1x9 vs 2x10?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 84 of 84

Thread: 1x9 vs 2x10?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10

    1x9 vs 2x10?

    I have a vassago optimus that is currently set up as a ss. I love the ss but there are times when I need a few more gears. I am trying to decide between a 2x10 and a 1x9. I've heard great things about the 2x setup, but the simplicity of the 1x appeals to me and I'd like to keep the weight down. I ride a wide variety of train - big, steep climbs, rolling single track, fire road and paved roads. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    495
    If you are buying new parts for the 1x9 then you could also consider 1x10 as an alternative.

    As you are currently single speeding and want to keep it simple then a single front chainring option sounds like the go.

    Personally I am finding it hard to see where 2x10 could fit in my future. My latest bike build is 2x9 using gear I already own. 2x10 would give me only one extra usable ratio and require me to buy new gear and give up gripshifts.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    760
    I ride 3 X 9. Can I ride the two you mention? Yup...but...less gearing = less options.
    I like simplicity. If it were me just riding along and I live in flat country, 1 X 9 would be fine. I am between rings too much with 2 X 9 or 10...but to me better than 1 X 9 or 10.
    Having more gear options for a variety of terrain for the very small weight and complexity disadvantage is worth it and why the vast majority of mtb bikes sold come with 3 X 9. I spend a great deal of time riding the middle ring...but need small when climbing up walls and Big when flying down descents.
    Gears are rider, terrain and competition specific. I want a lot of different gear options when competing with my friends. YMMV.

  4. #4
    .......
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    Other than the ease of switching back and forth from ss and geared, 1x9/10 doesn't make sense to me. Weight "savings" is negligible. Chain line issues, chain suck, and extra gearing given up is far less desirable to me.

    2x9/10 is ok, I guess, but I still don't see why you wouldn't just go 3 up front.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    38
    I've ridden 3x9 for years but switched over to 2x10 on my new bike I picked up 2 months ago. And while it has taken me a little while to get fully accustomed to it, I have to say I LOVE the 2x10 and would highly recommend it for most cross-country riders. I ride on the front range in Colorado where 2000' climbs are common and the 2x10 is sufficient although I would feel handicapped with it on epic backcountry rides (5+ hours). I can get up most steep extended climbs but with little room for recovery which takes it toll on longer rides. With this in mind, I think the 2x10 would work for most cross-country riders around the country. Worst case, you leave it in the big ring +90% of the time but you have minimal weight penalty from a 1x10 and you have those extra climbing gears when you need them.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by p nut
    1x9/10 doesn't make sense to me
    Try it some time; it might make more sense after that. After a long time riding SS and now riding 1x9 I don't see why you would ever want 3 up front It's a slow shift and only offers me extra gears that I don't need because of how I'm adapted to harder gears

    btw I'm a little confused on the chain suck comment, as that is something I've only had happen during a front shift

  7. #7
    Natural body armor
    Reputation: Zen_Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,176
    The 10 gears thing seems to be something the industry is pushing on us rather than something really needed. Standard for road bikes, then why not for mtb...

    Don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into another 9 vs. 10 debate, but coming from SS, the 1x9 definitely looks as a the best solution. If you are looking for a new bike, seems like you have almost no choice and have to go for 10: how long before we go to 11?
    ZT
    "There is no A-line"
    Savvy Bike

  8. #8
    Did I catch a niner+?
    Reputation: Mr Pink57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,955
    I would go 1x9 since you have all range of gears, from what I have read on here adding a second front only adds 3 more gears I think.
    Mr. Krabs: Is it true, Squidward? Is it hilarious?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pink57
    I would go 1x9 since you have all range of gears, from what I have read on here adding a second front only adds 3 more gears I think.
    comparing a 1x9 to a standard mtb 9spd triple both with an 11-34t cassette, the triple adds 3 more gears on each end. The extra gears from the big ring provide a ~32% difference in top end gear ratio, while the extra gears from the granny ring provide a ~8.7% difference in low end gear ratio

  10. #10
    .......
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    Try it some time; it might make more sense after that. After a long time riding SS and now riding 1x9 I don't see why you would ever want 3 up front It's a slow shift and only offers me extra gears that I don't need because of how I'm adapted to harder gears

    btw I'm a little confused on the chain suck comment, as that is something I've only had happen during a front shift
    I have. I guess since I also ride road bikes, I'm used to the extra gearing and speed. I just done see ANY advantage of going 1x vs 3x. (performance wise).

  11. #11
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by p nut
    I have. I guess since I also ride road bikes, I'm used to the extra gearing and speed. I just done see ANY advantage of going 1x vs 3x. (performance wise).
    I wouldn't ride a 1 x gear setup either because I would have to run 32 or 34 up front & that just wouldn't give me enough speed to have fun, but the 2 x 10 works great.
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  12. #12
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,169

    Ok I just don't get it

    SS-1x9/2x10? What's wrong with 2x9? Are we getting caught up in the "buy 10" and mind numbing number crunching ratio difference hype? Yes as a Pro/sponsored rider you'll ride what's offered, but can't we regular Joe's accomplish just about the same w/2x9 as 2x10?

    I'm with ozinigmas, I really don't want to have to throw aside my perfectly opperating X0 gripshifts and der.
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Ripley V4 UpDowncountry rig

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    169
    The main advantage of changing to ten speed is that you can get a 36 tooth on the back. My bike came with the shimano 9 speed 36 tooth cassette and it was a flexy piece of rubbish.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul1977
    The main advantage of changing to ten speed is that you can get a 36 tooth on the back. My bike came with the shimano 9 speed 36 tooth cassette and it was a flexy piece of rubbish.
    I just bought a Shimano HG61 9 spd cassette, 12-36.

    I hope its a higher spec than you got.

    For us 29'er riders I agree that a 36 tooth is an advantage. It makes up for the taller gearing with the bigger wheels.

    So there is a case for 3x10 with 36 teeth cassettes for 29'ers.

    However I find the case for 2x10 vs 2x9 to be very weak.

    Maybe others experience is different, but I try and do most of my riding in the middle ring and only use the granny on steep climbs and the big ring on continuous high speed riding (often on bitumen). So I don't find the slow change from middle to be a problem.

    However if I had 2x10 then I suspect the big ring would often be too big and the little ring would often be too little for where I ride. So I would be constantly changing at the front, where at the moment I rarely do.

    I have had a similar experience running 34/50 compact chainrings on a road bike, neither ring was quite right for 30+-5 km/hr road riding. Out of interest I actually put an Ultegra triple on my roadbike when I replaced the groupset with a 10spd cassette. I have had no problems with setting it up or using it. It is 30/39/52.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    I would say try both so you can see for yourself what works best for You. Easy enough to swap out ring sizes. Just use some cheap filler parts for now until you get it dialed in. A few random strangers' experiences on the internet may not and will likely not match that of your own personal fitness level, skill level, local trails, riding style, etc.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    169
    I'm pretty sure that shimano only made the one model 36 tooth nine speed cassette. The one that came on my bike had plastic spacers between the gears and they weren't pinned together, meaning that they flexed when under load. This caused my bike to change gears bike itself when I stood up to hammer it up a climb.

