30 Gears, Evolution for the sake of it?

GHill

I don't find the big ring necessary on my MTB (it only ever sees use on tarmac and big fire road descents, both of which I try to avoid), so I'm looking at using a double on my next bike - I'll probably go for a SRAM setup. Surprised Shimano haven't announced a 2 x 10 too.

Some of my reasoning:

Should be able to use all gears on 2 x 10 (or 9) - no bad combinations.
Ranges with a 36 tooth cassette will be fine for everything I regularly ride.
Can fit a bash guard, more for ankle protection (brother got a nasty injury that weighs on my mind)
Increased clearance, local riding area has plenty of fallen trees / rocks.

biff55

nickfrog wrote:

No point in 2x9 for me, let alone 3x9. No more front mech.

+1
faffing around with bike over xmas while a bit drunk and in a flash of alcohol induced inspiration binned front mech , cable and shifter.
done 6 mths of usual riding and not regretted one bit.
IMO , the fitter you get , the fewer gears you need.
but the biggest gain for me going single front ring is not having to listen to any god damn chain rub on the front mech.
drive train is blissfully quiet. 8)

bike-a-swan

lawman wrote:

and as for shimano's with the rear suspension on some bikes, ive never heard such BS in my life. they got lazy, end of story. well done sram

That actually makes sense to me, think how much frame designers spend tweaking pivot positions and the like to get different characteristics. I reckon 42-32-24 makes about a 4mm difference on the positions of the chainline in each case, which must be significant when pivot locations are trademarked!

Be interesting to get the view of some frame designers though...

Anonymous

I have to agree that I see no real progress in 2x10 or 3x10.
Now, something like the Hammeschmidt system, yes, i can definitely see some useful progress there.
The ability to run a single front ring, but with two effective gears is great, as you could then plonk a "proper" chainguide on it, and never lose your chain again (although I admit this is very rare even with something as simple as a blackspire stinger)

All in all, I'll be holding out on 10-speed cassettes until it's been proven workable by plenty of riders, or, most likely, until I have to because deent 9-speed setups will no longer be available.

I still remember the nightmares of early 9 speed systems in mud. Didn't seem to affect the switch from 7 to 8 speed as much though.

lawman

bike-a-swan wrote:

lawman wrote:

and as for shimano's with the rear suspension on some bikes, ive never heard such BS in my life. they got lazy, end of story. well done sram

That actually makes sense to me, think how much frame designers spend tweaking pivot positions and the like to get different characteristics. I reckon 42-32-24 makes about a 4mm difference on the positions of the chainline in each case, which must be significant when pivot locations are trademarked!

Be interesting to get the view of some frame designers though...

but as most full suspension designs are designed around a 32-36t ring, then surely a 39-26 is better, there would be less pedal kickback in a 26t than a 22t imo and the same could be said of the 39t vs a 44t, well thats how i see it anyway

i still sram have a darn sight better job than shimano tho on the whole, ive always had shimano on my bikes, but ill be using sram from now on.

mickedwards61

Interesting to hear all the different arguments, to be honest I think, rightly or wrongly, 3 x 10 will become a common setup on bikes in the future, purely because it will appeal more to the masses.

By saying the "masses", I'm referring to people who might not have, or wish to have the knowledge about the relevant pro's and con's about gearing. Let's face it when you first got into mountain biking did you research the amount of gears that would best suit you? Probably not, I know I didn't! I would suggest the common novice preconception is simply, "more gears, the easier it is to ride".

With this in mind, the manufacturers know that a 3 x 10 setup would probably outsell a 2 x 10 setup in most bike shops. Which is strange, because it will take a while for the new technology to trickle down to the lower end of the market, and down past the kind of people who will scrutinise it.

So, will 3 x 10 be a success? Or will 3 x 10 or 2 x10 become another of those arguments we see bandied on here, for instance HT or Full Sus?

lawman

personally i can see shimano having a re-think and going 2 x10 for 2012, i can really sram stuff taking off in a big way.

supersonic

Shimanos reasoning with the 42/32/24 is that when you change down into the granny ring you wont have to make as many rear shifts. Or something like that. But they already have some wide ranging front ratios with doubles ie 36/22. If they made a couple of others [and chain rings are available after market] you can have any combo you want within reason. This 2 chainring set up has been about years with Middleburn the first real ones to push it with the duo.

I'll be keeping a 44/32/22 on my 9 speed XC bike as I sometimes use the very tallest gear, and as much as the weight weenie I am, I am not ditching a ring to save 50g or whatever it is when I have a front mech and shifter already there which weighs the best part of 300g anyway.

Shimano also do a 12-36t cassette in 9 speed.

As before, whatever you ride there is more choice than ever to fine tune to the way you shift.

supersonic

lawman wrote:

personally i can see shimano having a re-think and going 2 x10 for 2012, i can really sram stuff taking off in a big way.

There will be 2x10, there already is and they already said they will release more.

lawman

supersonic wrote:

lawman wrote:

personally i can see shimano having a re-think and going 2 x10 for 2012, i can really sram stuff taking off in a big way.

