Whats your 29er Lowest Gear Ratio?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 141 of 141
  1. #1
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177

    Whats your 29er Lowest Gear Ratio?

    Im running 22 and 34 Lowest gear and sometimes it feels like I could go even lower with the large wheels... Anyone else feel the same way?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark16q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    379
    yessir.

    22*36 on my Anthem x1. came stock 24*36 and the 22 made a HUGE difference for me. My knees are happy and never feel like I'm out of gears.
    19 orbea oiz tr
    '16 Scott Genius 700 Premium traded in
    Cervelo R3sl
    Seven Alta
    Curtlo h/t

  3. #3
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark16q View Post
    yessir.

    22*36 on my Anthem x1. came stock 24*36 and the 22 made a HUGE difference for me. My knees are happy and never feel like I'm out of gears.
    Do you run a 10 speed cassette? Id like to goto a 36 but dont think they have any for 9 speed...

  4. #4
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    10,385
    Low = 31x36 (on a 1x10 drivetrain).

    "My other bike is a singlespeed." {ubiquitous smiley emoticon}

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  5. #5
    Just Ride!
    Reputation: Pigtire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    806
    22-28( XT 8spd cassette). Need to change it but too cheap to upgrade.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    33
    I just use a 32 up front and a 11-34 behind. It's sufficient for me, but I don't race and probably never will. I don't think I'll ever put a front der. on a mountain bike again. I don't like the way they work. The idea is not good because the "jump" between the two rings is always so large.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark16q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    Do you run a 10 speed cassette? Id like to goto a 36 but dont think they have any for 9 speed...
    10 speed dynasys
    19 orbea oiz tr
    '16 Scott Genius 700 Premium traded in
    Cervelo R3sl
    Seven Alta
    Curtlo h/t

  8. #8
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717
    20X34t rocks for my slow heavy behind to crank up the steeps around here. I also run a 30t middle ring and 42t big ring. I might actually go down to a 40t big ring.

    I also bought one of those ebay 36t single cogs to put behind a cassette, leaving the 11t off. I was going to try and go with a 4 arm compact more modern external BB crankset, but I have not found a deal on 180mm cranks yet.

    <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8gAS_IZgHtuISFRuUhzCPw?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--UALNEfXkVA/TioEdatmgqI/AAAAAAAAVwU/t7AB_fETaeY/s800/IMG_1102.JPG" height="600" width="800" /></a>

  9. #9
    My Dog eats poo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    36:11-34 no drama's getting me most places a bike is destined to go.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    352
    34x20

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: santacruzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    686
    34-34 is never a problem, it just forces me to climb a little faster

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: connolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    690
    I'm with OP on needing the 22x36 - even if it's just to soothe my mind. I don't think I use it as much as 32x36 though. It tends to spin out the wheels. Maybe it's a mental thing but I really wanted a cassette with the 36 cog.

    My bike came stock with the shimano HG61 29er specific cassette. That cassette has the 36 cog in 9sp format BUT it's an anchor at 423 grams. I just got a LuckyNino cassette with a 36 that weighs 208 grams.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gasp4Air's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,376
    Lowest = 20x36. 20-30-bash in front, 12-36 in back. Don't often use great-granny but there are times it means the difference between pedaling and walking.
    Use it, use it, use it while you still have it.

  14. #14
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Gasp4Air View Post
    Lowest = 20x36. 20-30-bash in front, 12-36 in back. Don't often use great-granny but there are times it means the difference between pedaling and walking.
    At 20/36 you would be faster walking.

  15. #15
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    Im running 22 and 34 Lowest gear and sometimes it feels like I could go even lower with the large wheels... Anyone else feel the same way?
    Go lower if you feel the need or desire, and don't take any crap from people for doing it. Your knees will thank you, and you'll enjoy your riding more if your gearing is a better match for your fitness and strength levels, your riding style, and the trails that you ride.

  16. #16
    Lanzolot
    Reputation: themacsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    70
    What's the cost of that LuckyNino cassette. Looks like you got the SL version, didi get a price on the S version too?
    I loved my 11-36, but I just replaced it with a chain change this season. My LBS could only find the Shimano 12-36. Can't say I noticed the change in gears much, but with the added weight savings maybe it will be worth picking one up.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gasp4Air's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    At 20/36 you would be faster walking.
    Just about - but I'm old school (and slow). Having to get off and walk feels like failure to me. I don't have the legs or lungs of a strong rider, so I rely on the low gearing to keep going.
    Use it, use it, use it while you still have it.

  18. #18
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Gasp4Air View Post
    Just about - but I'm old school (and slow). Having to get off and walk feels like failure to me. I don't have the legs or lungs of a strong rider, so I rely on the low gearing to keep going.
    I'm the same way. Even in 22/34 I can be going slower than walking speed. Doesn't matter. Just because I can walk doesn't mean that I want to jump off the bike and push.

    I've a friend who constantly drones on and on about how he rides 1x9 w/o a granny gear. I get real tired of it, and hence my strong advice earlier to choose whatever gearing works for you and not to take any guff about it.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    874
    Never used anything but the middle ring on trails, so I just converted to a 1x10, 32 up front, 11-36 in the rear. My usual training trail has a 300 foot climb at the end with an average grade of 16%. I'm puffing by the end but not having the granny just means I get up it quicker.

  20. #20
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    Do you run a 10 speed cassette? Id like to goto a 36 but dont think they have any for 9 speed...
    Shimano makes a 9 speed cassette with a 36T. Luckynino sells the Ti 9 speed cassettes which are available with a 36T. Action Tec has 36, 38 and 39T Titanium cogs for 29"ers.

    Another option would be to drop down from your 22T granny to a 21 or 20T (Action Tec has them).

    I've got bikes with 22/34, 20/34, 23/34 and 27/34 as my lowest gear. This discussion has come up oodles of times on the 29"er forum, so if you do a search you'll find lots of threads and opinions on the gearing. Rider weight, pitch of the climb, amount of gear one is carrying, length of the climbs and how they fit into the entire day's ride, altitude, training, etc... all are part of the equation and determines what works best for you.

    BB

  21. #21
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    I'm the same way. Even in 22/34 I can be going slower than walking speed. Doesn't matter. Just because I can walk doesn't mean that I want to jump off the bike and push.

    I've a friend who constantly drones on and on about how he rides 1x9 w/o a granny gear. I get real tired of it, and hence my strong advice earlier to choose whatever gearing works for you and not to take any guff about it.
    Yeah I know guys like that too, usually turns out these guys don't ride the tough, steep technical trials an stick to smooth xc stuff, so to each there own. If I weighed a buck fifty I wouldnt care about the low gear too much I'm sure but when your hauling 200+ lbs up steep ass climbs I think it helps

  22. #22
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,660
    32:36 180mm crank arms
    No moss...

  23. #23
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,343
    32x18 w/175mm crank arms
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro AF

  24. #24
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Yeah, but....

    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    At 20/36 you would be faster walking.

    ... Isn't riding more fun?

    I've said it before but....

    If I wanted to haul my bike out to the woods to go for a hike, I would take the singlespeed.



    Dang, I may just try the great granny thing. Problem is, I have an older XTR derailleur that has a max big cog size of 32t. I have a 34t cassette on there now, and the top pulley rides on the big cog a bit. 36t would be even worse.