    As far a the 2x or 3x argument goes I still run a triple with ten speed rear. I initially replaced my middle ring with a 36 tooth and found that i was struggling up some hills. With the 32 ring I can get up all hills that I ride.

  17. #17
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul1977
    The main advantage of changing to ten speed is that you can get a 36 tooth on the back.
    You can do that with a 9 speed as well. In addition to the Shimano, you can go weight weenie Ti 9 speed with a 36T large cog here. Or Action Tec will let you run a 36T, 38T or 39T.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,569
    Most of my cassettes are set up this way, and I've never seen any issues because of it (even with lighter steel frames).

    I'm all for 1x9, by the way. It gives me all the gears I need, without and front shifting hassle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul1977
    I'm pretty sure that shimano only made the one model 36 tooth nine speed cassette. The one that came on my bike had plastic spacers between the gears and they weren't pinned together, meaning that they flexed when under load. This caused my bike to change gears bike itself when I stood up to hammer it up a climb.

    As far a the 2x or 3x argument goes I still run a triple with ten speed rear. I initially replaced my middle ring with a 36 tooth and found that i was struggling up some hills. With the 32 ring I can get up all hills that I ride.
    http://www.bikingtoplay.blogspot.com/
    RIGID, not "ridged" or "ridgid"
    PEDAL, not "peddle." Unless you're selling stuff

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    123
    I'm running 1x9 with 30t ring and 11-34 cassette. Seems to be perfect for 29er where you ride hilly and technical terrain. I have all gears I need.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vecsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pink57
    I would go 1x9 since you have all range of gears, from what I have read on here adding a second front only adds 3 more gears I think.
    It's not always an issue of how many gear combos you have but how you access them. With a 2x* setup you can loiter in the little chainring longer and avoid shifting the front in mixed terrain.

    And as a side note, I find it amusing that so many people think their preference should be considered the default for everyone else. Differences in terrain and fitness require a lot of different options. I don't care what gears you run - if you are behind me it means I am faster on that trail and on that day. A week later that might change but gears are only a part of the equation.
    Vecsus

    HTFU or STFU

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic
    I wouldn't ride a 1 x gear setup either because I would have to run 32 or 34 up front & that just wouldn't give me enough speed to have fun, but the 2 x 10 works great.
    How fast do you need to go to have fun. I run a 1x9. I can spin on the road at 28mph and climb at 2mph. I guess if you spend alot of time over 30mph on your ride a 36 tooth front or a 3x9 would be necessary.

    To the OP- I spent 3 years only riding SS with a 32x18 and then made the switch to 1x9. I really like it. It gives me enough gear range for the trails I ride. I just did a 46 mile ride with 5,500 feet of climbing all on single track and was completely shot after 35 miles. I don't know if I would have finished the ride on a SS without alot of walking. With the 1x9 I was still able to climb after 5 hours on the bike.

  22. #22
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,169

    Right!

    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown
    You can do that with a 9 speed as well. In addition to the Shimano, you can go weight weenie Ti 9 speed with a 36T large cog here. Or Action Tec will let you run a 36T, 38T or 39T.
    Thanks. Those are the links I was trying to remember. I believe I saw a post saying you could add one of the 36t cogs with provided spacers on your existing cassette and drop the first loose cog. That's what I was getting at, what do you "really" gain from 2x10 w/36t cassette over 2x9/36t?

    Inquiring mind.....
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Ripley V4 UpDowncountry rig

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    220
    http://farnorthracing.com/cycling/mtb_gearing_tech.html

    It's really very interesting to do the analysis.

    DG

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,727
    I have a Rig that goes back and forth between single and 1x9. If I were buying the parts today, I'd go 1x10 for the additional gear spread with smaller jumps between gears that 10 speed gives you. If that doesn't work for you, you can always buy a 2x or 3x crank and front shifting parts later.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9

    30t

    Are people using the extralite 30t on a 104 bcd? How is it working? considering that as a 1x9 option.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vecsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    When I had my HT set up as a 1X9 I used a 30T ring on a White Industries SS crank (ring has an integrated bash). Worked like a charm. Perfect combo for long endurance rides. I am not strong enough to need to push anything higher than 30x11. I like to use long smooth sections to recover.
    Vecsus

    HTFU or STFU

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by kdiddy
    I have a Rig that goes back and forth between single and 1x9. If I were buying the parts today, I'd go 1x10 for the additional gear spread with smaller jumps between gears that 10 speed gives you. If that doesn't work for you, you can always buy a 2x or 3x crank and front shifting parts later.
    The jumps would be smaller on 10spd 11-32t and 11-34t cassettes, but the 10spd 11-36t cassetttes are actually identical to 9spd 11-32t but with a 36t cog tacked on

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10
    Thanks!

  29. #29
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    [QUOTE=azpoolguy]How fast do you need to go to have fun. I run a 1x9. I can spin on the road at 28mph and climb at 2mph. I guess if you spend alot of time over 30mph on your ride a 36 tooth front or a 3x9 would be necessary.

    This fast.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/muzzanic.../0/H58LxkfLjCM

    I need a 39 front ring.
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    I think that a 1x5, with the same gear spread as a 1x9, say 11-36, would be ideal for me. I find myself double shifting my 1x9 most of the time anyway so I say get rid of every other cog. Less shifts, less wear and tear on the components, but the same range. It seems that 5 speeds is about right for every other vehicle on the planet, why not here too. One can always hope right

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sweeney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    720
    I ride 1X9 with a 28 tooth ring on the front and 11-34 in the rear and it handles everything i ride. I only spin out on one mile road ride from my house to the nearest trail and I can climb most hills in 28x26 leaving me two bail out gears. Some posters have mentioned minimal weight savings with 1X9 but I knocked off .8 lbs when I took off th XT front shifting stuff. My set up give me the same range as a 3X9 from 22-28 and 42-16.

    The poster who said that the 36 tooth 10 speed cassette is the same as the 34 with a 36 tacked on is wrong. The high end goes 36-32-28-24. I like having the 26 so I stayed with 1X9 for the new bike I'm building.
    60; it's the new 40!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    611
    A couple bikes ago i ran a 3x9 on 26" wheels .

    Then i fell in love w SS & realized you don't need 27 gears to have fun.

    I switched my FS bike to 2x9 (granny & 32t) & that was a nice set-up. Didn't really need a big ring - could still go fast as hell on fireroads in the 32-11 gear.

    I think all the SS riding made me STRONGER & less reliant on changing gears to tackle the terrain.

    My current set up is 1x9 (11-34) on a 29er bike. This totally rocks & i have never looked back. Ideally 1x10 with a 11-36 would be what i would settle on if building a new bike with unlimited budget.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    643
    I am not a road cyclist. My perspective is from a single-speed / simplicity / bikepacking perspective.

    I am used to having one gear ratio, so having 8 or 9 options is great, more than enough, and still keeps things simple. The speed issue... I can't think of one time where I was going +20mph, off-road, for an extended period of time, where I wasn't going downhill. For me, 34x11 creates plenty of velocity.

    For reference, my drivetrain is MD952 XTR w/ a Dura-Ace friction shifter. 34t chainring w/ SRAM PG980 11-32. To make it even more odd... I run 165mm crank arms.

