Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldZaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    524

    2010 and Still Triple Ring?

    I'm surprised. $4,000+ race bikes still have three rings. I predicted (incorrectly) that by now, everything north of $2,500 would be 2x9 and 2x10. I mean really, when was the last time anyone used that little granny ring? For the most part I've been riding/racing a 2x9 (ignoring the granny) and that's not "optimized".

    I'm looking at 2010 bikes (Scott Spark 20, Trek Fuel EX 9.8) and am bummed that I'll have to go through the expense of swapping out parts on a new $4,000 bike.

    So what do ya think - 2011?

  2. #2
    LA CHÈVRE
    Reputation: Dan Gerous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,379
    Some people still use the three rings, I'm thinking heavy riders not in shape but also those who race long distance events featuring looooooonnnnng steep climbs. In XC though, yes it is surprising. I think it will become more mainstream though with XX and the rumored double XTR crankset option for 2011. Before, I think Cannondale was the only company specing 2x9 on their XC bikes, now there are a lot more...

    I have been a big fan, user and pusher of 2x9 for a while now (29/42 with 11-34) but I still think it's not for everyone. For 2010, I'm taking it one step further, I'll be going with a single chainring a la Craig, Kabush and Absalon...
    Last edited by Dan Gerous; 11-19-2009 at 12:41 PM.

    DAN.GEROUS.NET : MOUNTAIN BIKING : CYCLOCROSS : ROAD :

  3. #3
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,433
    Some people live in places where the hills are steep and long and no matter what the fitness level the granny gear is used.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: millennium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    332
    Short answer: I bet in 2011, you'll see quite a few XX double ring type of setups on high-end bikes that are clearly built for XC racing.

    Long Answer:
    Although most Sport class and better racers on most XC race courses can ignore the granny, not every recreational rider has the fitness to ignore the granny, people will use different cadences if they have the choice, and even the pros need it sometimes for extreme courses. Story to illustrate: When I wrenched for Jeremiah Bishop last year at a race, he had me reinstall the granny ring for a multi-stage XC race where the course had a couple of long, steep climbs. He said he could do the climbs without the granny (albeit at extremely low cadence), but he wanted the granny on there for the few moments he would need/want it. Another story to illustrate: The other day I was riding with a recreational rider and on an extended climb, he was running his smallest 22/32, while I was still running my middle ring. He was spinning very fast cadence (around 95-100, I'm guessing) and my cadence was slower.

    That said, I'm considering moving to a 2x10 setup when I upgarde next. Here's why: If you look at the Gear Inch range for the new SRAM XX setup (using 26/39 cranks and 11/36 cassette--which is what most XC pros are using based on my info) your easist gear is 18.8 gear inches (i.e. one full crank revolution moves you 18.8 inches) and your hardest gear is 92.2 gear inches. (Go to http://www.bikeschool.com for a Gear Inch Calculator.)

    On the Shimano standard 22/32/44 crank with 11/34 cassette, your easiest is 16.8 and hardest is 104 gear inches.

    I know that, for me on my standard 3x9 setup, I rarely (if ever) use my 22/34 combo and only on the road downhill do I ever use my 44/11 combo. So, if I eliminate those gears as unnecessary for me, then the gears I'm actually using on my standard Shimano 3x9 setup give me a 19.1 to 95.3 gear inch range--which is very close to what you get using SRAM's 2x10 setup with 26/39 cranks and 11/36 cassette.
    Last edited by millennium; 11-19-2009 at 12:44 PM.
    -

    Addictive website!

    TwoWheelTweets.com

    All of cycling's twitter tweets in one place!

    -

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    544
    I like a 24-32-44 for all around training and racing. 24 is good for steep and technical, and there definitely is more to the 24 than just using it as a bailout gear. I think the 22 is maybe too small.

    The 32 is a great all around climbing gear. Any smaller and the changes between gears would be smaller, I like how the 32 works. Its small enough to climb, and big enough to motor through slower ST and getting up to speed after a climb.

    The 44 is more than necessary for most racing, but when training gets out on the road, the 44 is a good choice. For racing I'd probably prefer a 42.

    Now, for many courses a double would be good.. but if I train on a triple and know how to use it well, I'd probably stick with it for racing (at least at the races that matter most).

