I don't get Dyna-Sys!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 111 of 111
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    71

    I don't get Dyna-Sys!

    It seems to me that Shimano responded to SRAM's challenge with its 2x10 setup by offering the weight and complexity of a triple coupled to the major disadvantage of the 2x10: limited high and low gearing. I think 2x10 is worthless for a 29'er. But I don't see the XTR M980 offering a solution unless I change the small ring for a 21t or 22t. Has anyone tried this? I heard it may not shift well in front.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,434
    I recommend that you not get it.

    I like mine mighty finely, and I think it shifts great.

    Just as an FYI, people run 3x9/10, 2x9/10, 1x9/10, 1x3-6, likely some other multi geared iterations, and ~gasp~ one gear, on 29ers, and they all seem to work.

    Maybe not for you and your terrain, but that's just you, right?
    Scarlett Johansson loves my hummus.

  3. #3
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by tantra
    It seems to me that Shimano responded to SRAM's challenge with its 2x10 setup by offering the weight and complexity of a triple coupled to the major disadvantage of the 2x10: limited high and low gearing. I think 2x10 is worthless for a 29'er. But I don't see the XTR M980 offering a solution unless I change the small ring for a 21t or 22t. Has anyone tried this? I heard it may not shift well in front.
    You are right,YOU DON'T GET IT.
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  4. #4
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    DynaSys shifts just fine up front and in the rear as well. Anyone that has ridden a XT/XTR level bike from the last couple years won't be noticing any improvements, but they won't be noticing any less performance either. In other words, it works like the best Shimano stuff has always worked, which is pretty good.

    SRAM XX front shifting is much better though.

    As for the gearing: Shimano doesn't believe right now that their is any reason to concede to 29"er fans calls for lower gearing. They just don't believe that the world market has warranted them to look into it any further. They say, "There is only mountain bike gearing" (<===straight from Shimano marketing, by the way)

    In fact, Shimano doesn't even believe there is enough demand for even a single speed specific crank set.

    I wouldn't expect Shimano to "fix" the gearing issues anytime soon to satisfy 29"er fans. It will take the small guys, or SRAM, to start selling a specific 29"er gearing set up in enough numbers to make Shimano take notice.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,695
    Hasn't Shimano started making 36t cassettes Ted?
    Isn't that recognizing the need for a little lower gearing?

    Just sayin'......

  6. #6
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by DMFT
    Hasn't Shimano started making 36t cassettes Ted?
    Isn't that recognizing the need for a little lower gearing?

    Just sayin'......
    They have not started making XT type 11-36 cassettes & that is what alot of people want.
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  7. #7
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic
    They have not started making XT type 11-36 cassettes & that is what alot of people want.
    they do in 10 speed.

    honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.

  8. #8
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    they do in 10 speed.

    honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.
    I know they do in 10 speed I have them on 3 of my bikes

    I run 26/39 up front of my Rip9 & 30/39 on my Jet9 & find that good for anywere I ride.

    Its not me that wan'ts lower gears I happy with what I have got
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.
    +1.

    Don't waste energy on Shimano bashing. Spend it on improving your watts/kg.

  10. #10
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic
    I know they do in 10 speed I have them on 3 of my bikes


    Its not me that wan'ts lower gears I happy with what I have got
    yeah that wasn't directed at you just an at large statement to the gearing nacys of MTBR

  11. #11
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by JeroenK
    +1.

    Don't waste energy on Shimano bashing. Spend it on improving your watts/kg.
    Yes you are right,I was thinking of changing to 20/30/40 up front & then lost 20 Lb listened to the MTFU & then went the other way.
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gruffalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic
    They have not started making XT type 11-36 cassettes & that is what alot of people want.
    I use a Deore 12-36 cassette on my Scandal. Need it for the hills around mine

    Something lighter would be nice but cant find anything

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nickbm3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    318
    Hey guys, im still pretty new to all this, what gearing is specific for 29ers? Seems like most of the bikes i look at either 26" or 29" are pretty much geared the same, for example 3x9 with 22/32/44 in front and 11-34 in back. My bike started out as a dual sport and came with 26/36/48 front and 11-32 rear, since putting on full size 29er tires and spending most of my time on real trails now, that was WAY too high (spent all my time in the granny ring). I got myself an 11-34 cassette and SLX cranks w/ 22/32/44 chainrings for xmas, now i can do the same trails solely in the middle chainring but with the option to bail out to the 22 or go up to the 44 for fast downhills. Do people really want lower gearing than that for a 29er? I tried my 22/34 combo and could barely pedal fast enough to keep the bike upright!
    "That's a niiiiiiiice biiike boy! That a Huffy!?"

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    71
    I am not bashing Shimano! I have XTR 970 on my Turner bike and Dura Ace 7900 on my Seven. I am looking to build my first 29'er and trying to choose components. I am happy with 22x34 on my 26" bike. But 24x36 is taller than 22x34. Even 22x36 is taller gearing on a 29'er than 22x34 is on a 26" bike. I could probably live with 22x36 on a 29'er. But that means swapping the 24t for a 22t ring on the M980 crankset. Has anyone tried that?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mountaindavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    221
    I am running 22/36 with 12/36 and do a mountain passes in CO. I am really happy with the set up and glad I have the 22f/36r when doing some of them hills...right before I dismount, typically, but glad none the less.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,695
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    they do in 10 speed.

    Exactly.


    honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.
    x2.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickbm3
    Hey guys, im still pretty new to all this, what gearing is specific for 29ers? Seems like most of the bikes i look at either 26" or 29" are pretty much geared the same, for example 3x9 with 22/32/44 in front and 11-34 in back. My bike started out as a dual sport and came with 26/36/48 front and 11-32 rear, since putting on full size 29er tires and spending most of my time on real trails now, that was WAY too high (spent all my time in the granny ring). I got myself an 11-34 cassette and SLX cranks w/ 22/32/44 chainrings for xmas, now i can do the same trails solely in the middle chainring but with the option to bail out to the 22 or go up to the 44 for fast downhills. Do people really want lower gearing than that for a 29er? I tried my 22/34 combo and could barely pedal fast enough to keep the bike upright!
    The lowest gear on the new 10 speed dynasys triple crank is 24/36 and on a 29er this is about 15% higher than 9 speed XTR low gear of 22/34 on a 26" wheeled bike. Or in another words, equivalent to giving up 4.5 teeth on the cassette. Do this matter? Well, depends on the type of trails you ride, how far you ride and how strong you are.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    28

    I know they do in 10 speed I have them on 3 of my bikes

    Shimano does not make XT level cassettes with a 36t, just FYI.

    Yes you may have 3 Shimano cassettes with 36t but they are not XT level no matter what someone might have told you.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by burritobeau
    Shimano does not make XT level cassettes with a 36t, just FYI.

    Yes you may have 3 Shimano cassettes with 36t but they are not XT level no matter what someone might have told you.
    You are simply incorrect:

    http://bike.shimano.com/publish/cont..._mountain.html

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  20. #20
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by burritobeau
    Shimano does not make XT level cassettes with a 36t, just FYI.

    Yes you may have 3 Shimano cassettes with 36t but they are not XT level no matter what someone might have told you.
    You do need to learn more
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ToneyRiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    396

    I like My Dyna-Sys

    I'm a big fan on my Dyna-Sys. The XTR is available in both 2X10 or 3X10 so it is nice to have the option of running a 2 or a 3 ring option. I find that it shifts well and so far I really like it.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    28
    Mountaindavis,

    What type/sort of chainrings are you running?

    Am I correct in that you are running a 10 speed Shimano rear cassette 11-36 with a 9 speed front granny ring at 22t?

    An easier gear for my 29er with Shimano Dyna-Sys would be easier on a battered body and keen to know about your set up.

    Thanks

  23. #23
    Trail Junkie
    Reputation: dubdryver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,204
    I run SRAM 2x10 38/24 and 11-36 cassette, and can't think of a better gear spread for my 29er. The 2x10 has been a complete blessing. I have 6 months on 2x10 so far and find it to fill all my needs for low and high. I am coming from many years of riding 2x9 and 1x9, and usually carry a couple ring options for the trails I will be riding which might change from a 36T to a 40T. I now have to wait for 10 speed rings to be available to have the same options, but so far I am extremely happy with the 38T for an all-purpose gear..but that is me, and that is for my fitness level. I could probably push a 39T or 40T with no problems, but I tried a 42T and found myself dropping down more than I actually wanted to...especially after quite a bit of miles into the ride.

