Soo.. who else is switching from 2×10 back to 3×9 / 3×10??

I’m not a pedaller at all, generally just use short bursts of sprinting to get upto speed and use the terrain and gradient to gain speed, I don’t really even use my 11T sprocket off road and can still hit 35 on a descent.

You don’t need a meter to measure cadence, there’s this thing called ‘counting’… 😉

Done that, it’s how I know I’m a spinner. Never tested my max tho.

EDIT and GW my arithmetic was based on the 120rpm calc above. Can you show your workings please?

You do need a meter to measure max tho, I don’t ever pedal for a full minute un-interupted unless I’m climbing, and there’s no way I could sustain my absolute max for more than a few seconds.

Well there’s also these other things called speedometers and arithmetic! 😉

I thought about this a bit last night when out riding: everyone is focussed on the extremes of what each Gearing setup can achieve but without any actual measured comparison of the gearing its meaningless, tossing about cadence figures means even less without context, so I worked up some quick and dirty tables:

They are roughly based on some of chainring/cassette sizes people have mentioned already, taking top and bottom sprocket sizes, from ‘Standard’ cassettes. I’ve also included the extremes of XX1 will offer, and struck through combinations which I believe users are unlikely to consider (but the value is still there if you are interested)…

one thing that lept out at me was the combination of a 24T Granny with a 36T sprocket (Dynasis 3×10 standard) Vs 22T Granny with a 32T sprocket (Arguably 3/2×9 Standard)… They’re as near as damn it the same ratio, so it seems Shimano don’t really think you need much easier gears even on 10 speed…

The top ring on a ‘standard’ triple or a GRRRR XC racers Double is 42T which is why I didn’t bother going any higher; a ratio of 3.8 (producing 99 gear inches for 26″ or 110 for 29″) I’ve included 32/34/36/38 chainrings as these are all popular choices on both double, some triple and various single chainring setups…

Based on this I can tell that my own 22/36 x 11-32 gives me an overall range from 17.9 – 85.1 gear inches (26″ Wheels). 1×10 would not allow me to reproduce this range, 2×10 could, infact it could be configured to give me slightly more top or bottom range if I really wanted…

For my own needs I tend to treat 2×9 more like “1×9(+4)” in that I spend 95% of my time in the 36t; in that ring I can ride flat and DH trails, Climb a fair bit offroad and chug along at a comfortable enough pace on the road… I’ve tried a 32T and that doesn’t quite supply the slightly higher range of gears I needed some of the time, by the same token a 42T massively over-guns it for me 99.5% of the time and would mean I spent more time futher up the cassette and/or switching between chainrings giving an extra 5 gear inches I don’t think I would regularly use… The 22T granny ring gives me the +3 or 4 ‘bailout gears’ (once you account for overlap) to spin my way up longer climbs or allow me to winch up steeper offroad stuff, that is all it really provides and I’m happy with that

of course range is only half the point, sensible, usable increments are more important than just producing a huge range of ratios IMO i.e. 24/38 + 11-36 would provide me a harder top gear and about the same bottom gear for climbing but I think I’d be using the granny slightly more often and might not make much use of that 38/11 ratio,
These are the sort of tradeoffs to consider…

XX1 is interesting; the range you get is of course very broad for 1Xn and that 10T sprocket makes a significant impact 32-10 gives you a gear not far short of 36-11, and a climbing gear close to 24-32 so could well suit slightly stronger riders and XC racers, it might not quite manage to deliver the range that many 2×9/10 riders want and certainly won’t cover what a 3×10 rider gets at present, but that is as you would expect, If you already use 1×10 with 32T Chain ring and 11-36 Cassette then XX1 should extend top and bottom gearing by an apprecable amount…

could well suit slightly stronger riders and XC racers

Not many XC racers still running a 24-32 bottom gear, so XX1 will offer something lower. I think it’s a bit of a shame they’re not doing something slightly closer, 10-36 or 11-40 or sommat. I think the gaps will be really pronounced on the 10-42 block.

I didn’t realise that XXI is 10-42 on the back – that’s great! The biggest step in the gears is between the two smallest sprockets and that’s only 20% so like changing your cadence from 100rpm to 83rpm. 420% gear range vs 327% for 11-36 1×10 or 505% for 36/22 11-34 2×10.

How do you know what the gaps are?

Either way, I notice the gaps on an 11-36 at times (although admittedly more on the road), and they’re gonna be significantly wider on an 11-42, one extra gear would be nice, but I don’t really feel the need for that much range.

Basically it’s a way of getting folk who run a double onto a single, rather than catering for those who already run a single.

