Forum menu
Does it need to be new? Last generation Intense Primer has a mech mount. Pedals really well and old trail geometry is now modern xc downcountry geo.
Surely there must be a steel suspension frame that happens to have the right diameter seat tube?
Yeah, I think an older second hand bike might be the answer I'm looking for.
thols2…what on earth rides are you doing with only 2 gear changes???
That classified hub looks super clever, and quite complicated. It advises for ‘XC and light trail riding only’ though whatever that means?? Not exactly sure what about it is fragile but I’m assuming I would break it…
what on earth rides are you doing with only 2 gear changes???
Using the big ring to get to the bottom of the hill. Using the small ring to get to the top of the hill. Using the big ring to ride down the hill and go home.
What about a schlumpf HSD? Cheaper than the classified hub 🙂
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/schlumpf-drive-2-speed-chainset/
An AXS front derailleur can be shifted without a lever, using the button on the front of it. Not ideal, but will work.
Or a BB mounted front derailleur might work. Doesnt need to be 12 speed compatable either. Doesnt really matter how many gears you have on the back since a front derailleur just moves the front rings. Just might need to bend the cage of it a little to accomodate a wider cassettes chainline.
Or a BB mounted front derailleur might work.
Yes, you need the BB mount plate
https://www.bike-components.de/en/Shimano/E-Type-Backplate-for-FD-M980-E-FD-M780-E-p30966/
Plus an E-type derailleur
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/deore-m6000/FD-M6000-E.html
Then you need to find the maximum chainring size that the frame will accept and a crankset that is compatible. You can get a Cues crankset with 22-36 rings
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/cues-u6000-11-speed/FC-U6000-2B.html
Or XT with 24-34, 26-36, and 28-38
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/deorext-m8000/FC-M8000-2.html
But apparently the ” cockpit” looks much cleaner, which trumps everything else
I wonder if that new Scott has front mech compatibility...
It strikes me that 1 x 12 and beyond is getting near the point where someone actually has a good think and engineers something better
Why? Better in what way? I mean, for most casual mountain bikers/roadies rear mechs are a known quality, they're simple, they work, they're easy to live with and they do the job they're supposed to. Yes they go wrong, but fixing them is a piece of cake that even ham fisted home mechanics can sort out, and they're 'relatively' cheap and long lasting. Personally I've never bust one, it happens sure, but it's an easy fix to get back up and running again.
It's like the alternative front suspension or belt drive gearbox whatever alternatives They may solve some 'problems' that traditional drive trains or components have, but for most folks, the stuff on their bikes works as well as it needs to.
Yeah I'm of the same.opinion as nickc above.
I'd go so far as to say in a lot of instance 1x actually is "something better".
Acknowledging of course that not all use cases are the same and that closer range, multi-ring setups do suit some uses better still, but I do think 1x12 and now 1x13 is bringing 2x and 3x closer to the point of redundancy.
and they’re ‘relatively’ cheap and long lasting
They definitely are. I have two bikes;
A 1996 MTB with a 1996 XT rear mech that still works perfectly
A 1990 road bike with a 1990 Shimano 600 rear mech that still works perfectly.
Pretty good going I would say, in fact the road bike has a full 34 year old Shimano 600 groupset (even down to the seatpost and headset) and it all works as well as when new apart from the headset that is a bit rough and being replaced.
Why? Better in what way? I mean, for most casual mountain bikers/roadies front mechs are a known quality, they’re simple, they work, they’re easy to live with and they do the job they’re supposed to. Yes they go wrong, but fixing them is a piece of cake that even ham fisted home mechanics can sort out, and they’re cheap and long lasting. Personally I’ve never bust one, it happens sure, but it’s an easy fix to get back up and running again.
FTFY
It was a problem that never needed fixing, has anyone done the maths to see if 1x is still lighter?
Yes, it's nice to have the option and I do run 1x but seriously doubt the supposed cost and weight advantages are a valid argument any more.
but seriously doubt the supposed cost and weight advantages are a valid argument any more.
There isn't an argument to be had anymore, but even if there was things like being able to put pivots where they are best located, not worrying about mech clearance on chainstays or tyres are far more compelling.
It was a problem that never needed fixing,
very few of the current bikes that are so good would be on sale now if there was still a requirement to have a fixed point in the geometry to accommodate a front mech
has anyone done the maths to see if 1x is still lighter?