    I recently built a Jet9 for a friend w/ a Motobecane Doner..It came with XT/XTR 3x10, and I was very impressed with the shifting, so no complaints with that. As for the viability of 3x10 on a 29er race FS...well, thats up to the rider.
    Ibis Ripley LS
    Santa Cruz Chameleon SS
    Cervelo S2
    Trek Boone 5 Disc (Gravel)
    GT Piece Tour (Gravel)

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    28
    An additional query for those who are familiar with gear ratios:

    On a 29er, would a the 9 speed 22F and 34R gear combo be easier to pedal up hill than the 10 speed 24F and 36R gear combo? If so, what is the percentage difference?

    Rob

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwibert
    An additional query for those who are familiar with gear ratios:

    On a 29er, would a the 9 speed 22F and 34R gear combo be easier to pedal up hill than the 10 speed 24F and 36R gear combo? If so, what is the percentage difference?

    Rob
    It makes no difference if it is 9 speed or 10 speed. Neither does it matter what the wheel size is. Ratios are ratios. 22/34=0.647 and 24/36=0.667. For practical purposes it is the same ratio.

    Ronnie.

    Edit: Out of curiosity, I calculated the forward rotation of a 29" wheel with one full crank revolution.

    A 29" wheel has a circumference of 91.14" (Circumference = π X Diameter)

    91.14 X 0.647 = 58.96"
    91.14 X 0.667 + 60.79"

    About 1.8" more with 24/36 ratio.
    Last edited by Ronnie; 01-02-2011 at 06:38 PM.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    283
    For all day long epics or super steep stuff like what I do here in AZ & UT, an easier gear is much appreciated. My new bike should be in this week and I already have the 20-30-40 chainrings waiting for it. I think 20-30-40 up front and 12-36 in back is optimal for (me) for 29er gearing. FWIW, I'm pretty skinny and put out over 4w/kg at FTP so I don't think I'm weak, although there are many others stronger than myself. I just am more comfortable spinning an easier gear than mashing a difficult one. I don't want to blow my legs up early on. When you calculate the gear inches, a 20-30-40 just plain old makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised to see this come out in the future as OEM on 29ers. If I lived in Nebraska or New Jersey, 26-39 double would most likely be plenty, but I don't

    Chiva

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    28
    Thanks Ronnie - maths was never my strong point.

    Chiva - are your front chainrings Shimano 9 speed and rear cassette 10 speed?

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    It makes no difference if it is 9 speed or 10 speed. Neither does it matter what the wheel size is. Ratios are ratios. 22/34=0.647 and 24/36=0.667. For practical purposes it is the same ratio.

    Ronnie.
    A 22/34 would be about 3.2% higher than a 24/36 and yes the wheel size does make a significant difference in effective gear ratio...about 11.5% or like losing 3.5 teeth on the cassette. To some that doesn't matter and is even preferred...to others it is the difference between riding and walking.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073

    Hope

    I don't own any "low" 29er gearing, actually got bigger rings when I got my first 29er and I regularly climb at that speed on steep, tech climbs. If you can't balance and stay on your bike and continue to climb @ 3.5mph then it is you who needs some help, get out there to your nerrest skills camp and see if they can help you with that problem

    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    ..honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.
    As to Dyna Sys :meah: whatever, current 9spd XT is working fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    28
    I stand corrected. I can admit it.I searched hi and low for a high-end shimano cassette with a 36t just 2 months ago and all I could find was an hg-81. Oh well. Thanks for setting me straight.

  31. #31
    Trail Junkie
    Reputation: dubdryver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwibert
    An additional query for those who are familiar with gear ratios:

    On a 29er, would a the 9 speed 22F and 34R gear combo be easier to pedal up hill than the 10 speed 24F and 36R gear combo? If so, what is the percentage difference?

    Rob

    For all your gear inquiries or to see the differences/gains/losses that you will have use this:
    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

    Trust me, you will understand what is happening better when you are actually looking at the numbers.
    Ibis Ripley LS
    Santa Cruz Chameleon SS
    Cervelo S2
    Trek Boone 5 Disc (Gravel)
    GT Piece Tour (Gravel)

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skunkty14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by EJ_92606
    A 22/34 would be about 3.2% higher than a 24/36 and yes the wheel size does make a significant difference in effective gear ratio...about 11.5% or like losing 3.5 teeth on the cassette. To some that doesn't matter and is even preferred...to others it is the difference between riding and walking.
    ...and this still doesn't matter b/c you're comparing 29er wheels to 26er wheels. Ronnie's math/argument still stays, you can't change the overall ratio. You're discussing the rollout of different wheel circumferences. Since the topic at hand is gearing for 29ers what's the point?

    Yes the ~3% difference in ratio is there. And I'm willing to bet the majority of the people e-riding here (present company included) are unable to truly notice this difference when actually pedaling a bike. I.e. I hand you the same bike with a 34T vs. 36T rear and ask you to ride the bike you would be hard pressed to notice.

    The bigger picture, the constant whining for "29er specific gearing" is silly IMO. Ted, looking vaguely in your direction since you've spent a lot of bandwidth & your time on the subject here & your site(s). Seriously, gearing below a 36T? Even if you can balance your bike at that speed (plenty can) you're better off expending your energy walking. And the other post regarding not tall enough gearing with 2X10? A 39X11 with a 29er wheel and a decent cadence will push 30mph. And if you'd like to stay 3x9 or 3x10 you'll get speeds well above that if that's your choice. This has gone beyond silly.

    Please understand, most of this isn't directed strictly at EJ, Ted (or anyone else for that matter) but at the thread in general. All meant in good fun, a lot of us are in the midst of winter which means less riding & more e-riding around here.
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    in fact for trail type bikes I am tired of QR roady shite in general. Lets move on.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: highrustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    458

    what?

    Quote Originally Posted by tantra
    I think 2x10 is worthless for a 29'er.
    This statement is complete nonsense. Have you tried it? I've been on 2x9 for years with 24/36 rings up front. This has proved excellent for any of the CO terrain I've ridden. Perhaps you need that 21 for a reason

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ftp13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    57
    With lower gearing up front-24, 26, etc and the narrower 10 speed chain I am guessing these parts are going to wear out faster.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by ftp13
    With lower gearing up front-24, 26, etc and the narrower 10 speed chain I am guessing these parts are going to wear out faster.
    It took 700 miles to get to .75% stretch on my first 10 speed chain, which is about the same as it was with 9 and 8 speed setups.
    Scarlett Johansson loves my hummus.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    To those who think it's better to get off and walk, why not just leave the bike at home and go for a hike? Avoids all that annoying pedaling (;

    The cool thing about the Dyna-Sys 36T cassette is that you can pair it with a 9spd 22T SLX steel granny (which is actually narrower than the 10spd aluminum model)for the approx. equivalent of a 26" low gear.

    Why the low-gear naysayers aren't on the 26" boards decrying their even-lower gear inches, I'll never understand. Is there some secret prize for walking a section faster than I can ride it...

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    283
    +1 D.F.L.
    Sounds strange, but I too rather ride than walk. Wow imagine that, riding my mountain bike instead of pushing it. Now, if I'm racing, I'll do whatever is faster, but if I'm not racing, then for sure I want to stay on my bike. Its just more fun riding than walking. If I wanted to go hiking, I would leave my bike at home and bring a stick.
    What's up with all the low-gear haters. Why you gotta be a hayta????

