[Closed] the big ring??

Ditch 22/32/44 and replace with 24/36/bash, shorten the chain significantly, and you only lose effectively one gear ratio and all of a sudden your bike is a whole lot quieter and just works better!

Yup.

The big ring also gets plenty of use at NYA, CYB, Cwm Carn, Brechfa and more, where the trail gets fast and swoopy.

Aye, of course it does, but not the very top gear, the one you lose by ditching the 44.

I suppose you're right, njee20.

In fact, that may just be the excuse I need for a new chainset! 🙂

I've actually got as far as taking the big ring off a Race Face Evolve XC triple (22/32/44) and putting a bash guard on it (my calves feel safer already). I'm should be able to replace the 32 with a 36 no worries right? The only thing I'm mildly confused about is that Shimano seem to have 2 suitably cheap/hardwearing 36 chainrings that are the same except for the model numbers.

[url= http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=38192 ]M532[/url] and the [url= http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=5699 ]M510[/url]

They're obviously not the same, so what are the differences and which one should I go for?

ok what the hell have i started i thought it was just a simple question..... i was wrong
was just wondering as i see allot of highend xc bikes still with triples thats all not really something to get all worked up about
were u lot not out enjoying a wet ride?

Rain, sun, rain, then hail. That was how my Saturday at Swinley went 🙂

To me it depends where / how you ride. I wouldn't be without my big ring - ride mostly in it (it's the one I have to replace first) and any flat blatting (of which there is a lot round here) will see me in the littlest sprocket a fair bit, also on sections of road (a necessary evil). Probably not true somewhere where there's lots of vertical bits though.

If you say a wrong thing often enough, it doesn't make it right! 36:11 is not the same as 44:13. As far as I'm concerned you lose 2 gears at the top but the clincher is the chain line. I can feel the difference and I break enough chains as it is without stressing a chain because it's trendy. Horses for courses, my nomad has double and bash but my other non SS bikes have triples. You lightweight spankers might be able to beat me round one of my loops with your small rings but I wouldn't beat me for sure.

I can feel the difference and I break enough chains as it is without stressing a chain because it's trendy.

You have bigger problems then. Gray and work out why you are snapping so many chains.

22/36 shouldn't strain the chain any more. Not broken chains in a long time.

Your the one breaking the chains

22/36 shouldn't strain the chain any more.

Not true. An outer ring to the smaller rings is almost a straight line instead of kinked in 2 places. Add to that 17.5 stone of raw, awesome Guinness fuelled power and the flimsy kit designed for 8st racers gives in eventually. To my surprise the 10sp stuff has not failed yet but also, enough gut to stem interfaces teach you to spread the load about your chain rings more wisely, hence the big ring staying. Ken?

More torque in the smaller rings too, and more opportunities for bad chainlines with a multiple ring set up. I find chain wear massively reduced on 1x10 compared to a double or single. But then I've actually used all 3 set ups, where as you're basing it purely on conjecture, so I bow to your superior knowledge!

As long as you're happy with what you ride the huraah, it doesn't mean folk are running something else purely because it's 'trendy', I'm not sure why you feel the need to criticise something you've not tried.

mboy - Member

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...

This genuinely makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to criticise something you've not tried.

If that is aimed at me that would be incorrect. I will also have a 1x whatever's cheapest on my current singlespeed soon for thrashing around my local playground. For the real mountain biking however, triple is king. You should come try it. TdBN?

If you're paying for me to come up there of course! On holiday for this years event, maybe next year? Always like to ride new events.

Odd event to use as an example of your epic awesomeness though - 70km with 1500m of climbing? I do significantly more climbing than that in Surrey. I'm sure there are unrideable climbs, then I'm thankful of the weight saved by running a single ring...

For the real mountain biking however,

Ah the fabled real mountain biking, that stuff the we are all missing out on by going er.... Mountain Biking

Having tried 1x9 (for a year) the lack of a 22t in the lakes was too much of an issue. (No snapped chains though)

Back to the 2x9 which is perfect for ME 98% of the time. If we end up on a route with that much long 42t road pedaling then I know I'm on the wrong route. If I want to go touring or something I wont take the mountain bike.

Used 3x9 twice in 3 years now to do the Isle of Mann End2End which has some long road sections. Probably not worth the hassle of swapping really.

Add to that 17.5 stone of raw, awesome Guinness fuelled power and the flimsy kit designed for 8st racers gives in eventually.

think I spotted the problem there, get tougher kit 🙂

All in don't knock it till you have tried it. going to 2x9 from 3x9 initially cost me a bash ring and £20 chain tensioner. Upgraded the 32t middle to 36t a bit later. Not exactly an expensive upgrade.

Oh rly? You're bound to win then huh?