There will be 2x10, there already is and they already said they will release more.

ooops missed that memo ill still go sram tho :P

peter413

The only thing I don't like with the Sram XX stuff is the crankset. I personallly am not a fan of Truvativ stuff since they are different to everyone else so spares can be hard to came by.

If Shimano or Race Face make their own version of the XX crankset, tougher though so it can handle some light DH and stuff, then I would consider going for it but I really don't like not using a bash since you can so easily destroy your chain and ring without one, and I hit my bash a lot.

Anonymous

Can;t you use a standard crankset but with 10-speed rings though?
I mean, the Shimano chainsets are frankly amazing.

supersonic

They do, it is called the SLX lol.

peter413

supersonic wrote:

They do, it is called the SLX lol.

The XX has a different spider design though doesn't it.

Otherwise I do use the Race Face equivelant

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

Shimano also do a 12-36t cassette in 9 speed.

It weighs more than your head though.

peter413

Northwind wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Shimano also do a 12-36t cassette in 9 speed.

It weighs more than your head though.

And why 12, not 11 :?

supersonic

You could change the bottom cog if you wish.

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Shimano also do a 12-36t cassette in 9 speed.

It weighs more than your head though.

With the contents of my head, that's not exactly saying much

lawman

the only reason ive never bought truvativ is because i heard the bbs are crap, but since hope have bought out one that is compatiable then there is no reason not to run one. xx has a unique BCD and i think im right in thinknig that the nex xo, x9 and x7 use the same BCD. this limts you to what chainrings/bash you can fit, but the likely hood is if you want to run a bash then you either already have 2 ring crankset or have a single ring. as for toughness then if you want a tough crank then you buy a suitable one, like an slx double or raceface etc

i like the idea of using the big ring for single track and DH and the small ring for climbing. it just makes more sense than constantly going big ring, middle, big, middle, granny, middle, big, granny etc it can upset your rhythm and i like to go from section to section as fast and as smootly as i can

as ever it is each their own, but as ive said i think 2x10 is gonna take off in a big way.

peter413

supersonic wrote:

You could change the bottom cog if you wish.

I could but why would Shimano spec a 12 tooth and not an 11 tooth, what are the advantages of a 12 over a 11.

I can only think of disadvantages

supersonic

Roadies do it all the time. Maybe to shuffle up the ratios a bit, who knows. But not hard to mod it.

edhornby

I think that Mick's point is the salient one - the 10speed rears will trickle down to the lower price bikes and so as we replace and upgrade it will become the status quo

is it progress? no, because the chains are getting thinner, so this is a double fail because it gets more expensive to manufacture and they wear out quicker.

should we be switching to 2 rings at the front? that depends on whether you want the extremes of ratios, but who uses the 24 and the biggest cog at the back? not me but some do

if I had the choice I'd probably go for 2x9 or 1x9 if I was feeling brave and could find the right method of keeping the chain in place without the guards being a mud trap

I really can't see the point of 11 on a road bike either, I would happily go for 2x9 on a road bike if I had a blank sheet of paper

supersonic

Shimano also do a weird thing called the Capreo, a modified free hub that can take a cassette with a 9 tooth high gear.

peter413

supersonic wrote:

Roadies do it all the time. Maybe to shuffle up the ratios a bit, who knows. But not hard to mod it.

I know but it adds to the cost and if it really does way a tonne like Northwind says, I would rather steer clear TBH.

If they made something like the Sram PG 970 cassettes and above and the SLX and above cassettes with a 36 instead of a 34, what would be so hard about that, it could probably be quite popular. I know I would buy it

supersonic

Well they are next year aren't they? 10 speed and 36t comes down the SLX level and x7 level.

peter413

supersonic wrote:

Well they are next year aren't they? 10 speed and 36t comes down the SLX level and x7 level.

But I want it in 9 spd since I'm perfectly happy with it and don't want to have to get new shifters since I only just got new ones

supersonic

You'd need a new rear mech anyway most likely.

peter413

Nope, max capacity of my rear mech, 37 tooth and thats what my sums give me

phz

ive run my bikes 1x9 / 1x8 / 1x7 for as long as i can remember now so forgive the question

those of you with 24 / 27 / 30 speed setups - how many of those gears do you actually regularly use ?

slainte :?: rob

lawman

pHz wrote:

ive run my bikes 1x9 / 1x8 / 1x7 for as long as i can remember now so forgive the question

those of you with 24 / 27 / 30 speed setups - how many of those gears do you actually regularly use ?

slainte :?: rob

i use most, everything but the extremes, i.e. 44-32, 22-11 etc

this is probably the biggest positive of the new sram stuff and the biggest negative of a 3x10 like shimano has produced. the srma stuff can be run at the extremes with no effect on chian wear, so you can overlap the gears without worry. the 3x10 concept however has even wider rear range and therefore even more overlap, so you are technically able to use less gears "safely" than a 3x9.