    Chiva

  38. #38
    Vaginatarian
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,685
    here is a chart showing the difference in travel for a 29" wheel vs 26"
    as you can see in 11/44 youre actually going 33" farther with each rotation, but youre also expending more energy to do it.
    if anything 29ers benifit from lower gear options and 2x10 can give that, but if you up the chainring size then you lose the lower gearing. personally , I ride 2x9 with a 21t granny and an 11/34 cassette, but I like climbing over rocks and such so the lower gearing works for me.
    there is no right combo only many options, you need to decide which is right for you
    Attached Images Attached Images

  39. #39
    Vaginatarian
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Gruffalo
    I use a Deore 12-36 cassette on my Scandal. Need it for the hills around mine

    Something lighter would be nice but cant find anything
    try a 11/34 and a 21 or 22 granny

  40. #40
    Vaginatarian
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,685
    Quote Originally Posted by tantra
    It seems to me that Shimano responded to SRAM's challenge with its 2x10 setup by offering the weight and complexity of a triple coupled to the major disadvantage of the 2x10: limited high and low gearing. I think 2x10 is worthless for a 29'er. But I don't see the XTR M980 offering a solution unless I change the small ring for a 21t or 22t. Has anyone tried this? I heard it may not shift well in front.

    I have a 21t ti granny on my xt 2x9 setup, shifts fine, I would have gone smaller but the fd will hit when the suspension contracts

  41. #41
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Originally posted by Skunkty14: The bigger picture, the constant whining for "29er specific gearing" is silly IMO. Ted, looking vaguely in your direction since you've spent a lot of bandwidth & your time on the subject here & your site(s). Seriously, gearing below a 36T? Even if you can balance your bike at that speed (plenty can) you're better off expending your energy walking. And the other post regarding not tall enough gearing with 2X10? A 39X11 with a 29er wheel and a decent cadence will push 30mph. And if you'd like to stay 3x9 or 3x10 you'll get speeds well above that if that's your choice. This has gone beyond silly.
    Well, I have always been of the mind that 24 X 36T is plenty low enough of a gear. I used the 9spd set up specialized put out for 2010 with the 9spd 22 X 36T low, (it wasn't a Shimano cassette, interestingly enough), and took that to the mountains around El Paso, Texas last year in the spring. I thought the lowest gear was practically useless myself, since the amount of torque was so high, and the speed was so low, staying upright without spinning out on the rocks was tough.

    One situation, but it illustrates my personal experience over the years with ultra-low gearing on both 26" and 29" bikes. Is the 24 X 36T DynaSys low enough for most folks? Maybe. I think you need to look at some other aspects of the system that play into the way you can take advantage of momentum with DynaSys. The gearing is closer ratio. Not only in the mid-cassette part of the group, but in terms of mid-to-small up front. When you do dump down into that granny, you lose less momentum due to not having to futz with the rear shifter as much to get closer to your optimal climbing cadence. You also, (obviously), can stay out of the granny longer. That's pretty big at times out there on the trail. I also would submit that using the closer ratio cassette gearing going into a climb to preserve your momentum can work to keep yourself from having to dump off to the granny as well.

    Anyway, that's all good and well in some places.

    The flipside: It's been "splained" to me by a certain well known alpine crawler that haunts these boards that having a 20-30-40/42T set up with as low as a 38T out back is "definitely" needed to use for a bail-out/sufferage gear whilst bikepacking in the high back country. And given that riding a bicycle is more efficient than walking one, then it does make some sense to me. Add in the "pride in riding" certain unrideable sections, or trails that are super tough without easier gearing, and again, I can only nod in agreement. If that 20T is what it takes to get you up and over, then by all means- "Why the heck not?"

    I'll admit that I can see the validity in both the "MTFU" arguments and the 20-30-40 arguments. Lose some weight, get fitter, and use what you have to use to get the job done. If a low gear is that for you, who am I to say "you shouldn't need it", right?
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,949
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    they do in 10 speed.

    honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.
    THANK YOU! (applauds) I like to think of them as "gear panzies". You need to give them another 3 or 10 gears to get them to STFU. With their luck Shimano will just throw in another useless gear that already exists and call it a miracle.

    The more I read about all the "10 speed" (why 10?!??! it's 30!) crap the more pleased I am with the 3x1 set up.
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies. :D

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,064
    Wheel size definitely makes a difference when you are talking gearing. The 29 inch wheel is going to travel a longer distance with every revolution than a 650B or 26 and therefor for a given speed the 29er cadence will be lower than either of the other wheelsizes. Since the same amount of power is need to travel a set distance no matter what the wheelsize, the 29er with the lower cadence will require more power per revolution than a 26 with a higher cadence. Many people don't have this extra power so they are looking for lower gears to increase their cadence. While it is true that gear ratio doesn't change due to wheelsize the Gear Inches does take it into account. So to figure your gear inches for lets say a 22/32 you have

    22 / 32 x 3.14(29) = 62.6 inches traveled for each crank revolution for a 29 inch wheel

    22 / 32 x 3.14(26) = 55.1 inches traveled for each crank revolution for a 26 or about 12% lower (easier)

    You would need a 36 on the rear to make the 29er feel like it has the same gearing as the 26er

    Then again I have to agree with others and just say MTFU

  44. #44
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    DynaSys shifts just fine up front and in the rear as well. Anyone that has ridden a XT/XTR level bike from the last couple years won't be noticing any improvements, but they won't be noticing any less performance either. In other words, it works like the best Shimano stuff has always worked, which is pretty good.
    You sure about that? I notice improved shifting with xtr 980, the cable pull ratio has changed, and the gears are spaced closer, shifting is much better.
    beaver hunt

  45. #45
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    I have noted the change in cable pull. I still think that XX is by far the quickest front shifting set up that I've ridden. It should also be noted that I have not ridden a DynaSys 2X10, which may feel quicker up front. The triple is perhaps incrementally better than the old 9spd, but that is splitting hairs to my mind.


    Glad you feel it is better shifting. Better is gooder. I just didn't notice a big enough improvement over the old, (which is excellent), shifting to make a note of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    You sure about that? I notice improved shifting with xtr 980, the cable pull ratio has changed, and the gears are spaced closer, shifting is much better.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Since the cable pull has supposedly changed to a much lower leverage ratio, closer to what SRAM has with their old "1:1" and the new "Exact Actuation", I would count on the difference in shifting being more noticeable down the road as things get dirty and worn

  47. #47
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    Since the cable pull has supposedly changed to a much lower leverage ratio, closer to what SRAM has with their old "1:1" and the new "Exact Actuation", I would count on the difference in shifting being more noticeable down the road as things get dirty and worn
    it will work better then but it has also gotten the rear shifter to feel much more consistent across the entire cassette. With 9spd they had to hold onto the standard they created and it made the lever feel heavy towards the easy gears. with the complete redesign of dyna-sys that is completely gone.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,557
    Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!

    Who cares what one wants to run for gearing?
    If you have a long steep climb ahead of you at altitude and you are not the youngest, slimmest, fittest rider around, why not gear super low?

    If you 2 by 10 folks are such men why not 1 by 10 or better yet a single speed?

    I have been bikepacking in Colorado at altitude and it is a lot more efficient to ride than to walk a bike and it is nice to have that bail out gear when your legs and lungs are burning and your heart is about to bust out of your chest.
    My brain went from "you probably shouldn't say that" to WTF!

  49. #49
    Vaginatarian
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,685
    Quote Originally Posted by richwolf
    Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!

    Who cares what one wants to run for gearing?
    If you have a long steep climb ahead of you at altitude and you are not the youngest, slimmest, fittest rider around, why not gear super low?

    If you 2 by 10 folks are such men why not 1 by 10 or better yet a single speed?

    I have been bikepacking in Colorado at altitude and it is a lot more efficient to ride than to walk a bike and it is nice to have that bail out gear when your legs and lungs are burning and your heart is about to bust out of your chest.
    +1
    careful , the internet studs will be burning you in efigy

    not to mention the more technical oriented riders who crawl up boulders and such, maybe we should man up and get a steel single speed and cactus underwear

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by richwolf
    Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!

    Who cares what one wants to run for gearing?
    If you have a long steep climb ahead of you at altitude and you are not the youngest, slimmest, fittest rider around, why not gear super low?

    If you 2 by 10 folks are such men why not 1 by 10 or better yet a single speed?

    I have been bikepacking in Colorado at altitude and it is a lot more efficient to ride than to walk a bike and it is nice to have that bail out gear when your legs and lungs are burning and your heart is about to bust out of your chest.
    very wise and sensible fellow this...are we giving out medals or free swag for common sense around here?

