Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 84 of 84
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    889
    I too would prefer to go 1X11 but just cannot justify the cost at this time. It would be nice to have the broader range no doubt. Perhaps down the road I'll buy the XX1 shifter, chain, RD and cassette and make the swap. Not sure my existing XO crank would be an issue and may save me some costs.

  2. #52
    XC Hack
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    280
    I was happily using a 32 x 11-36 XT 10 spd but am now adding a Wolf Tooth 42 and 16 to my bike. The 11-36 was fine for 95% of what I ride in OC (Santiago Oaks, Aliso, Whiting, etc) but I'm getting too old not too, lol. It'll be nice having a little relief.

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    149
    30 up front with 11-42 10 sp on the rear.

    Race face NW and wolftooth in back.

    Still have problems getting my 36lb enduro evo expert up hills.

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robncircus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    429
    Thought I'd bump this with an update. I finally went from a 32 to a 30 up front. Only two teeth but it's made a world of difference for me. Since each ratio for smaller it feels like 3-4 extra gears. That said, I do notice I spin out a hair earlier on some descents.

    Overall I'm happy with the new radio

  5. #55
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,989
    1x9. 36 up front on a 32 lb all mountain bike
    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dirt Donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by robncircus View Post
    To be honest this thread was promoted by the misery of climbing to the suicide trail in agoura. We took a trail from king James road that laid me out and made me rethink ratios. Thanks for the responses thus far.

    Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk
    I walk a good chunk of that climb on my 3x!

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    131
    30T x 10-42T.

    all you guys with anything bigger upfront must be quite in shape. I top out on the road to and from the trails, but I'm not wanting for top end speed on the trails.

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    14
    34T X 10-36T

    Only 3 months on it so far, definitely getting stronger. I climbed Holy Jim to Santiago Peak with this setup. Once I did that I knew I could handle most everything.

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GGR Girl Wendy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    402
    28/40 on my 1x10 Canfield
    GGR Girl Wendy E

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,426

    1X people what are your ratios

    30 x 10-42 on my 27.5 Megatrail

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by morandi View Post
    30x42 on my Specialized Enduro 29er. 800-900 gram tires. I could easily go 32 in the front, but the 30 allows for a little more of a bailout when I'm spent. I always try and gear for the worst case scenario. The 32 would give me a minimal advantage going down, for the trails I ride at least. Pumping is better at that point.
    My thoughts exactly...I'm also down here in San Diego and run 30 x 42 on my Pivot Mach 6. Hadn't done it in over 10 years but climbed Nobel yesterday and was surprised how strong I felt. Last time I did it was on a 24 lb Trek Fuel. Hoping my Yeti SB5c comes in next week and I plan on running the same ratios on that bike but *might* try the 32 up front.

  12. #62
    Gor'n Ridin'!
    Reputation: Hawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,078
    53 up front, 10-42 in back.

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    128
    27.5 32/11-42. 2200 avg climb per ride.

  14. #64
    Are you treadstone?
    Reputation: sponger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    462
    2X10, but the 26/36 arrives at the same ratio as a 32/42 on a 29er using the online calculator. Climbed Poles at Morro the other day in 26/36. I can't think of a steeper climb that I've done that wasn't a lot shorter. That said, I don't think I'll be needing anything lower than a 32/42 when I finally get around to a conversion.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    322
    I keep thinking about dropping my large chainring to go 1x10, bit I'm afraid of losing anything up top for fast XC stuff, and afraid if trying to push anything taller then my low right now on some of the long climbs. And no budget for real upgrades either.

    How much weight savings are we really looking at? I'm at about 30 pounds right now, a few grams isn't going to make a difference.

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tracysurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    17
    I actually just experimented with this.
    I'm 28x11-42/29er... wore out my 28 and decided to jump to 32 up front. Hell no... it sucked. After thinking through it, questioned why I would want to limit my low end range.

    I feel the 28x11-42 on a 29er is a great mix for me... realizing it's not about ego or machismo, just wanting options to handle gnarly long climbs or for the days I don't want to bust a nut.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,263
    Running 30tooth, 10-42 back on my Enduro 29er.
    Just switched to a 30 tooth Absolute Black OVAL chainring on the front. I highly recommend trying out an Oval chainring. Has a slight learning curve, but the benefits are there. Less fatigue over the long haul, increases gear range (big gear feels bigger, low feels lower), I really like it in out of the saddle climbs. Its really nice when things get hard and steep easier to keep the pedals turning.

