[Closed] Soo.. who else is switching from 2x10 back to 3x9 / 3x10??

You shouldn't think of the jumps in teeth count, it's the ratio difference that matters. 36-42 is only a 1/6 increase, little worse than 28-32 which is 1/7.

I'm not an XC racer, I'm just aware that there's a huge cadence range possible, and going from 3x9 down to 1x9 (now 1x10) has taught me that I can stomp stronger and spin faster than I thought I could, and now riding BMX is showing me there's yet more potential. To be honest when MTBing I tend to pump and carry speed without braking as much as possible, so I'm not mad keen on pedalling...

This thread seemed to start out as the epitome of the "i ride this if you don't it's coz you're shit" threads that seem to crop up a lot. Ride what works for you. Glad to see it's calmed down.

Is switching to single chainring and cramming in as big a cassette as possible into the back wheel really the future? What happened to gear hub/boxes and stuff?

that 36-42 is a 6T jump, that will feel big on the trail, definately more of a bailout geat than the next ratio in a nominal sequence...

No it's not - check out my percentage jumps - it's actually a perfectly normal step.

Is switching to single chainring and cramming in as big a cassette as possible into the back wheel really the future?

If they work as well as current rear mechs/cassettes then I'd be very happy for exactly that - full range with no need for front mechs which are a really bodgy solution even compared to rear mechs. YMMV.

What happened to gear hub/boxes and stuff?

Nothing of benefit to the typical rider yet. One day maybe but mechs are proving hard to improve on for what most people seem to want.

One day maybe but mechs are proving hard to improve on for what most people seem to want.

*yes yes ok it's actually pretty damn good but it's still dragging the chain across a block and is still open to getting gunked up by mud and ripped off by passing rocks.

Remberthat a lot of folk are having to fit some sort of chain device when losing the front mech. That seems to take away some of the perceived advantages.

Im not reading past the first page here so forgive me if it has been said already but all of you guys who ride 1 x 10 and feel that is all you will ever need then good on ya but i seriously doubt you would handle a full day riding some big routes in Scotland day in day out. Im a 2 x 9 convert and nobody i ride with (and there are some strong lads in the group) even consider a 1 x 10 set up.

Madness i tells ya.

You shouldn't think of the jumps in teeth count, it's the ratio difference that matters. 36-42 is only a 1/6 increase, little worse than 28-32 which is 1/7.

Aimed at me? It wasn't that end of the block I was thinking of, never really notice gaps there as one tends to be grinding away and not looking for a subtle change.

I only notice it at the other end - caning down a fireroad chasing someone down, go for a bigger gear and... shit, that's a hell of a jump, back we go. The 10t being a step change will make it extremely noticeable, but in some ways I guess that's better than sacrificing more usable gaps in the middle of the block.

forgive me if it has been said already but all of you guys who ride 1 x 10 and feel that is all you will ever need then good on ya but i seriously doubt you would handle a full day riding some big routes in Scotland day in day out

Yes, it has been said, fortunately the thread got away from that narrow minded pseudo willy waving, well done for bringing it back there!

D0NK - Member
yeah but instead of ploughing R&D into polishing the efficient cheap light turd* we have now, how about spending that R&D cash on a more elegant system.

*yes yes ok it's actually pretty damn good but it's still dragging the chain across a block and is still open to getting gunked up by mud and ripped off by passing rocks.

I agree BUT lots of people have been trying that and just can't seem to achieve it with a real world practical/not silly expensive solution. Plus IME, mud actually isn't a problem the vast majority of the time and I've trashed a grand total of two mech and two hangers in the 20 years I've been mtbing - hardly something that I can't live with and seems to be reasonably similar for others who ride similar trails/etc to me.

Based on my experience, cyclists want light kit that's fairly durable and works well. So far other solutions have improved durability, some work well (or acceptably well) but none are as light for the same functionality or cost. It just may be that for what we want, what we have is already the best solution.