  6. #6
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,998
    I am weak and live in the mountains , pretty much need a granny ring to get anywhere .

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,147
    Hah

    I use 46 11 going down some hills, and I use 22 34 going up some hills....although mostly I use 32 34 or 32 32 going up...

    I am looking for a 48 front ring next time I replace it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Henchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    112
    Ideal gearing for XC- Horses for Courses etc. I suspect, however, that if Shimano would bring out a 2x9, 29/42 they'd pretty effectively kill the XX revolution for racers. Better chainlines, slightly reduced weight is all most racers require, and wouldn't cost the earth when upgrading.

  9. #9
    Photog Cyclist.
    Reputation: 23mjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    401
    I have thought about goin 2X9 for a few years. But i was just going to take off the large chainring. The older I get(41 now) the more I spin and the less I mash. So I find myself using the small chainring (22 tooth) more and more, But using the big ring less and less.
    [SIZE="4"]We ride and never worry about the fall
    I guess that's just the cowboy in us all
    [/SIZE][SIZE="2"](Tim Mcgraw)[/SIZE]

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldZaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by 23mjm
    I have thought about goin 2X9 for a few years. But i was just going to take off the large chainring. The older I get(41 now) the more I spin and the less I mash. So I find myself using the small chainring (22 tooth) more and more, But using the big ring less and less.
    Come on 23mjm! I'm 41 also and getting faster each year!

    My frustration with 27 gears stems from riding a single speed for the past 18 months - clearing the technical uphill switchbacks that I used to "think" I needed some tiny front ring to help me up the hill. Sure there are times that a few gears either side of my 2:1 would be beneficial... but 27?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    778

    There are

    not enough production two ring cranksets for them to get a lot of OE spec yet. If you spec Shimano XT-XTR there is no two ring option, and SRAM only has (very expensive) XX. We will see more XC bikes stock with 2 x 9, 10 when there are plenty of 2 ring cranksets available.
    I do endurance racing, in Colorado, and I like to spin, but 2 x 9 still works for me with 26-40 rings and a 11-34 cassette. With 26 tooth inner rings, and the availability of 11-36 cassettes, I think almost every racing situation could be covered by a 2 x 9, 10 set up.
    Everyone's gearing needs differ, according to fitness, and courses, but pretty soon there will be enough gearing options to suit every racer with a 2 ring front set up. Right now though one has to be a little creative to get a 2 x 9 set up that will suit them (excepting XX) and result in the best possible chainline and front shifting.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    87
    I'd be interested to hear more about the advantages of a 2x setup (just moving into xc racing from the road). I'm guessing the main advantage would be able to avoid front (mis)shifts during races (already read lots of accounts of races lost due to misshifts to the inner chainring). Otherwise, the weight savings seems not that much. The SRAM XX crank looks to be only about 30 grams lighter than a triple XTR (the weight of an inner ring). Going from a 32 to 34 cassette gains most of that back. Can you run a road front derailleur with a 2x setup (if you have bottom pull).

  13. #13
    Photog Cyclist.
    Reputation: 23mjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by OldZaskar
    Come on 23mjm! I'm 41 also and getting faster each year!

    My frustration with 27 gears stems from riding a single speed for the past 18 months - clearing the technical uphill switchbacks that I used to "think" I needed some tiny front ring to help me up the hill. Sure there are times that a few gears either side of my 2:1 would be beneficial... but 27?
    My ancestors didn't fight their way to the top of the food chain so I could only ride only one gear But I find I am faster spinning. As far as those who talk about miss shifts, here is a news flash you can and will have miss shifts on a double too. With a 26 or 27 tooth small ring you might be shifting onto the large ring more than if you had a standard 34 tooth. The double might be great for racing and might work well is some geographical areas, but some of the trails in Nor Cal, Nevada, and Oregon I have ridden I really liked the 22 tooth. My bike is a XC CC, & Trail bike.
    [SIZE="4"]We ride and never worry about the fall
    I guess that's just the cowboy in us all
    [/SIZE][SIZE="2"](Tim Mcgraw)[/SIZE]

  14. #14
    LA CHÈVRE
    Reputation: Dan Gerous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,379
    To me, the advantages of only two rings are that you can set it to have the rings closer to the frame and spend more time on the big ring and use the whole cassette, then you drop on the smaller ring only for very steep, very long or very steep and long climbs. Overall, you shift much less on the front and more on the rear where shifts are much quicker, much smoother, no risk of chainsucks and deal much better with the occasional accidental shift under load...