If you say a wrong thing often enough, it doesn't make it right! 36:11 is not the same as 44:13. As far as I'm concerned you lose 2 gears at the top but the clincher is the chain line

So you're arguing with maths now...?

Brilliant!

Creationist are we?

If you drop your 32/44 rings and replace with a 36T, you only lose one ratio off the top end. The resultant new top ratio of 3.28:1 is as near as dammit the 3.38:1 of the 44/13 previously, so much so you wouldn't notice. The next ratio down would have been 44/15 which is 2.93:1, so as you CAN NOW SEE, you're only losing one ratio!

As for chainline... The best chainline in most gears comes when in the middle ring on most cranks on most bikes. The outer position gives an acceptable chainline in the smallest few cogs, but otherwise isn't ideal. Running a 24/36/bash setup, I get a better chainline much more of the time.

I can feel the difference and I break enough chains as it is without stressing a chain because it's trendy.

Says the man who then admits he owns one or more singlespeed bikes! I'm confused... 😕

Losing chainrings up front isn't about being trendy (though maybe for a few it might be seen as that), it's about simplifying and optimising the performance of your setup as best as possible, without introducing too much of a compromise. There is of course always some form of compromise, with a single ring setup you have only 9 or 10 distinct ratios Vs what is reckoned to be 14 distinct ratios in a conventional 27 or 30spd setup (with lots of ratio duplication). In a typical 2x10 setup, you're getting an effective 13 distinct ratios, so you're only really losing one gear, usually the very top one which most people never use anyway.

EDIT: Anyway... Chains snap because people put too much torque through them... The easiest way to lower the torque going through a chain, is to use easier gears and learn to spin the pedals faster! I snapped chains years ago when I was a pedal masher. These days I've upped my normal cadence from about 60rpm as it was, to around 90rpm in normal riding, and even on 10spd chains, with a double (on one bike) and single ring (on the other) setup I haven't snapped a chain yet, and don't expect too either as I'm now MUCH easier going on my kit because I learnt to pedal properly...

This genuinely makes no sense to me.

I was being sarcastic... My references were to outdated, antiquated pieces of equipment that were once fine for their intended uses, but these days we use much more modern and higher performance tools for the job...

For the real mountain biking however, triple is king.

Quick, trademark "real mountain biking", sell it to the manufacturers as the latest fad, you'll make a fortune! 😉

There are people on here that could probably overtake you or me on bikes that weigh twice as much, with a 2:1 singlespeed ratio, going up the steepest of hills whilst we had as many gears as we could shake a stick at on a lightweight bike to do the same job. Your point is what? I know people that can and do ride everything on a Singlespeed. It's not for me... I can just about manage pretty much everywhere on a 1x10, though I'll concede that a couple of times I have wished for a slightly lower gear than 32/36 offers me on very steep climbs on a long ride. But certainly I've never wished for a taller gear than 36/11 on my full sus bike.

So you're arguing with maths now...?

Brilliant!

Creationist are we?

If you drop your 32/44 rings and replace with a 36T, you only lose one ratio off the top end. The resultant new top ratio of 3.28:1 is as near as dammit the 3.38:1 of the 44/13 previously, so much so you wouldn't notice. The next ratio down would have been 44/15 which is 2.93:1, so as you CAN NOW SEE, you're only losing one ratio!

You are not losing one ratio, you are losing 2 and gaining a different one which is still significantly below the 44:13 present previously.

44/11x26=104
44/13x26=88
36/11x26=85

Also, I use 32-11 cassettes which have 11-12-14 spacing which blows your theory even further. I presume you are basing your argument on 34-11 cassettes, which would be poor form in a triple ring set up.

44/12x26=95.33

How does your saying go? Classic facepalm or something like that?

Chains snap because people put too much torque through them... The easiest way to lower the torque going through a chain, is to use easier gears and learn to spin the pedals faster! I snapped chains years ago when I was a pedal masher. These days I've upped my normal cadence from about 60rpm as it was, to around 90rpm in normal riding, and even on 10spd chains, with a double (on one bike) and single ring (on the other) setup I haven't snapped a chain yet, and don't expect too either as I'm now MUCH easier going on my kit because I learnt to pedal properly...

How come my singlespeed chains don't break then? Oh yeah I know it must be crap shifting eh?

You are not losing one ratio, you are losing 2 and gaining a different one which is still significantly below the 44:13 present previously.

Dear God! I'm losing the will to live here...

36/11 gives you 3.28:1, 44/13 gives you 3.38:1. The difference between these is roughly 3%. Blindfolded, you really would not be able to tell the difference between riding a bike in a 36/11 gear or a 44/13, especially as you've got a hell of a lot more variation than that just in tyre sizes and volumes alone, and on a bike with a triple chainring setup, well over 500% gear ratio range anyway! So you lose the top gear, the 44/11, the next highest gear then is, as I have said before, essentially the same ratio as the next one down on most triple setups, the 44/13 ratio.