    BTW, how are those Lucky Nino cassettes wearing? Seems to me I crush the really light drivetrain stuff in short order. I would hate to drop $200+ on a cassette that I got one season out of. Those would be some expensive rides. I stick to XT, and avoid SRAM. SRAM stuff wears out too fast for me.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    At 20/36 you would be faster walking.
    +1

    I'm doing a new all-rounder 29er build with an Alfine 11 speed, and am shooting for a 23-25 inch low gear (28x36 equivalent with 2.1's). That should be plenty low for me.

    I ditched my granny ring on my 26'er and my 32x32 was all I needed. Granted, I did have to get out of the saddle for REALLY steep stuff, but that suits my climbing style (roadie habits are hard to break).

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DavidR1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    What a funny thread. The gearing that I run makes no difference to anybody. It is completely dependent on the trails that I choose to ride and my given topography along with the strength of the rider. None of which anybody has discussed in their posts.
    CyclingCentralVa.org

  27. #27
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,873
    I had a 22-36 (stock Stylo 44/32/22 w/ HG-61 weight pig) and went to a 20-34 (White Ind. 94/58 38/32/20 w/ XTR cassette). I stay in the middle ring the vast majority of the time but when I need to do a major climb (like a squirrel up a vertical brick wall), I hit the 20-34.

  28. #28
    Slow But Still Pedaling
    Reputation: JimInSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    484
    42/17 on 165mm cranks. But that's on a Rohloff, giving a low end halfway between 24/34 and 24/36.

  29. #29
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,343
    Okay, I ride where it is rolling with shorter steep-ish climbs - you can use your momentum to pump and help with the climbs. I am strong rider/climber. I have to stand on steeper climbs but can make everything on the local trails I ride with this ratio. On my former geared 26" hardtail, my granny was a 22x30 which was overkill for this area. I can see where the 2x10 systems would work great here.
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro AF

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by JimInSF View Post
    42/17 on 165mm cranks. But that's on a Rohloff, giving a low end halfway between 24/34 and 24/36.
    Start timing yourself with a GPS and a Rohloff, then with a conventional drivetrain, and you'll see what a slow pig of a geared hub the Rohloff really is. I did and my time on climbs, and suffering, decreased 11 to 13%. It was not my imagination, the GPS and the clock on the same route doesn't lie.

  31. #31
    A Baker St. Muse
    Reputation: michael573114's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    139
    I have 26/39 rings and a 12-36 cassette (10-speed), 175mm cranks. Works great for me.

  32. #32
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717
    .... waiting for somebody to chime in with 'HTFU and pedal' ... 'lose some weight, fatash' or some other stupid advice like that.

    Duh! Doing that already! ... still need the crazy low gear.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Gasp4Air View Post
    Lowest = 20x36. 20-30-bash in front, 12-36 in back. Don't often use great-granny but there are times it means the difference between pedaling and walking.
    Ditto. Yeah, I've got some excess calorie storage. And I hate getting off the bike.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark16q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    379
    When I'm going anaerobic up a climb, the 22x36 lets me breathe a bit where the 24x36 was just too hard to push without killing my knee and heartrate. We have some steep climbs 'round here and it's fun to clear them without dabbing. I hate dabbing. Could a jogger go by me at that moment...sure, but that's not the point. It's rare I drop to the small ring, but when it's needed it's great having the option.

    fyi, Socal trails, mostly santa monica mountains
    19 orbea oiz tr
    '16 Scott Genius 700 Premium traded in
    Cervelo R3sl
    Seven Alta
    Curtlo h/t

  35. #35
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    .... waiting for somebody to chime in with 'HTFU and pedal' ... 'lose some weight, fatash' or some other stupid advice like that.

    Duh! Doing that already! ... still need the crazy low gear.
    LOL!

    Every time my 32-tooth friend lectures me about dropping my granny, I have to remind him that my front gearing is quite different from his. I run 22/36/bash using Shimano's SLX double crankset, and I rather like the spread that I get from that setup.

  36. #36
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    I get the same...

    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    LOL!

    Every time my 32-tooth friend lectures me about dropping my granny, I have to remind him that my front gearing is quite different from his. I run 22/36/bash using Shimano's SLX double crankset, and I rather like the spread that I get from that setup.
    Riding buddies keep telling me to dump my big ring. Then we descend this rock garden on our local ride, they're getting crazy chain slap, dropping chains, etc... and I'm rolling silent and never lose the chain. I go big ring -3rd cog down from biggest to pull the chain pretty tightly.

    Plus, I like to crank down the high speed stuff to get stupid fast at times. Although, I never spin out 42x11. I might go 40t for more usable big ring range.

    Heh... seems like this thread comes up about ever 4 to 6 months. There is always somebody telling me to pedal harder, lose weight, ride more, etc. Then, I notice in their profile they are from Iowa or Minnesota or some place without really big hills.

    Here's a local hill we try and tackle... $2 Hill. This ascends a couple hundred feet in a very short run.. .so it isn't really that long, but its' way tough. I'm working on it, but I can't do it yet. Now there are some hills that go super steep (not this steep) that go for 1000 feet of ascent in one long shot.

    <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GxzVexLa6GA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    But that vid doesn't really show how steep it is... This is a better perspective:

    <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b-Khb6ofm5k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    Last edited by pimpbot; 08-12-2011 at 09:19 AM.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,302
    The Action-Tek 20 tooth front chainring has worked well for me with a 12/34 rear when I needed very low gearing. Nino's cassette sounds excellent but @ 170/190 Euros ($300+, I THINK) for the "regular" and SL, respectively, I'll pass.

  38. #38
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    Start timing yourself with a GPS and a Rohloff, then with a conventional drivetrain, and you'll see what a slow pig of a geared hub the Rohloff really is. I did and my time on climbs, and suffering, decreased 11 to 13%. It was not my imagination, the GPS and the clock on the same route doesn't lie.
    This is off-topic, but an interesting and specific claim so I'll bite. How well matched were the bikes? I'd like to know considering the specific efficiency claims Rohloff makes. Weight alone could not explain such a difference.

    I'd post on topic but it's been covered so well already. I'd add that crank length and ring shape, if you use elliptical, can have some small effect as well. Figure out what you need, not what everyone else needs. Terrain has such a dramatic impact and that can't be judged online.
    Last edited by craigsj; 08-12-2011 at 10:17 AM.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gasp4Air's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidR1 View Post
    What a funny thread. The gearing that I run makes no difference to anybody. It is completely dependent on the trails that I choose to ride and my given topography along with the strength of the rider. None of which anybody has discussed in their posts.
    Trails - Central CT - rocks roots climb descend repeat
    Despite riding twice a week for 15 years, I've never become a strong climber. Got a lots of excuses if anyone cares to hear them. When I'm deep in anaerobia on a technical climb, I go low into the gearing and try to clean it.
    Use it, use it, use it while you still have it.

  40. #40
    Slow But Still Pedaling
    Reputation: JimInSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    Start timing yourself with a GPS and a Rohloff, then with a conventional drivetrain, and you'll see what a slow pig of a geared hub the Rohloff really is. I did and my time on climbs, and suffering, decreased 11 to 13%. It was not my imagination, the GPS and the clock on the same route doesn't lie.
    This is off-topic, but an interesting and specific claim so I'll bite. How well matched were the bikes? I'd like to know considering the specific efficiency claims Rohloff makes. Weight alone could not explain such a difference.

    I'd post on topic but it's been covered so well already. I'd add that crank length and ring shape, if you use elliptical, can have some small effect as well. Figure out what you need, not what everyone else needs. Terrain has such a dramatic impact, and that can't be judged online.
    Indeed and I'm not sure I buy this (Randy, have I seen you in other threads repeatedly bashing the Rohloff or am I mistaking you for someone else?), but I wouldn't dismiss it 100% either and will try timing myself out of curiosity. Then again, without swapping drivetrains out on the same bike, this seems impossible to measure even remotely accurately, and conflicts with the reports of most Rohloff users and my own experience, though I have not tried experimental timing.

