[Closed] New drivetrain time - stay 3x9 or go 2x10?

Is anyone running a 2x10 drive train on a cross-country biased bike?!

Why not go 2x9? The only difference is that you will have slightly bigger gaps between gears.

Personally I am about to go from 3x9 to 2x9. Lots of XC riders now use 2x9 or 2x10 - no point in having gears on your bike which you don't use, so losing a few gears at the bottom and the top is a good way to save weight and increase reliability.

I run 1x10 and won't go back superb 11-36 on back with 34 on front, but also have a 32 an 36 for front which I swap over dependent on ride i'am doing
Hope this confuses you even more

I run 3x10... thats all i have to say as i haven't used my bike yet 🙂

I have 3x10 on my cross country bike, although I stuck an 11-36 cassette on so probably should be running a double at the front (have only used the granny once, and that was because I was being lazy!)

2x10 X0, with 39/26 & 11/34 combo.

Used to have 2x9, 39/27 & 11/34. Much prefer the 2x10.

Cannot see the need for 3x10 though.

2x10 definitely with an 11-36 cassette.

Oops, I actually have the 11/36 cassette. Typo...

see 😉

currently using 40x26 and a 11-34 cassette, 9speed. It works, what more do you want to know. Is it better than the the 3x9 i was using, well that worked as well.

As i saw it, if there is going to be trouble it tends to be with the front shift, chainsuck, snapping etc. plus one less ring is cheaper.

Thanks for the responses. Reading between the lines, I'm going for 3x9 again. Just because I haven't received the enthusiastic evangelising regarding 2 x 10 that I was expecting.

if your kit is worn go for 2x10, but change for the sake of it, little point.

just went from 3x9 to 2x10 xtr shizzle. Run a 42/30 x 11x34 combo.

What have i noticed:
1/ Apart from mega mega steep hills then there's no difference in the top end ( and if it is that steep you should be running)
2/ Its alot smoother shifting altho that might be down to the new drivetrain and whatever the new shifting language is
3/ It covers all the needs of a 3x9 but lighter, more compact and better looking.

I wouldn't go back to 3x9 again now, im glad i made the (expensive) change but it does everything a 3x9 done but in a better package. My advise is to swap. You wont regret it

run 2x9 on carbon hardtail.

XT (32/44) x 11/34

32/34 is more than enough to get up most hills

Oh, some evangelists have arrived 😆 - back in the balance.

Maybe we should be getting to the meat of the matter and discussing gear inches. Anyone want to convince me using the professional lingo? How does a 2x10 compare in gear range? Can I choose where I lose? What is the compromise? Less low gears less high gears? Same overall range with bigger jumps? On road I certainly like a straight through cassette.

I suppose I could do the maths myself. Which, to be honest, is what I'll do next unless some wise sages do the work for me 😀

I'm selling a brand new set of XT 3x9 rings in the classifieds if you don't believe the hype 😉 😳

Running 2x10 XTR in 40/28 with 11-36 cassette.
Have a set of replacement 38/26 rings for the front which might solve the 'half gear not right' issue in top when fully loaded on long expedition races.
Apart from that i think it's wonderful, the top granny 28/36 is much more pleasant to ride with than a regular 22/34, dunno why , possibly bigger front ring.
Shifts incredibly well but then it is XTR. I like it. Wife has gone 2x10 as well and she prefers it.

Sticking with 3x9 XTR.
24,32,44. and 11-27.
I like close ratios at the back so have a DA cassette. Very occasionally need the granny and for the amount of weight it would save it's just not worth getting rid.
3x10 with a DA cassette would do me too but can't afford to swap three bikes over and I like my bits interchangable.

IMO 12-27 cassettes are rubbish on the MTB, you just end up shifting on the front constantly or shifting handfuls of gears at a time.

I used to use 2x9 with 28/40 and an 11-34. Went to 10 speed 28/42 with 11-36, and frankly it was very similar. I found myself in the big ring for 95% of the time, but always at the top of the block. Now gone 1x10 with 36t ring and 11-36 and find that spot on.

Would never go back to a triple, but it depends on your riding style and what not. If you're always in the middle ring bear in mind that'll fall in between the 2 rings on a double.

My Whyte 905 came 2x10 as stock, currently very impressed, basically sitting in the 39 tooth big ring most of the time, using far more of the block at the back than I used to (hopefully spreading the wear).

Begin to notice the lack of high gears on the flat canal towpath out to the trails, but even then I'm not spinning out, just very close to my highest gear.

I have lost a lower gear or two (26/36 is higher than 22/34) so just have to hope I've gotten fitter since I last tried certain incredibly steep climbs.

njee

what chain device are you running for single ring (noticed a few pro's at dalby running single ring)

Alfine.

As far as I can see (without trying it, 3x9 here) the only driver for change is the 11-36 cassette. If you could get an equivalent 11-36 in 9s would you switch? Shimano make a heavy version(HG61) of 12-36 for 29er riders, but this guy is making Ti 11-36 for weenies. NO idea if they're any good, just a google find.
[url= http://luckynino.blogspot.com/2010/08/9s-titanium-mtb-cassette-11-3612-36.html ]Ti 11-36 £££[/url]

i'm running 2x10 XTR on my R8

40.28 up front with an 11-36 cassette. it seems to cover all bases for me...

Go to 2x9, its awesome.

[img] [/img]

2x9 for me and very happy with it - I'd never go back to a triple unless it was for a bike that was going to be used on the road a lot.

I'm using an 11-34 cassette with 24/36 (on 26") or 22x32 (on 29er) which gives me all the range of a triple less the very top 2 or so gears which I never used off road.

More clearance, less weight seem like good benefits to me. That said, I'd seriously consider 1x10 with an 11x36 and 32t (29er) if I was just a bit fitter.

