikes, they're the sort of peopel who will want a wall climbing gear on a MTB.
I'd happily sit in s stupidly low gear if it was there, I was in the peaks last weekend and think I used the granny ring with the two largest cogs at the back a lot of the time. A 36T sprocket would have let me stay in the middle ring for a longer with a stupidly low bailout gear.
I still like having nice big gears as well, as that's what I churn on the road to get to the start and finish of my riding, usually about 10 miles each way on tarmac.
I reckon the new range will be popular with the vast majority of folk, I remember the uproar at the change to the current size of rings from 48/38/28....
If 3 x 10 makes perfect sense to Raoul it is inherently wrong.
[b]Case Closed![/b]
Im going to release a combo that means you ALWAYS have the perfect chainline, though it may be slightly heavier than the shimano one, i think it would be worth it.
its also going to have a 3 billion percent range.
im thinking something like 30x30
(point is, its a pointless arms race, its development, but its hardly forward development.
why not 4 x 8?
or 1 x 11)
they're the sort of peopel who will want a wall climbing gear on a MTB.
Number of gears, or sprockets is irrelevent.
changing the arrangement doesnt give you any more or less easier gears, it justs move them around in a bid to imrpve efficeny and weight