    A couple of points of interest though - I'm now on my second Rohloff, and the one I just got is less draggy feeling even new than the first is after over 10,000 miles and, in the top 7 gears, as quiet if not quieter than any derailleur setup. Some of this may be illusory and frame related - an aluminum, big tubed frame that amplifies the noise and vibration on the old, and with perhaps imperfect chainline, versus a Ti frame that hides it on the new with a perfect chainline - but it could also be that newer units have better tolerances or that small inline changes over time have improved the hub. Given how smooth my new one is even brand new, I can't imagine it to be a source of much inefficiency once broken in.

    Secondly, and more importantly, I've never ridden a derailleur drivetrain on which I did not experience chain suck (as well as the other usual issues), and that includes the current generation X.0 and XX - and each time you throw or, as I did last month, break a chain from using a derailleur setup, whatever seconds you gained in months previous are instantly erased and more, not to mention the risk of going down when you lock up. I'll take the reliability of a Rohloff any day even if it were a little less efficient, and I seriously doubt, based on my experience to date and tests performed by others, that the efficiency difference is anywhere near the level asserted. Perhaps Randy got a bad hub or it was not properly installed.

  41. #41
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidR1 View Post
    What a funny thread. The gearing that I run makes no difference to anybody. It is completely dependent on the trails that I choose to ride and my given topography along with the strength of the rider. None of which anybody has discussed in their posts.
    My last post was on this exact point, ha.

  42. #42
    Keep pedaling
    Reputation: Furball the Mystery Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    .... waiting for somebody to chime in with 'HTFU and pedal' ... 'lose some weight, fatash' or some other stupid advice like that.
    Maybe the fear of getting negative rep has reduced that type of rudeness.

    When I ride with a group I try to beat everyone on the climbs, but I've never tried to impress anyone by bragging about my gearing.

  43. #43
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    .... waiting for somebody to chime in with 'HTFU and pedal' ... 'lose some weight, fatash' or some other stupid advice like that.

    Duh! Doing that already! ... still need the crazy low gear.
    Yeah, let the 145lbs stick leg weenies go ahead with this crap Ive heard it all before Whats funny is Im 195lbs about 9% BF, Deadlift 415 and squat 375+

    Its still a whole different game when your carrying weight (even muscle weight) up a steep climb fully geared up.

    Kinda like the big muscular guys trying to swim... They huff n puff then sink, while the little weaklings can float around all day... lol

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-Choro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    614
    32f x 36r - running 1x10. Low enough for around here.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    534
    34 front & 32 rear on my 1x9

    32 front & 19 rear on my SS (which sees 90% of my riding)

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14
    24/36

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    555
    22x36 on stock rumblefish, but there are time I'm glad when I have gears that low on longer 20+ percent grades. Coming from a singlespeed, its a bit different to be seated so much.

  48. #48
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by fos'l View Post
    The Action-Tek 20 tooth front chainring has worked well for me with a 12/34 rear when I needed very low gearing. Nino's cassette sounds excellent but @ 170/190 Euros ($300+, I THINK) for the "regular" and SL, respectively, I'll pass.
    I agree on the Nino's WAY too much $ for me personally.

    Is the Action Tec the only ones making a 4 ring 64mm 20 tooth?

  49. #49
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This is off-topic, but an interesting and specific claim so I'll bite. How well matched were the bikes? I'd like to know considering the specific efficiency claims Rohloff makes. Weight alone could not explain such a difference.

    I'd post on topic but it's been covered so well already. I'd add that crank length and ring shape, if you use elliptical, can have some small effect as well. Figure out what you need, not what everyone else needs. Terrain has such a dramatic impact and that can't be judged online.
    My bike, a Bionicon Edison hydroformed, 2 rear wheels, same rim, a Mavic EN321, same tire, Nobby Nic 2.4, same tube. Shifted from a 36 x 16 tooth on the Rohloff back to my conventional Hugi FR hub with a sram 990 34-11 and Truvative Stylo with 22-32-44 rings.

    Everything else was the same on the bike, just the wheels and shift mechanisms where changed out, and front derailleur was added back in. I only had one bike at the time. So, the only changes were in the drive train, everything else was as close to identical as possible.

    Running a sun gear, and gear oil, and planetary gears in gears 1-7 on a Rohloff explains the difference. About an over all 10 to 13% loss in time, consistently, when I had the Rohloff. Climb was 3.8 miles long and about 1800 vertical feet of firerroad climbing, same starting point, same ending point for all test rides.

    Times were 50:05 to 50:49 with the Hugi Freeride hubbed rear end , with 55:17 to 57:28 with the Rohloff. It was slow, too much resistance spinning all that junk inside the hub through a bath of oil.

  50. #50
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by JimInSF View Post
    Indeed and I'm not sure I buy this (Randy, have I seen you in other threads repeatedly bashing the Rohloff or am I mistaking you for someone else?), but I wouldn't dismiss it 100% either and will try timing myself out of curiosity. Then again, without swapping drivetrains out on the same bike, this seems impossible to measure even remotely accurately, and conflicts with the reports of most Rohloff users and my own experience, though I have not tried experimental timing.

    A couple of points of interest though - I'm now on my second Rohloff, and the one I just got is less draggy feeling even new than the first is after over 10,000 miles and, in the top 7 gears, as quiet if not quieter than any derailleur setup. Some of this may be illusory and frame related - an aluminum, big tubed frame that amplifies the noise and vibration on the old, and with perhaps imperfect chainline, versus a Ti frame that hides it on the new with a perfect chainline - but it could also be that newer units have better tolerances or that small inline changes over time have improved the hub. Given how smooth my new one is even brand new, I can't imagine it to be a source of much inefficiency once broken in.

    Secondly, and more importantly, I've never ridden a derailleur drivetrain on which I did not experience chain suck (as well as the other usual issues), and that includes the current generation X.0 and XX - and each time you throw or, as I did last month, break a chain from using a derailleur setup, whatever seconds you gained in months previous are instantly erased and more, not to mention the risk of going down when you lock up. I'll take the reliability of a Rohloff any day even if it were a little less efficient, and I seriously doubt, based on my experience to date and tests performed by others, that the efficiency difference is anywhere near the level asserted. Perhaps Randy got a bad hub or it was not properly installed.
    Get a flat on the rear of a Rohloff, versus a Hugi FR with a 10mm RWS, and count the time lost while you unpack a 17mm for the acorn nuts, disconnect the shift box, keep everything clean and not get any dirt in the mechanism while the wind and dust blows around you here in the South West . Not only did I install it myself, I built the wheel myself.

    I invite you to bang out 1800 feet here on the local fireroad. In 4 years and over 10,000 miles of riding, only once have I snapped or broken a chain, so that point is moot, as I was meaning to change out that chain, but I kept putting it off, knowing full well it exceeded the wear limits.

    Where I ride, a derailleur is a superior system for all uses. No one here races with a Rohloff, be it XC, 4X, downhill, whatever. No one in the Great Divide Race uses a Rohloff based wheel either. Lack of efficiency is why.