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11
    I went from a Raceface Turbine 2x10, 11-40 on to a XTR 1x 32t, 11-40 on my HD3. and far it's hard. I'm going to get a 1up 45t from Terry(CycleWerks) this week and see what it feels like this weekend. I'll keep you posted. I've only been riding for 8 months, so I'm not that in shape yet lol

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    45
    1x9 28t wolf tooth with a 11-40(40t ext cog) had a 30 upfront but 28 is better for me now I can climb better

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socal_jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    895
    How things work out front chainring wise is very dependent on suspension design, went to 1x10 32t/12-36t on a RIP9 legs would feel hammered on a ride I do easily on my 32t front SS bike. Discovered this website which pretty much explains it; Linkage Design

    Just look up brand and model if available but RIP9 drops well below 100% pedaling efficiency with a normal mid-range front, would need something in the 20s to feel like a good climber again. Looks like most DW links work out well, many but not all VPPs(depends on generation quite a bit).

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Quote Originally Posted by socal_jack View Post
    How things work out front chainring wise is very dependent on suspension design, went to 1x10 32t/12-36t on a RIP9 legs would feel hammered on a ride I do easily on my 32t front SS bike. Discovered this website which pretty much explains it; Linkage Design

    Just look up brand and model if available but RIP9 drops well below 100% pedaling efficiency with a normal mid-range front, would need something in the 20s to feel like a good climber again. Looks like most DW links work out well, many but not all VPPs(depends on generation quite a bit).
    100% anti-squat doesn't mean 100% pedaling efficiency. It means in theory that the force trying to compress the rear suspension from acceleration of your mass is equal to the force (created by chain tension) trying to extend the rear suspension.

    In reality, it isn't that good of an estimate, because of all the other stuff going on, like weight shifts caused by up and down pedal motion and other body movement.

    Also, since acceleration is variable and very small when climbing on a mountain bike, the acceleration force on the suspension will vary from zero to some number and the anti squat will vary continuously as you pedal anyway.

    But, in general, anti squat numbers can give you a general idea. Really high anti squat numbers can mean the suspension stiffens up a lot from chain tension. That can mean less suspension movement, and less small bump compliance. On the flip side, low AS can mean more small bump compliance but maybe also more energy lost in suspension movement.

    there is no best number and some people prefer more compliance and some prefer less. For rough rocky climbing, the energy savings from suspension bump absorption is a less quantifiable factor to throw into the consideration and is more important than energy losses through pedaling squat.

    I would also caution anyone trying to figure out how a bike rides by looking at a graph.

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    One other thought on the chain ring size effect on suspension performance, I notice very little if any difference in my suspension when using different sized rings.

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMISSIONARY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    119
    Commencal Meta 55

    26" minion 2.5's currently running 30/32 Absoluteblack x 11-40 (40t and 16T one-up)

    i was running a raceface 34 but once the minions went on it was just killing any climbing ability

  24. #74
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,605
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    100% anti-squat doesn't mean 100% pedaling efficiency. It means in theory that the force trying to compress the rear suspension from acceleration of your mass is equal to the force (created by chain tension) trying to extend the rear suspension.

    In reality, it isn't that good of an estimate, because of all the other stuff going on, like weight shifts caused by up and down pedal motion and other body movement.

    Also, since acceleration is variable and very small when climbing on a mountain bike, the acceleration force on the suspension will vary from zero to some number and the anti squat will vary continuously as you pedal anyway.

    But, in general, anti squat numbers can give you a general idea. Really high anti squat numbers can mean the suspension stiffens up a lot from chain tension. That can mean less suspension movement, and less small bump compliance. On the flip side, low AS can mean more small bump compliance but maybe also more energy lost in suspension movement.

    there is no best number and some people prefer more compliance and some prefer less. For rough rocky climbing, the energy savings from suspension bump absorption is a less quantifiable factor to throw into the consideration and is more important than energy losses through pedaling squat.

    I would also caution anyone trying to figure out how a bike rides by looking at a graph.
    Quoted for emphasis. Rewording it to see if I can make it clearer.

    100% anti-squat doesn't mean 100% pedaling efficiency. It means that the bike, with the rider's CoG in a particular spot, accelerates forward without squatting nor extending. The chain tension pulls on the swingarm downward just enough to counter the squat that typically occurs from the rider's weight shifting rearward, but doesn't counter the rider shifting their weight up and down, such as when they rock their hips to unweight one side of the bike to weight the other. You are losing power to turn the wheel, so the suspension can act on bumps from its "ideal sagged" position. The net effect is no bobbing in the saddle. This is why many XC race focused FS bikes do not have 100% anti-squat. It's more like it's "100% suspension efficiency", than it's "100% pedaling efficiency". That's on level ground anyways, with the bike sagged. Whether the bike is pitched up/down a hill, and how steeply it is pitched, and where the bike is in its travel range, the amount of anti-squat changes. For close to 100% pedaling efficiency you would have to let the rearward weight shift squat the bike without countering it by pulling the swingarm down, nor squatting it any more by pulling the swingarm up (probably around 75% anti-squat), but in this case you'd still lose efficiency to your suspension compressing when you push more downward on the pedals. To actually better counter the rearward weight shift + the rider weight shifts, you'd need more like 120% anti-squat, if you really wanted to counter pedal bob.

