Forum menu
I like the idea of going to 1x11 from my current 2x10 setup, but I'm left wondering if there's any actual benefits for my particular scenario - or worse, is it just throwing money away?
I'm 5'9 and currently at the top end of 13 stone, slowly working my way down to 12. I ride places like Gisburn, Llandegla or Sherwood Pines and find I'm pretty much only ever in the small ring on the trails. Big ring comes into play on the roads, of course, but that's not where I choose to be - mostly that's if I'm doing events like Peak District Pioneer or Lakeland Monster Miles. I have one bike that gets used for everything, and there's no way I'd realistically be arsed changing components for a specific outing each time.
So here's the conundrum; gear comparison sites seem to reckon I'd need a 28T front and 11-46 on the back to get the same effective range that I've got now, biased towards retaining the ratios for climbing against the loss of top end oomph. Which seems silly small when most folk are on about having 30, 32 or even a 34 up front...
Am I better off just keeping the cash in my pocket, working on losing the weight & improving fitness and waiting until I'm consistently spending most of the time in the upper end of the gears on the small ring rather than the bottom...?
Cheers, Stu
Just switch to big ring and push yourself
What's hard now won't be for long (or so I tell my wife)
What's the biggest sprocket on the back of your current 2x10 set up? 32, 36? And how often do you use it?
I'd rather get off and push than use 28-46
I'm 5'9 and currently at the top end of [s]13[/s] 19 stone, slowly working my way down to 15. I ride places like[s] Gisburn, Llandegla or Sherwood Pines[/s] Fort William, Laggan, Kinlochleven and find I'm [s]pretty much only ever in the small ring on the trails[/s] absolutely fine on 32 x 11-40
I reckon you'll be fine.
My full Susser is 3×10 and in Nov I bought a 1x11 hardtail. Like you I was concerned about the gearing however I have been pleasantly surprised. On the uphill it requires a touch more effort but not come across anything undo able due to gearing and at the top end I don't have any bother staying with mates. Mostly ride the HT but now when I do ride the FS I find I'm in the middle ring much more rather than the granny.
[quote=cuyahoga ]I like the idea of going to 1x11 from my current 2x10 setup,
Why? 2x10 is obviously working fine for you.
1x11 is definitely not worth rushing into as some sort of magical set or ratios - it's worth switching over when your 2x10 is knackered, for a marginal gain, but that's about it.
That being said, you're describing an extreme lack of power situation here - 28 x 46 is indeed silly small. People spin differently and it's usually fruitless to generalise, but I think in this case you can make an exception. Just an incompetent gear ratio to 'need' for UK riding, the smallest bumps uphill would have you walking.
As others have said, you will be surprised how well you adapt to bigger gears - don't go crazy, but just drop it down a couple of cogs and see how you go. It's nothing to do with being fat (you're not), just sounds like you need to experiment more with getting the gears turning.
Back in the days of 26 inch wheels, the classic single speed ratio was 32/16. Ask anyone what they thought of their first hilly ride on 2:1 - it was Jesus Christ how is this possible? Few rides under the belt and they're grinding it out no bother.
Yep and also as I have said on previous threads a lot of pedalling isn't really what makes you go faster, having a higher gear may be perceptivly better but I've found that over time my top speeds are very similar between 1x and 2x you just learn to ride it differently
I would keep the cash in my pocket if I was you. I prefer the disadvantages of 2x10 than the disadvantages of 1x11. I've yet to be convinced of the advantages.
I'm massively rubbish at climbing - when I bought my Capra, I stuck am e-13 9_44 on the back. I cope fine with a 32 on the front. Not quite as easy as before but bearable
I;ve just gone from 3x10 to 1x11. Was a bit concerned over the climbing (all my rides are pretty hilly) but was surprised. I run 30 tooth ring and 42 at the back and can get up everything I did on the old ratio.
I'm also fat.
32x11-42 here and pushing 100kg when in riding gear. If I can't get up a hill in 32x42 then it's normally skill not strength that is to blame.
thegreatape - MemberI'm 5'9 and currently at the top end of 13 19 stone, slowly working my way down to 15. I ride places like Gisburn, Llandegla or Sherwood Pines Fort William, Laggan, Kinlochleven and find I'm pretty much only ever in the small ring on the trails absolutely fine on 32 x 11-40
I reckon you'll be fine.