^^^^ This

I've yet to be convinced that a solution better than dérailleurs exists, they work fine 99.9% of the time, and I don't want the drawbacks of other systems just for that 0.1%.

Is switching to single chainring and cramming in as big a cassette as possible into the back wheel really the future? What happened to gear hub/boxes and stuff?

Very good point!

What I still can't quite figure is why SRAM have never really pushed their 'Dual Drive' Epicyclic, Cassette hubs towards MTBists...

A 2 or 3 speed epicyclic hub combined with an 8/9/10 speed cassette pisses all over the rest in terms of total gearing range and backwards compatibility, makes hammerschmidt look like a pretty pointless excercise, and means you can keep your existing rear mech/cassette setup and ditch a front mech, for a marginally heavier rear hub, it's been in their range for donkeys years, since acquiring Sachs, they've just never promoted or developed it much... SA have something similar also I believe...

SRAM have just sat on the technology/concept and done relatively speaking bugger all with it...

As for Gearboxes, I think the primary problem comes there with the Massive shift in and impact to the market if you were to introduce such a product Vs the general benefits to the existing Big suppliers of drivetrain parts to the world (SRAM/SHimano/Campag/Suntour...)

The only organisations with the budgets and technical/manufacturing capabilities to bring something like that to market would perhaps not benefit from it as much as they do the status quo...

Shimano/SRAM make some money when you buy a bike with their OEM kit fitted, they then more than likely make some money from you every ~6 months when you Replace/Upgrade parts, current drivetrains ensure a relatively steady revenue stream...

Introduce the wet dream product a sealed unit gearbox that only requires an oil change every 6 months and keeps going and you've knackered their current business model which has regular turnover and every product comes with built in obselecence...

Having said that I do think the good old Derailleur has done us pretty well up to now, and is actually a relatively efficent, moderately robust design considering the exposure to the elements/abuse it gets...

I agree BUT lots of people have been trying that

and I don't want the drawbacks of other systems just for that 0.1%

looks like it's going to be a long time coming tho.

I've gone 2x10 since moving up to a Rumblefish 29er this year and don't miss the third ring at the front. Mine is 26/38 front and 11-36 rear, covers everywhere, haven't run out of gears once and there's nowhere flat here in the IOM. Can't say I miss that ''oo er, that's a bit spinny" sensation of 22-32 with my chain flapping about like an empty washing line either. Won't be going back to 3x10

rohloff and a low end shimano hub? I might have missed one or two others but "lots"?

Lots of people have tried, few have made it to market (the two you mention being the main ones), arguably even fewer (none!) are as good based on what most people want.

im surprised at you mick for bothering with 2x10 bollix and for asking on here

Yes, it has been said, fortunately the thread got away from that narrow minded pseudo willy waving, well done for bringing it back there!

Ha ha that will be me told then. 😀

are you the same mactheknife from mad and epic forums ??

Na bud, no idea about those forums. Sounds ominous. 😀

I shall do some cadence testing on my commute...

Spinning at 34mph on my way home from a mini DH session today. With 32:11 top gear and 27" wheels that's 145rpm at the cranks.

I was consciously thinking about it yesterday, I found about 24mph (with 36/11 and 26" wheels) became the difference between 'actually feeling like I'm pushing on here' and 'starting to spin pretty quickly'. Can certainly go much quicker, but I'd not want to sit at that speed for a prolonged time!

I've yet to be convinced that a solution better than dérailleurs exists, they work fine 99.9% of the time, and I don't want the drawbacks of other systems just for that 0.1%.

Front however! Nightmare of a system. Clunky and frequently hassle and same across various brands and models I've used. I get it all set up smooth as possible in the stand and give it a few rides and something's rubbing on the mech cage somewhere. Make adjustments and it's rubbing in another gear and can go on for ages fiddling like that. Then changing gear up to the bigger rings and something's not quite right and it clunks along for ages trying to shift up. Adjust again, works for a while then gone again. Then drops to lower rings when you don't want it, and so on!