    It works for me, for what I do. Mileage may vary for others.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    I ride 3 X 9. Can I ride the two you mention? Yup...but...less gearing = less options.
    I like simplicity. If it were me just riding along and I live in flat country, 1 X 9 would be fine. I am between rings too much with 2 X 9 or 10...but to me better than 1 X 9 or 10.
    Having more gear options for a variety of terrain for the very small weight and complexity disadvantage is worth it and why the vast majority of mtb bikes sold come with 3 X 9. I spend a great deal of time riding the middle ring...but need small when climbing up walls and Big when flying down descents.
    Gears are rider, terrain and competition specific. I want a lot of different gear options when competing with my friends. YMMV.
    I don't really understand this. Without actually checking to make sure of the exact number, but any 3x9 drivetrain is gonna have a number of gear combinations that will offer you the same gearing when you look at them in gear inches. Probably six or eight similar gear ratios across the range. take away those similar combos, and you're left with maybe 19 or 20 distinctly different gear combos, pretty much exactly what you'd have with a 2x9 or 2x10 setup.

    Lighter, and simpler.

    The difference between 2x9 and 2x10 isn't that big a deal, and not worth the expense to switch over if you don't have to. Upgrade if things wear out if you want to, or just add a bigger cassette if you need lower gearing. But the one extra cog isn't gonna make that much of a duifference.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikePartPorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    41

    Gearing Analysis

    I have done an analysis on the gear options as well. Comparing the actual numbers instead of opinions helps make decisions easier. Your 1x setups will compromise top end, low end, and resolution. Your 2x's options get you really close to the 3x's, but you compromise a little resolution again.

    Analysis part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sweeney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    720
    What's resolution?
    60; it's the new 40!

  37. #37
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rufus
    I don't really understand this. Without actually checking to make sure of the exact number, but any 3x9 drivetrain is gonna have a number of gear combinations that will offer you the same gearing when you look at them in gear inches. Probably six or eight similar gear ratios across the range. take away those similar combos, and you're left with maybe 19 or 20 distinctly different gear combos, pretty much exactly what you'd have with a 2x9 or 2x10 setup.

    Lighter, and simpler.
    The mistake you are making is common; you assume that overlap is a bad thing when it is, in fact, a good thing. Overlap reduces the need for front shifting and reduces the demand to shift in the rear when you shift in the front. The downside of popular 2x10 drivetrains is the large front jump which sucks when you have to use it yet fails to cover the range of a 3x drivetrain. Why riders think they need that much range I have no idea, but when they do the best drivetrain is one where it is easiest to be in the gear you need. That's not on a system with a 4 gear front jump.

    A couple other things: a 2x9 or 2x10 drivetrain does not have "19 or 20 distinctly different gear combos" nor is a 2x drivetrain especially "lighter and simpler". There is no difference in complexity and only one chainring difference in weight (often replaced with a bash).

  38. #38
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BikePartPorn
    I have done an analysis on the gear options as well. Comparing the actual numbers instead of opinions helps make decisions easier. Your 1x setups will compromise top end, low end, and resolution. Your 2x's options get you really close to the 3x's, but you compromise a little resolution again.
    Too much "resolution" is bad.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Vecsus
    And as a side note, I find it amusing that so many people think their preference should be considered the default for everyone else. Differences in terrain and fitness require a lot of different options.
    Do you mind if I use this as my sig? I think this pretty well sums up my overall feeling for just about everything MTB...

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ToneyRiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    396
    I like the 2X10 option because I find I need some extra gears when climbing or descending.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweeney
    The poster who said that the 36 tooth 10 speed cassette is the same as the 34 with a 36 tacked on is wrong. The high end goes 36-32-28-24. I like having the 26 so I stayed with 1X9 for the new bike I'm building.
    If you're referring to me, I said that it was the same as a 32[t not 34t 9spd cassette. Those 32t cassettes ended in 32-28-24-21. I just double checked and SRAM did indeed keep everything else the same but Shimano actually changed a couple gears on the high end of the cassette.

  42. #42
    .......
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    The mistake you are making is common; you assume that overlap is a bad thing when it is, in fact, a good thing. Overlap reduces the need for front shifting and reduces the demand to shift in the rear when you shift in the front. The downside of popular 2x10 drivetrains is the large front jump which sucks when you have to use it yet fails to cover the range of a 3x drivetrain. Why riders think they need that much range I have no idea, but when they do the best drivetrain is one where it is easiest to be in the gear you need. That's not on a system with a 4 gear front jump.

    A couple other things: a 2x9 or 2x10 drivetrain does not have "19 or 20 distinctly different gear combos" nor is a 2x drivetrain especially "lighter and simpler". There is no difference in complexity and only one chainring difference in weight (often replaced with a bash).
    Good post.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikePartPorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweeney
    What's resolution?
    By resolution I mean the number of gears available to produce your desired speed or force. If you are moving along at 15 MPH, and you have 3 different gears to get you there, you also have 3 different cadence (RPMs) you can use to get the desired speed. With a 1x setup you can only move up or down 1 gear, which means you have to be able to adjust your cadence more.

    Objectively overlap is neither bad nor good. The gears which overlap is not necessarily a waste because it allows you to choose your cadence. Whether overlap is good or bad is subjective. Just ask a SS'er.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dhbomber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    793
    I ride 1x10 with a 32t chainring up front....It's the best! I don't need any other gears! I'm so happy with it
    My Bike: http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...3&postcount=49

    On-One Whippet 650b XC machine

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    220
    The mistake you are making is common; you assume that overlap is a bad thing when it is, in fact, a good thing. Overlap reduces the need for front shifting and reduces the demand to shift in the rear when you shift in the front.
    Agreed.

    Put another way, the front shift is "dangerous" (not in the sense that it is physically dangerous, but in the sense that it is far more likely to screw up than an rear shift) so reducing the number of front shifts reduces the probability that something will go horribly wrong.

    That being the case, having overlap on ratios works in your favour, because you can get the "same" gear without necessarily having to execute a front shift.

    A classic triple is set up so that in most cases, a big ring change can be neutralised with two rear shifts - ie, drop down on the front, come up two on the back, and you are back in the same gear.

    The 2x10 setups take advantage of the facts that a 10 speed chain is very flexible laterally, and that two chainrings occupy less space than three (especially when they use the narrow 10 speed chain width) This means that cross-chaining is no longer an issue, so you can use the full range of the rear cassette without worry. The steps between the rings are larger (meaning more rear changes to neutralise the gear) but the larger range of each chainring - due to more rear ratios - means that you don't need to shift the front anywhere near as often.

    The 1x10 setup acknowledges that the massive spread between the bull low granny and the full high big/little combo rarely occurs on any real ride. There really isn't a need to carry that wide a gear range, when the majority of a ride/race is going to be spent in the middle chainring and in the middle portion of the cassette. That being the case, there really is no need to carry a front shifting mechanism at all, so long as the front chainring provides an appropriate spread for the conditions. It is exactly analogous to choosing the proper final drive gear in a race car.

    By resolution I mean the number of gears available to produce your desired speed or force. If you are moving along at 15 MPH, and you have 3 different gears to get you there, you also have 3 different cadence (RPMs) you can use to get the desired speed. With a 1x setup you can only move up or down 1 gear, which means you have to be able to adjust your cadence more.
    Ideally, cadence should remain constant. Humans produce maximum power over a very narrow cadence range.