  51. #51
    craigsj
    Guest
    Thanks for the explanation on the Rohloff.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    No one in the Great Divide Race uses a Rohloff based wheel either. Lack of efficiency is why.
    I seriously doubt that's why. It appears there's little creative thinking in bike setup there aside from a couple fairings. What you see is basic weight weenie-ism so Rohloff would be a nonstarter if it were ever considered in the first place. In a race of that nature, efficiency over the course of 2500 miles is more important that what comes out of the box. Some of those riders even use single speed so it's hard to argue they're studying efficiency like you suggest. That race is a test of crazy hardcoreness, not who has the most technically ingenious and efficient bike.

  52. #52
    Slow But Still Pedaling
    Reputation: JimInSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    Get a flat on the rear of a Rohloff, versus a Hugi FR with a 10mm RWS, and count the time lost while you unpack a 17mm for the acorn nuts, disconnect the shift box, keep everything clean and not get any dirt in the mechanism while the wind and dust blows around you here in the South West . Not only did I install it myself, I built the wheel myself.

    I invite you to bang out 1800 feet here on the local fireroad. In 4 years and over 10,000 miles of riding, only once have I snapped or broken a chain, so that point is moot, as I was meaning to change out that chain, but I kept putting it off, knowing full well it exceeded the wear limits.

    Where I ride, a derailleur is a superior system for all uses. No one here races with a Rohloff, be it XC, 4X, downhill, whatever. No one in the Great Divide Race uses a Rohloff based wheel either. Lack of efficiency is why.
    Enjoy your derailleurs my friend. I don't break chains all that often either but I get chain suck regularly on every derailleur drivetrain I've tried and it sucks a$$, plus dealing with broken and ill-adjusting derailleurs and hangers, etc., none of which seem worth the tradeoff to me.

    In any event, we all get it, you believe your install was good, and don't like the Rohloff. You're not going to win a lot of anti-IGH converts if that's your goal by injecting unsolicited bashing into unrelated threads, folks who are interested can try a system for themselves and their own use case, and either like them or don't. (Personally, your experience sounds sufficiently different from what others report that I'm guessing you either had a bad setup or got a bad or unusually draggy hub.)

    Interesting you should refer to the GDR - someone running a Rohloff/belt drive setup finished the Tour Divide this year and actually posted here about it. This is now way OT though and no need to thread-jack; enough.

  53. #53
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    I can buy that....

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Thanks for the explanation on the Rohloff.


    I seriously doubt that's why. It appears there's little creative thinking in bike setup there aside from a couple fairings. What you see is basic weight weenie-ism so Rohloff would be a nonstarter if it were ever considered in the first place. In a race of that nature, efficiency over the course of 2500 miles is more important that what comes out of the box. Some of those riders even use single speed so it's hard to argue they're studying efficiency like you suggest. That race is a test of crazy hardcoreness, not who has the most technically ingenious and efficient bike.
    Sorry, but in my experience, Rolhoff is draggy. I've ridden a few, and I can feel it at the pedals... Some gears more than others.

  54. #54
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Does anyone know whos making a 4 ring 64mm 20 tooth? other than Action Tec?

    This just might get me where Id like to be Without spending huge$ on a LuckyNino.

  55. #55
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Okay, I did something stupid....

    Stupid low gear, that's what!!!

    I got one of those 36t cogs that go behind the XT cassette (and adds like 10 pounds!!) and drop one of the small cogs.

    So now, I have a stupid low gear of 20x36.

    I'm gonna hit Two Dollar Hill tomorrow and see how it goes. Somehow, I don't think I need a lower gear to clean that hill. I think I need more speed... that is, more leg power, momentum, and using a taller gear.

    Pics later...

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    ... Somehow, I don't think I need a lower gear to clean that hill. I think I need more speed... that is, more leg power, momentum, and using a taller gear.
    Bingo. IMO below a certain speed the rider's stability suffers, particularly in technical terrain. At that speed, "trials" type skills prevail, and too low of a gear might actually be a hinderance (not enough response from the crank to overcome technical spots). For example, in too low of a gear, the crank rotation may be too much, causing a pedal strike on a rock (or whatever), versus getting the same forward motion with less crank rotation (at the cost of exerting more power to turn the crank). For me, I'm typically out of the saddle already, so I prefer to have a meatier gear. YMMV.
    I no longer care if I "dab", and frankly feel ridiculous spinning 100 rpm at 2 miles an hour - I prefer to dismount and jog up if it comes down to that. I guess I'm getting too practical in my middle age

    On the parallel OT discussion on IGH's, I can see the "efficiency"argument against them for most racing applications (particularly 1-2 hour XC events), but I honestly feel most of it boils down to personal preference otherwise.
    IMO it is worth considering that most (if not all) of the lab-based efficiency comparisons are based on clean drivetrains with perfect alignment, and much of the efficiency difference is negated when wind, drive train grit, tire pressure, terrain, etc are added into the mix. IIRC, a derailleur drivetrain is claimed to be 98% efficient under"laboratory" conditions (but not in all gears) and the IGH is 92% or so. I'll have to dig a bit to find those studies - perhaps others here may have them at hand.
    To my legs it makes little discernable difference whether I'm on an IGH or conventional drivetrain.

  57. #57
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by canyoneagle View Post
    I no longer care if I "dab", and frankly feel ridiculous spinning 100 rpm at 2 miles an hour - I prefer to dismount and jog up if it comes down to that. I guess I'm getting too practical in my mid
    If the hills your riding can be jogged up rather than climbed (sometimes on all fours) then I understand where your coming from and would agree in this instance.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    If the hills your riding can be jogged up rather than climbed (sometimes on all fours) then I understand where your coming from and would agree in this instance.
    Yep, mainly extremely steep stuff with alot of technical obstacles thrown in. A 23 inch low gear is sufficient (for me) to ride such a section, assuming I'm on top of my technical skills. If I dab and it is too steep/technical to get going again, I do the "cyclocross" jog.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    Go lower if you feel the need or desire, and don't take any crap from people for doing it. Your knees will thank you, and you'll enjoy your riding more if your gearing is a better match for your fitness and strength levels, your riding style, and the trails that you ride.
    Word.

  60. #60
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    I would go lower... If I could find a way to do so without spending $300 +

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    817

    ... and if we just ...

    Quote Originally Posted by connolm View Post
    I'm with OP on needing the 22x36 - even if it's just to soothe my mind. I don't think I use it as much as 32x36 though. It tends to spin out the wheels. Maybe it's a mental thing but I really wanted a cassette with the 36 cog.

    My bike came stock with the shimano HG61 29er specific cassette. That cassette has the 36 cog in 9sp format BUT it's an anchor at 423 grams. I just got a LuckyNino cassette with a 36 that weighs 208 grams.
    My Nino 9spd 11-36 is awsome 212 grams. I have been on it for about 5-6months smoov baby!!!! Iam glad i didn't drop the coin on going 2x10 and changing all my stuff out, just brought a cassette from Nino.
    "It Is What It Is" Phil 4:13
    B-Ray Da Beast

  62. #62
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by B-RAY View Post
    My Nino 9spd 11-36 is awsome 212 grams. I have been on it for about 5-6months smoov baby!!!! Iam glad i didn't drop the coin on going 2x10 and changing all my stuff out, just brought a cassette from Nino.
    These are really my two options right now, what do the cheaper Nino cassettes run? If It were a 1 time part I wouldnt mind much but would hate to drop $200+ once or twice a year on a part that wears out pretty quick...
    Last edited by Ace5high; 08-13-2011 at 09:34 AM.

  63. #63
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Anyone know if I can use a 9 speed Shimano XT long cage derailleur on a 10 speed Cassette?

