[Closed] the big ring??

Still got one on my inbred. Use it for jolly xc jaunts along the Downs.

Me too, despite it not being fashionable.

I regularly still use the big ring! Here's a pic of a very muddy Scale to demonstrate 😀

[img] [/img]

Have to say I am tempted by 2X10 though...

Still got 3x9 on all of our bikes and they're staying that way. 2x10 and 1x11 are just more ways to rip us off IMO.

I use mine on flat/downhill sections. Otherwise it's crazy legs spin out time.

i have 2x9 with the access still there to convert to 3x9 when needed but the lack of logs around bristol now is making me second think my bash.

Not used a 44t one for 5 years, don't miss it.

It's nothing to do with fashion. I took mine off as I never used it and replaced it with a chain device and bash which I get much more benefit from. Weather you need a big ring will depend on your style of riding and terrain / type of trails. I dont tend not to peddle when going downhill as I'm standing up to absorb the bumps etc. I don't use the granny ring much now these days but it may as well stay there for now as there isn't that much benefit in taking it off

Use mine regularly, either on the road getting to where I'm riding, commuting or just doing fast smooth stuff. If you're stuck on a boring bit of fire trail you may as well go as fast as you can, fast and boring beats slow and boring.

I'm with njee here.

Unless you regularly use 44/11, ie. big ring with the smallest cog on the cassette, there's no point. The next cog up, the 13T, gives you pretty much the same ratio as if you used a 36T ring with your 11T cog on the back... Only place I ever used 44/11 was on road down big steep hills anyway... I just don't miss it at all, but having more ground clearance cos I run a 36T with bash setup on my full sus is very beneficial. And with a 24T granny, and 11-36 cassette, I'm not losing out on any low end gears, so my 2x10 setup gives me very nearly the same range as a 3x10 but only losing the very top ratio.

My 32T single ring setup on my hardtail only loses bottom 2 and top 2 ratios so is still useable for most riding too. Big rings on MTB's are pretty much just a hangup from days gone by, or for serial pedal stompers.

I have a triple on my full-suss, but it's coming off and I'm sticking a 36 and a bash on there instead. This is because I impaled my leg on it when I fell off the other week, which was annoying.

I couldn't be without a big ring on the commuter though, that gets used a lot on towpaths and tarmac and suchlike.

Aye, on the road it makes lots of sense, but not off road IMO.

SS for me mostly, but 1x10 (was 1x9 till it wore out).
Haven't run a big ring for many years.

I'm still trying to work out how I'm being ripped off going 1x whatever.

When I bought my Clockwork Orange in 92 it came with 48/38/28 and 12/28.
That's pretty much the same highest gear as I have on my current road bikes.

Still got 3x9 on all of our bikes and they're staying that way. 2x10 and 1x11 are just more ways to rip us off IMO.

You do realise a double is cheaper then a triple, in every way? As in initial cost, maintenance, replacement from wear and tear, etc. etc.

And a single ring even more so?

The big bike brands started selling them because that's what riders wanted - I went to a double like a year and a half or so before sram xx was even announced, and I definitely wasn't the first one to do so.

Also, surely the big ring is just whatever is the biggest chain ring of the ones that are on your bike?

I use mine all the time. If it's flat or non tech downhill I'm in it. I can't understand how a 36 up front can replace 44 with the same block at the back. I hate spinning out and I'm a lower cadence kind of rider anyway.

Still got a 3x9 set up on my main bike (a Turner Flux) but use a Raceface half bash ring thing - best of both worlds from my point of view. When it all wears out I'll consider a move to 2x10 perhaps.

. I can't understand how a 36 up front can replace 44 with the same block at the back.

Genuine facepalm!

Do you shift gears on the rear at all?

And I take it basic mathematics is beyond you then?

Unless you regularly use 44/11, you don't need the 44T ring. As I stated above, 36/11 gives you pretty much the same ratio that 44/13 gives you (next cog up on your cassette). So unless you live in 44/11, put a 36T ring on instead and just ride in one cog lower on the cassette than you would normally...

EDIT: A 24/36/bash setup with an 11-36 cassette gives far less ratio duplication across the range too, with almost the same spread of gear ratios (barring the 4:1 44/11 ratio).

I use mine all the time. If it's flat or non tech downhill I'm in it. I can't understand how a 36 up front can replace 44 with the same block at the back. I hate spinning out and I'm a lower cadence kind of rider anyway.