    The reality is of course that cadence has to change because the terrain loads aren't conducive to keeping the cadence constant - unless you are on a road bike time trial.

    Which further re-enforces the utility of the 1X10 setup. To make a slight cadence change on a 3x9, assuming you want a step smaller than a single rear shift, you have to go either down one/up one, or down two/up three, on average (the gear chart dictates the actual pattern, but on average, this is right) Unless you are in a long distance cruise mode, that's really not a realistic option. Most people will just drop the one gear on the rear and adjust either cadence or speed to match the new gearing.

    DG

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: swill'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    188

    +1 1x10

    1x10 11-36 with 34 front works well for all the riding I do. If I cant make a climb, I walk. Overtime those climbs that I could not concur have become my goals. Some have been cleared, other remain. I appreciate the simplicity of 1x10 and I have yet to have any mechanical or premature ware issues. IMHO 2x and 3x setups have a higher probability of messing up at the worst possible times, are more complicated, weigh more, and cost more. 1x10 feels closer to SS riding in style, you have to work hard, push, and keep momentum. Fun for me, but not for everyone. Try it out.

  47. #47
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BikePartPorn
    Whether overlap is good or bad is subjective. Just ask a SS'er.
    Yeah, ask someone who doesn't use gears how to best set up a multispeed drivetrain. That should work great.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yeah, ask someone who doesn't use gears how to best set up a multispeed drivetrain. That should work great.
    Mr. Technicality should know better than to read that into his comment.

  49. #49
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    Mr. Technicality should know better than to read that into his comment.
    Yeah, that was a "technicality". Rather than explain that brilliant statement, tell me what should I read into the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by BikePartPorn
    With a 1x setup you can only move up or down 1 gear, which means you have to be able to adjust your cadence more.
    Will you be taking his side on this, boomn?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yeah, that was a "technicality". Rather than explain that brilliant statement, tell me what should I read into the following:


    Will you be taking his side on this, boomn?
    no thanks, I don't feel like being instigated. I was pointing out that the one comment had validity, and I don't have to agree with everything he said or "take sides" just because I defended one statement

  51. #51
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    no thanks, I don't feel like being instigated. I was pointing out that the one comment had validity, and I don't have to agree with everything he said or "take sides" just because I defended one statement
    It does? How does a single-speeder, one who rides with no gearing options whatsoever, offer any insight at all to the size of jumps in front shifts? Not only is their no validity here, the whole suggestion is absurd.

    BTW, you didn't defend his statement, you ridiculed me, and I didn't "read" anything into the comment, it's all there.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    It does? How does a single-speeder, one who rides with no gearing options whatsoever, offer any insight at all to the size of jumps in front shifts? Not only is their no validity here, the whole suggestion is absurd.

    BTW, you didn't defend his statement, you ridiculed me, and I didn't "read" anything into the comment, it's all there.
    Dude, I don't hate you and I wasn't trying ridicule you. I was poking a little fun and my lame sense of humor thought that title was mildly funny. Face to face it would be a lot harder to read anger or mocking into these words I assure you.

    Maybe we should ask him what he meant, because you can decide to connect the "SSer" comment back to any previous part of the comment and come to different meanings.

  53. #53
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    Dude, I don't hate you and I wasn't trying ridicule you.
    Of course, that explains why you called me "Mr. Technicality". No derision implied there, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    Maybe we should ask him what he meant, because you can decide to connect the "SSer" comment back to any previous part of the comment and come to different meanings.
    Really? I've quoted him before but here is the whole paragraph so that ALL possible context is included:
    Objectively overlap is neither bad nor good. The gears which overlap is not necessarily a waste because it allows you to choose your cadence. Whether overlap is good or bad is subjective. Just ask a SS'er.
    He was suggesting a SS'er be asked about the value of overlap, get it? You know, the guys that use only one chainring? Brilliant.

    Really, boomn, if you want to take a shot at me, you really need to do better than this.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Of course, that explains why you called me "Mr. Technicality". No derision implied there, right?
    Like I said: "poking fun", i.e. a little bit of mocking but not meant to have a mean edge to it. Like how you tease a sibling or friend without actually trying to attack them. If I was really taking a shot at you I would have skipped the silly titles and left out any humour. If I'm still being silly at all then you know I haven't thrown down my gloves yet or traded them in for boxing gloves either

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Really? I've quoted him before but here is the whole paragraph so that ALL possible context is included:
    Objectively overlap is neither bad nor good. The gears which overlap is not necessarily a waste because it allows you to choose your cadence. Whether overlap is good or bad is subjective. Just ask a SS'er.
    He was suggesting a SS'er be asked about the value of overlap, get it? You know, the guys that use only one chainring? Brilliant
    If you would like my personal literary analysis I can oblige:
    If you read overlap that strictly and literally as only applying to a multi-ring geared drivetrain then you're correct, but "overlap" in that context is analogous to SS riders being able to achieve similar gear ratios using different sized rings and cogs

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikePartPorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    41
    Sorry to spur such controversy. I was trying to explain myself by using extreme examples. I will try again. Let's say I have a 3x9 and am pedaling at 90RPM and traveling at 15MPH and I want to go a bit faster. I can either pedal faster, or shift down and pedal harder. If I am on a SS then I only have one option, spin faster.

    By resolution I mean that with a 3x9 I have more gear combination's to choose from to match my desired cadence and velocity. With a SS I can only adjust my cadence. 1x" and 2x" options are in the middle of these two extremes.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    It does? How does a single-speeder, one who rides with no gearing options whatsoever, offer any insight at all to the size of jumps in front shifts? Not only is their no validity here, the whole suggestion is absurd.

    BTW, you didn't defend his statement, you ridiculed me, and I didn't "read" anything into the comment, it's all there.
    Settle down, Beavis.

    Do you have Asperger's?

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by BikePartPorn
    Sorry to spur such controversy. I was trying to explain myself by using extreme examples. I will try again. Let's say I have a 3x9 and am pedaling at 90RPM and traveling at 15MPH and I want to go a bit faster. I can either pedal faster, or shift down and pedal harder. If I am on a SS then I only have one option, spin faster.

    By resolution I mean that with a 3x9 I have more gear combination's to choose from to match my desired cadence and velocity. With a SS I can only adjust my cadence. 1x" and 2x" options are in the middle of these two extremes.
    ahh, that makes even more sense.

    FWIW, that aspect is one of my favorite things about SS, though I definitely appreciate the ability to find the right cadence when trying to sit and spin with gears

  58. #58
    Last, not lost.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    210
    Being interested in the OP only, I have a related question. If you run a 1x9 setup, will you wear out a chain faster? With the cross chaining aspect in mind. I understand that 1x is usually the front middle ring position and therefore no true cross, but you are running that chain quite a bit from high to low in the rear, even more so in a 1x10 setup.

  59. #59
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BikePartPorn
    1x" and 2x" options are in the middle of these two extremes.
    "1x" and "2x" aren't in the middle of "SS" and "3x" extremes. 1x and 2x have less range than 3x, that's all. SS is unrelated.