Word,
I'm 17 working down to 15 - I've been 1x11 for a while, I was 1x10 before that. 32 x 42 first gear.
It hurts at first, then you get used to it, then you have to work your cadence back up - 6 months in, load more speed.
21stone here. just put a 11/46 on my jones. the 12/42 was ok. but I am lazy.......... 8)
On by triple set-up I used to use the granny a lot on the steep stuff - I switched to 1x11 just because it was on the new bike 32x42 - I found it not to be low enough (for me) so switched to a 30T front ring - it's still not as low as a granny but you soon get used to it
You do know there's 1x12 available now? 😉
[i]So here's the conundrum; gear comparison sites seem to reckon I'd need a 28T front and 11-46 on the back to get the same effective range that I've got now, biased towards retaining the ratios for climbing against the loss of top end oomph. Which seems silly small when most folk are on about having 30, 32 or even a 34 up front...[/I]
What size wheels though, as a world of (gearing) difference between 26's and 29's?
FWIW I've just moved onto a 32 oval 11-46 on my 29er. I was 30 oval 11-42 before but wanted more top-end. Ride in Scotland, so lots of climbing.
For rides such as the Lakes Monster Ride I actually used my HT running 3x9, as there is so much high-speed stuff and been under-geared on a +60 mile day would have been a nightmare.
I have only ever had a triple set up until very recently when a new bike forced me on to 1x10 and even worse i only have 11-36 at my disposal with a 30t front ring. I was fearful that i wouldnt cope (mid 40's and not overweight per se but not a racing snake but lack of riding fitness). I do miss the granny ring but thats only because some of the ramps/hills i go up are well over 30% gradient but i realised this was only infrequently so not that bothered, everything else i managed to grind up.
So my advice is save your money and stick with what you know until time comes when they dont make double or triples anymore. The benefit of losing weight and gaining personal fitness will have a thousand times more effect on your riding than changing gear set ups.
Have 30t with 11-42 cassette on my FS, it's fine but not as easy as spinning the old 22t granny ring that was on it before in 2x10 guise.
Each to their own, I never had a problem with dropped chains or front mechs going out of sync on a 2x system so I can only assume everyone else is spannering their bikes in the most incompetent of fashions or using crap bike shops to do it for them.
I'm 5'11" and about 13stone, I wanted to go single ring up front for my new bike but couldnt afford 1x11, I'm running a 30t and 11-36 at the back, not found anything that I can't get up yet.
Not been far on it though mind, 15 miles tops. If I was out for 30 milers I'd want a lower bottom gear I think.
Do people really hate using their front mech [i]that[/i] much?
Do people really hate using their front mech that much?
no, I love a triple. however some bikes come without them.
I blame bike shops.
[i]Do people really hate using their front mech that much? [/I]
Yep, it's that you drop down on the front and then have to go back up on the rear otherwise it's a world of difference in the gearing.
Also no front mech to get bunged up with mud, and with a clutch-mech and N/W front ring, no dropped chains anymore (we ride lots of rough off-piste stuff).
Save weight, less on the bars so dropper on the left. Need any more advantages?
Do people really hate using their front mech that much?
No. In my case I was building up a new bike and thought I'd give it a go since if I didn't like it I could always add a front mech. As it happens I liked it and have stuck with it, so much so that when I was building up my fat bike I went 1x10 on that as well.
The big plus to 1x systems is that with NW chainrings you just don't get dropped chains. Also IMO they just look nicer, on steel frames at least.
What I wouldn't do is buy a frame that *couldn't* take a front mech - that's really limiting you.
Do you ride with other people? I find that when I ride solo I rarely push myself, whereas when I ride with my rigid 1x10 riding mate I have to give it 110% just to keep up.
1x11 is great for trail riding but when I eventually get a new bike or upgrade my drivetrain I'll wither go 2x10 or 2x11. It makes sense for the riding I do, which can involve a lot of road miles linking up bridleways, as well as some steep extended climbs (I live just next to the Yorkshire Dales). I'd go with what fits your riding rather than what is in fashion.