    If so the 10 speed cassette and 10 speed shifter wont cost me much

  64. #64
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,764
    My lowest is 20 x 32, but in my defense that granny gear was purchased in 1993. It's Ti with Ti bolts so it's like it's not even there - except when I need it. And I never use it in Ohio.
    My high, which I think is much more important, is 44 x 11, which has its place on fire roads and such.

    -F

  65. #65
    upgrade until you suck
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    190
    24x34. Anything lower and I'd be going backwards on the trail.

  66. #66
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    I average 6mph in my lowest 22x34. Absolutely no reason I need to be doing 6mph up the steep climbs I have. I feel like I could easily cut that in half for the steep ones...

    I dont get why the low gear thing is such an ego point for cyclists, Some tricky technical steep climbs I think would be leveled safer on a lower gear, so im not believing its about needing more speed to "stabilize". I could care less what the cool kids are doing, I just care about what works.

  67. #67
    www.bigrobracing.co.uk
    Reputation: robdeanhove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    312

    My Chainring / Cassette Setup Choices

    I've recently switched my bikes to 29 & 210, I literally never used 44:11!

    Bike 1, Santa Cruz Tallboy, now has an 11-34 cassette with a 24/36 double up front

    Bike 2, Santa Cruz Highball, has an 11-36 cassette with a 26/38 up front
    double chainset


    massive 36T cassette


    Plenty of gears to get up the hills and enough easy ones for solo 24 (just!). The Tallboy did have 26/38 up front but with a 34T cassette it was just a little too stiff on the climbs. I'm loving the extra log clearance over a 44T chainring too!

  68. #68
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    That said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    If the hills your riding can be jogged up rather than climbed (sometimes on all fours) then I understand where your coming from and would agree in this instance.
    ... I always prefer to ride.

    ... unless I'm racing. Whatever gets me ahead (in proper sporting race etiquette, naturally... nto going to start stomping heads) fastest is what I'll do. If there is a techy uphill section, I have no problem with getting off and running.

    Now, regular rides, I see it as working on my skills. If I get off and walk, I won't learn a dang thing.

    Did I mention that I got farther up Two Dollar Hill than ever before this weekend? The top is within reach!!
    Last edited by pimpbot; 08-15-2011 at 06:37 PM.

  69. #69
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    If the hills your riding can be jogged up rather than climbed (sometimes on all fours) then I understand where your coming from and would agree in this instance.
    I think you guys missed the point. What Im saying is that there is no way in heck someone could "Jog" up the hills Im needing the low gears to climb, because they are barley able to be crawled up on all fours they are steep and slippery

    If Im able to Jog something then Im not needing super low gears...

  70. #70
    Bro Mountainbiker
    Reputation: Sheepo5669's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,583
    i climb better out of the saddle in a higher gear. Its more dynamic to be over the bike than on the bike when trying to clear tech features. But thats the singlespeeder in me.
    Raised in a Chicken-Coop by Chickens

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    I think you guys missed the point. What Im saying is that there is no way in heck someone could "Jog" up the hills Im needing the low gears to climb, because they are barley able to be crawled up on all fours they are steep and slippery

    If Im able to Jog something then Im not needing super low gears...
    You must have really long chain stays to keep you from flipping over backwards .
    Either that, or we have significantly different walking/jogging technique/capacity on really steep terrain.
    Anything that can be ridden up in a low gear can be navigated (sometimes better) on foot. Just saying.
    I find a 1:1 low gear to be about right for me - it requires out of the saddle climbing on the really steep stuff, but allows me to maintain momentum and allows fewer crank bottoming occurrences (less chance to hit a rock). That said, I'm 195 lbs so this works better for me than if I were 135 pounds, which would be a completely different story, I imagine.
    Last edited by canyoneagle; 08-16-2011 at 08:33 AM.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slee_Stack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    508
    22/34 although I've never used lower than 22/30. Admittedly, 22/30 has been the difference between me riding and walking a few seemingly endless hills.

    However, in my middle ring, I'd love a little lower gear than 32/34 so I could stay out of the granny (and not mess with the front der.) for the vast majority of my rides.

  73. #73
    Never Satisfied...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    627
    Santa Cruz Tallboy (full suspension) ---------> (1x10) 34T x 11-36


    Sette Razzo (rigid) ----------------------------------> (1x9) 32T x 11-34

  74. #74
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by canyoneagle View Post
    You must have really long chain stays to keep you from flipping over backwards .
    Either that, or we have significantly different walking/jogging technique/capacity on really steep terrain.
    Anything that can be ridden up in a low gear can be navigated (sometimes better) on foot. Just saying.
    The key to this you already stated navigated on foot/walking. I'm getting into biking after 20 years of being a runner/jogger so trust me when i say no one is jogging up the sand hills we climb on trials around here. Creeping slowly by foot maybe but jogging not possible

    But I live in Florida... Ever try to run up a sand dune?

  75. #75
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepo5669 View Post
    i climb better out of the saddle in a higher gear. Its more dynamic to be over the bike than on the bike when trying to clear tech features. But thats the singlespeeder in me.
    I agree with this and I have gears.

    If I can push a bigger gear I do. It does reduce pedal strikes and requires more power, which assures that I'll have just that little bit extra of momentum when I need it. Those super-low gears are only good if the traction is there for the "slow-climb", as my buddy calls it (he is a master at holding traction at slow speed - it is admirable, but super annoying if you are behind him and want to just rip into a hill, or if conditions don't match your tires).

    Of course, if I'm just whupped, I spin in the granny gear and hope for the parking lot to appear. There's no getting around that.

    -F

  76. #76
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Mmm yeah... but...

    Quote Originally Posted by canyoneagle View Post
    Anything that can be ridden up in a low gear can be navigated (sometimes better) on foot. Just saying.
    Where's the fun in that? Are you out to ride your bike, or are you out to cover as much distance as possible regardless of how you do it?

    And define 'navigated (sometimes better)'.

  77. #77
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    Where's the fun in that? Are you out to ride your bike, or are you out to cover as much distance as possible regardless of how you do it?
    It might be the latter if one is racing. With me it's usually the former.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    Where's the fun in that? Are you out to ride your bike, or are you out to cover as much distance as possible regardless of how you do it?

    And define 'navigated (sometimes better)'.
    My post was from a place of pure functionality. The reply was countering the implication that a bicycle could somehow actually be ridden up something that it is not possible to walk up, which is ridiculous. Momentum-based features, of course would be an exception (vertical berms, for example) - but we're talking about climbing in a low gear, not railing turns on sheer park berms.
    Given a preference, I'd rather ride than walk (of course!), and will typically fare just fine on steep technical terrain in a non-granny type setup. My own riding style tends to dictate this preference. It's not to say that I see no use whatsoever for granny setups, no. It is simply coming from the fact that in my own process, I've determined that I do not prefer to use them.
    On infrequent occasions, I have found the need to dismount and continue (for any number of reasons), and it causes me no heartache to do so.

    Because of this, I find that a low gear range from 23-28 inches suits me just fine.

    That's all I'm saying.
    Last edited by canyoneagle; 08-16-2011 at 11:28 AM.

  79. #79
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Gotcha!

    Quote Originally Posted by canyoneagle View Post
    My post was from a place of pure functionality. The reply was countering the implication that a bicycle could somehow actually be ridden up something that it is not possible to walk up, which is ridiculous. Momentum-based features, of course would be an exception (vertical berms, for example) - but we're talking about climbing in a low gear, not railing turns on sheer park berms.
    Given a preference, I'd rather ride than walk (of course!), and will typically fare just fine on steep technical terrain in a non-granny type setup. My own riding style tends to dictate this preference. It's not to say that I see no use whatsoever for granny setups, no. It is simply coming from the fact that in my own process, I've determined that I do not prefer to use them.
    On infrequent occasions, I have found the need to dismount and continue (for any number of reasons), and it causes me no heartache to do so.