  60. #60
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,169

    Doubt it

    Quote Originally Posted by one4teen
    If you run a 1x9 setup, will you wear out a chain faster? With the cross chaining aspect in mind.
    You have more wear and tear from the ramped/pins on the rings! I have no idea if this is true but it sounded pretty good.
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Ripley V4 UpDowncountry rig

  61. #61
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,905
    Quote Originally Posted by BikePartPorn
    By resolution I mean the number of gears available to produce your desired speed or force. If you are moving along at 15 MPH, and you have 3 different gears to get you there, you also have 3 different cadence (RPMs) you can use to get the desired speed. With a 1x setup you can only move up or down 1 gear, which means you have to be able to adjust your cadence more.

    Objectively overlap is neither bad nor good. The gears which overlap is not necessarily a waste because it allows you to choose your cadence. Whether overlap is good or bad is subjective. Just ask a SS'er.

    I can't believe that people can find the resolution of a 9 or 10 speed cassette itself to be insufficient on a mt bike. Seriously, do people on mtb's actually shift up 1 ring and down 3 cogs because the jump of simply shifting down one cog was too big of a jump? If so, they would be much better served running a tighter cassette spacing to start with (which is why road cassettes are tighter in their gearing spacing). Of course, this decreases the range of the cassette, making an additional ring more desirable.

    The single, double, and triple ring issue comes down to one thing for me: How much total range is needed or desired. Yes, the double only adds a few combos over the single, and the triple a few more over the double, but the point is that there new combos are at the outer ends of the range, therefore extending the gear range. The fact that they come close to replicating other combos in the middle of the range is utterly unimportant and irrelevant to me. FWIW, I run all three front configurations on different bikes. My Commuter and 29er HT are single rings, my 5" FS bike double, and my road bike is triple.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by one4teen
    Being interested in the OP only, I have a related question. If you run a 1x9 setup, will you wear out a chain faster? With the cross chaining aspect in mind. I understand that 1x is usually the front middle ring position and therefore no true cross, but you are running that chain quite a bit from high to low in the rear, even more so in a 1x10 setup.
    Not even more so in a 10 speed. The 10 spd chain is narrower and the sprockets are closer on the cassette and they fit on the same freehub body. ie a 9 spd and 10 spd cassette are the same total width.

    Yes you will get poor chain line if you use the full range of your cassette on any front chain ring 1x, 2x or 3x. I am not an expert on this but my understanding is that you should only really use about 5 or 6 ratios out of 9 or 10 on your cassette with any chainring to avoid the poor chain lines.

    This is of course a choice, you can cross your chain and use 1 - 9 or 3 - 1 chain ring - cassette if you want to. Generally the bike will still work but you are stressing the components awkwardly and perhaps contributing to faster wear.

    So for a 3 x 9 setup the recommended range of ratios (see Lee McCormack - Mountain Biking Skills) is;

    F1 R1-5
    F2 R3-7
    F3 R5-9

    Whenever you move outside of these ranges you should be doing a front shift and double back shift to adjust and match speed and cadence. Personally I find doing a double back shift at the same time as (slow) front shift to not be a problem.

    I deliberately set all my bikes up with med cage RD's and normal chain length which makes running any gear taller than 1 - 5 on the granny ring a problem due to not taking up chain slack. If you also deliberately run a shorter chain length you can also make 3 - 1 or 2 or 3 impossible to use. This is a bit risky though because if you lose track of what gears you are in and try and force a change too far down the cassette while on the big ring you will put a lot of stresses on your chain and RD.

    Now for a 2 x 10 setup I personally would only recommend using 6 ratios on the cassette for each front chainring. This is how I generally used my road bike when it was 2x10 (its now 3x10). Again this is to minimise poor chainline and you can definitely use the full range if you want to (or if you forget to do the front change )

    F1 R1-6
    F2 R4-10

    Personally I am finding 2x10 as a supposed full range gearing solution for mountain bikes to not have much application to how and where I ride.

    I have been on mtb rides where I have used (and my weak legs needed) the full range of a 3x9 setup. So I am keeping a 3x9 setup on my 29'er hardtail to take on rides like that. It does mean compromising ground clearance with a 44 tooth chain ring and no bashguard. So this bike is not the best when the going gets rougher and rockier and the trail obstacles get bigger.

    I could replace this with a 3x10 setup and get one extra lower ratio or keep the range of ratios the same and reduce one of my gear gaps by 1 tooth. This is hardly a big deal for me and to do this I have to trade off some robustness in my drivetrain by moving to a narrower chain. I know, the same arguments were mounted about 8spd vs 9spd (and 10spd vs 11spd for road). Also gripshift and I think dual control options are not yet available in 10 speed drivetrains. I currently use both with 9spd drivetrains.

    For my all mountain bike I am willing to give up the top end and switch to a 2x9. But still with the same 22 tooth granny ring for climbing. If I run out of gears descending I just have to roll. The benefits are that my front ring is no bigger than 36 tooth and I have room for a bashguard.

    I could replace this with a 2x10 setup, but for this application it would still have to be something like 22/34 at the front. This is not typical of what is being marketing in 2x10 as a full range gearing solution.

    Finally I have a fun bike (currently in pieces), a 26" HT that I have bought an E13 chainguard/bashguard for and was planning to run 1x9. Here I am willing to give up both top and bottom ratios and walk if the climbs are too steep. I will choose my front chainring size to match my local terrain. In this case I accept the awkward chain lines and perhaps faster wear.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47
    You have more wear and tear from the ramped/pins on the rings! I have no idea if this is true but it sounded pretty good.
    You don't need a ramped and pinned chainring if it is the only one on the front. These are used to help front shifting between chainrings only. They shouldn't be affected by chain line. You can use a plain chainring up front instead.

  63. #63
    Last, not lost.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    210
    ozynigma - Thank you. Well written and on topic.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    220
    I am not an expert on this but my understanding is that you should only really use about 5 or 6 ratios out of 9 or 10 on your cassette with any chainring to avoid the poor chain lines.
    This was true on older designs - compare an 8 speed chain to a 10 speed chain to see the difference.

    But a modern 10-speed design is intended to use the full range of the cassette. 10 speed road groups even have a trim position on the front mech so you can run big-big without the cage rubbing. If you upshift the front chainring, it takes two downshifts to drop back down; the first is the trim position, the second shifts the chain.

    The mountain bike 2x10s don't have this because the big ring is a lot smaller so there's no interference issue.

    That's a big part of the magic behind the 2x10 and 1x10 setups - no more worries about cross-chaining. You get to use the whole range of your cassette.

    DG

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    495
    Thanks RecceDG. I get what you are saying that the chains are designed to flex more.

    However despite the design accommodating it, is poor chain line ever desirable from a wear and efficiency point of view?

    Just because you can do something doesn't make it good practice. Thats why I will continue to try to avoid chain line extremes when riding road or mtb. The exception being where I choose to run 1x9 (or 10 in the future) with full knowledge of how I am stressing the drivetrain.

    Having said that I am guilty of running my middle right down to 1 on the cassette before bailing to granny on many occasions.

  66. #66
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,169

    Re-read

    "You don't need a ramped and pinned chainring if it is the only one on the front. These are used to help front shifting between chainrings only. They shouldn't be affected by chain line. You can use a plain chainring up front instead"

    The topic was chain wear, not line. I replied to comment of whether your chain would wear more on a 1x vs 2/3x.