    Plus, this might not be true for everyone as the geography allows it or not but on shorter and medium climbs, having no super low gears kind of forces you to go faster as you don't want to pedal at a too low cadence.

    Weight isn't such an advantage, the difference is not enough to be the reason to switch.

    DAN.GEROUS.NET : MOUNTAIN BIKING : CYCLOCROSS : ROAD :

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by OldZaskar
    I'm surprised. $4,000+ race bikes still have three rings. I predicted (incorrectly) that by now, everything north of $2,500 would be 2x9 and 2x10. I mean really, when was the last time anyone used that little granny ring? For the most part I've been riding/racing a 2x9 (ignoring the granny) and that's not "optimized".

    I'm looking at 2010 bikes (Scott Spark 20, Trek Fuel EX 9.8) and am bummed that I'll have to go through the expense of swapping out parts on a new $4,000 bike.

    So what do ya think - 2011?
    Just because you are such a strong rider that doesn't need a granny gear, it doesn't mean the rest of us mortals don't.

    Granny gears don't necessarily mean that something is too steep to be climbed in the middle one, it can also mean burned out legs from going up that same section several times before.

    Also, if you're getting a 4k bike, I doubt a new crankset will be a hassle. You can also swap it at the store in which you are buying the bike for the difference in price.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: clutch_08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by OldZaskar
    I'm surprised. $4,000+ race bikes still have three rings. I predicted (incorrectly) that by now, everything north of $2,500 would be 2x9 and 2x10. I mean really, when was the last time anyone used that little granny ring? For the most part I've been riding/racing a 2x9 (ignoring the granny) and that's not "optimized".

    I'm looking at 2010 bikes (Scott Spark 20, Trek Fuel EX 9.8) and am bummed that I'll have to go through the expense of swapping out parts on a new $4,000 bike.

    So what do ya think - 2011?
    maybe you just don't ride long steep hills

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    193
    I say granny is here to stay as standard spec. Production bikes are built for the masses, and the majority that buy them are not pro racers.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob_co2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by OldZaskar
    Sure there are times that a few gears either side of my 2:1 would be beneficial... but 27?
    Thats my feeling on it. 1x5 would be about ideal, but i guess I'll make do with 1x8 for now.

    On the other hand, the difference between 2 and 3 chainrings isn't that much IMO.

  19. #19
    CB2
    CB2 is offline
    Jam Econo
    Reputation: CB2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,212
    Some courses, like ski resorts favor a granny (steep long climbs).
    There is a rider I usually beat on most courses, but on ski resort courses, he sits and spins a little gear and soundly beats me.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    87
    I'd be interested in trying a 2x setup - what's the smallest ring that will fit on a 104 BCD crank? Is it 30?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    I don't see the big drawback of having a granny ring. When you want it, it's there.

    It's so small, I don't think changing to a double would allow you to shorten your BB spindle much if at all.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7
    Big fan of the granny here, despite living in The Netherlands.

    This is one of my playgrounds: Zoetermeer

    To compensate the lack of height, the climbs are made very steep. These hills are not natural btw, it's an old garbage dump.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    692
    Lol

  24. #24
    Shut up and ride
    Reputation: douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,133
    Since 2007, I have raced either SS or 1x9 and have no reason to change that anytime soon.

    Not sure what other areas have for climbing in a race, but I've done a 9,000 ft 50 miler, and a 4,500 ft 21 miler.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlliKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,344
    I've thought about going to a 2x9. You increase your chainring clearance. Drop a little weight. For trail riding, it would work for sure. For racing, I have used my big ring. I don't know if it is a myth or real but it feels more efficient to be in the same gear inches with a bigger ring; so, I will ride a long flat section in the big ring.

    I think the question for me is if a 28 or 30 small ring would leave me mostly in the middle of the cogs or if I would end up using the edges of the cogs and not shift to avoid a front shift. I mostly ride in the lower (larger) half of my cogs in middle ring (32) and don't think I have used my 22 ring in a race.
    Oh sh!+ just force upgraded to cat1. Now what?
    Best thing about an ultra marathon? I just get to ride my bike for X hours!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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