The point is though that you only lose the very top 2 gears or so. So it's not like you suddenly can't ride more than 15mph. How often do you really use 44/11?

I've worn out the big ring (44t) first on my last two XTR chainsets, but I do have a 3.5 mile road climb/descent to and from the offroad part of my normal rides on the Quantocks.
I suppose it depends on your riding style, I don't get on well with "spinning".

Edit:-
I use 44-11 for most of the 3.5 mile (8 minute) descent on my way home from the Quantocks and spin out (45mph) in a couple of places

The point is though that you only lose the very top 2 gears or so

Top gear only with a 36T njee! So even less reason to keep it...

Even if you go for a 32T ring on its own you only just about lose the top 2 ratios then...

I do have a 3.5 mile road climb/descent to and from the offroad part of my normal ri

Because you do a 3.5 mile road climb in 44/11? Hero.

FWIW I do up to 16 miles to/from the trails on the road, with a 36. Did find the 42 slightly more useful, but the 36 isn't a hindrance.

I got 46x11 and I use it frequently. Doesn't anyone ride fast anymore ?

This is an old gear ratio chart for a 10 speed 11-36 cassette, comparing a standard triple to a standard double (26/38). For a 9 speed 11-32 cassette, just ignore the first column.

[img] [/img]

As you can see, 38-11 is actually bigger then 44-13, so you're losing less then one gear at the top.

And you only lose about 2 and a bit gears at the bottom which is near impossible to notice, 22-32 is a silly low gear.

There are lots of other advantages to a double over a triple though. It's lighter, it looks better, it's easier to clean (less places for mud to get trapped), and it wears more evenly. No more 90% worn middle rings destroying your cassette early whilst your little and big ring are still near perfect. A lot less shifting too, with a double. Big ring for descending, little ring for climbing. Simple.

I use mine, not a great deal. A few courses have fast smooth long sections where a 42 gets used as well as the lock out.
And on on/off road rides like the Bucks Off Road.

In some races I use all three rings, I know the newer 2X10s will cover it, but I'm so used to that ratio that I know exactly where to change.

I got 46x11 and I use it frequently. Doesn't anyone ride fast anymore ?

As i can get my roadbike into the mid high 30's on the flat with only a 53x13, and 50+ downhill with a bit of bottle. I would suggest that 46x11 on a mtb is a little bit higher than most will ever need.

unless this is your normal ride

[img] [/img]

Because you do a 3.5 mile road climb in 44/11? Hero.

Who said anything about using 44/11 on the climb but 44/24 is lower than the gearing on my SS 32/16. 🙄

Right, but still significantly lower than (say) 36/11. So yes, if you want pedal at 45mph, as you've now edited, knock yourself out. Depends if you want to set your bike up for most riding, or for one 3.5 section of road? Why not fit a 53/39 chainset?

I spin out on the road descent home, I'm happy to bend my elbows and get a bit aero for a minute. YMMV of course!

44/32/22 has worked for me where I ride for the past 18 years or so, I doubt I'll change now just because some "know it all" on a web forum tells me I'm doing it wrong.

I use 44-11 for most of the 3.5 mile (8 minute) descent on my way home from the Quantocks and spin out (45mph) in a couple of places

so average speed of 26mph ish. which isn't really much of a cadence difference going from 44x11 to 40x11.

and 45mph suggests a cadence of slightly over 120, not really spinning out, 40x11 would be c40mph at 120. so yes a bit slower but most of the time not really an issue.

If your happy with 3 rings fine, but 2 or 3 rings there is very little difference in gear range, so don't bother using it as a reason to stay with 3.

44/24 is lower than the gearing on my SS 32/16.

? i assume that the one is a 29er? otherwise that comment is so wrong.

44/24 is lower than the gearing on my SS 32/16.

? i assume that the one is a 29er? otherwise that comment is so wrong.

😆

44/32/22 has worked for me where I ride for the past 18 years or so, I doubt I'll change now just because some "know it all" on a web forum tells me I'm doing it wrong.

Yeah that's fair enough, just might be something you could consider when you're replacing everything next time. I'd never go back to a triple ever. And if you ignore the abuse you're getting on here (that man has one more chain ring than what I feel is ideal? How sickening!) and just look at the facts, then a double is quite tempting. But whatever floats your boat etc.