Try limiting what gears you use on your 2x to ones you would have on a 1x, then you'll see what it's like for you. Do this for a few rides at least so you can get used to it. The last mtb I bought came as 2x10 and I tried it for a few rides but always found I wanted the gears that were at the switchover point between the big and little ring so it got converted to 1x10 and it's fine now. It may not be for you but at least give it a try before blowing a wad of cash!
Do people really hate using their front mech that much?
Yep 👿
My two mtb's are 1x10 and 11, my commuter bike is 1x8. My adventure bike is 2x8 (Claris) and the front mech is unbelievably annoying! It's either rubbing the chain, sticking due to crap in it or collecting leaves enough to stop the chain passing through. Hate the thing!
That being said, you're describing an extreme lack of power situation here - 28 x 46 is indeed silly small. People spin differently and it's usually fruitless to generalise, but I think in this case you can make an exception. Just an incompetent gear ratio to 'need' for UK riding, the smallest bumps uphill would have you walking.
Load of bollocks - I can only assume you live somewhere flat as a pancake or are at such an elite level that you have no idea what gears normal people may need. 28x46 is pretty much the same as 22x36 which is a perfectly normal 2x10 ratio on a 29er.
I'm light, and quite a good climber but I still use my 22x36 all the time, and wouldn't even discount an even smaller gear in some situations. So if a light/fit bloke needs a gear like that, please enlighten me why the masses of heavier less fit blokes need a higher gear?
On the road, I'm experimenting with 1x8 on my skinny fatbike, 34T Ringmaster with 11-30T cassette. The 30T isn't being touched on the road and 26T had only been needed on the evilest sections of local hills (top of Woodmill Lane, Athelstan Road etc.). Normally, ascending in nothing lower than 23T is fine for me.
5'10" MAMIB (baggies... over lycra padded shorts) here, ~79Kg, trying to regain some athletic fitness since the start of the year.
IMO, it's all about finding a gear range that works for your fitness levels and where you are riding, plus for how long.
28T's perfectly reasonable tbh, that's what I've got on my fatbike (32 on the other mtbs, 50 on the hybrid!)
I think you basically do 2 things. First is figure out the low gear you need- that's the single most important thing, if you don't have a bottom gear you like it's useless. And I don't just mean "can live with" or the classic "can get up the steepest hill", you have to be happy to ride all day on it without cursing it.
Once you've got that- and it could be anything- then you figure out if the top gear is high enough. Some people like a lower cadence than others, some people do a lot of road pedalling, or fire road descending, and so they want a really high gear.
(my dh bike had a 36/11 top and that's enough to go at hideous speeds... But some folks just need, or want, a 44/11 on their mtb and fair play to them)
Most of all, don't be persuaded to use someone else's setup because it works for them... Or for that matter to not use someone else's because it didn't.
Need any more advantages?
For the expense involved and my riding, I do.
Mostly +1 to what Northwind says but I'd add that you'd be better starting with a slightly smaller chainring than you might otherwise work out. To begin with you'll find it hard work so having a lower geared range will help you. Once you've built up your leg strength then you can consider a more suitable range. I started with 30T (on a 29er) but currently use a 32T which is fine for the Dales (11-40T cassette).
Ideally you want to be using the middle sprockets on the cassette the most: I will spend 90% of the time in the middle six sprockets; most of the remainder in the next sprocket up/down and a very small proportion in the top and bottom sprockets. If I was spending large amounts of my riding in the top or bottom couple of sprockets then I'd adjust the chainring accordingly.
One point about 28T chainrings: you might have to go direct mount to fit one this small.
fifeandy - Member
I'm light, and quite a good climber but I still use my 22x36 all the time, and wouldn't even discount an even smaller gear in some situations. So if a light/fit bloke needs a gear like that, please enlighten me why the masses of heavier less fit blokes need a higher gear?
I think it's just a power issue - heavy blokes can't twiddle their way up difficult climbs in such small ratios, as the first rough section would have us walking. We need to put down quite a bit more power in absolute terms.
The sort of extremely tiny gear ratio you're using all the time sounds like something for overseas, like winching up a gigantic ski-slope type of climb. Not many super sustained off-road climbs like that in the UK, even in Fife 🙂
Yeah, 6'6"/15 stone chap here and agree with the above, 22x36 is really getting into the range where I've got zero stability. I don't think I've ever ridden anything offroad where that would help me, maybe a long 20% fire road or something. Even then I'd struggle keeping a smooth enough pedaling to keep the front end down.
I felt the same back when I had triples, loving modern gear ranges. Using 11-40s and 32 chainrings, although I could do with a bit more range if I'm honest 🙂 I've got a 30 ready to go on the Enduro after the weekend!
as the first rough section would have us walking
You got that the wrong way round - spinning the same gear at the same speed heavy blokes carry more momentum and have higher pressure under the tyre for more grip = its much easier for you on rough sections whether pointed up or down.
The sort of extremely tiny gear ratio you're using all the time sounds like something for overseas
Or if you want the ability to go up a typical 4-5min 8% climb but still keep intensity down?
Or if you're 8hrs into a 10hr ride and find someone stuck a 3min 15% climb in front of you?
Morning, I'm 5ft 11 / 6ft and about 16 stone.
HT - 1 x 10 30T on the front xx - 40T TREX on the back
FS - 1 x 11 32T on the front 10 - 42 on the back
I do struggle with some of the longer climbs however that's purely due to dragging my heavy arse up them.
Supposedly an oval ring is meant to make climbing a little more efficient.
1 x 11 here.
And not embarrassed to get off and push. 😳
Would have preferred 2 x 10 I think, but wasn't an option when buying the Whyte.
Still,
Love the bike, so all good..
You got that the wrong way round - spinning the same gear at the same speed heavy blokes carry more momentum and have higher pressure under the tyre for more grip = its much easier for you on rough sections whether pointed up or down
Well this is sort of the point isn't it? At sub walking speed, up a steep hill, momentum really isn't a huge factor. Trying to keep a smooth enough power input, which is still high enough to drag the extra weight up the hill is the issue.
No one is arguing about using gears up hills, it's just the extreme end of the spectrum that some of us seem to struggle with.
At sub walking speed momentum really isn't a huge factor
Who said anything about sub walking speed?
You'd need a much lower gear than 22/36 or 28/46 to be reduced to under walking speed.
Who said anything about sub walking speed?
22*36 at 60rpm on a 29er wheel is about 3mph or 2.6mph on a 650b wheel.
That's going by a 2.3m circumference on a ~2.2" tyre, traveling 0.6x this every pedal rotation. Obviously if you're grinding up the hill at 40rpm you're barely even getting 2mph.
22*36 at 60rpm on a 29er wheel is about 3mph or 2.6mph on a 650b wheel.
Why the hell would anyone be climbing at 60rpm unless they are overgeared?
Why the hell would anyone be climbing at 60rpm unless they are overgeared?
Is it that ridiculous a figure? Spin at 80rpm if you like, you'll be rocking along at 4mph on a 29er. Love to see that get you up a techy climb. I just don't see the point.
I'm just saying I'd rather push a bigger gear, with a lower rpm, as I'd find the stability a lot easier to manage.
whitestone - MemberMostly +1 to what Northwind says but I'd add that you'd be better starting with a slightly smaller chainring than you might otherwise work out. To begin with you'll find it hard work so having a lower geared range will help you. Once you've built up your leg strength then you can consider a more suitable range. I started with 30T (on a 29er) but currently use a 32T which is fine for the Dales (11-40T cassette).
Good point that. And chainrings are cheap enough now that you can experiment pretty easily- it's still not throwaway money at £30 or so for a DM ring but it's like stems, you can try them and sell them on easily.
Am I better off just keeping the cash in my pocket
Yes. I can't see any point in changing an existing bike over. When buying a new bike, it's pretty far down the list of criteria. When building one then it's a fair question imo.
Spin at 80rpm if you like, you'll be rocking along at 4mph on a 29er.
Which is around 30% higher than typical walking pace - i'm glad you agree
Walking pace up a hill also needs to take into account altitude gain and is therefore slower than the oft quoted 3 mph/5 kmh.