  51. #51
    banned
    Reputation: Mojo Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,095

    just ride

    When I started mtn biking back in '93. It was a 6 speed cassette and 3 chainrings for 18 gears total. Currently Im riding 2x9 for the same 18 gears. Hopefully, I get into good enough shape to drop down to 1x9.

    My point is. Ignore the marketing, e riding etc..... and just pedal the dang bike. Loose a few pounds and ride more. Personally, I hate dropping down into the granny ring. Sadly, I'm not in good enough shape to avoid it. It inspires me to ride more and better.

  52. #52
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,869
    I run all my bikes geared about the same way at the bottom end, the 26ers get a 11-30T cassette, the 27.5ers get 11-32T and the my sole 29er has a 11-34. My road bike and my cross/touring bike both have 11-28 in back. Most of my mountain bikes are double-rings with a 34T outer ring and either a 22T or 24T (ring pattern dependant) as the inner and I tend to spend a lot of my time in that outer ring. Most of my bikes run 8 cogs in the back, a few run 9, only one has 10. Oddly enough I also have only one bike still that's 7 in the back.

    I'm not a slave to marketing departments telling me what gearing I need, nor how many speeds I need to run. I can think for myself thank you. Its a pity so many others cannot.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  53. #53
    likes to ride bikes
    Reputation: TunicaTrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    Good point, triples were designed to be used when a smaller gear range was available in the rear cassette, 28 or 30t max. It is unnecessary now. Dumping into too low a gear can make climbing skills worse.

    For most fit racers, a 1:1 ratio, or slightly lower by 2t in the back, is all that is needed.

    34x11 is probably the lowest you can go with 1x9 and still have acceptable top end. 36x11-34 isn't so bad, 36x11-36 ten speed is great, or if you're more recreational, try 34x11-36 ten speed 1x10.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    When I started mtn biking back in '93. It was a 6 speed cassette and 3 chainrings for 18 gears total. Currently Im riding 2x9 for the same 18 gears. Hopefully, I get into good enough shape to drop down to 1x9.

    My point is. Ignore the marketing, e riding etc..... and just pedal the dang bike. Loose a few pounds and ride more. Personally, I hate dropping down into the granny ring. Sadly, I'm not in good enough shape to avoid it. It inspires me to ride more and better.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by tantra
    It seems to me that Shimano responded to SRAM's challenge with its 2x10 setup by offering the weight and complexity of a triple coupled to the major disadvantage of the 2x10: limited high and low gearing. I think 2x10 is worthless for a 29'er. But I don't see the XTR M980 offering a solution unless I change the small ring for a 21t or 22t. Has anyone tried this? I heard it may not shift well in front.
    Do not buy it then.

    I am not sure about what "complexity" you are talking about. Its a chainset. Not sure about what "challenge" you are talking about either. Its a chainset. For a 10sp chain. With an available 11-36 rear. Who needs 22 front 36 rear? 36r riders?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    283
    I for one need 22 x 36 on a 29er. There are others too. And no, we don't live in Nebraska.

    Chiva

  56. #56
    Village Dirtbag
    Reputation: @dam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,283
    I think Shimano also dropped the ball, but it's easily remedied. IMHO, the whole point of an extra gear out back should be for more range- not for having smaller increments between gears. This isn't road-riding; we don't need to shift to adjust our cadence by 3 rpm. More often, we need to make big changes in cadence fast. I'd be just as happy staying 9-spd if I could get a decent 11-36 cassette. However, it's ridiculous they only offer dyna-sys in a 24T granny gear. Again- when I do a front shift, I want a whole new range of gears...not a bunch of overlap with ratios I already had in the last chainring.

    Fortunately, I can just swap out the 24T with a 9-spd 22T. This will give me gearing similar to my 26er. I wouldn't mind having a 21T front/36T rear for slightly lower gearing than my 26er, but I hear you have to grind on the cranks to fit it, and I'm also concerned about chain longevity with that much leverage on those narrow 10-spd plates.

    Gearing is one of the main issues that held me back from going 29er. I'm so tired of these MTFU comments- not everyone has the same situation, and I'm already in pretty decent shape. My riding conditions demand ultra-low gearing.

    Most of my rides are no lower than 6000', and often top out at over 11,000'. You start to lose sustained power up there- about 25-30%, based on the O2 levels up there, so you'll want a 25-30% lower gear. Adjusting for O2 content, you'd be huffing & puffing as hard with a 24T chainring as you would with a 34T at sea level! Needless to say, these hills are often steep, too. Furthermore, some people PREFER a higher cadence. Some people, like those with knee problems, REQUIRE a higher cadence. Some people like to slow down on steep, sustained climbs because they plan on riding in conditions like that for 50 miles, and want to conserve energy by slowing down. Many of these 50 mile rides in the mountains have little or no water, so you're forced to haul as much as 2 gallons (almost 18 pounds) up the mountain, not to mention food and layers of clothes. On top of all that, many people would like the same gear inches on their 29er as they have on their 26er. All the above happen to apply to me. Cleaning a challenging climb without dabbing is also a lot more rewarding than pushing a bike up it.

    For the MTFU'ers, try hauling 25 pounds of gear up and down 10% grades for 50 miles while breathing through a snorkel and trying to stay above 85 rpm, and then tell me 22/36 or lower wouldn't be welcome. It's the same damn overall gearing almost everyone has on their 26ers! I think a 20/30/40 would be a FANTASTIC chainring set on a 29er.
    Last edited by @dam; 01-03-2011 at 12:28 PM.

  57. #57
    banned
    Reputation: Mojo Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    I think Shimano also dropped the ball, but it's easily remedied. IMHO, the whole point of an extra gear out back should be for more range- not for having smaller increments between gears. This isn't road-riding; we don't need to shift to adjust our cadence by 3 rpm. More often, we need to make big changes in cadence fast. I'd be just as happy staying 9-spd if I could get a decent 11-36 cassette. However, it's ridiculous they only offer dyna-sys in a 24T granny gear. Again- when I do a front shift, I want a whole new range of gears...not a bunch of overlap with ratios I already had in the last chainring.

    Fortunately, I can just swap out the 24T with a 9-spd 22T. This will give me gearing similar to my 26er. I wouldn't mind having a 21T front/36T rear for slightly lower gearing than my 26er, but I hear you have to grind on the cranks to fit it, and I'm also concerned about chain longevity with that much leverage on those narrow 10-spd plates.

    Gearing is one of the main issues that held me back from going 29er. I'm so tired of these MTFU comments- not everyone has the same situation, and I'm already in pretty decent shape. My riding conditions demand ultra-low gearing.

    Most of my rides are no lower than 6000', and often top out at over 11,000'. You start to lose sustained power up there- about 25-30%, based on the O2 levels up there, so you'll want a 25-30% lower gear. Adjusting for O2 content, you'd be huffing & puffing as hard with a 24T chainring as you would with a 34T at sea level! Needless to say, these hills are often steep, too. Furthermore, some people PREFER a higher cadence. Some people, like those with knee problems, REQUIRE a higher cadence. Some people like to slow down on steep, sustained climbs because they plan on riding in conditions like that for 50 miles, and want to conserve energy by slowing down. Many of these 50 mile rides in the mountains have little or no water, so you're forced to haul as much as 2 gallons (almost 18 pounds) up the mountain, not to mention food and layers of clothes. On top of all that, many people would like the same gear inches on their 29er as they have on their 26er. All the above happen to apply to me. Cleaning a challenging climb without dabbing is also a lot more rewarding than pushing a bike up it.

    For the MTFU'ers, try hauling 25 pounds of gear up and down 10% grades for 50 miles while breathing through a snorkel and trying to stay above 85 rpm, and then tell me 22/36 or lower wouldn't be welcome. It's the same damn overall gearing almost everyone has on their 26ers! I think a 20/30/40 would be a FANTASTIC chainring set on a 29er.
    I have ridden in similar conditions as you describe in the past. On a "'93 Fat Chance with an elastomer Manitou front end and a six speed cassette. I also decended on the same bike. Now people ride those same areas on 8" travel bikes. If I still lived in that part of the country. I'd still be riding my HT, only with a 9 speed cassette. Due to the industry having to reinvent the wheel every four years to boast sales.