44/32/22 has worked for me where I ride for the past 18 years or so, I doubt I'll change now just because some "know it all" on a web forum tells me I'm doing it wrong.

Don't be ridiculous, no one's telling you you're doing it wrong. You're misinformed, and you've been corrected. I used to think that I couldn't live without a 44t chainring, but then realised how little difference it actually makes.

no one's telling you you're doing it wrong.

you've been corrected

😀

44:13 and 36:11 are not the same in theory or practice. Close enough might be close enough for you but for me it feels wrong. I suspect you're the kind of guy that spends quite a lot in shaving grams off your bike, you could save a lot of money if you just took the "close enough" attitude to weight.
How often do I use 44:11? Lots. Or 42:11 on my 29er yesterday. Of course, if you're the kind of person that drives to a muddy field to ride a few laps of it before driving home then you won't need it but for getting between all the good bits fast a big ring is mandatory in my book. Horses for courses.

anyone actualy still use one?

What a weird question.

A. Yes, lots. If I didn't then I'd go too slow and wouldn't fit in as many miles/trails/cake stops.

44/24 is lower than the gearing on my SS 32/16.

44/24 x 26 = 47.666"

32/16 x 26 = 52"

As far as I'm concerned a 47" gear is lower than a 52" gear, but it may not be in your world. 🙄

threw 4 in a skip at the tip before I emigrated, had been weighing down the spares box.

36t front and no need for anything more.* For me was an expensive and painful bash gaurd

*where and how I ride, mountain biking still has personal preference and difference in terrain.

44:13 and 36:11 are not the same in theory or practice.

I personally didn't say they were, I said you lose the top 2 gears. Not gonna argue with anything else you've said, perhaps we should just go for a ride sometime, I get bored of driving to muddy fields 🙄

From what I've heard you wouldn't be using any of the gears on our trails, you'd be off walking. 🙂

Of course, if you're the kind of person that drives to a muddy field to ride a few laps of it before driving home then you won't need it but for getting between all the good bits fast a big ring is mandatory in my book. Horses for courses.

I suppose I'm lucky having very good riding a few miles up the hill when a lot of people only have the trail center/muddy field option.

I've ridden a double for about 2 years now and wouldn't go back to triple. Currently run 36-26 with 11-34 on back. Tryin to convince my mate to ditch his triple but he thinks he needs it for the 500m he rides on road and downhill lol

I can't see why you [i]wouldn't[/i] want a big ring.

I don't even like a double on my road bike (jump between the rings is too big).

I can't see why you wouldn't want a big ring.

I loose 2/3 gears
It doesn't cut up my calf
It doesn't catch on rocks and knock teeth off
I never really used it
I don't ride long flat trails
On technical trials I go faster by not braking than by pedalling in a 44t between the rocks (about 1/2 turn every so often)

From what I've heard you wouldn't be using any of the gears on our trails, you'd be off walking.

Ah right, who have you heard this from?

I suppose I'm lucky having very good riding a few miles up the hill when a lot of people only have the trail center/muddy field option.

I'm not sure why these threads always turn into a 'I have proper riding so I need a 22t and a 44t ring' argument. People are different, you lose surprisingly little ditching a 44t, I know I was surprised. I rarely ride either fields or trail centres though.

Wow - you can tell it is raining outside - this could end up more fun than a religious thread 😀
Keep it going guys - my favourite so far is that a double 'looks better' - thanks Realman - almost as good as the 'slammed stems'!

Am I the only person who usually coasts down boring road descents and get my breath back .It's a mountain bike FFS the road bits are a necessary evil to get to the bits where I let rip.If I won't to get up some speed on the road and get a KOM I'd use a road bike 😉

Ah right, who have you heard this from?

It's written on the STW Scottish Chapter toilets wall.

I use mine quite a bit. Saves wear on the 32T. I did most of my climbing at the Wall in Afan in the big ring and use it on the roads going to back from a ride where I live. Then I use the middle most of the time on the trails and maybe sometimes will drop down to the granny.

on a crankset designed for a triple ring the chainline to the small cassette sprockets is better than staying in middle. If I had the choice on a new bike I would probably opt for a double specific set up with an 11-36T 10 speed cassette for better clearance but in terms of wear the more duplicate gearing the better as long as you manage your ratios properly.