    The graphs help greatly, only if you can interpret them correctly and can correlate between what your senses tell you. The misconception of bob = inefficiency, is one that's been really annoying to deal with. The FS will be less pedal efficient, even if the bob is absolutely imperceptible. No real way around it, besides replacing the shock with something that can't compress and extend. It is merely a different strategy to focus more on a shock that isn't clogged up with damping designed to mask the bob, for better overall suspension performance, masking the bob through the frame linkages (which can add complexity also). The XC race focused companies figure it's better to have more power going to the wheel, finding a balance between small bump compliance/comfort, traction, and control at speed for their riders' needs, and offering a way to lock out the suspension so it can't compress/extend for when you really need pedaling efficiency. For trail riding where I'm not concerned about racing, I'd rather have the better susp performance, than the pedaling efficiency, hence why the bikes like those with DW Link are more popular with the casual trail riding crowd, than with the pro racing crowd.

    The relation between suspension performance and AS doesn't stop when you stop pedaling. The suspension on high AS bikes can feel stiff when you're not pedaling due to chain growth and kickback. As the rear axle gets further from the BB, it pulls on the chain causing the cranks to want to backpedal. By standing on the pedals and trying to keep them level, you are preventing the cranks from rotating back, and that prevents the suspension from compressing as easily, creating additional feedback through the pedals. The force going into the compression, that tries to rotate the cranks back, goes into the turning the wheel instead; if you took off from a jump and bottomed out, and that created 10 degrees of kickback, but you landed it solidly, cranks level, the rear wheel would be propelled forward as if you turned to cranks 10 degrees forward. This is what's behind the "pedal reactive" feel that some report that they feel on VPP bikes, but also is responsible for the feeling that you might die if you pedal on rough terrain, since the force of a bump + kickback can throw you off the pedals if your feet are in a vulnerable location in the pedal stroke, such as at between 12+6 and 2+8 o'clock. A wheel acceleration in a bump also reduces traction as well, though only as much as if you tapped the brakes. Whether it feels stiff or plusher, depends on how far in the stroke the suspension is and what the wheel rate (or forces curve) is like. Squatting actually makes the suspension feel plusher in most cases, but too plush will feel wallowy. In that regard, it depends on what the midstroke looks like on the wheel rate curve (or forces curve) looks like, with a "hammock" like curve feeling plusher than a more linear one, but whether or not that is better depends on the rider, and whether or not they like soft midstroke feel, or prefer a supportive one that the linear one provides.

    You'd notice for sure if you had a triple ring, changing gears on the same ride, instead of merely going maybe 2t-4t difference on a single ring between rides.
    Last edited by Varaxis; 08-06-2015 at 12:42 PM.

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    46
    SC TBc 29r, 32*11-40 / 11sp - works for most stuff in Adelaide, South Australia. Not racing.
    SC SLa 26, 32*11-36 / 10sp - a lot more work, will change this to Praxisworks 11-40 / 10sp in near future I think.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    322
    Demoed an XX1 equipped FSi Lefty this weekend at a stage race (hill climb, down hill, crit, and XC). I really loved not having to think at all about the second shifter. I think it had a 32 front, but don't remember. While there were a few tough climbs where a couple teeth lower would have been nice, I wouldn't go lower. I never had to bail (good thing since my cleats are trapped in the shoe tread), but it was work. A bike that weighs nothing might have helped too.

    So 32/11-42 I suppose is what you're looking for.

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socal_jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    100% anti-squat doesn't mean 100% pedaling efficiency. It means in theory that the force trying to compress the rear suspension from acceleration of your mass is equal to the force (created by chain tension) trying to extend the rear suspension.

    In reality, it isn't that good of an estimate, because of all the other stuff going on, like weight shifts caused by up and down pedal motion and other body movement.

    Also, since acceleration is variable and very small when climbing on a mountain bike, the acceleration force on the suspension will vary from zero to some number and the anti squat will vary continuously as you pedal anyway.

    But, in general, anti squat numbers can give you a general idea. Really high anti squat numbers can mean the suspension stiffens up a lot from chain tension. That can mean less suspension movement, and less small bump compliance. On the flip side, low AS can mean more small bump compliance but maybe also more energy lost in suspension movement.

    there is no best number and some people prefer more compliance and some prefer less. For rough rocky climbing, the energy savings from suspension bump absorption is a less quantifiable factor to throw into the consideration and is more important than energy losses through pedalling squat.

    I would also caution anyone trying to figure out how a bike rides by looking at a graph.

    Aware of all that but the point remains that not every suspension system is going to feel the same with say a 32T chainring 1x10 etc, what may work on one bike may not work on another and for personal tastes in pedal feel. Just using that metric as a raw gauge. RIP9 worked fine as a 2X but as 1X using larger ring for climbing sucks, changing to 40-42T in back will have little effect on that issue, whereas the WFO9 has been tuned for 1X.