    Because of this, I find that a low gear range from 23-28 inches suits me just fine.

    That's all I'm saying.
    Yeah, true... more traction walking (and more able to 'pick your line')

    My bad... I missed that part.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    Yeah, true... more traction walking (and more able to 'pick your line')

    My bad... I missed that part.


    Yep. The bottom line for me is that the 2%-5% (or less) of the time that a gear lower than 23-28 inches would be of benefit does not justify using a granny gear.
    Sometimes that means I grunt through a brief section with slower than optimal crank RPM, other times it means I dismount and push at a brisk walk.

    I've been toying with the idea of 1x10 in lieu of my present plan to do an Alfine 11 build.
    I've used IGH's on my commuters and occasionally offroad with very good results, but I have a bit of a concern (based on what I've been hearing) about the durability of the Alfine 11 for frequent off road application. Hmmmm......

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Badassbassangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Gasp4Air View Post
    Just about - but I'm old school (and slow). Having to get off and walk feels like failure to me. I don't have the legs or lungs of a strong rider, so I rely on the low gearing to keep going.
    Here, here.... I used to ride like a mofo, but now I'm slow. Sometimes it's only 'cause of Granny that I'm able to go!!
    Only if I got paid to hang out in my garage and tweak on my bikes...

  82. #82
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by canyoneagle View Post
    My post was from a place of pure functionality. The reply was countering the implication that a bicycle could somehow actually be ridden up something that it is not possible to walk up, which is ridiculous. Momentum-based features, of course would be an exception (vertical berms, for example) - but we're talking about climbing in a low gear, not railing turns on sheer park berms.
    That's all I'm saying.
    Your defending your statment but your wrong. The reply was not countering the implication that a bicycle could somehow actually be ridden up something that it is not possible to walk up.

    I never said that, So it would appear your not reading. I said the hills that Im riding up cannot be "Ran up" Or "Jogged Up". With momentum and proper gearing the hills are very difficult but doable on a bike but can not be "Jogged up" too slippery and steep.

    Ill just have to post some pics if you think thats such a ridiculous idea....

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    Your defending your statment but your wrong. The reply was not countering the implication that a bicycle could somehow actually be ridden up something that it is not possible to walk up.

    I never said that, So it would appear your not reading. I said the hills that Im riding up cannot be "Ran up" Or "Jogged Up". With momentum and proper gearing the hills are very difficult but doable on a bike but can not be "Jogged up" too slippery and steep.

    Ill just have to post some pics if you think thats such a ridiculous idea....
    I hear ya.
    I know the hills you speak of.

    Apologies for not reading correctly.

  84. #84
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Quote Originally Posted by canyoneagle View Post
    I hear ya.
    I know the hills you speak of.

    Apologies for not reading correctly.
    No sweat. I was looking forward to posting some pics of tricky climbs

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    No sweat. I was looking forward to posting some pics of tricky climbs
    Oh, crap. I acquiesced too easily.

    In that case,

    No way, I don't believe you!!!! PROVE IT!

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2FewDaysOnTrail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    217

    Impact on Front Derailleur etc?

    If I opted to ditch the big ring but wanted a little more top end for the ride to the trail on the road, is there any concern with the quality of the shift from a 22T to 36T ring?
    Salsa Bucksaw
    Trek Farley
    Niner Jet9 RDO
    Niner Air9 Carbon SS
    Rockhopper Comp SL

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zenkem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    496
    I started with 22-36 then went with 22-34, I then thought 22-32 was a good idea...I was wrong...so now I'm back to 22-36 beacause I've found that the 36 works real well with the 32 middle chain ring for most of the climbs here in Germany...

  88. #88
    MTB Rider
    Reputation: willtsmith_nwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    At 20/36 you would be faster walking.
    Yes, but that is faster than gearing out and having to dismount/remount the bike.

  89. #89
    I'm attracted to Gravity!
    Reputation: campredcloudbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    598
    my LOWEST gear is throw the bike over my shoulder and carry.

    but that comes after my 20x34 runs out, but on a ~45 pound loaded bike at 13,000 feet the bottom line is just keep moving, and sometimes walking is just easier, sometimes you just have too, Monday 22 miles or so took me about 8 hours... I probably could have gone faster trail running on that terrain.
    When most of your time pedaling is at 3.5 mph and pushing is probably 2 mph, followed by brief gnarly downhills..... yeah. fun times....



  90. #90
    Lanzolot
    Reputation: themacsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    At 20/36 you would be faster walking.

    Quote Originally Posted by willtsmith_nwi View Post
    Yes, but that is faster than gearing out and having to dismount/remount the bike.
    If it was all about speed, I would not bother with a mtb. I would be using a dirt bike or atv.
    Or even better not go at all, I do lollie pops or loops, if I'm done when I get there that would certainly up my speed.
    BTW, I'm using 22/32x12/36 and I would certainly try a 20/30 combo up front if it was plug and play and/or it wasn't too expensive. Sounds like a lot of effort and expense, even so I may look into it next season. I like to spin.

  91. #91
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by campredcloudbikes View Post
    my LOWEST gear is throw the bike over my shoulder and carry.
    Rep given. Great photos. Awesome scenery. Love your "lowest gear" comment. It brought much-needed laughter to my morning.

  92. #92
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Spot on!

    Quote Originally Posted by themacsmith View Post
    If it was all about speed, I would not bother with a mtb. I would be using a dirt bike or atv.
    IMO, judging by the discussions on mtbr, IRL and other places... we mountain bikers generally are WAY too concerned about how fast we go... or at least in talk. Dang, by our discussions, it sounds like every waking moment is dedicated to winning a World Cup race. Every part has to shed 0.2 seconds off of our 20 mile loop. I know this is not reflected in any rides I go on with anybody.

    Not every ride is a race, or even training for a race. In fact, most of them are not.

    It's all about the smiles per hour.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    643
    32x32 is as low as I ever go.

    On my new project, 36x32 will be the bottom.
    - The only thing that keeps me on a bike is happiness.

  94. #94
    Chairman of the Beard
    Reputation: hirschmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    753
    32f-34r 1x9, which I'm getting used to pushing up hills.
    The correct number of bikes one should own is N+1, where N is the number of bikes currently owned.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canyoneagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    It's all about the smiles per hour.
    Now yer talkin' !

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chris1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    404
    34t on front and 11-34t in back on a 1X9.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10
    22:36 on a Jet 9 but soon to go to a 24:36. On the trails here I end up around 22:26 but then the chain will rub the bottom of the fder and it annoys me. Then I go to the 34:36 but that's pushing it and I have nowhere to go. So I figure with the 24 small chain ring I will use a larger cog to keep the chain off of the fder and still have some wiggle room to keep the chain quiet.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    284
    I run a 20 x 36 granny.

    40-30-20 up front and 12-36 in back.

    I'm actually in decent shape (FTP=4.3 w/kg) but I prefer to not blow up my legs and also like to ride the last few climbs instead of walking them. I also like super steep stuff that is technical. This gearing makes it do-able.

  99. #99
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,308
    33:18 on one bike
    22:34 on the other
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  100. #100
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by chiva View Post
    40-30-20 up front and 12-36 in back.
    where did you get a 40/30/20 crankset?