Also, I use 32-11 cassettes which have 11-12-14 spacing which blows your theory even further.

They're quite old to be fair. Used to use 9spd XT cassettes with the same ratios, think all the newer 9spd stuff went 11-13-15 at the bottom, but yes all 11-34 cassettes do anyway. Was actually referring to an 11-36 10spd cassette anyway, as that's what I run.

which would be poor form in a triple ring set up.

How so? I thought you seemed to think you needed a million percent gear range anyway? Many many many bikes come off the shelf with a 22/32/44 setup and an 11-34 cassette... It's overkill IMO, but obviously some manufacturers think it worthwhile.

How come my singlespeed chains don't break then?

I dunno, I guess you're going to tell us though! I'm guessing as you usually require 3 chainrings for most riding, with your singlespeed you're either off and walking it up a hill, or freewheeling it down a hill as you can't pedal a 2:1 fast enough. Thereby the chain gets a very easy life, or something to that effect! 😉

Been 2x9 since '09.

Have 38/28 up front. Lose a little on the road sections if I try to race the roadies, but really, not a big deal.

Although there is road sections to link stuff up locally, most of it is uphill, so lower gearing is not a huge drama.

Will be staying 2x in all likely hood as I upgrade to a new bike. Though also pondering 1x...

Did a day at Whistler Bike Park yesterday and I think my top gear is 36/11, but I just stayed half way up the rear cassette all day to keep decent chain tension. Why on earth does anyone want to pedal when going down hill?

[img] [/img]

Well the dreadful deed has been done. 26/38 on it's way to use with a 11-32.
TBH if you're just riding along you'll get up and over anything on any of the ratios discussed here, singlespeeds, 2x10 2x9 and 3x9.
If I never wanted to race again I'd go singlespeed again. I took my singlespeeds everywhere, but I'd never ever do a short XC race on one.
When the new rings turn up, the first thing I'll do is ride some of my local XC course. The long straight with the stop and stand still switchback leading to a wall of tight singletrack will be first. Where it was 44 drop to 32 then to 22 then up the cassette, it should be a far smoother transition? we'll see.

Oh rly? You're bound to win then huh?

Where did I say that? You're using it as an example of 'real mountain biking', the inference being that I'd struggle with a single ring. I'm just saying that's got less climbing than my local trails, and the distance isn't a challenge either. Of course it's much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and assume I never ride up any hills because you need a 22t chainring for that 🙄

Got a gpx of your local trails that have more than 1500m of climbing in 70kms? Not that I don't believe you or anything but I must visit this mountain mecca. I'm not saying that you will struggle on a single ring either. I would and I would also be a LOT slower round the course.

They're quite old to be fair. Used to use 9spd XT cassettes with the same ratios, think all the newer 9spd stuff went 11-13-15 at the bottom,

You appear to have based your arguments on something you didn't check. All mine, XT and pG980 have the 12T.

Got a gpx of your local trails that have more than 1500m of climbing in 70kms? Not that I don't believe you or anything but I must visit this mountain mecca. I'm not saying that you will struggle on a single ring either. I would and I would also be a LOT slower round the course.

Um..... I've done about 1200m of climbing in 30k before in the Lakes (on a 36t double).That's pretty normal tbh.

Devs:
[url= http://connect.garmin.com/activity/14401372 ]Here's one I prepared earlier[/url]
Will 1500m of climbing in 50k do?
I rode that on a bike with a triple, but have since ditched all big rings and now have a choice between 2x9 22/36x11-32 and 1x9 32x11-34.
I would want a granny ring to do that route but not a 44t ring.
Horses for courses.

walleater - Member
Why on earth does anyone want to pedal when going down hill?

Errr...to go faster?

Yes yes, I've ridden out of Castleton myself a few times. It wasn't in Surrey the last time I did it and it wasn't a big mountain day either.

Edit: FWIW I probably wouldn't use my big ring on that route much either.

Edit: FWIW I probably wouldn't use my big ring on that route much either.

Got a gpx of your local trails that have more than 1500m of climbing in 70kms? Not that I don't believe you or anything but I must visit this mountain mecca. I'm not saying that you will struggle on a single ring either. I would and I would also be a LOT slower round the course.

Seriously? You really are coming across as a bit of a naive pillock now. If you're not suggesting that I'd struggle on a single ring WTF was your point about "real mountain biking"?