Surely the gaps on a 10-42 11sp are going to be almost identical to the gaps on a 11-36 10sp, since the main thing is it’s gained an extra cog rather than rejigged it all to fit?

Either way… choose the ratios you want or tend to use.
2×10 and 3×9 give virtually identical range (just losing the equivalent of 44×11 for me, which I can live with). 1×10 doesn’t replicate the ratios I want/need, so the arguments about simpler mechanicals are irrelevant.

njee20 – Member
How do you know what the gaps are?

You can usually roughly work it out based on logic with the aim being to keep the percentage jumps between gears approx the same across the range so you start off with 1 tooth jumps then increase to 2,3,4,etc as the sprockets get bigger.

Sprocket 10 12 14 16 18 21 24 28 32 36 42
% change 20.0 16.7 14.3 12.5 16.7 14.3 16.7 14.3 12.5 16.7

So that sequence equates to a typical approx 15% jump per gear

How do you know what the gaps are?

Google! The SRAM XXI brochure says it’s:

10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42

Posh PG1080/XX vs XX1

11-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36
10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42

looks almost identical to me (although other SRAM cassettes differ slightly), so identical % difference apart from at the 2 ends.

Obv. the chainring may differ too, depending on preference.
How long before we get 12sp cassettes?

@ chiefgrooveguru – Do people really ride to Cadence like that on an MTB?

Cadence means very little on it’s own, I mean are you expecting to constantly chop out 100+ RPM on a smooth or draggy surface? Climbing, on the flat or descending?

I was under the general impression that the ‘Average’ cyclist is most comfortable at about 70RPM (+/-10ish) for sustained periods of pedaling (Up, Down or along) and that you use the gears to make the work level comfortable, The only real exception being Lance who was on a road bike and Juiced to the eyeballs so doesn’t count…

In much the same way you don’t drive your car everywhere at 8000 RPM, you use the appropriate gearing to suit the work you are expecting the engine to do and keep the RPMs and energy use in a sensible range…

You are the engine on a bike, and reving the Nuts off your engine is far from ideal…

As for the Gaps on any given cassette My understanding was that you can’t really have a step of more than 4 teeth between any two sprockets (that’s the biggest gap I can recall seeing on any cassette) to in theory you could manage 10-42 in just 9 sprockets but the leaps would be so huge that you’d seldom be in anything like the gear you wanted, I think XX1 is probably profiled a bit like a sensible 8 speed range (say 11-28) with 2 big rings (almost equivalent to 2Xn bailout gears with a granny) on the top and one tiddler on the bottom to broaden it further…

As a 2Xn rider I can see the appeal of XX1 and if I were a shade fitter and alot richer I’d seriously consider buying it…

Edit:

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…

Surely the gaps on a 10-42 11sp are going to be almost identical to the gaps on a 11-36 10sp, since the main thing is it’s gained an extra cog rather than rejigged it all to fit?

It’s not though is it, there’s one extra cog, and they’ve added a sprocket in the bottom and 1.5 up top, ergo bigger gaps.

Either way… choose the ratios you want or tend to use.

They don’t do ’em, that’s what I’m saying! If XX1 came in something slightly narrower I’d possibly be getting quite excited, probably 11-40 so I didn’t need a new freehub body, but they don’t!

looks almost identical to me (although other SRAM cassettes differ slightly), so identical % difference apart from at the 2 ends.

Interesting, I’d assumed it would go 11-12-14 etc, that will mean a big jump to the 10, meaning it’s a bit less usable, a proper downhill gear!

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 3×9 down to 1×9 (now 1×10) 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.

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.

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

rohloff and a low end shimano hub? I might have missed one or two others but “lots”? (not counting SA, materials and machining have come on a bit since then)

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

neither do I that’s why I’m sticking with normal gears (2×9 fact fans) till they get the future system light cheap and efficient enough to match dérailleurs 🙂

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

I’ve gone 2×10 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 3×10

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 2×10 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%.

Rear dérailleurs, I’d agree. Though some need more attention than others to keep them running smooth (SLX Shadow had me re-adjusting frequently to keep the indexing. X9 and X0 mechs have been spot on perfect and needed no adjustment).

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 2×10 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 2×10 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 2×10 guide.

1×10 however on my other bike – perfect 🙂 . And the gear range for me is pretty much bang on what I really used out of the 2×9 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 2×10 replicates most of what you want from 3×9. 1×10 is a compromise of 2×10 but if you don’t need all of 2×10 then it can be fine. 1×11 will replicate 2×10 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 3×9/10, 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 1×10 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