    I still don't understand why so many people think they have to spend a bunch of money replacing perfectly good parts just to get an extra cog on the back. I was happy with 7 and 8 speed. A couple of years from now when shifters and drivetrain wear out. I'll probobly have to replace with 10 speed for the simple fact, that will be the most wide spread. Easiest to get.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    For the MTFU'ers, try hauling 25 pounds of gear up and down 10% grades for 50 miles while breathing through a snorkel and trying to stay above 85 rpm, and then tell me 22/36 or lower wouldn't be welcome. It's the same damn overall gearing almost everyone has on their 26ers! I think a 20/30/40 would be a FANTASTIC chainring set on a 29er.
    You forgot dragging a sack of potatoes behind you. But I am not sure how your unusual preferences for riding translate to Shimano's "failure". Just buy a 20/30/40 Middleburn crank - excellent crankset.

    I am not in a very good shape, but 23/27 on 26r for long climbs around Tahoe seems more then enough..

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    I still don't understand why so many people think they have to spend a bunch of money replacing perfectly good parts just to get an extra cog on the back. I was happy with 7 and 8 speed. A couple of years from now when shifters and drivetrain wear out. I'll probobly have to replace with 10 speed for the simple fact, that will be the most wide spread. Easiest to get.
    Because that's where the good parts are. I am not in a rush to go 10sp, but have just converted my weenie bike to get 1x10 with 11-36 rear - moving old parts to a different bike. For that configuration it is definitely a good idea.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    IMHO, the whole point of an extra gear out back should be for more range- not for having smaller increments between gears
    In a different way, greater range is what they were after. The idea is to have more range from the middle ring so that a slower front shift to granny is not needed. They thought the current low gearing was low enough for the average trail rider so they used the larger cassette to allow them to move the granny up so less momentum is lost when you have to shift to that ring. With the 36t cassette the increments between shifts aren't any smaller than with an average 9spd setup

    I can't fault them for their reasoning, and I can't fault people like you who need even lower gearing. I think more people need to accept not only that preference is preference and that everyone's trails are different, but also that most companies, esp the huge ones like SRAM and Shimano, probably aren't going to try to cover all the outliers

  60. #60
    Village Dirtbag
    Reputation: @dam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    You forgot dragging a sack of potatoes behind you. But I am not sure how your unusual preferences for riding translate to Shimano's "failure".
    I wouldn't call mountain biking in actual mountains particularly unusual. The distance may be though.

    The point is, not everyone who buys a 29er wants higher gearing. Most would want the same as they had before, thus there is a market for lower gears for 29ers. I also don't want smaller increments between gears- I want a bigger ratio range.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    I wouldn't call mountain biking in actual mountains particularly unusual.
    I can understand people getting annoyed and vocal over the trouble of getting a setup that matches their preference, but elitism like is just crap

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    I wouldn't call mountain biking in actual mountains particularly unusual.
    Ah, OK. I guess I was cyclocrossing around Sierra Nevada then... All those years, adventure races and such, and I had no clue I really need lower gears to mountain bike.. Will go buy some handlebar streamers to match.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    643
    Couldn't agree more. I bikepack and I run a 1x9. I have no plans changing to anything else unless it is less gearing. I don't bikepack SS because there are plenty of times and places where having a 34x30 is good and having a 34x11 is good.

    Gotta look at what / why / where you ride and then apply the technology to the activity. I'm not going to race anyone so I don't care about the latest stuff other than for geek-in out. There is so much great 2nd-hand and left over gear out there from the last 8-10yrs that, to me, it's crazy to even consider a new version of a very old idea.

    2x10, 3x10, 29er specific gearing.... it's alot of marketing and hot gas. Might as well be buying 29er specific pedals and underwear.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    I have ridden in similar conditions as you describe in the past. On a "'93 Fat Chance with an elastomer Manitou front end and a six speed cassette. I also decended on the same bike. Now people ride those same areas on 8" travel bikes. If I still lived in that part of the country. I'd still be riding my HT, only with a 9 speed cassette. Due to the industry having to reinvent the wheel every four years to boast sales.

    I still don't understand why so many people think they have to spend a bunch of money replacing perfectly good parts just to get an extra cog on the back. I was happy with 7 and 8 speed. A couple of years from now when shifters and drivetrain wear out. I'll probobly have to replace with 10 speed for the simple fact, that will be the most wide spread. Easiest to get.

  64. #64
    Village Dirtbag
    Reputation: @dam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Ah, OK. I guess I was cyclocrossing around Sierra Nevada then... All those years, adventure races and such, and I had no clue I really need lower gears to mountain bike.. Will go buy some handlebar streamers to match.
    I can understand people getting annoyed and vocal over the trouble of getting a setup that matches their preference, but elitism like is just crap
    Huh? I don't understand how you two are interperting my post. Curmy said my preferences were unusual. However, they're all dictated by riding self-supported for long distances in high-altitude mountains while wanting to maintain a decent cadence. In other words, by riding through the mountains; mountain biking. How is that elitest, or how does that take away from someone elses gearing preference?

    I'd say it's quite the contrary; the people saying "MTFU", especially the ones who do shorter rides at lower altitudes, are being the elitests, trying to show how much tougher they think they are than everyone who has different requirements.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    Huh? I don't understand how you two are interperting my post. Curmy said my preferences were unusual. However, they're all dictated by riding self-supported for long distances in high-altitude mountains while wanting to maintain a decent cadence. In other words, by riding through the mountains; mountain biking. How is that elitest, or how does that take away from someone elses gearing preference?
    the statement that you are riding in "actual mountains" would appear to say that most people don't ride anything that qualifies as a mountain. Re-reading it now I can see how you didn't mean that since you were saying its not unusual. My bad

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hand/of/Midas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    . I still think that XX is by far the quickest front shifting set up that I've ridden.


    .

    That blew me away.
    I could not believe it.
    i had totally went 1x9 on my race bike, but THIS.....is too good, i will run a front deraileur just because of how amazing it shifts, after i go 2x10.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    However, they're all dictated by riding self-supported for long distances in high-altitude mountains.
    Riding self-supported for long distances in high-altitude mountains is a highly unusual usage pattern, at least as long as designing a major component group is concerned. You have called Shimano's solution a "failure". I have called BS.

  68. #68
    I don't huck.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,543
    I have been riding a bit on a Dyna-Sys equipped bike as of late and I have to say that I am underwhelmed by it, but only because I have ridden so much on 2x10 SRAM that it has spoiled me a bit.

    The SLX set-up has been reliable and shifts very smoothly and precisely, but so did my 9 speed XT and XTR of the past. I am not sure that I can tell any real benefit from the Dyna-Sys approach. I am annoyed that I cannot get the entire range of the cassette while in the middle ring without rubbing on the frnt der cage, but perhaps the set-up is at fault. Still, it shifts properly in front, so I am not sure how much improvement there might be here.

    I still think that SRAM laid an egg in limiting the 2x10 to a 26/36 low combo. A 24/36 option on the lower end stuff like X9 and X7 makes some sense (although they offer a triple there, so one could convert to 2x10 easily enough).

    I ignore the MTFU comments. Some places and some situations make a lot of sense for a really low gear. Internet bravado and elitism, I guess.

    After riding the XX stuff with a 26/39 and 11-36 combo, I have come to love the fact that I never seem to be in a wrong gear. Just two front rings and the ability to cross chain things if you need to, make it excellent.

    The lack of a lower gear over this year has been interesting. Would I want a lower one? I think a 24/36 CR combo would be better for a epic ride trailbike set-up. There have been lots of times where I would have shifted to a low gear if I would have had one. But I did not have the option, so I just pedaled. And you know what? I made it to the top just fine anyway. You do get stronger and the body adapts to what it has to do. SO the MTFU has SOME merit in that we can do more than we think we can with a taller gear. Look at what SS riders can do.

    But it leaves very little chance for recovery and will take a toll on your legs. With an ultra low gear, you can actually recover on a climb if you need to, saving energy for later on. A recent climb in CO that took me from 9K' to nearly 12K' was humbling on a somewhat steep fireroad. I sure was loving the 24T CR on that 29er and would have been crushed on the 26T set-up on the XX. That was crazy hard with no recovery for me, even when spinning.