    By the same token, it's almost impossible to give someone else on another bike/system advice on 1X chainring size and gearing etc without taking suspension design into consideration. The feel they have in the granny ring for many suspension designs will not feel the same in the middle ring, pedalling platform shock can affect things to a point. Notable exceptions are DW link(have owned one on a Iron Horse) and some VPP based suspensions. At the other end of the spectrum Lenz single pivot have some of the "worst" numbers but some people like that for chunky climbing.

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Quote Originally Posted by socal_jack View Post
    Aware of all that but the point remains that not every suspension system is going to feel the same with say a 32T chainring 1x10 etc, what may work on one bike may not work on another and for personal tastes in pedal feel. Just using that metric as a raw gauge. RIP9 worked fine as a 2X but as 1X using larger ring for climbing sucks, changing to 40-42T in back will have little effect on that issue, whereas the WFO9 has been tuned for 1X.

    By the same token, it's almost impossible to give someone else on another bike/system advice on 1X chainring size and gearing etc without taking suspension design into consideration. The feel they have in the granny ring for many suspension designs will not feel the same in the middle ring, pedalling platform shock can affect things to a point. Notable exceptions are DW link(have owned one on a Iron Horse) and some VPP based suspensions. At the other end of the spectrum Lenz single pivot have some of the "worst" numbers but some people like that for chunky climbing.
    There have been a ton of conversions to 1x systems with the use of a one up or wolf tooth giant cog. There is a very long thread on it around here. I recall very few comments about issues with a different feel when climbing, or worse climbing, or any suspension effects at all. I would guess that you are extra sensitive or extra picky about this issue, i.e. how much your suspension stiffens under chain load.

    I think most people can accept a pretty large range of anti-squat values. Like I said, I do not notice a difference when changing rings, even on 2X drivetrains, although on a 2X I'm usually climbing in the small ring.

    Maybe the RIP 9 is extra sensitive to chain ring size, but looking at the numbers, it doesn't seem so. And DW link and VPP behave basically the same as any other suspension, with anti-squat decreasing as chain ring size increases.

    Some examples of anti-squat changes with chainring size:
    Fuel (single pivot)
    24 x 36 - AS=100
    38x36 - AS=68

    Rip 9 (mini link)
    22x36 - AS=95
    32x36 - AS=73

    Flux (DW)
    24x36 - AS=122
    32x36 - AS=104

    TBLT (VPP)
    22x36 - AS=110
    32x36 - AS=88

    Sight (Horst)
    24x36 - AS=141
    38x36 - AS = 110

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    889
    I run a 30t RaceFace SL NW direct mount with a 10-42 XX1 out back on a 29er XC race bike. I am very happy with this ratio. The 10 in the rear gives me substantial top speed and the 42 obviously is quite low. Being here in So-Cal, we have a LOT of steep climbs, so even though the bike is stupid light, I like the 30t up front. I may try a 32 at some point as I rarely use the 42 out back.

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10
    30:40 on my 26" Ibis HDR. Perfect for Aliso.

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9
    30t RaceFace NW with a One Up Components 42

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    561
    Chromag Stylus hard tail.

    32 front with 11/34 cassette. Fine until I get lazy/busy and don't ride. Then, hurts like hell to get back in shape.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    178
    Lots of people leaving their wheel sizes out! Your wheel size affects how tall your gearing is.

    I'm running 30/11-40 on my 5010 with 170mm cranks and flat pedals. Just enough top end for recreational trail riding IMO (maybe not road, but who cares). I do have to walk some of the super steep, long climbing sections on some of my local trails, but I feel like if I went any lower than 30/40, then I'd be riding so slow that I might as well just get off and walk anyway. I'll probably upgrade to 30/10-42 when the price comes down a little more, but I'm happy with what I've got for now.
    Last edited by dlxah; 08-14-2015 at 03:33 PM.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,904
    30/11-42 on 650b wheels...

    Wheel size definitely makes a difference. Rode a 29er w/ 1x9, 32 up front - no expander out back and it seemed a smidgen easier.

    -------------------------------------
    Opinions are like A-holes... everybody
    has one & they're usually full of...??
    to err is human... to face plant is frickin hilarious!!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. XT 30 spd vs XX1 Ratios
    By rotovegas in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-08-2013, 04:02 PM
  2. Do people still think 29er's are not for short people?
    By offrhodes42 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2013, 06:00 AM
  3. Chain Ratios
    By rushman3 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-12-2012, 10:42 PM
  4. Why the same gear ratios?
    By Jim Holloman in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 12-21-2011, 04:10 PM
  5. Crank Ratios
    By roadrunner in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 01:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •