Forum menu
njee - you need to eat more pies then 22/36 would be perfect
Indeed, give it 10 years and maybe it'll be perfect 🙂
Running 2x93 with a 6-48 cassette as well, which will be standard by then!
I'll save you the bother njee - I can vouch that you can go from form where one chainring would be fine for everything to form where you need a full 22x34 to keep rolling up some climbs 🙁
Takes less than 10 years too...
Njee I agree a lot of it is personal fitness but some climbs require spinning not power ie as I said the Garburn pass. Using power on that would just cause the rear to spin out. IMO of course.
Using power on that would just cause the rear to spin out
Depends to some extent how fast you're already going though...
Cant really see the point myself. In 25 years of riding, I've probably lost no more than 2 teeth on the big ring.
Clearance is just one of the advantages, and definitely not the biggest one, IMO.
Depends to some extent how fast you're already going though...
This. If someone can 'turn' a bigger gear (if not spin) they're more likely to get up it as they'll have more momentum.
Clearance is just one of the advantages, and definitely not the biggest one, IMO.
What are the others ?
no big ring to bite your leg, less gear changing on the front ring, marginally less weight.
would you put a 4th ring on if you didn't use it ? nope.
bashguard is there to stop the ring sawing into my leg if i spill.
that is all
What are the others ?
You can easily get the chain of your choice
I need a 116 link jobbie now, so I'm stuck with Shimano or YBN
Running 2x10. Coming from 3x9 I will never look back.
All the comments about 'you can't ride up this without x gearing' are total bollocks, what the poster means is 'I can't ride up this without x gearing', what others can achieve is something totally different.
So you're saying there isnt a hill too steep for you to get up without low gears?! im afraid youre the one talking bollocks. just because you havent ridden a gradient/surface (a loose or hard surface plays as much of a factor on the uphills) that warrents low gears doesnt mean no one else has.
Both my mtb running 2x9
+1
Won't go back to 3x9, but may go to 1or2 x 10 in the future. Not sure on that as 2x9 does all I need.
So you're saying there isnt a hill too steep for you to get up without low gears?! im afraid youre the one talking bollocks. just because you havent ridden a gradient/surface (a loose or hard surface plays as much of a factor on the uphills) that warrents low gears doesnt mean no one else has.
No, of course that's not what I'm saying, and you know it. I'm saying that people apply their own riding standard to others. It's horses for courses.
Thank you for telling me that surface can play as much of an effect, I'd not realised as I actually never ride off-road. 🙄
My point is that you could get a bloke who's never ridden in his life who needs a 22/32 gear to get up a climb. Your weekend warrior can puff up it in the middle ring, whilst an elite athlete can do it in the big ring in the saddle. People are different. **Gasp**
Went 2 x 9 recently & made the mistake of fitting 22/36 up front - for me it gave too much of a jump whenever I shifted chainwheels - changed it back to 22/32 & now loving it. My other bikes will be staying 3 x 9 though.
My point is that you could get a bloke who's never ridden in his life who needs a 22/32 gear to get up a climb. Your weekend warrior can puff up it in the middle ring, whilst an elite athlete can do it in the big ring in the saddle.
ok, but im not talking a gentle incline, im talking about the kind of hills where a lower gearing gives you more control and better grip. hence why i added the bit about the loose surface. it makes no sence standing up when everytime you turn the pedal your rear wheel just spins, its not about fitness in that case.
I've recently gone 1x9 and I have to say I love the simplicity of it. Now to be honest i've been doing quite a lot of running recently and it seems as if my leg strength has increased becuase of it, this will have undoubtably helped with my switch to a single ring.
The security of a decent single ring chain device is also very comforting. My bike seemed to suffer with dropping the chain with a triple and it just seemed pointless carrying around the shifter, cable and front mech when i just wasn't using it with a double.
Where you ride will have a massive bias as to what you ride. I ride a mixture of trail centres and natural stuff. Trail centres are a piece of pi$$ with 1x9, but natural stuff takes a bit more effort. I'm out to the peaks on Sunday so that should be interesting.....
I'm going to keep my double stuff though, not sure whether mountain mayhem will be a good idea for me with 1x9.....
ok, but im not talking a gentle incline, im talking about the kind of hills where a lower gearing gives you more control and better grip. hence why i added the bit about the loose surface. it makes no sence standing up when everytime you turn the pedal your rear wheel just spins, its not about fitness in that case.
I'm not talking about standing up either, all 3 riders in my example are using the exact same cadence. Fitter riders (or those on a lighter bike, for example) can turn a higher gear. Just because you can ride something in a 32t doesn't mean everyone can, and just because you can't ride it in a 44t doesn't mean no one can.
There's a climb near me that's only short, but very steep, with some roots in the middle. I've never seen anyone clean it in a 22-32 type gear, you don't have enough momentum to get over the roots, you either stall, or spin. Some of those have cleaned it in a slightly harder gear, some have just never cleaned it. We're all different, and just as with bikes people will recommend the gearing combinations they use.
I find the main benefit of 2x10 is the reduction of duplicate ratios. A lot less "recovery" shifts. Also the chain line allows you to use the whole cassette in both rings.
26/39 with 12/36 at the back gives me all the low gearing I need (isn't 26-36 the same as 22-32?). I lose maybe the top two ratios, and it really doesn't make any difference to me.
Also, 11-36 is out now, which would provide a bit more top end, if you cared.
All the comments about 'you can't ride up this without x gearing' are total bollocks
Only as much bollocks as all the people saying 'no-one needs low gears because I don't need them on my flat trails'
isn't 26-36 the same as 22-32?
Don't think so
26-36 is a bit shorter than 22-30
26/36/46 and a 8sp 11-28 cassette was fine in the Peaks a few weeks back.
🙂
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I have a 22/32 - 11-32 on my modern bike and although I run a bash cos its rocky round here and have a low slung Pitch I really want to put the big ring back on! Nothing like stomping a 46/11 gear down a hill. 🙂
I tried 22/36 but I had a problem that I had to drop into the granny all the time and bent a couple of 36's in emergency shifting situations. :-/
I have some gears and ride my bike(s)
I've been thinking about this and I agree with Seth. If your going to go to the bother of having a front mech/shifter you might as well have three rings.
And if you have 3 rings you dont need 10 gears out back in fact you dont need 9.
8 or 7 would be enough do.
If you have to keep the weight of the mech/shifters you could lose it out back on the cassette by having a really light weight cassette.
Say 11-28 with 7 gears. Actually lose weight on either end is better than losing it in the middle.
I have one bike as a 10 speed 34 * 11-36T I find this ok but at times I would like more gears both ends really.
I reckon 33 * 9-36T would probably cover about 95% of my riding and I believe hope are developing this ?
So overall I reckon
22-32-44 * 11-28T (7 speed)
or
33 * 9-36T (10 speed)
On my FS I have 2x9 with 22/32 up front and a 11-34 block, with a bash ring, it's a 34t capacity bash so when the 32 wears out I'll drop a 34t front ring on there and give that a go. The only time I felt like I ran out of gears was on the double track descent in the Winlatter Enduro, so no biggie
My HT has a normal 3x9 with 22/32/42 and a 11-32 block, I keep thinking of ditching the big ring and putting a 36t ring I have on, and sling a bash on there, all I've got to do is find a 36t Raceface lite bash ring on ebay.
My next build'll be 3x9, with 11-32 (or maybe 11-34) on the back.
I ride road sections between lanes, and being able to hoof it along in the big ring is quite satisfying - as is being able to grind it out if you are carrying cargo or are just feeling yer age, and/or are blown out.
I'm shifting using bar-ends on converters, so pretty much any shifting is potentially hassle free (and almost guaranteed so in friction mode), but I'll be sticking with 3x9 as it just suits the riding I do.
Unfashionable I know, but that's me!
(I'm a big fan of fully rigid bikes too, and ones that can take a rack, but I will happily concede that disc brakes are the way forward... 😛 )
Only as much bollocks as all the people saying 'no-one needs low gears because I don't need them on my flat trails'
I agree totally, but where have I said that? I don't get why this is always such an argument, like amount of travel or tyre size or whatever it's personal, what works for some doesn't work for others, and yet you always get people saying 'if you have x you obviously dont ride hills'. WGAS?!
I would be interested to see a pro rider v normal up some thing like Garburn. Basically what Njee is saying is that the pro has more power. I'm not convinced more power would be good and actually hinder progress.
Nearest analogy I can think of is 4x4 where you select low drive to get up stuff and crawl up. Power is useless....
Hmmm, there's more to it than that though. I agree there are definitely climbs where raw power will do nothing but help you spin the back wheel if you mash out of the saddle, but my analogy was that all 3 riders do the same climb at the same cadence, in different gears, which is a fairer real world reflection, ie your pro will be more comfortable in a higher gear. It's about how you apply the power.
By your example you're suggesting that some non-cyclists who spin up a climb in 22-32 would be quicker than a pro in a bigger gear? 😕
I think it would be interesting to see 2 pros, one using granny and other bigger gear, I bet there wouldn't be much in it and over a long technically difficult climb I reckon granny would be quicker.
On an mtb there becomes a limit of traction which power exceeds. And even at same cadence, a bigger gear has to be putting more power out.
Its just not worth spending more money to lose 1 ring. Never had a teeth in leg moment or lost any teeth, I just cant see that as been a valid reason to go 2x. Weight with bash is prob more anyway. I cant see a reason to go 2x.
I toyed with the idea when building my HT, and in the end, after realising how much more 2x10 setups were (why?!), I went 3x10 XT (might as well get the latest 10speed). I generally use big/middle ring even split, but very occasionally use granny.