[url= http://app.strava.com/activities/6152198 ]41 miles/5,100ft climbing[/url]
[url= http://app.strava.com/activities/4304960 ]40 miles/4,800ft climbing[/url]
[url= http://app.strava.com/activities/2969286 ]38 miles/4,400ft climbing[/url]
[url= http://app.strava.com/activities/2969206 ]36 miles/5,300ft climbing[/url]

Do you really want me to go on? All ridden happily on a single ring and all in Surrey! 🙄

The only reason I have Triple right now is because all the sprockets are good. As soon as my 32T wears out, Ill chuck a 36 on and loose the big ring - I have done this on my previous bikes.

For me, a shorter , more secure chain and being able to use all 9 gears when in granny far outweighs the benefit of being able to go a tiny bit faster on fireroads.

I'm starting to think about getting rid of my chain rings altogether, just pumping everything.

And if we're doing big climbing rides I'll see docrobster's 5000ft in 30 miles and raise you [url= http://app.strava.com/activities/2969228 ]3600ft in 15 miles[/url], still done in a 36t single ring, albeit not in Surrey.

Seriously? You really are coming across as a bit of a naive pillock now. If you're not suggesting that I'd struggle on a single ring WTF was your point about "real mountain biking"?

There's really no need to resort to insults, I shall take that one up with you should you ever be brave enough to introduce yourself. The whole point of "big mmountain days" (please note that I have not referred to real mountain biking as you state) is that there is a lot of up, a lot of down and a lot of along. Mostly in huge lumps together. Your rides would barely register on my suunto watch as climbs. It needs 50m elevation to register y'see. It's the downs and alongs that the big ring is used for. I use it and will continue to for as long as they are economically viable. Sorry if this upsets you and your wee lapdog. I actually bought a 48t to put on one of my bikes but it's gone now so that can wait for another suitable bike. Madness huh?

Insults? Your sarcastic tone showed your ignorance. It's ok now, I see, although I do more climbing it doesn't count because it comes in lumps! Makes total sense! A bit like eating a cake one slice at a time has no calories? 🙄

I'll happily introduce myself should we meet, I'll also very happily show you around my local riding. You clearly know nothing of it, so you may be surprised. No long climbs as you say, but a lot of interesting woodsy singletrack and what not.

I'm not the one saying everyone needs to go single ring, I've not said that at all, never have. I've said that many people will be surprised how little it 'costs' in gear terms, and I've also said that as long as people like what they ride then that's fine. I'm really not sure why this topic always reduces to such petty arguing, and why people (in both camps) feel the need to so staunchly defend their position.

There's a good chance I'm fitter than you, there's also a good chance I ride a lighter bike than you. These 2 factors alone are reason enough that I may get on with a single ring whilst you don't. Local terrain, riding style etc are also other reasons.

For the real mountain biking however, triple is king.

The whole point of "big mmountain days" (please note that I have not referred to real mountain biking as you state)

Thanks Grum, saved me looking for it 😉

Well this one will only be solved by measuring it.

geeeez this has all turned a bit handbags.

some people like a triple and the range of gears that provides

some peoples big ring spends a lot more time blunting carving lines on rocks or the edge of roll ins than it does actually carrying a chain.

Some people lose their chain a lot and can manage with 9/10/11 gears

1xX 2xX 3xX ride what you want and feel free to recommend it to others but don't try saying [b]your way[/b] is the only [i]real[/i] way to ride bikes.

Well said that man!

My bad. Apologies. It wasn't what I meant. TdBN (the example I gave) has a huge descent followed by a relatively flat section that I caned in top gear and I just do it for fun. I would suggest that if you had aspirations of doing well then you would need those top 2 gears. You will be fitter than me, that's irrelevant, you'll have to be superman to catch a gravity assisted fat knacker with 44:11 on a 15km flat out descent. That's the whole point of this debate which a few seem to have ignored. Who still uses a big ring? Us that still need it, that's who. When your hills are big going over a couple of them can put you 35kms away from your car. I suppose you could use your little rings to climb back over them again if you're fit enough but I'll be big ringing back along the land rover tracks and will be waiting in the pub. Ken? I'd love to ride the Surrey Hills but there's zero chance of it in the foreseeable future, the first 300 miles of the journey has just too much riding to offer and then there would be the lakes etc after that.

That's the whole point of this debate which a few seem to have ignored. Who still uses a big ring? Us that still need it, that's who.

Certainly not something I'd disputed. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than ride a 15km fireroad descent, or ride Land Rover tracks rather than ride over some hills, so it's a good thing you have that, whilst I have endless rolling singletrack!

Edit: looking again at the TdBN entry list I see Dave Henderson on there, he's rather pacey, and AFAIK the GT boys are still on XX transmissions with a 42t outer (at biggest).

I was being sarcastic... My references were to outdated, antiquated pieces of equipment that were once fine for their intended uses, but these days we use much more modern and higher performance tools for the job...

I got your aim, but you're criticising someone for using three chain rings when you only use two - there is no change in technology, you're just using less of it. Your examples didn't make any sense.