Also remember larger gears mean less chain articulation which is better for the chain and sprockets which is why I use the big ring when cruising.

glenh - Member

I can't see why you wouldn't want a big ring.

i would never use it.

my chain would be need to be longer - but as i'd never be in the big ring the chain would always be looser/noisier

my lovely slx-double front mech wouldn't work, and other mech's don't fit on my bike.

i'd need a long-cage rear mech.

and even if i went to the trouble* of setting my bike up to use a 3rd ring, i'd still never need/use it - cause i don't need to pedal at over 30mph

...think of it like this, why don't you have a 4th front ring?

Why don't you only have one ring? Or only one gear?

cause i'm a pathetic weakling.

edit: my front rings are 26/32 - i know there's a massive overlap, but i find the granny gear very usefull when my useless, pathetic, skinny legs have had enough.

and i do have a single-speed, it's surprisingly versatile...

(i strongly suspect my next bike will be subjected to a 1x9or10 experiment)

I don't have a singlespeed because it would be a compromise for my riding. 1x10 isn't. Not difficult is it?

Took the big ring off my bike 5yrs ago (3x9) I don't ride on the road so I never used it, bash guard much more useful.

3 x 8 here. Not as gnarrr as a lot of riders but it gets me everywhere I need to get to. Seem to have a [i]lot[/i] less mechanicals though... 😉

Gorehound - Member

Still got 3x9 on all of our bikes and they're staying that way. 2x10 and 1x11 are just more ways to rip us off IMO.

2x9 would cost you buttons (less than the cost of a big ring in fact). More than one way to skin a cat. And next time you need a middle ring you could step up to 36 or 38 and have almost the same gearing as you do now.

I did very briefly wish I had a 44T ring the other week, while road descending in the alps. But I think I'll survive. Meanwhile the number of times not having a big ring has been useful are many more.

But if you don't ride anywhere with limited ground clearance, and you don't mind carrying excess weight, and you never catch your leg on the big ring and rip it open like you've been attacked by an evil cyborg with chainsaws for arms, then you're probably fine with 3 rings 😉

have a SS a double and a triple
The middle one is the most useful
the big ring gets used but not that often and rarely offroad and on anything not very smooth/fast.
I supect a double an 10 speed

Not sure why it is such a heated debate as i aould assume it is the least used for all but awesome riders tbh

[quote=Junkyard ]Not sure why it is such a heated debate as i aould assume it is the least used for all but awesome riders tbh
As always, it depends on the style of riding you do. My MTBs [i]are[/i] used for decent road stretches on occasion because I use them more as a means of touring on a selection of surfaces than just a toy for blasting round technical trails.

You wont need it for the mary Townley loop 😉

I assume what you do is not typical of here though but of course you are correct.

44/32/22 has worked for me where I ride for the past 18 years or so, I doubt I'll change now just because some "know it all" on a web forum tells me I'm doing it wrong.

Haha, brilliant! LOVE this argument...

I suppose you typed this on an 386 connected via dialup? Are you the guy I passed the other morning, commuting to work via horse and cart?

Its called progress! And more often than not its a good thing...

44:13 and 36:11 are not the same in theory or practice. Close enough might be close enough for you but for me it feels wrong. I suspect you're the kind of guy that spends quite a lot in shaving grams off your bike, you could save a lot of money if you just took the "close enough" attitude to weight.

If you can tell the difference between 3.38:1 and 3.28:1 on your mountain bike, then I'd say that you're probably way more likely to be the one going to the effort with silly light parts on their bike, not me! It's less than the difference between running a 2.1" or a 2.2" tyre on the back of your bike in terms of gearing change!!! Infinitessimally small in the grand scheme of things...

As ever, the main thing all the nay Sayers forget is you can't argue with maths!

Being able to run a shorter chain, shorter cage mech, have more ground clearance and crisper front shifting are sooooo much more beneficial to me than a 4:1 ratio is... I only have to lose one whole gear to get all those benefits, one that I never use anyway (even on road), so where's the problem?

I doubt you'll have passed him if he has a big ring. 🙂

[quote=mboy ]
Its called progress! And more often than not its a good thing...
There's often a big difference between progress and fashion.

id like the big ring even more if i bought one in 38/40 tooth size. 42/44 teeth is too big for off road (i still got it though). i like being able to shift one chainring at the front to loose/gain a load of gear inches, rather than having to work my way from one side of the cassette to another.

Why were you commuting to work on a horse & cart, Rigs? 😉

I was in a new fangled tin box with wheels and an engine.