  101. #101
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Surly

    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    where did you get a 40/30/20 crankset?
    Mr. Whirly has an option for 20/30/40, IIRC.

  102. #102
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,355
    My lowest gear is 15.3 gear inches. That is 19t front and 36t rear. I have an old FC-M900 xtr 180mm square taper crankset with a Mountain Tamer to mount the 19t granny then a 28t middle where the granny was originally and a 36t big ring where the middle used to be. Shifts great. A 42t ring ring with the teeth cut off serves a light bash guard.

    Sweet setup.

    Yes, there are guys here who like to cap on those of us who like lots of wide range gears. There will be a anti gear choice post criticizing my gearing setup very soon I'm sure. It's inevitable here on the 29er board...
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by 29erchico View Post
    My lowest gear is 15.3 gear inches. That is 19t front and 36t rear. I have an old FC-M900 xtr 180mm square taper crankset with a Mountain Tamer to mount the 19t granny then a 28t middle where the granny was originally and a 36t big ring where the middle used to be. Shifts great. A 42t ring ring with the teeth cut off serves a light bash guard.
    Wow, I'd love that. Rock on.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    where did you get a 40/30/20 crankset?

    Its a stock Noir crank that came on my SF 100 Elite. The 40-30 chainrings are from:
    andersenmachine.wordpress.com. Awesome rings. Very solid. The 20 is from actiontec. I luv this setup. I can ride almost ANYTHING with this easy gearing. Call me a wimp, but it works for me

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by 29erchico View Post
    My lowest gear is 15.3 gear inches. That is 19t front and 36t rear. I have an old FC-M900 xtr 180mm square taper crankset with a Mountain Tamer to mount the 19t granny then a 28t middle where the granny was originally and a 36t big ring where the middle used to be. Shifts great. A 42t ring ring with the teeth cut off serves a light bash guard.

    Sweet setup.

    Yes, there are guys here who like to cap on those of us who like lots of wide range gears. There will be a anti gear choice post criticizing my gearing setup very soon I'm sure. It's inevitable here on the 29er board...
    I like your gearing. That's a great setup! 36-28-19 up front rocks! Again, its a realistic setup to keep your legs from blowing up early in a LONG race.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    958
    20-36.
    nice to have the bailout gearing for high altitude riding or not going anaerobic as quickly.
    sea level riders and younger guys might not be concerned with very low gearing, but
    the 50 plus guys are, especially if riding 2 or more days in a row with long saddle time.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BRUZED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    152
    Mr. Whirly cranks with a custom 27t

    sram 990 with a custom 37t added and the 15t removed.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: connolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    690
    I was riding 22x36 when I posted on the first page. But I just did my first ride 1x9 with a only a 32t ring up front. That makes my new lowest gear 32x36 on my Luckynino cassette (12-36 cogs).

    I was able to make a longer climb with this gearing that I always struggle with. It let me down on short little run ups. I was also pretty beat after two hours. Much more walking on the little runs-ups late in the ride.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    32
    32 x 36 (1x10) on my bander. 175mm crank. I can't sit and spin up some steep prolonged climbs, so I just shift up a couple and get out of the saddle and grind it out.

    32 x 20 SS on my jabber. 180mm crank

    I can notice the difference between the crank lengths (I think) so I'm probably going to change to 180s on the 1x10 too.

  110. #110
    don't try this at home
    Reputation: moschika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,601
    i just put a triple on today. 22x34 is now my lowest gear. haven't tried yet, but i'm sure it'll be fine. I was running 27x34 before and i can crank it 97% of the time. but if it gets really steep or i'm tired, i'm always looking for more. i can't stand and crank out of the saddle on my fs without losing traction, so i needed something i could stay seated on.
    this is my first triple in over 20 years and i'm a little deflated.
    will you rep me?

  111. #111
    ~Reformed Mechanic~
    Reputation: Ace5high's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    So I actually made the switch to 2x10 with a larger 36 on the rear. I really love the 10 cassette because the ratios just feel like I have more usable gears for my given speed, So I love the upgrade!

    Whats funny is that the 22/36 combo on the low end doesn't actually seem to help much with the steep areas. I think I went just a bit to far over and now Its almost more difficult to get up the steep tech'y stuff. The good news is that the 22/32 combo Ive now got feels like a really good low gear for most difficult areas...

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6
    26x36 on my 29er. Really missing the lower gear on the long steep stuff, especially when had to get off and walk and was passed by wife in granny gear mode. Thinking of swapping the 26T chainring for a 24 or 22.

  113. #113
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    IMO, judging by the discussions on mtbr, IRL and other places... we mountain bikers generally are WAY too concerned about how fast we go... or at least in talk. Dang, by our discussions, it sounds like every waking moment is dedicated to winning a World Cup race. Every part has to shed 0.2 seconds off of our 20 mile loop. I know this is not reflected in any rides I go on with anybody.

    Not every ride is a race, or even training for a race. In fact, most of them are not.

    It's all about the smiles per hour.
    Had to plus rep you for that one!

  114. #114
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot View Post
    Sorry, but in my experience, Rolhoff is draggy. I've ridden a few, and I can feel it at the pedals... Some gears more than others.
    Absolutely draggy in gears 1-7. Spinning gears through an oil bath makes it that way. And if it wasn't draggy, you wouldn't have folks cutting the gear oil with kerosene for winter time riding with it in the snow belt. Losses in a gear box on a car amount to about 15 to 18%. The Rohloff, compared to a car gear box is efficient at perhaps a 13% loss, but not efficient compared to cassette and derailleur on long climbs.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    44
    Well, was 24-36 on my Blur Tail TRc. A bit higher than I was used to with the 22-34 on my old FSR. I just got a Tallboy with a 24-36, and I'm thinking it's going to be higher than I want. Yeah, I do use the granny for recovery on long ones. When I am a big boy with the required 5 posts, I am going to start a technical thread on changing rings on integrated cranks with all the co-dependent magic ramps and stuff on the teeth.

  116. #116
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by 29erchico View Post
    My lowest gear is 15.3 gear inches. That is 19t front and 36t rear. I have an old FC-M900 xtr 180mm square taper crankset with a Mountain Tamer to mount the 19t granny then a 28t middle where the granny was originally and a 36t big ring where the middle used to be. Shifts great. A 42t ring ring with the teeth cut off serves a light bash guard.

    Sweet setup.

    Yes, there are guys here who like to cap on those of us who like lots of wide range gears. There will be a anti gear choice post criticizing my gearing setup very soon I'm sure. It's inevitable here on the 29er board...
    Had to rep you for that, cause I've been there, done that with you in Downieville on a 29'er.

  117. #117
    likes to ride bikes
    Reputation: TunicaTrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    36 x 11-36 with 185mm cranks.

  118. #118
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,621
    22x36 on my stumpy, dont think ive ever used it though, it can motor up most things in the 32 ring up front.

  119. #119
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,355
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    Had to rep you for that, cause I've been there, done that with you in Downieville on a 29'er.

    Thanks, that was some great downhill. Getting back up to PS was not quite as fun.
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  120. #120
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,355
    My new drive train will be a Mr Whirly crank sporting 20-29-36 stainless rings and 42t alloy chainring with the teeth cut off as a light bash guard. Want to be able to hit bigger drops than the 2 feet I am self limited to now by the fact that my current setup has a square taper BB.

    The cassette is where the real franken gearing will be: Action Tec 38t low gear and a XT 11-34 cassette with the 13t next to smallest cog removed. XT shadow rear mech with a longer & reversed B adjuster screw. I have a couple of barely used 11-34 9sp. XT cassettes that are on the sidelines currently so I thought that I would give this a try. This rear cog setup should be a whole lot lighter than the 12-36 HG61 I am riding now.