    I sure would not want a 20T/36 rear combo for So Cal, but if I was pedaling a bikepacking bike in CO, I sure would.
    Blog Ramblings
    West Coast writer for twentynineinches.com

  69. #69
    Village Dirtbag
    Reputation: @dam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Riding self-supported for long distances in high-altitude mountains is a highly unusual usage pattern, at least as long as designing a major component group is concerned. You have called Shimano's solution a "failure". I have called BS.
    No- I said they "dropped the ball", regarding an easy opportunity to offer lower gearing for 29ers, either through a decent 36t 9-speed setup, or a 10-speed setup with a 22t or lower granny. There's clearly demand for that, and if they think their gearing is right for a 26er, it must necessarily be a bit too high for a 29er.

    I also said this is easily remedied. In fact, I have a Tallboy Dyna-Sys on order. I plan on running the 24t granny until the snows in the mountains melt, and then get a 22t or maybe even a 21t.

    Mountains are quite often high, steep, and remote.

  70. #70
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    -w-

    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    they do in 10 speed.

    honestly if you need a lower gear than a 24-36 on a 29" wheel you should be walking. MTFU and stop crying about needing lower gears so you can salvage that sliver of pride by staying on your bike at 3.5 mph.
    I'd rather ride than walk. If I want to take my bike into the woods to go for a walk, I'll take my singlespeed.

    I'm not doing it to 'save my pride'. I'm running 20*34 granny because I like to ride my bike, and that enables me to clean more stuff.... cause it's fun.

    Also, sometimes folks ride their bikes at altitude they are not used to, long distances, loaded down with touring equipment. There are many reasons to use lower gears, apart form just enjoying their bike rides more, and apart from sheer fitness issues (which I have).

    If folks want it, what is wrong with Shimano producing it? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

    If Shimano produced a 94mm bcd outboard bearing triple crank (4 arm or 5 arm, I don't care as long as I can still buy aftermarket chainrings in 6 months or 6 years that are not stupid expensive) I would be all over that like a hot cheese sauce.

    The reason I would not buy 2x10 is for me... there would be too much gap between the rings. I can half step my chainrings in one nice fluid motion between pedal strokes... shifting the front and rear at the same time with a very small gap in applied torque. Since I can only upshift 3 gears in back with one lever stroke (XTR Dual control levers) that is exactly one front ring's worth, plus about half a cog in back.... and I use the lowest range... and the highest range of the total picture. Maybe 10 speed is faster or smoother, or more effortless... but I can't imagine its any better than my XTR dual control levers with XTR derailleur and XT cassette. The thing is soooo effortless and smooth as it is. I'm not super motivated to 'improve' on it. I have never ridden a SRAM bike (including X0 and XX) that was quicker or more effortless to shift.

    I can see why somebody else would buy it. Narrower Q on the cranks, lighter weight. It's just not for me.
    Last edited by pimpbot; 01-03-2011 at 04:53 PM.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KarlP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    145

    Mtfu?

    What the hell does "MTFU" mean?

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    "Man the Eff Up"

    And to the MTFUers, I just put a 22t granny and SS guide on my new XT crank tonight (;

    The other thing that nobody mentioned is that 24T granny gears are worse for chainstay clearance on some 29ers. Since I design for big tires, this is always a concern. Millimeters occupied by a sprocket take away from room for tires.

  73. #73
    MTB Rider
    Reputation: willtsmith_nwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by tantra
    It seems to me that Shimano responded to SRAM's challenge with its 2x10 setup by offering the weight and complexity of a triple coupled to the major disadvantage of the 2x10: limited high and low gearing. I think 2x10 is worthless for a 29'er. But I don't see the XTR M980 offering a solution unless I change the small ring for a 21t or 22t. Has anyone tried this? I heard it may not shift well in front.
    My guess is that they were working on this at the same time as SRAM. SRAM just pulled the trigger a bit sooner.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    283
    Well said by @dam. My favorite local ride is 32 miles w/ 8,000 ft of climbing. On the last of 5 passes there is a really steep long section that I usually have to HAB for a little bit. That's with a 22 x 34 on a 35 lbs 26er hardtail. The times I do make it, I'm mashing so hard that the cramps that I'm trying to fight off just take over and cause me severe pain. Having a little easier gear to push in this circumstance is welcome. Also, there are a few insanely steep trails here with multiple switchbacks that I like to ride but need an easier gear to keep the bike rolling. I think a 20 x 36 on my new 29er will be helpful in this regard. Again, my style may be different than others but that doesn't make it wrong or my equipment choices strange. It means they suit me. Come ride a mile in my shoes before you pass judgement, that is if you can ride a mile in my shoes on my trails. But then again maybe you can't.

    Chiva

  75. #75
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    Quote Originally Posted by D.F.L.
    "Man the Eff Up"

    And to the MTFUers, I just put a 22t granny and SS guide on my new XT crank tonight (;

    The other thing that nobody mentioned is that 24T granny gears are worse for chainstay clearance on some 29ers. Since I design for big tires, this is always a concern. Millimeters occupied by a sprocket take away from room for tires.
    Running anything bigger than a 2.2 at low pressure is the MTB equivalent to going for a trail run with mountaineering boots on.

  76. #76
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    Running anything bigger than a 2.2 at low pressure is the MTB equivalent to going for a trail run with mountaineering boots on.
    Thanks for mandating what we should all be running in all conditions.

    Now, I'll go run whatever the F I want.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by @dam
    There's clearly demand for that, and if they think their gearing is right for a 26er, it must necessarily be a bit too high for a 29er.
    By about 10%? I thought 29r riders could compensate for 10% by the power of smug alone.

    By the way - I highly recommend 23t Rotor Q-ring granny - the anti-biopace one. It is about 24t when you push down, 22t in the dead spot. I am convinced it works - especially on technical climbs. I am not convinced that it works as well in the middle ring.

    Quote Originally Posted by chiva
    Come ride a mile in my shoes before you pass judgement, that is if you can ride a mile in my shoes on my trails. But then again maybe you can't.
    As I said, the power of smug.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,917
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    Running anything bigger than a 2.2 at low pressure is the MTB equivalent to going for a trail run with mountaineering boots on.
    Interesting. I consider anything smaller than a 2.2 the equivalent of hiking in track shoes.

  79. #79
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717
    Quote Originally Posted by car_nut
    Interesting. I consider anything smaller than a 2.2 the equivalent of hiking in track shoes.
    ... like...

  80. #80
    Hassan's Ghost
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    288
    I guess I'm confused by what I have read here. That said, I find it less a commentary on gearing and more a commentary on people's notions of norms in the age of the internet.

    This may sound a bit naive, but I tend to think the Sram/Avid/RS and Shimano companies actually have a pretty firm grasp on what the 'average' cyclist needs, based on their desired marketed audience for each component group. Something tells me that they may even do a bit of research (maybe not a ton, but at least survey's of mfg. needs/wants) so that their products are received positively by the masses.

    Let's also keep in mind that the parts in question were all initially designed for race oriented riding, right? XTR, XT, XX, XO. Find me someone who races Sport or above, in a venue that doesn't involve camping equipment or snow, who wants a smaller granny gear, let alone a granny gear of any size.

    What, you don't want trickle down racing tech? No problem, buy stuff that wasn't designed in that light. Shimano LX comes to mind, maybe X7. Not Blingy enough? The entire custom, boutique industry thrives off meeting the needs of individuals who's needs fall outside the norm.
    When those of you clammering for more granny, granny gears represent a sizable enough population (again) then Shimano/Sram/Campy will respond. They have to, or maybe Paul and SweetWings will just have to up production and take over the market. Sounds fine to me.

    Then again, what do I care. My cranks are mismatched and I only need one ring.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    Running anything bigger than a 2.2 at low pressure is the MTB equivalent to going for a trail run with mountaineering boots on.
    I'm curious to know why you feel that. It is fairly well established that all else being equal (tire tread design, pressure, compound etc.) a wider tire will have less rolling resistance. The only downside is increased weight.

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  82. #82
    Hassan's Ghost
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    288
    While I am not in complete agreement with customfab, I'll build on his point.

    What do you think the correlation is between tire width and 'need' for lower gearing?

    Or how bout this one, What proportion of those in search of lower granny gears run Dissents on trail or xc rides?