He was in the horse and cart! 😉

So will a 2x10 set up improve my riding, will I go faster, will I be able to do things I can't do with my current 3x9

I need to spend a bit right now, replacing all the bits I need will be quite costly, but are the benefits worth it. When I point my bike at that steep, long muddy climb will this progress in equipment help me?

I need to spend a bit right now, replacing all the bits I need will be quite costly

2 rings cost less than 3.

that for me was the only real difference.

Less ratio duplications, less weight, simpler, and you can run a shorter chain and you have more ground clearance.

Probably not gonna make you more than 0.000001% faster oldgit, but it'll be nicer to use and you'll probably find you use more ratios on the cassette more often (spreading the wear) rather than just shifting the front ring but staying on the same 3/4 cassette ratios regardless as I know I did, and many others still do.

oldgit - Member

So will a 2x10 set up improve my riding, will I go faster, will I be able to do things I can't do with my current 3x9

No. Maybe. Maybe.

I go faster with my 2x9, I reckon, because the 36T "middle" ring's got a better spread of gearing than 32T does- I spend almost all the time descending in it, and most of the climbing, and reducing ring changes is good. But that's trivial.

Things you can't do- ever run out of ground clearance? If not, then it won't make any dramatic difference IMO. I like rolling over steps and logs that I probably shouldn't, so it's definately saved me from a few messy exits. But again ymmv.

The way I see it is, it's better, but it's not gamechangingly better. I do reckon 2x10 or 2x9 should be the default option for mountain bikes, and that just like single ring, triple ring has its fans and they can sort it out themselves.

Going to Google the costs, just bought a brand new XT cassette and KMC chain which has only been span in the workshop.

So will a 2x10 set up improve my riding, will I go faster, will I be able to do things I can't do with my current 3x9

There are lots of other advantages to a double over a triple though. It's lighter, it looks better, it's easier to clean (less places for mud to get trapped), and it wears more evenly. No more 90% worn middle rings destroying your cassette early whilst your little and big ring are still near perfect. A lot less shifting too, with a double. Big ring for descending, little ring for climbing.

Why go 2x10? 2x9 is cool too. Front mech has to do less as well so you get better shifting IME - and you get better use of the cassette in each chain ring - I can get all 9 gears on both chain rings.

Do you mean put new rings/ratios on my current XT chainset?

The main benefit for me of getting rid of the big ring was being able o fit a chain device. Since that's on the chain hasn't come off once which did happen often enough halfway down a decent which messes the flow up if you have to stop and put it back on. Not very often have I felt the need for extra gears and then it was only on boring road bits between singletrack sections

Do you mean put new rings/ratios on my current XT chainset?

Like this? Sure, why not?

[img] [/img]

I think triples still work! Depends on where and how you ride. For my doorstep riding which is unfortunately pretty flat I use 3x9 and mostly ride in the big ring (11-32 and 22/34/46) and use the 46/11 for most of the 4 mile return home (Constant, slight downhill slope.). Yes, could remove my inner chainring but I do occasionally use that bike for 'big day out in the hill rides' and don't want to faff about too much changing stuff. I do however run a double and bash (2x9) on my all mountain bike which I use for my technical and steep rides (Up and down) and on this I run 11-34 and 26/38.

Both work for me - why do I need to change either...? I also commit the heinous crime of running a triple on my road bike...

Well I need two new rings anyway. Thinking about it my MTB gets used about a dozen times a year tops, as well as regular summer races. So it's probably not worth the cost.
So I'm going to order the Blackspire Pro rings 26 and 38t to use with my 11-32 XT cassette.

Blackspire have always worked for me - wear very well in my experience.

I used TA Chinooks in 28/40, found it a good combination.

So if you ditch the 44t on an existing triple XT set up, can the existing front mech be 'limit-screwed' to prevent inadvertent shifting onto the bash ring? And what would be the largest cog you could fit in the 'middle' ring position and still get a sweet shift from the original front mech? Genuine questions; I think I'd try dropping the 44t if the outlay was pretty minimal, but would the stock kit work with the 26/38 cogs that Oldgit's talking about?

I got rid of my big ring ages ago after some nasty scraping over rocks in the Avalanche Enduro at Kielder - never looked back, especially now I have the SLX double and bash with a 36t ring.

I had also previously made a fairly hefty gouge in the back of my leg from an OTB incident - big ring is a bad idea imo.