Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121

    Final Sprint - Spinning out 2x10 Drivetrains

    I was reading a Sea Otter Women's XC race report on cyclingnews, and found the following quote amusing.

    "Emmett described the final sprint for fourth as a bit comic with all four of them spun out on their 2x10 drivetrains."

    The finish was on pavement. It sounds like the 2x10 with the smaller big chainring was a handicap in the sprint. Perhaps a vintage triple with a good ol' 44 tooth chainring would have been more appropriate. Their gearing might have been appropriate for 99% of the race, but by going down to 2 chainrings instead of 3, they may have given up a taller gear that would have been useful for that last 1% of the race before you cross the finish line.

    I question whether or not 2x10 is a step in the right direction.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Probably not if you're sprinting on pavement. Sounds like mountain biking to me.

  3. #3
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,312
    Quote Originally Posted by rkj__
    I was reading a Sea Otter Women's XC race report on cyclingnews, and found the following quote amusing.

    "Emmett described the final sprint for fourth as a bit comic with all four of them spun out on their 2x10 drivetrains."

    The finish was on pavement. It sounds like the 2x10 with the smaller big chainring was a handicap in the sprint. Perhaps a vintage triple with a good ol' 44 tooth chainring would have been more appropriate. Their gearing might have been appropriate for 99% of the race, but by going down to 2 chainrings instead of 3, they may have given up a taller gear that would have been useful for that last 1% of the race before you cross the finish line.

    I question whether or not 2x10 is a step in the right direction.
    Sorry, but unless they were going 140rpm+, they weren't "spinning out". That would have them at more than 40mph on a 29er. Doubt that was the case. I'd bet they weren't even going 30mph at the finish.

    Sea Otter is a road race interupted by sections of dirt. If you let it come down a sprint and only have a 39t, that's your fault.

    And, there are options for 38, 40, 42 and 44t chainrings with XTR, and 39, 42, and 45t chainrings with XX.

  4. #4
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke
    Sorry, but unless they were going 140rpm+, they weren't "spinning out". That would have them at more than 40mph on a 29er. Doubt that was the case. I'd bet they weren't even going 30mph at the finish.

    Sea Otter is a road race interupted by sections of dirt. If you let it come down a sprint and only have a 39t, that's your fault.
    Not everybody rides a 29er. Emmet for one, was on a 26" Giant with XX.

    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  5. #5
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Quote Originally Posted by concretejungle
    Probably not if you're sprinting on pavement. Sounds like mountain biking to me.
    In my MTB racing career, I have done several races that have had some great off road singletrack, but start and finish on short stretches of paved road.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke
    Sea Otter is a road race interupted by sections of dirt. If you let it come down a sprint and only have a 39t, that's your fault.

    And, there are options for 38, 40, 42 and 44t chainrings with XTR, and 39, 42, and 45t chainrings with XX.
    I think Le Duke has the answer. A 2x10 is not a fixed option with no other variables. There are choices to be made on the big and small ring sizes. If it was a sprint on the road I would think strategy and top end power would far outweigh chain ring selection in determining who won.

  7. #7
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,733
    Sea Otter this year was not your typical MTB race. The women averaged 27kph for the race and the men averaged over 30. This is way faster then most world cup cycle cross races.

    I wouldn't base my gear selection based upon feed back from this race.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by rkj__
    I was reading a Sea Otter Women's XC race report on cyclingnews, and found the following quote amusing.

    "Emmett described the final sprint for fourth as a bit comic with all four of them spun out on their 2x10 drivetrains."

    The finish was on pavement. It sounds like the 2x10 with the smaller big chainring was a handicap in the sprint. Perhaps a vintage triple with a good ol' 44 tooth chainring would have been more appropriate. Their gearing might have been appropriate for 99% of the race, but by going down to 2 chainrings instead of 3, they may have given up a taller gear that would have been useful for that last 1% of the race before you cross the finish line.

    I question whether or not 2x10 is a step in the right direction.
    I love my 2x10, and if the 4 were all sprinting with the same gearing then it doesn't sound like it was a difference maker?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    I spin out frequently.....and not pavement.

    It takes very little downhill to get speeds up above 60 kph.

    I will not go to 2 x10 because of this.

    Endurance racing also puts a premium on big range gearing.

  10. #10
    LA CHÈVRE
    Reputation: Dan Gerous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,435
    Sounds like they used the smallest ring size options that are more aimed for average recreational riders, not racers, especially not professionals... on such a course too. I have spun out on 42T rings on occasions, also with 44T rings. But not enough to get bigger rings and I'm no pro, I wont bother changing chainrings before every race but a pro that really wants to win? Maybe they should have adapted to the course...

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

  11. #11
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,563
    Probably not a big issue for most races.

    I am still running my triple because

    A) Although I don't use my top or granny gear that often, I am really glad I have them when I do.

    B) A triple is what I have and I'm not going to drop the big bucks for a whole new drive train.

    C) Pros are different from guys like me who are pretty damn strong when compared with the typical good recreational rider, but well below elite level.

  12. #12
    Rod
    Rod is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,020
    They should've done their research. A finish on pavement would've made me think a bigger gear was necessary. If they would've prerode the course everything should've been fine. My last road race was a downhill sprint to the finish. I bet the guys with compact chainrings spun out. Too bad
    There is not much choice between rotten apples.

  13. #13
    The Road Warrior
    Reputation: LandSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    622
    At 120 RPM with 172.5 mm cranks and a 29" wheel with an 11t cassette, they would have been going 34.2 mph with a 39t ring, and 36.8 mph with a 42t ring.