    Good post yours, though I'm still abit dizzy w/ TMI! Comes with being an SS rider for the majority of my riding.
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Ripley V4 UpDowncountry rig

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47
    "You don't need a ramped and pinned chainring if it is the only one on the front. These are used to help front shifting between chainrings only. They shouldn't be affected by chain line. You can use a plain chainring up front instead"

    The topic was chain wear, not line. I replied to comment of whether your chain would wear more on a 1x vs 2/3x.

    Good post yours, though I'm still abit dizzy w/ TMI! Comes with being an SS rider for the majority of my riding.
    Hi JMac47, I was trying to keep that part of my response really brief and inoffensive and may have been too brief to make sense.

    The ramping and pinning is on the inner face of the middle chainring and maybe on the big chainring as well. The inner chainring is always plain. These only come in contact with the chain when shifting between front chainrings.

    When you are running only a single front chainring as in 1x9 or 1x10 then the concern is that the angles the chain has to run to cover the full range of the cassette may cause excessive wear. This is the chain line I was referring too and the fact that it has to vary dramatically from 1-1 to 1-9.

    Therefore no matter what your chain line is doing between the chainring and the cassette, the chain will not be contacting the ramps and pins.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic
    Haha, when I ran a 1x10 (using a 32T chainring) and raced in last years summer N-Duros I never needed to use my highest gear on Billy T (or any of the singletrack from memory - not Rollercoaster, Dragon's, BRN2, etc). Even at Karapoti there were only a couple of times I needed the 11T.

    You must be heaps faster than me.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    220
    However despite the design accommodating it, is poor chain line ever desirable from a wear and efficiency point of view?
    Everything in engineering is a trade-off of some sort. Very rarely do you get to have your cake and eat it too.

    You could, for example, design a bike that used 10 front chainrings and 10 cogs on the cassette. Then you design a cable system that shifts both ends in lockstep. Presto! Now you have a bike with 10 gears and a perfect chainline every time.

    But squeezing all those chainings up front is going to be tough to fit... unless you have a wide Q factor, or you make the BB really narrow (which is not good for BB flex) Plus the weight of all those extra chainrings, and the complexity of a driveline that shifts both ends simultaneously (or at least synchronised)

    Is that a worthwhile tradeoff? Probably not. And that is indicative by the manufacturers not trying to build one.

    Instead, they are going to narrower, more flexible chains, and they are reducing the physical distance between the rings. The 30 speed Dyna-Sys reduces the distance between the chainrings so that the big and granny are more centred. XX does the same, but also drops an entire chainring so both rings are more nearly centred. These tricks are all with the aim of allowing the entire range of the cassette to be used with any chainring.

    One assumes that whatever tradeoffs there are with this design are less penalising than cross-chaining a 9-speed triple.

    Plus, every single chain-drop I've ever had happened when I tried a front shift. A chain-drop is an instant stop. Chain-drops can lose races (right Andy?) Nobody ever lost a race to chain wear.

    Less weight, less complexity, less risk, vice potential increased driveline wear... seems like an easy call to me.

    And with that said, nobody is forcing you to use the entire rear range. If you choose to limit cross-chaining on a 2x10... that's your right. Certainly it isn't wrong.

    DG

  70. #70
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,169

    Oh I got that

    Quote Originally Posted by ozynigma
    Hi JMac47, I was trying to keep that part of my response really brief and inoffensive and may have been too brief to make sense.

    The ramping and pinning is on the inner face of the middle chainring and maybe on the big chainring as well. The inner chainring is always plain. These only come in contact with the chain when shifting between front chainrings.

    When you are running only a single front chainring as in 1x9 or 1x10 then the concern is that the angles the chain has to run to cover the full range of the cassette may cause excessive wear. This is the chain line I was referring too and the fact that it has to vary dramatically from 1-1 to 1-9.

    Therefore no matter what your chain line is doing between the chainring and the cassette, the chain will not be contacting the ramps and pins.
    Plus I followewd you're earlier post too.

    QUOTE=JMac47]SS-1x9/2x10? What's wrong with 2x9? Are we getting caught up in the "buy 10" and mind numbing number crunching ratio difference hype? Yes as a Pro/sponsored rider you'll ride what's offered, but can't we regular Joe's accomplish just about the same w/2x9 as 2x10?

    I'm with ozinigmas, I really don't want to have to throw aside my perfectly opperating X0 gripshifts and der.[/QUOTE]
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Ripley V4 UpDowncountry rig

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    115
    I run a 1x9 36t upfront and 11-34 in the back on a 29er....I went from a 3x9 to a 2x9 then to the single ring up front......I honestly don't feel like I am missing anything by not having 2 extra rings upfront.....its made me a stronger rider pushing the higher front ring....and I have used this combo in the NC mountains with lots of climbing....sometimes you just gotta get out of the saddle like a SS.....Now NC is not Colorado but those hills aren't small.....extra gears, FOR ME< are just that, extra things that I will break or mess up somehow!!!

    You just have to try diffent things to see what you are most comfortable with!
    _____________________________
    Not clown........Joker..

    RideMFRide
    www.crankskins.com

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    495
    Like the OP I am also thinking of going to a 1x9 setup on one of my bikes.

    With the 10 spd chains being more flexible to handle the chainline variation, can I use them on a 1x9 drivetrain? Will they engage fully with the chainring and cassette?

    A few years ago I though I heard some weight weenies were using 10 spd Dura Ace chains on 9spd drivetrains to save a few grams.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    85
    On a typical 3x9 mtb that you see today, The lowest gear, typically is 22x32 a ratio of .6875. Now some folks on this forum will scoff but some days having this granny gear is critical. Especially if you are climbing a wall and you don't know the area and how long this particular wall is...

    So I think/hope what is starting to happen is that you will see more and more 11-36 10 speed cassettes with 1 or 2 chain rings up front. If you can go with 11-36 10sp cassette and say a 1 32 front ring, O hope/believe that you will get a great range and utility.

    This will give you: 32/36 .8888 lowest and 32/11 2.9 highest. This should give you a near granny gear for those oh so fun walls of death and hopefully some decent power for flats and downs. You could always get a 34t,36t chain rings for not too much cash to try out.

    I am in the financial process of going from 3x9 to 1x10. After a massive war with chain suck I am all for going 1x up front!

    cassette, chain, rear, deraileur, shifter... pictures to come.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zamatterry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36
    Just went from SS on my carbon air 9 to 1x9 32 widget up front with the 999 sram 11x32 out back and I love it. Went with 9sp b/c I want to use grips but I'm not sure I'm missing anything with the 10sp. Plus most 9sp stuff is super cheap right now. ONe more post for 1x9 gripshift.
    1x9 vs 2x10?-dsc_0378.jpg

  75. #75
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by zamatterry
    Just went from SS on my carbon air 9 to 1x9 32 widget up front with the 999 sram 11x32 out back and I love it. Went with 9sp b/c I want to use grips but I'm not sure I'm missing anything with the 10sp. Plus most 9sp stuff is super cheap right now. ONe more post for 1x9 gripshift.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0378.JPG 
Views:	377 
Size:	86.5 KB 
ID:	591381
    Sweet. That Widgit looks good on there!!! Any rub at all on the sides of the chain with the Widgit when in the big or little cog on the rear?