Was that ever the serious argument? To my mind, freeing up that bit of real estate, and the alternate being 'good enough' to allow the range of current FS designs was more than worth 1. the loss of the front mech and 2. a bit of weight gain.
Was that ever the serious argument?
Well it was trotted out by plenty of folk "saving" the weight of a granny ring, mech and shifter.
As for frame designs, the progression to high pivots wouldn't have been a thing. Oh, wait. How many fantastic bikes have come out only because they have pivots where the front mech would have been? If it was even a thing DH would have done it years before.
There isn’t an argument to be had anymore,
Was there ever? Really?
but even if there was things like being able to put pivots where they are best located,
As above.
not worrying about mech clearance on chainstays or tyres are far more compelling.
Tyre clearance? Really? How thick is a mech band?
As for stays, a dual with a 22t granny and 36t main isn't going to tax the stay that much.
Fat bikes manage to do all that and still accommodate front mech without stupid scalloped stays. DH has 83mm BBs that could have accommodated wider tyres, the problem wasn't the mech, the problem was trying to squeeze fatter tyres into the 73mm BB standard width which resulted in the bodge that was Boost.
I can run 2.4s in any of my MTBs with a mech, barring my Tues (obviously). What am I missing out on for an XC use case?
Tyre clearance? Really? How thick is a mech band?
The derailleur cage has to clear the tyre and the chainstays through the full range of suspension movement.
If it was even a thing DH would have done it years before.
They did, Balfa BB7, Brooklyn Race link, Sunn Radical+ (the original one Nico won lots on), the list goes on...
There were lots of DH bike designs in the 90s/00s that recognised the benefits of a higher pivot and not having to accommodate a front mech took advantage in various ways.
They did, Balfa BB7, Brooklyn Race link, Sunny Radical+ (the original one Nico won lots on), the list goes on…
There were lots of DH bike designs in the 90s/00s that recognised the benefits of a higher pivot and not having to accommodate a front mech took advantage in various ways.
****. That was panning out differently in my head ?
And I've missed the edit window.
BUT THE KLEIN MANTRA WOULD WORK WITH A FRONT MECH! CAN'T PIVOT HIGHER THAN THAT!
The derailleur cage has to clear the tyre and the chainstays through the full range of suspension movement.
Which is what, A bawhair wider than the chain? High pivot nonsense aside (that's a valid argument I'll concede) there were still boost frames with adequate clearance for a front mech as evidenced by the suggestions on the last couple of pages. And remember we're talking about XC bikes here.
to me, 1x seems odd on road and gravel bikes. Definitely benefits mountain bikes, more so than boost spacing or 27.5 ever did.
Which is what, A bawhair wider than the chain?
what is the chain line in the smallest ring? I’ve no idea, but it’s a lot less than 52mm.
there were still boost frames with adequate clearance for a front mech as evidenced by the suggestions on the last couple of pages.
there were non boost frames with room for front derailleurs, too. It didn’t mean that the suspension wasn’t compromised as a result
weren’t 1x and boost conceived when bike designers still thought that chain stays should be as short as possible?
The only time with 1x when a chain is now dropped is when the drivetrain is worn out, 2x or 3x used to be multiple times a ride - even worse on proper rough terrain.
Isn’t the narrow wide chain and rings a factor in 1 x though - never drop a chain anymore whereas it used to happen a lot. In my experience 1 x is loads better!
If you constantly derailed your chain you need to learn to adjust your gears correctly.
How many threads are there on here about gear hanger straightening and 12 speed noise and adjustment.
All I said was maybe instead of adding another cog to the cassette, it might be time to look at developing new ideas, I don't think I even included how many chainrings it should have.
In a way front mech are even more crude than rear mech, but dérailleurs is a technology in an evolutionary culture du sac.
Look at some of the full suspension designs with lots of extra cogs to make the gear work with the suspension are you sure this is the zenith of bike design?
weren’t 1x and boost conceived
Boost was conceived to work with 2x
Boost was conceived to work with 2x
I know. The point was the short chain stays. There were also claims of the need to fit plus sized tyres with short chain stays.
The only time with 1x when a chain is now dropped is when the drivetrain is worn out, 2x or 3x used to be multiple times a ride – even worse on proper rough terrain.
I think that's a lot more to do with clutch mechs than nw chainrings.