    Let's also keep in mind that to a big hiker, Mt. Everest is mountaineering. To an alpinist, Mount Everest is typically a big hike.

  83. #83
    The Vandal strikes again
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    132
    It makes me laugh that all the clowns on here telling me to Man The F*&^ Up and be satisfied with Shimano's progressively higher gear offerings on my 29er have probably all owned a 26" wheeled bike with a 22x34 low gear in the past. They've probably all had to walk a hill or two during their lives because their legs couldn't push hard enough to keep rolling. They've probably all at one time or another thought, "Damn, that's a tough hill. Walking sucks!"

    All some of us want is gearing on our 29ers that is equivalent to what we enjoyed on the 26ers we were riding ten years ago. So far, neither Shimano nor SRAM has offered such a drivetrain in XT or XTR trim for hard core riders that have high performance requirements of their parts. Our complaint is that newest gear offerings are actually moving further away from those low gear dreams despite the exploding popularity of 29ers.

    My goal during a mountain bike ride is to RIDE, not walk. Simple as that. The whole point is the challenge of riding the entire trail. This is why we buy suspension and run big tubeless tires at 20 psi and appreciate the steering precision of through-axle forks and pay extra for lighter yet stronger wheels. We're all looking for the next advantage to help us keep riding on the ever-evolving trails that are the heart and soul of mountain biking.

    So, if you think low gears are for sissies because real men don't need new technology to make trails easier, then why don't you jackasses man up and get rid of your gears, suspension, pneumatic tires and double-butted, hydroformed, forged frames and go show us how REAL MEN ride.

    I dare you tell me to my face to MTFU after you have ridden with me and my buddies on our favourite trails.

    I speak my mind and I'm not scared to sign my name to it,
    Adam Simpson.
    '99 Safari

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    Not sure if it adds any value to this thread, but I'm REALLY liking 2x10. Instead of always staying in the 32t like I used to on a triple I actually have options in the right gearing range depending on front ring. My road and cross bikes have been doubles for a long time for a good reason, only makes sense that my mtb went the same route. At this point I doubt I'll be buying any 3x cranks for a long time.

    That said, I don't live in the mountains. I doubt there's much I'll encounter that requires a lower gear than 26x36, but if I were climbing some ridiculously long mountain slog I may look into something lower.

    To the OP, SRAM is still making 3x cranks with the 22t little ring. With a 36t cassette that's lower gearing than any stock 9 speed setup. Looks like that combo comes on the 2011 aluminum stumpjumpers, might be able to find one to test ride somewhere.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by mtroy
    I have been riding a bit on a Dyna-Sys equipped bike as of late and I have to say that I am underwhelmed by it, but only because I have ridden so much on 2x10 SRAM that it has spoiled me a bit.

    The SLX set-up has been reliable and shifts very smoothly and precisely, but so did my 9 speed XT and XTR of the past. I am not sure that I can tell any real benefit from the Dyna-Sys approach. I am annoyed that I cannot get the entire range of the cassette while in the middle ring without rubbing on the frnt der cage, but perhaps the set-up is at fault. Still, it shifts properly in front, so I am not sure how much improvement there might be here.

    I still think that SRAM laid an egg in limiting the 2x10 to a 26/36 low combo. A 24/36 option on the lower end stuff like X9 and X7 makes some sense (although they offer a triple there, so one could convert to 2x10 easily enough).

    I ignore the MTFU comments. Some places and some situations make a lot of sense for a really low gear. Internet bravado and elitism, I guess.

    After riding the XX stuff with a 26/39 and 11-36 combo, I have come to love the fact that I never seem to be in a wrong gear. Just two front rings and the ability to cross chain things if you need to, make it excellent.

    The lack of a lower gear over this year has been interesting. Would I want a lower one? I think a 24/36 CR combo would be better for a epic ride trailbike set-up. There have been lots of times where I would have shifted to a low gear if I would have had one. But I did not have the option, so I just pedaled. And you know what? I made it to the top just fine anyway. You do get stronger and the body adapts to what it has to do. SO the MTFU has SOME merit in that we can do more than we think we can with a taller gear. Look at what SS riders can do.

    But it leaves very little chance for recovery and will take a toll on your legs. With an ultra low gear, you can actually recover on a climb if you need to, saving energy for later on. A recent climb in CO that took me from 9K' to nearly 12K' was humbling on a somewhat steep fireroad. I sure was loving the 24T CR on that 29er and would have been crushed on the 26T set-up on the XX. That was crazy hard with no recovery for me, even when spinning.

    I sure would not want a 20T/36 rear combo for So Cal, but if I was pedaling a bikepacking bike in CO, I sure would.
    So I've seen nothing but positive reviews on the Sram XX 2x10 stuff, but how many average joes can afford that? However, I haven't seen much regarding the lower X7 and X9 versions. What are y'all hearing over at twentynineinches and in the bike shops?

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    OK, so there you have it. Shimano makes a product that is comepletely suitable for 99% of all rider/trail combinations. They then get bashed by the 1% or even less of the riders that are either not fit enough or ride on high mountain trails most of us would be very jaelous of, because they are way out of reach of the vast majority.

    If you do not like it, do not buy it. Get yourself a Middleburn, get the compact drive spider and built yourself a 40-30-20 with a 11-36 cassette.

    Better yet, HTFU! (And that goes for you U.S. guys too)

  87. #87
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by bluestatevirgin
    So I've seen nothing but positive reviews on the Sram XX 2x10 stuff, but how many average joes can afford that? However, I haven't seen much regarding the lower X7 and X9 versions. What are y'all hearing over at twentynineinches and in the bike shops?
    The 2x10 X9 & X7 are very nice to use as well.

    My wife is a very very bad MTBer (as bad as I have ever seen, Yes worse than me )& I changed her bike from 3 x9 setup & went to X9 2x10 & she loves it,she is having no more problems being in the wrong gear most of the time.

    She is running 26/39 front & 11-36 on the rear of her Jet9 & finds it good for climbing as well.

    The X9 on her bike IMO changes as good as the XX on my bikes it just is not as light.
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  88. #88
    I don't huck.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,543
    Quote Originally Posted by bluestatevirgin
    So I've seen nothing but positive reviews on the Sram XX 2x10 stuff, but how many average joes can afford that? However, I haven't seen much regarding the lower X7 and X9 versions. What are y'all hearing over at twentynineinches and in the bike shops?
    I have not been on an entire suite of X7 or X9 2x10, but some of the Specialized 2011 bikes have fairly complete groups, but with special cranks to offer a 24/38 (IIRC) chainring option, and I have ridden them. It worked very well...no complaints in the short time I was on them.

    I can understand XX and maybe even XO being offered in a 26x36 low gear...high end parts for fit racers or avid enthusiasts...but when it gets to X9 and X7, which is everyman type stuff, although they offer a 3x10 option, it sure would be nice to have a lower 2x10 option so we could keep the sweet front shifting that the upper groups offer. Yes, you lose some upper end, but for a trailbike application, a 36T front and an 11 rear is still pretty decent.

    I suppose the answer there is to go 3x10 and lose the big ring, then go to a 24/36 CR combo or such like...or keep the 22 and the 36T rear.
    Blog Ramblings
    West Coast writer for twentynineinches.com

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    283
    Well said barticus!!! +1.


    Chiva

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    453
    Ignore the Dynasys front end. The backend is where all of the engineering work actually happened. Great chain with a great cassette - we've made progress. It's all compatible with the old 9-speed chainrings, so just ignore the front and ride whatever you want.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by alexkraemer
    Ignore the Dynasys front end. The backend is where all of the engineering work actually happened. Great chain with a great cassette - we've made progress. It's all compatible with the old 9-speed chainrings, so just ignore the front and ride whatever you want.
    Are you speaking as a Shimano representative?

    Are you saying I can use a SLX 22/36T crankset with a 10 speed Dynasys chain? What front derailleur would you use?

    Ronnie
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  92. #92
    memento mori
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    378
    I'll preface by saying I ride New England and I'm fit and strong.I was surprised to find the 22t front ring on a stump 29 fsr very useful.Really didn't use the 33 much. On my 26 (epic and rize) I run 29-40 to 11-34 on both.On the epic it's easier to push the 29/34 than the rize (both bikes about the same weight) For me and the way I ride I think a 22-32 to a 11-34 9 speed on a 29 would be fine. Maybe 24-36 but no larger. I'd love a decent weight 9 cassette with a 36.