    I find it hard to believe that women mtbers could push those speeds on flat ground on a mtb. In fact, I don't believe it. Unless they had a tail wind or were going downhill. Meh

  14. #14
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,733
    Quote Originally Posted by LandSpeed
    At 120 RPM with 172.5 mm cranks and a 29" wheel with an 11t cassette, they would have been going 34.2 mph with a 39t ring, and 36.8 mph with a 42t ring.

    I find it hard to believe that women mtbers could push those speeds on flat ground on a mtb. In fact, I don't believe it. Unless they had a tail wind or were going downhill. Meh
    Well looking at the wife's file from the race her peak sprint speed was 50kph (31 mph). Now she is a terrible sprinter and got destroyed in the sprint, plus her and Emily had a drag race to finish with no lead out. Pau led out the sprint in the group behind her, I bet they were at 35mph+.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by rkj__
    I was reading a Sea Otter Women's XC race report on cyclingnews, and found the following quote amusing.

    "Emmett described the final sprint for fourth as a bit comic with all four of them spun out on their 2x10 drivetrains."

    The finish was on pavement. It sounds like the 2x10 with the smaller big chainring was a handicap in the sprint. Perhaps a vintage triple with a good ol' 44 tooth chainring would have been more appropriate. Their gearing might have been appropriate for 99% of the race, but by going down to 2 chainrings instead of 3, they may have given up a taller gear that would have been useful for that last 1% of the race before you cross the finish line.

    I question whether or not 2x10 is a step in the right direction.
    I'd separate the 2 x 10 question from the lower-gearing question, since you can have lower gearing on 3x systems or higher gearing on 2x systems. But I have no words of praise for Shimano with their decision that "42-tooth rings ought to be enough for everyone but pros." Between a fast road ride to the trailhead, racecourses with >35mph pedallable sections, and an out-of-the-saddle, fork-locked-out sprint for the finish line, I have three easy reasons to want a 44-tooth big ring.

    From early reports, it sounds like the new XT M780 double crank will come with a lame-a** 40-tooth big ring, no other options. If you want a 44 on a double, you have to (1) buy XTR, and (2) buy the 44-tooth ring separately and put it on yourself.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by mechBgon
    I'd separate the 2 x 10 question from the lower-gearing question, since you can have lower gearing on 3x systems or higher gearing on 2x systems. But I have no words of praise for Shimano with their decision that "42-tooth rings ought to be enough for everyone but pros." Between a fast road ride to the trailhead, racecourses with >35mph pedallable sections, and an out-of-the-saddle, fork-locked-out sprint for the finish line, I have three easy reasons to want a 44-tooth big ring.

    From early reports, it sounds like the new XT M780 double crank will come with a lame-a** 40-tooth big ring, no other options. If you want a 44 on a double, you have to (1) buy XTR, and (2) buy the 44-tooth ring separately and put it on yourself.
    I'm confused. Shimano does offer a 44t big ring in 2x10. Sram on the other hand...
    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/M...?ModelID=54866

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by COLINx86
    I'm confused. Shimano does offer a 44t big ring in 2x10. Sram on the other hand...
    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/M...?ModelID=54866
    Oh! Well that's good news insofar as it goes Now if they offer a 30-44 with the new M780 XT double as well, then I'll just shut up and ride

  18. #18
    dot
    dot is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    417
    I understand why shimano reduced the range but I cannot accept the consequences. I like both 22x34 and 44x11. They keep coming handy since I've got only one bike and I'm not willing to keep a whole stable or many sets of rings for different types of terrain. I want it simple.

    More so, I don't understand why they they're trying to kick girls and older/fatter riders out of sport...

    24x36 (== 22x33) is a larger gear than 22x34 and 36t weighs more. My wife being an ocassional rider uses 22x34 a lot.

  19. #19
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by dot
    I understand why shimano reduced the range but I cannot accept the consequences. I like both 22x34 and 44x11. They keep coming handy since I've got only one bike and I'm not willing to keep a whole stable or many sets of rings for different types of terrain. I want it simple.

    More so, I don't understand why they they're trying to kick girls and older/fatter riders out of sport...

    24x36 (== 22x33) is a larger gear than 22x34 and 36t weighs more. My wife being an ocassional rider uses 22x34 a lot.
    I can't imagine any of the manufacturers discontinuing triple cranksets. Doubles might be a good set up for racers, or really strong recreational riders, but I don't think they're the best set up for the majority of riders.

  20. #20
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm
    I can't imagine any of the manufacturers discontinuing triple cranksets. Doubles might be a good set up for racers, or really strong recreational riders, but I don't think they're the best set up for the majority of riders.
    Though they will not be entirely discontinued, what could happen is that the triples might only be produced as part of lower level component groups like Alivio, Deore etc.

    Time will tell.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  21. #21
    dot
    dot is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm
    I can't imagine any of the manufacturers discontinuing triple cranksets. Doubles might be a good set up for racers, or really strong recreational riders, but I don't think they're the best set up for the majority of riders.
    Anyway, shimano reduced gear range for triples too. 24t instead of 22t, 42t instead of 44t. I tried to move to 42t long time ago on a standard triple (22-32-44) and I felt it didn't make any sense.

    Funnily enough, I had that the same front gearing (24-32-42) on my first bike and the cranks were Altus '97 on my GT Arrowhead from 1997...

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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