    9 speed Ti cassettes with the 36T available as well which could pair nicely with a 34T Widgit (I'm thinking this through right now for one of my bikes). And yes, I like GShift as well. I wouldn't have to get a new chain, new rear derailleur, new shifter if doing a 1 x 9. Just a Widgit and a cassette. But going 1 x 10 would mean a lot more new stuff and $$$.

    BB

  76. #76
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,169

    Ditto that

    Quote Originally Posted by zamatterry
    Just went from SS on my carbon air 9 to 1x9 32 widget up front with the 999 sram 11x32 out back and I love it. Went with 9sp b/c I want to use grips but I'm not sure I'm missing anything with the 10sp. Plus most 9sp stuff is super cheap right now. ONe more post for 1x9 gripshift.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0378.JPG 
Views:	377 
Size:	86.5 KB 
ID:	591381
    Nice setup! I've been riding 26" SS primarily (still have) and have become enabled by the quietneSS. I've just recently built up my first 9r w/ XO 3x9 gripshift components switched from another rig. So now that I've had a few rides on the new machine I'm going to drop the big ring and install a bashring for starters. It will be 22/32 x 11/34 xtr. Then trial runs for awhile before dropping some coin to get one of the aftermarket 11/36t cassettes, as in the link provided by Bruce, which enevitably I will get. I think this will be an ideal 29r set up for the areas I ride without dropping the $$$ for the x10 setup.

    This will leave my stable with a 26/650 steel SS, a light, geared bigwheeled ht and a 26/650 140mm travel fs. Life is good
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Ripley V4 UpDowncountry rig

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by RecceDG
    Agreed.

    Put another way, the front shift is "dangerous" (not in the sense that it is physically dangerous, but in the sense that it is far more likely to screw up than an rear shift) so reducing the number of front shifts reduces the probability that something will go horribly wrong.

    That being the case, having overlap on ratios works in your favour, because you can get the "same" gear without necessarily having to execute a front shift.

    A classic triple is set up so that in most cases, a big ring change can be neutralised with two rear shifts - ie, drop down on the front, come up two on the back, and you are back in the same gear.

    DG
    After some time on 2x10 I'd say the overlap benefit you're describing is overrated, and not much of a true benefit for me. All it meant was that I spent 98% of my time in the middle ring, being under and over geared in many situations. The fact that you now only have 2 possible front shifts (up or down) also reduces the danger of the shift. With 2x10 I essentially have a 'flats' ring, and a 'hills' ring. With the range of a 36t cassette you can use either ring in a pinch, being in either ring doesn't normally necessitate a front shift under load/in bad situations. Essentially I was using a 3x as a 1x, but now have 2 very useful rings versus 1. Also, in my opinion, due to the range of a 36t cassette and more useful front rings you don't need the overlap and redundancy found in a 3x setup.

    I also spend a fair amount of time on a singlespeed. While I understand the simplicity of a 1x setup and realize you can push a 1x in nearly all situations I find the option lacking at both the top and bottom end. If I'm going to bother with gears and derailleurs I'd rather have slightly more range. I'm not a fan of swapping front chainrings based on a course. That said, I'm sure I'll have a 1x setup at some point in the future... just not sure it'll be on my race bike.

  78. #78
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    After some time on 2x10 I'd say the overlap benefit you're describing is overrated, and not much of a true benefit for me. All it meant was that I spent 98% of my time in the middle ring, being under and over geared in many situations.
    Overlap forces you to choose the wrong gear?

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    The fact that you now only have 2 possible front shifts (up or down) also reduces the danger of the shift.
    No it doesn't. It either reduces overlap (which increases front shifting) or it decreases range (which might make undesirable gears more likely).

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    With 2x10 I essentially have a 'flats' ring, and a 'hills' ring. With the range of a 36t cassette you can use either ring in a pinch, being in either ring doesn't normally necessitate a front shift under load/in bad situations.
    Just as true for a triple with the addition of a high speed ring. Being able to use either ring is enabled by overlap which you just claimed is overrated. My personal "double" works exactly as you say yet it is a triple with a bash. What you are saying is if I swap out my bash for a chainring and change my shifter then suddenly my other two rings work differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    Essentially I was using a 3x as a 1x, but now have 2 very useful rings versus 1. Also, in my opinion, due to the range of a 36t cassette and more useful front rings you don't need the overlap and redundancy found in a 3x setup.
    This, of course, makes no sense as it implies you either don't know how, or refuse, to set up a triple to be useful. Of course a triple with 2 useless rings is a bad choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    That said, I'm sure I'll have a 1x setup at some point in the future... just not sure it'll be on my race bike.
    So on your race bike you like to carry around gears you won't use so they'll be there for some future course? I'm sensing a pattern.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    Forgive me for trying to add value to the thread. I don't believe your logic or assumptions are correct on many, if any of my statements. I'll attempt to spell it out in more detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Overlap forces you to choose the wrong gear?
    Overlap from a 3x doesn't force you to choose the wrong gear, you end up finding yourself in the middle ring constantly because the little ring is too low and the big ring is too high.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    No it doesn't. It either reduces overlap (which increases front shifting) or it decreases range (which might make undesirable gears more likely).
    I believe a 2x setup reduces danger of a front shift, the reason for your response. Instead of having to setup a 3x front derailleur with three possible positions you now only have to setup 2 positions. It's easier to dial in two positions, you shift either up or down. It's also easier to troubleshoot issues if you're throwing the chain. Do you think all the roadies and cross guys are crazy... they've been running true doubles for quite some time now.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Just as true for a triple with the addition of a high speed ring. Being able to use either ring is enabled by overlap which you just claimed is overrated. My personal "double" works exactly as you say yet it is a triple with a bash. What you are saying is if I swap out my bash for a chainring and change my shifter then suddenly my other two rings work differently.
    Your 'double' isn't the same as a dedicated 2x setup. You're still running a wider chainline and you're still using a 3x bolt pattern which normally necessitates certain gearing in the small/middle/large chainring positions. A double is not the same as a triple with a 'high speed' ring... that's a triple. Your two small rings are still proportional to triple gearing. Think road bike, would a triple crank with a removed outer ring still have similar gearing to a double?

    To your other point, as I originally stated, I feel the overlap is overrated and redundant. If I pay attention and understand which ring I'm in, in relation to the terrain, why do I need all the redundancy? I don't need to use both rings with the same gear ratio, I WANT the different rings to have an effect on the gear ratios.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    This, of course, makes no sense as it implies you either don't know how, or refuse, to set up a triple to be useful. Of course a triple with 2 useless rings is a bad choice.
    I assure you I know how to setup a 3x crank. Most people running triples are on 22/32/44, 22/33/44, or 24/32/42. Either the 22 or the 24 is going to be too low for most normal use, and a 42/44 ring is too high for most anything other than flying downhill. What exactly do you think it takes to setup a 'useful' 3x, 26/32/40? If you're doing that wouldn't it make sense to ditch the extra ring?