IMO 12-27 cassettes are rubbish on the MTB, you just end up shifting on the front constantly or shifting handfuls of gears at a time.

go 2x9 to try it - you can always put 10 on the back if you like it.

27/40 x 11-34 on one, and 29/42 x 11-34 on another - prefer the former for riding round Surrey.

njee

what chain device are you running for single ring (noticed a few pro's at dalby running single ring)

Got a Superstar BB mounted one with a bodged seat tube mount (press fit BB, and I refuse to pay the exorbitant sums MRP and E.13 want for seat tube mounted guides). Got some carbon fibre sheet to make a more bling one sometime!

not if you run a sensible range up front you won't! I hate big dinner plate cassette sprockets, the silly long chain needed to run them causes horrendous chain slap so I run 11-28 8speed with 22/36 rings, can ride everything but steep or long draggy sat down climbs in the 36T ring and never spin out on anything worth riding a mtb down. if you're an XC racer/roadie 24/38 rings might be a better set-up but I really can't see why anyone would want 3 rings upfront or bigger than a 40T largest chainring on an mtb.

Ring size has nothing to do with it, it's very simple logic. If you only have a 28t sprocket on the back I have 3 more gears in reserve before I have to shift down. On the assumption a down shift takes 2 seconds by the time you've backed off the power and you do it 30 times a race you have just thrown away a minute.

I tried it for a while, but it achieved nothing at all for me, combined with the fact that the rapidly changing terrain on an MTB meant that very close ratios were of no use IMO.

1x10 works really well for me anyway. YMMV.

What chainsets would you recomend for 2x10? I want SLX / XT quality & price...not interested in paying XTR and XX prices!

Depends on if you want 22/36 type ratios, or higher 28/42 type ratios. If the former, then SLX. If the latter, either convert what you have (as per RealMan above, TA Chinook rings work very well, fine with 10 speed), look to SRAM, or wait for 2011 XT.

Ring size has nothing to do with it, it's very simple logic.

If you only have a 28t sprocket on the back I have 3 more gears in reserve before I have to shift down. On the assumption a down shift takes 2 seconds by the time you've backed off the power and you do it 30 times a race you have just thrown away a minute.

I tried it for a while, but it achieved nothing at all for me, combined with the fact that the rapidly changing terrain on an MTB meant that very close ratios were of no use IMO.

Seems you've missed my point entirely. the set-up I run is perfect for [u]me[/u] and what [u]I[/u] ride, I'd suggest you got the ratios wrong for what and where [u]you[/u] ride when you tried out a 2 ring set up.
Oh.. and an 8 speed 11-28 doesn't have very close ratios. 🙄

Do you guys ride to and from the trails? I reckon losing the top end would drive me crazy on the road ride home, but maybe it's ok?

I suppose it might become a pain if you're able to ride a road for any length of time on a mtb at 30mph+, fortunately I don't have that superhuman power. 😉

Yep, up to 15 miles each way on the road before/after, with a 36-11 top gear I can pedal up to about 23mph without spinning like a loon, which is fine.

WTF? so you're saying you need to front shift less with an extra ring up front? so why do you only have 3? why not fit 4 and shift even less?

Read what I said, bigger cassette = less front shifting. It's very basic, the number and size of rings is completely irrelevant, you could be running a 20/37/86/150 chain ring setup, you'd still have to shift more if you ran a smaller cassette. I've not used a triple for 6 years, and never would again, like I say, using a single ring now.

I'm never in that much of a hurry on the way to the trails on road so I can happily live without the last two cogs. Have a play with Sheldon Brown's gear calculator, it clearly shows all the overlap in standard three ring gearing and thus how losing the big ring makes little difference if you add a few teeth to the middle ring.

njee20 - Member
Depends on if you want 22/36 type ratios, or higher 28/42 type ratios. If the former, then SLX...

I suppose it might become a pain if you're able to ride a road for any length of time on a mtb at 30mph+, fortunately I don't have that superhuman power.

In order to maintain 30mph with a 42/11, you would have to maintain a cadence in excess of 100 rpm. So we can safely ignore your silly little dig. 😉

More realistically, a 36/11 gives you about 20mph at 80 RPM. 42/11 is nearer 24mph. I suppose what I should try is not using my 11T sprocket on the next ride home and to see if the reduced top end is annoying. I must say that the idea of a double is appealing.

Do you honestly sit at more than 20mph for prolonged periods? If so, take up racing now.

80rpm is rather slow anyway, so 36/11 is still usable at more than 20mph, as I said.

Do you honestly sit at more than 20mph for prolonged periods? If so, take up racing now.

80rpm is rather slow anyway, so 36/11 is still usable at more than 20mph, as I said.

Yeah, sounds like it would be ok. I was quite surprised by the results from the Sheldon calculator. I might try converting my current 9 speed setup, as the rings are getting pretty worn anyway.

It's very basic, the number and size of rings is completely irrelevant, you could be running a 20/37/86/150 chain ring setup, you'd still have to shift more if you ran a smaller cassette.

I've not used a triple for 6 years, and never would again, like I say, using a single ring now.

There was me thinking this discussion was about whether 2 or 3 chainrings will work best, not heroes wading in to boast that they can manage everything on one 😳

How strange, I thought that I said both "IMO" and "YMMV" in my post, it was you levelling the personal insults.

You also seem to struggle with reading. Perhaps "BasicGraspOfEnglishAndNotBeingAKnobtrackworld.com" would be more up your street? You seem to have a wonderful way of rubbing people up the wrong way.

Now now, kids...

😆 @ notbeingaknobtrackworld

And thanks, which particular personal insult rubbed you up the wrong way? 8)