  93. #93
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    Are you speaking as a Shimano representative?

    Are you saying I can use a SLX 22/36T crankset with a 10 speed Dynasys chain? What front derailleur would you use?

    Ronnie
    Riders have been using 10-sp chains on 9-sp MTB drivetrains for years. And the cassette/RD do not care what crank set you have.

    With two rings, it does not matter much which FD you use.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    With two rings, it does not matter much which FD you use.
    SLX double works better.

    Is it correct that 10sp chainrings are further apart?

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Riders have been using 10-sp chains on 9-sp MTB drivetrains for years. And the cassette/RD do not care what crank set you have.

    With two rings, it does not matter much which FD you use.
    Are the front shifters (9 speed and 10 speed) the same? In other words could I get a pair or would I have to get separates, a 9 speed front and a 10 speed rear?

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  96. #96
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    SLX double works better.

    Is it correct that 10sp chainrings are further apart?
    No better than my 105 FD.

    I do not think so.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  97. #97
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    Are the front shifters (9 speed and 10 speed) the same? In other words could I get a pair or would I have to get separates, a 9 speed front and a 10 speed rear?

    Ronnie.
    Match the shifter to the derailleur. Reportedly, the cable pull has changed on the front Dyna-Sys.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  98. #98
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    Are the front shifters (9 speed and 10 speed) the same? In other words could I get a pair or would I have to get separates, a 9 speed front and a 10 speed rear?

    Ronnie.
    As far as I can tell, the shifters are different. 9spd shifters would not pull enough cable for the 10spd derailleurs and vice versa.

    I know my 9spd front derailleur would not work properly with a DynaSys front shifter. Pulled waaaay too much cable for it. Slapped the proper 10spd frt der on and all was well.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    As far as I can tell, the shifters are different. 9spd shifters would not pull enough cable for the 10spd derailleurs and vice versa.

    I know my 9spd front derailleur would not work properly with a DynaSys front shifter. Pulled waaaay too much cable for it. Slapped the proper 10spd frt der on and all was well.
    So will a DynaSys shifter and derailleur work properly with a "9 speed" crankset if I chose to use one?

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  100. #100
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    So will a DynaSys shifter and derailleur work properly with a "9 speed" crankset if I chose to use one?

    Ronnie.
    Yes it works fine,I have done this on 3 bikes with no problems
    I have a 6 Berth & 2 Berth Motorhomes that I rent out . They are based in Tauranga, New Zealand

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    So will a DynaSys shifter and derailleur work properly with a "9 speed" crankset if I chose to use one?

    Ronnie.

    I'm running 10sp XT Dyna Sys on my fatbike all around except on the cranks. My crankset is a 9 speed E13 and all is good in the world. Everything works great. No complaints.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    208

    That's why

    That's why i run single........

  103. #103
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    Quote Originally Posted by KarlP
    What the hell does "MTFU" mean?
    MAN THE F>>K UP!

  104. #104
    Rider and Wrench
    Reputation: knottshore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted

    One situation, but it illustrates my personal experience over the years with ultra-low gearing on both 26" and 29" bikes. Is the 24 X 36T DynaSys low enough for most folks? Maybe. I think you need to look at some other aspects of the system that play into the way you can take advantage of momentum with DynaSys. The gearing is closer ratio. Not only in the mid-cassette part of the group, but in terms of mid-to-small up front. When you do dump down into that granny, you lose less momentum due to not having to futz with the rear shifter as much to get closer to your optimal climbing cadence. You also, (obviously), can stay out of the granny longer. That's pretty big at times out there on the trail. I also would submit that using the closer ratio cassette gearing going into a climb to preserve your momentum can work to keep yourself from having to dump off to the granny as well.

    Ted you hit the nail on the head - regardless of wheel size the huge drop of going to a 22T granny when your already in the ~32T front ring X ~34T rear cog is like hitting the brakes! I am experimenting with a 26T X 36T on my cranks to see how it works on my full squish.

    Anyone who has ridden a SS realizes you "can" push more gear than you do with a traditional 22/32/44 with an 11-34T or larger cassette - for me it makes me seek the path of least resistance when I am getting tired VS climbing a bit faster and keeping momentum. Sure it might take some time to adjust but it sure makes you conserve momentum and attack a hill rather than settle into a slow spin and ride like I am on a Barkalounger.... All of this said the whole horses for courses thing rings true, some places just don't need lower/more gears others... do.

    I also like the thought of an 11-36T one by 10 with a 30-32( or whatever fits your style best) tooth ring up front a very useful and simple drive train.
    I Just wish I could ride more!


  105. #105
    MTB Rider
    Reputation: willtsmith_nwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    3,004
    I just want to share one experience with doubles vs triples. My Surly Cross-Check Complete came with a triple that was hobbled into a double by removing the granny. This bike was a PAIN to operate because I would be cross chaining constantly in the middle and big ring. After that I had a "flat" ring and a "hilly" ring. Front shifting was super simple.

    I switched over to a road double and all the sudden things became really easy. Only 1 gear seems to cross chain on either the top or bottom. On the Mountain Bike I am rarely out of the 32T middle ring because there is very little extra being offered in the adjacent rings.

    I'm glad to see the double cranks coming out for MTB. With the popularity of 2x10, you can definitely see the market. I personally will make my next MTB crank a 2 ringer. In my area, I could definitely use the "flats/climbing" ring combo to easily adjust into a good gearing range for the front.

    But also, I don't think triples should go away. Just like tourers still need a bailout gear. Some cyclists still need that little granny to keep their legs spinning when they lactic acid is winning.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    418
    i see the comments about superiority of XX .. and x.9 and x.o over other shimanos? sram is quickest than shimano?

  107. #107
    likes to ride bikes
    Reputation: TunicaTrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    Do you run 1x10 shimano? If so, how do you like it?

    Quote Originally Posted by wookieone
    That's why i run single........

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    Are you speaking as a Shimano representative?

    Are you saying I can use a SLX 22/36T crankset with a 10 speed Dynasys chain? What front derailleur would you use?

    Ronnie
    I have that crankset, and while I'm not using it with my Dynasys stuff - the matching FD is fantastic (M665/7). Keep your current front shifter and front derailleur, no need to change any of that stuff. Like I said, don't worry about the front, keep your front setup and enjoy the improvements in the back.

    And no, I don't represent Shimano. I love my Sram shifting setup too much
    I've got the best of both worlds - Shimano cassette/chain, Sram shifter/derailleur.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by ftajiri
    i see the comments about superiority of XX .. and x.9 and x.o over other shimanos? sram is quickest than shimano?
    Until we have more feedback on the new XTR group I think it'll be hard to say since there's no other 2x10 option in shimano's lineup. Shimano kind of shot themselves in the foot in doing so, if you ask me... SRAM has already trickled the technology/changes down to their X0, X9, and X7 lines.

    That said, I picked up an X0 2x10 drivetrain a couple months ago after being loyal to shimano for years prior. No 2x10 at the XT level for at least another year made that an easy decision. I'm pleasantly surprised with the X0 group and will have a very hard time justifying XTR 980 when I build my new race frame in the next couple months. It seems the SRAM stuff works really well, and judging by what I've heard is less fussy than shimano. I've had good luck with shimano, but have really been enjoying the SRAM setup.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by mtroy
    Some places and some situations make a lot of sense for a really low gear.
    Instead of changing to 2x10 I watched myself carefully during the last weeks to decide which setup would be fine and I know now that the 3x10 Dyna-Sys stuff is better for me. In really most cases 2x10 and 12-36 would be fine. But not all.

    I am not in love with changing my crankset every week and there are some prestigious steep killer climbs around here hardly to be mastered even with 26x36. Itīs always a shame for everyone to walk and push his bike up there instead of riding. Always when I am passing the challenge it makes my day. Therefore 3x10 offers more options. Just my opinion.

  111. #111
    The Vandal strikes again
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by chiva
    Well said barticus!!! +1.


    Chiva
    Thanks for the props, Chiva.
    '99 Safari

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.