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    So on your race bike you like to carry around gears you won't use so they'll be there for some future course? I'm sensing a pattern.
    You aren't very good at following patterns or logic are you? The reason I choose a double over a single ring is so I have the extra range it allows, with the correct ring selection I'll use both rings in nearly all races. This is of course different than if I were running a triple, where I hardly ever used the big ring or the small ring.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: quelocotony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    342
    Coming off an SS 29er set up with a 32T / 16T, I decided to set up my Air 9 1x9. Currently I'm running a 34T front ring and 11-32 rear.

    After a few rides, I find that riding mostly on the 21T, 24T and 28T gears. My question is should I consider going with a 32T ring in front to get fuller range/use from my set up?

    Thoughts are appreciated.

  81. #81
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    Overlap from a 3x doesn't force you to choose the wrong gear, you end up finding yourself in the middle ring constantly because the little ring is too low and the big ring is too high.
    Except that a triple doesn't do that. It has more overlap than typical race doubles and that makes it such a thing less likely.

    Let's assume your small double ring is a 26T. With a triple you can run a 26T granny or possibly a 24T. How is such a small ring on a triple "too low" when it is the same or similar to that wonderfully useful small ring on your double? It isn't, you're just making it up. Likewise, you may use a 39T big rather than a 32T middle but the difference is only 1 or 1 1/2 gears. Seldom is that top gear ever used, especially for racers that like to carry more gear than they need (like you), so the big ring problem is imagined as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    It's easier to dial in two positions, you shift either up or down. It's also easier to troubleshoot issues if you're throwing the chain. Do you think all the roadies and cross guys are crazy... they've been running true doubles for quite some time now.
    You've changed the subject here. Are you unable to find a qualified mechanic to make a triple work? Can't do it yourself? Are you saying that in all the years of MTB riding, everyone has been putting up with triple shifting that doesn't work? . Triple shifting is fine, it is not more complicated nor more finicky than a double.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    Your 'double' isn't the same as a dedicated 2x setup. You're still running a wider chainline and you're still using a 3x bolt pattern which normally necessitates certain gearing in the small/middle/large chainring positions. A double is not the same as a triple with a 'high speed' ring... that's a triple. Your two small rings are still proportional to triple gearing. Think road bike, would a triple crank with a removed outer ring still have similar gearing to a double?
    It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand chainline either. A triple with a 50mm chainline becomes a double with a 46mm chainline. That is superior to any dedicated MTB double available. Such a double would have chainrings at 42mm and 50mm compared to a true 50mm double at 46mm and 54mm. Far from being "wider", it is considerably better for a 135mm rear, at least 2mm better than any true double.

    As for chainrings, I'm not obligated to run 22/32 just because that's what comes with it typically. I don't either.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    To your other point, as I originally stated, I feel the overlap is overrated and redundant. If I pay attention and understand which ring I'm in, in relation to the terrain, why do I need all the redundancy? I don't need to use both rings with the same gear ratio, I WANT the different rings to have an effect on the gear ratios.
    You argue against overlap when it comes to the difference between a double and a triple, then brag about the usefulness of both rings of your double despite the fact that it's overlap that enables that and PROVES that it's not "redundant". You argue that you need extra gear range with your double as compared to a single then ignore the value of extra gear range that a triple offers over a double (and in fact claim that it offers less). It seems to me that you start with your answer then scramble for some "facts" to support your bias.

    As for you wanting chainrings to affect gear ratios, I would enjoy watching you discover how much you hate a system with no overlap.

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    I assure you I know how to setup a 3x crank. Most people running triples are on 22/32/44, 22/33/44, or 24/32/42. Either the 22 or the 24 is going to be too low for most normal use, and a 42/44 ring is too high for most anything other than flying downhill. What exactly do you think it takes to setup a 'useful' 3x, 26/32/40? If you're doing that wouldn't it make sense to ditch the extra ring?
    If you want answers to that you should first explain what double rings are so magically perfect for you. I doubt 24T is "too low for normal use" for anyone, frankly. A 42T may be too high, but not everyone needs the range of a triple, and how much higher is a 42T than a 39T or 42T that comes on a double anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21
    You aren't very good at following patterns or logic are you? The reason I choose a double over a single ring is so I have the extra range it allows, with the correct ring selection I'll use both rings in nearly all races. This is of course different than if I were running a triple, where I hardly ever used the big ring or the small ring.
    Actually, I would say I'm following too well. Explain again why overlap is "overrated" when you can't "use both rings in nearly all races" without it. I fully understand the value of two chainrings, a slower climbing one and a faster flats one, but I also understand that it's overlap that is critical to that working right and that I can get the exact same thing out of a triple. In fact, I do.

    There is really only one argument for double over single, singles offer marginal gearing range. The problem with true doubles, though, is the wide gap between rings that wasn't done for racers but marketers fighting against triples.

  82. #82
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by quelocotony
    Coming off an SS 29er set up with a 32T / 16T, I decided to set up my Air 9 1x9. Currently I'm running a 34T front ring and 11-32 rear.

    After a few rides, I find that riding mostly on the 21T, 24T and 28T gears. My question is should I consider going with a 32T ring in front to get fuller range/use from my set up?

    Thoughts are appreciated.
    The problem is that the 32T is not much smaller compared to a typical MTB cassette gear. Specifically, a 32T is 94% of a 34T, so that would make the equivalent rear gears 20T, 23T, and 26T (roughly). In order to get a full gear change on the rear, you'd need a 30T ring instead. My 1x10 has a 27T chainring.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    577
    I have a ti OnOne 29er, which after I bought it they remarketed as a single speeder
    I run a triple, but this bike design gives little clearance between the chain ring and chainstay so as a result I get chain suck often (yes I put new chains and rings on regulary) This is starting to annoy me and I was considering the new Alfine 11, but expense, weight, etc I will hang on. I'm regulary racing this bike.
    However now I'm thinking running 1x 9, because I already have the bits.
    I'm thinking on a 12-36 and a 26 on the front. I need the low gears. In doing this can I .....
    a) continue using my XT triple crank and just pack out the crank to give me more clearance and straighten the chain line.
    b) run a short cage derailluer ie a Tiagra 9 speed?
    c) Is it recommended to run a chain guide and if so will it work with my propossed set up?
    Any other suggestions greatly appreciated.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by wobbem
    I have a ti OnOne 29er, which after I bought it they remarketed as a single speeder
    I run a triple, but this bike design gives little clearance between the chain ring and chainstay so as a result I get chain suck often (yes I put new chains and rings on regulary) This is starting to annoy me and I was considering the new Alfine 11, but expense, weight, etc I will hang on. I'm regulary racing this bike.
    However now I'm thinking running 1x 9, because I already have the bits.
    I'm thinking on a 12-36 and a 26 on the front. I need the low gears. In doing this can I .....
    a) continue using my XT triple crank and just pack out the crank to give me more clearance and straighten the chain line.
    b) run a short cage derailluer ie a Tiagra 9 speed?
    c) Is it recommended to run a chain guide and if so will it work with my propossed set up?
    Any other suggestions greatly appreciated.
    Clearance isn't a cause of chainsuck, it just leaves less room for error and more noticeable consequences. Your situation might be greatly improved with something as simple as a different chainlube.

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
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.