    20t front and 38t rear will be 15.27 gear inches. That's a whopping 0.03 gear inch lower than my current setup.
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    94
    I am running 24 x 36 front and 11-34 rear. Takes me to the summit most of the hills. I am considering to remove all front gears and mount a single 32t sprocket so save weight and reduce complexity.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    151
    I am running a 33t chainring with an 11-36 out back.

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    93
    middle burn crank 20=30=40 with a 11\34 cassette works pretty good for me

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The Haunted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    170
    Running 1x10 with a 32t ring, Mrp g2 and 11-36 cassette on my FSR29.
    I am not riding in the Rockies so there is no need for a granny.
    Standing climbing ftw, with a real tire of course.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    Do you run a 10 speed cassette? Id like to goto a 36 but dont think they have any for 9 speed...
    They do have a 12-36 9 speed. I know bc I have one, its shimano SLX something-or-other.

    BUT as a fair warning many hub companies say not to use a 22:36 gear because it is too much torque on your hub. idk how much of this is complete bs and how much is legit. I'll leave it up to you to make that decision.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by The Haunted View Post
    Running 1x10 with a 32t ring, Mrp g2 and 11-36 cassette on my FSR29.
    I am not riding in the Rockies so there is no need for a granny.
    Standing climbing ftw, with a real tire of course.
    Do you ever find that you spin out badly going down?

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    151
    Hey guys looking for some advice for a front ring.


    On a Trek Superfly 100. My area is pretty steep, but I am young with strong legs and medium cardio. 11-36 out back, 1x in front. I was going to go with a 33, but a 32 would make climbing a little more bearable, only thing I am thinking about is spinning out badly going down. Could anyone who lives in a steep area shed some light on this.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The Haunted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by carpy95 View Post
    Do you ever find that you spin out badly going down?
    The gearing is tall enough for any singletrack riding in my area. I guess that if you ride lot of fireroads, a 2x10 would be more appropriate.

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark16q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    379
    22 x 36 3x10 deore xt. my knees and cardio love this combo out on our Socal trails.
    19 orbea oiz tr
    '16 Scott Genius 700 Premium traded in
    Cervelo R3sl
    Seven Alta
    Curtlo h/t

  130. #130
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,355
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXFT View Post
    They do have a 12-36 9 speed. I know bc I have one, its shimano SLX something-or-other.

    BUT as a fair warning many hub companies say not to use a 22:36 gear because it is too much torque on your hub. idk how much of this is complete bs and how much is legit. I'll leave it up to you to make that decision.
    Shimano makes the 529 and 629 rear hubs that are rated for the higher torque of the lower 22x36t combo.

    I can only speak from experience to the fact that the DT 18 point star ratchet on their FR hub can handle much lower gearing than the 22x36t setup that Shimano is designing their high torque hubs for. My current granny gear is 19x36t & I'm about 220#, ride a bike that ranges from 33-40#, depending on tires, and tend to carry a heavy pack and have had no issues. I guess that my total, all in, riding weight has approached 290# from time to time.
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by 29erchico View Post
    Shimano makes the 529 and 629 rear hubs that are rated for the higher torque of the lower 22x36t combo.

    I can only speak from experience to the fact that the DT 18 point star ratchet on their FR hub can handle much lower gearing than the 22x36t setup that Shimano is designing their high torque hubs for. My current granny gear is 19x36t & I'm about 220#, ride a bike that ranges from 33-40#, depending on tires, and tend to carry a heavy pack and have had no issues. I guess that my total, all in, riding weight has approached 290# from time to time.
    I figured a lot of it was market-hype so people would buy "shimano high-torque hubs". They came on my bike, so thats what I'm riding.

  132. #132
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 29erchico View Post
    Shimano makes the 529 and 629 rear hubs that are rated for the higher torque of the lower 22x36t combo.

    I can only speak from experience to the fact that the DT 18 point star ratchet on their FR hub can handle much lower gearing than the 22x36t setup that Shimano is designing their high torque hubs for. My current granny gear is 19x36t & I'm about 220#, ride a bike that ranges from 33-40#, depending on tires, and tend to carry a heavy pack and have had no issues. I guess that my total, all in, riding weight has approached 290# from time to time.
    Keep in mind that torque and total weight aren't the same thing. No matter how much weight you add to your bike, the power in your legs doesn't change.

  133. #133
    Never trust a fart
    Reputation: frdfandc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,342
    Mine is a 26f 34r 9speed. But my middle ring is a 36 and I spend the most time there. But I've been thinking about changing out the 11-34 for an 11-32. Would bring that crazy 4 tooth jump down to 2 when going to the 30t cog.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    59
    22x34 on my Sultan. Switched this summer from a 32 in the back to the 34, and am happy I did it. I can climb many more things in the 32 middle ring with the 34 in back. But having the bailout 22 ring is good for the 40+ mile days with lots of climbing at altitude here in UT.

    I'd like to get a light hardtail for shorter, smoother rides and racing. If I did so, I'd probably go 1x9 or 1x10 and 32x36.

  135. #135
    Got A Lust for Life...
    Reputation: indyfab25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,968
    32,33,34,35, or 36 11/36
    I am immune to your disdain.

  136. #136
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,355
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Keep in mind that torque and total weight aren't the same thing. No matter how much weight you add to your bike, the power in your legs doesn't change.
    True. However, the high weight requires me to exert lots more torque, more often, than I would if my total riding weight was a hundred # less.

    Not sure how often I exert peak effort. But a good guess would be that it happens in a significantly higher gear than my uber low & then my gear ratio would very possibly be higher than the 22x34 standard ratio that is deemed OK for standard duty hubs.
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    28x36

    So far I haven't needed anything lower and 28 is far more usable than 24 or 26 for me. Running 28/40 chainrings w/11-36 cassette.

  138. #138
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,823
    32 - 36. 1X9. Liked it last season fwiw. S. Cali.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by carpy95 View Post
    Hey guys looking for some advice for a front ring.


    On a Trek Superfly 100. My area is pretty steep, but I am young with strong legs and medium cardio. 11-36 out back, 1x in front. I was going to go with a 33, but a 32 would make climbing a little more bearable, only thing I am thinking about is spinning out badly going down. Could anyone who lives in a steep area shed some light on this.
    You will spin out badly with 32 as well as 33 chain ring. Running 1x in front is always a compromise. If you want to climb, use 32. If you want to decend quickly or riding on the road often, use 36. If you want to do both, get a 2x setup.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    10
    22 32 is enough for me in just rolling hills to a step climb terrain(190lbs
    )

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace5high View Post
    Anyone know if I can use a 9 speed Shimano XT long cage derailleur on a 10 speed Cassette?

    If so the 10 speed cassette and 10 speed shifter wont cost me much
    I run a 10 speed XT cassette with a SRAM XX mid cage without any issues. The long cage should definately work for you.

Similar Threads

  1. Lowest gear ratio you've run
    By allroy71 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 07:15 PM
  2. 29er SS Gear ratio question 42/20 vs. 32/16
    By hygieneboy in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 03:13 PM
  3. Whats your gear ratio??
    By bbrz4 in forum Urban/DJ/Park
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 02:57 PM
  4. Gear ratio 29er vs 26er?
    By gandhi in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 10:13 AM
  5. 29er SS gear ratio?
    By ozlongboarder in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-22-2004, 09:51 PM

Members who have read this thread: 2

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.