I never have this much hassle with the rear, only the front.

Though have to say the 2x10 has been worst. On the rubbing side of it I think it's because the front mech cage is narrower and there's little room to clear the chain when in big-to-big, small-to-small combos and the next nearest gears. But even in middle gears, bounce over rocks and roots and there's a little sideways movement of the chain and clattering against the cage. Chain drop is even more of a pain with 2x10 and tension seems to be the issue. Slightly worn chain, it's slack enough to not hold on. Even with an X-Guide in place which is Truvativ's 2x10 guide.

1x10 however on my other bike - perfect 🙂 . And the gear range for me is pretty much bang on what I really used out of the 2x9 I had before it. It's not about "look at me cope with less gears!" willy waving. It's about being much happier with far less hassles, having a silent bike, and at the same time being surprised it's not that much different in effort anyway.

In my mind 2x10 replicates most of what you want from 3x9. 1x10 is a compromise of 2x10 but if you don't need all of 2x10 then it can be fine. 1x11 will replicate 2x10 and that's what I'm looking forward to if they can make it robust enough for general use.

(sorry, repeating my rant from BR here 😀 )

So all that said, on the original question, no I wouldn't go back to 3x9/10, rather go single up front for less hassles than add more rings and still deal with front mech hassles.

Must say I never really had any problems with front mechs, running road or MTB ones, double or triple 9 or 10 speed! Don't miss having one though.

Would love to be able to deal with a single front ring and big block on the back, but fear I am simply not fit enough. I run a double and bash on front (22, 36) and 11-34 rear. Don't miss the big ring, if I spin out I am already going fast enough. But a 30ish single on the front..?

I reckon you'd definitely lose too much top end with that. There was a company advertising here (who were arseholes apparently) who did a 28 or 30t single though, Widgit or sommat?

TBH; with 28/42 and 11-36 to play with, you're so close to having the range of a standard triple on 11-32 it's hardley worth getting the calculator out,

I'm sure you're right, so why change? A triple gives you smaller jumps between ratios, and you still need a front mech and shifter for a double. It's a tiny weight saving and you still need to set a front mech up.

I can certainly see the advantages of a 1x10 system, as the simplicity and weight reduction can be balanced against reduced range and increased jumps between gears. Though I do get fed up waiting for the owners of such systems to put their chains back on...

It's about the ratios you like though, not so much the absolute limits. I found a 44t a bit big, a 32t a bit small, and a 22t no real use at all, so found 28/40 really good! YMMV

Meh.
I'm currently running;
1x1
3x8
1x9
2x9
3x9
2x10
All good.

It's about the ratios you like though, not so much the absolute limits. I found a 44t a bit big, a 32t a bit small, and a 22t no real use at all, so found 28/40 really good! YMMV

I take your point, but you still have to use a wider range cassette, no? So more chain/ slap and bigger jumps. I find that 32 and 11-32 does fine of the time, with the other rings used for the fast and slow bits. So ironically, I probably have to change the front rings less often than if I had a double.

I take your point, but you still have to use a wider range cassette, no? So more chain/ slap and bigger jumps. I find that 32 and 11-32 does fine of the time, with the other rings used for the fast and slow bits. So ironically, I probably have to change the front rings less often than if I had a double.

Definitely agree, and I would see no point in going to a double. I now use (and prefer) a single, so it's a bit of a moot point, but when I used a triple (not for 7 years now admittedly) I would be constantly flitting between the middle and the big whilst crossing the cassette.

Never found chain slap and issue, nor bigger jumps, I generally used 11-34 cassettes (with 9 speed), so a ring in the middle seemed to make most sense, with a 28 for steep stuff. I originally just used 32/44, which achieved little, other than making me MTFU on the climbs, then went to 30/42, then decided the 28 would be an idea for a 12 hour solo, and found I preferred the smaller rings.