1x is a different ball game.
hopefully not as just ordered a x7 26 -39 to replace the old tripple, running 9 speed on teh back 11-34, thought i'd try as they were on offer at crc for similar price to anothe slx triple
I agree totally, but where have I said that? I don't get why this is always such an argument, like amount of travel or tyre size or whatever it's personal, what works for some doesn't work for others, and yet you always get people saying 'if you have x you obviously dont ride hills'. WGAS?!
Never said you did but lots of other people have. My point is that as usual at the same time as claiming not to care about these things you are taking one side of the argument. But whatever....
+Its also partly how you use the gears. Tonights ride for me - 30 miles with a couple of thousand feet of climbing - only ten miles of real offroad - the rest old railway and the like. On each of the 2 big climbs I put it into the granny ring at the bottom and rode up using 1-6 on the cassette. reach the top - shift onto the 36 ring.
edit The climb is 820 feet in just under two miles
works for me
if you cant up something on a 32x34 then somethings wrong
You never ridden a long steep hill when totally Knackered then?
2x9 or 2x10 certainly seems to have plenty of advantages but choosing a small+mid ring setup or a large+mid depends on your fitness and where you ride.
There´s a mountain near where I live that has a steeper gradient than Alpe d´Huez.
Without a granny ring I´d be walking the whole way up (...instead of just the last third).
If I lived about an hour further south I´d be looking to ditch the small ring because I wouldn´t use it.
Never said you did but lots of other people have
Which was why I said that it's personal. I'm not saying that what I use is right, I know it wouldn't work for everyone.
Like I say if people ask about 2.1" tyres you don't get people saying "you obviously only ride canal paths, or you'd need 2.3s", I don't really get why people using certain gears is somehow indicative of their local riding/ability!
Posts like this typify it really:
if you cant up something on a 32x34 then somethings wrong
"You" and "I" are used synonomously.
I think it would be interesting to see 2 pros, one using granny and other bigger gear, I bet there wouldn't be much in it and over a long technically difficult climb I reckon granny would be quicker.On an mtb there becomes a limit of traction which power exceeds. And even at same cadence, a bigger gear has to be putting more power out.
But use of granny rings among pro XC racers has been virtually nil for years, it's just not as simple as 'lower gears are faster in certain terrain'. Is it not about the torque, not the power? To go back to your car example, whilst you choose a lower gear to climb the gravelly hill than you do on the flat, there will still be some cars that do it quicker by applying more power, but in a controlled fashion, otherwise a 1.0 litre Land Rover would be the best thing out there.
Your pro rider will be turning a smoother gear for a loose climb than a tarmac sprint, but putting out more power does not instantly mean a loss of traction.
To go back to your car example, whilst you choose a lower gear to climb the gravelly hill than you do on the flat, there will still be some cars that do it quicker by applying more power, but in a controlled fashion,
no! if the surface doesnt let you put more power down then more power IS useless.
I think you're wrong float, it's the choppy/rough pedalling that breaks traction, you need to spin but you can still spin in higher gears if you have the power and speed. Me, I'll hit a long steep loose climb at 2mph and spin a 22/32 I'll probably make it up OK, a shorter steep loose climb I'll hit quicker, maybe 7mph and spin a 32/32 up it no worries. If I had the power and stamina I could do the 7mph 32/32 up the long climbs but I haven't so I leave that stuff to the likes of njee.
no! if the surface doesnt let you put more power down then more power IS useless.
So there are some climbs where a casual cyclist would be as quick as an Olympic athlete, as neither would be able to ride it in any gear other than 22-32. I'd be interested to see one of these! 😕
Pardon my ignorance but isn't there only a chainline advantage to doubles when they are spaced evenly? i.e. would not a triple with the outer ring removed/bashed not have these advantages? Presumably on specific double chainsets the lower is nearer the central point than the granny on a triple and therefore has better access to the smaller rings on the cassette?
Me, my weedy legs regularly scream for a granny to haul my carcass over sub-alpine molehills and the big ring keeps the bike ticking over on the road to the trails. I would consider the compromise of an alfine for a lazy maintenance-free winter though.
i.e. would not a triple with the outer ring removed/bashed not have these advantages?
Yep, I found an M970 with 28/40 rings worked just as well as either XX or XTR Race 'proper' doubles! Although there are Q-factor advantages to a 'proper' double I don't really know anyone who cares about such things!
i.e. would not a triple with the outer ring removed/bashed not have these advantages?
Just read in a magazine this is the new 'in-thing' - microdrive I think they call it - basically a new (presumably expensive) spider to bolt onto your double cranks to give you something crazy like 24/36. It'll never catch on in my opinion...
This still going?
Basically, if you live where it's flat, keep the triple.
If you live in the hills and ride stuff that catches your big ring (missus) then go 22/36/bash.
If you have big legs and live where it's not uber-hilly, then go single.
Have I missed anything?