Where has Granny gone?

Rich9

What's with the 2x10 thing all of a sudden?
I've been looking closely at the new Boardman range and noticed the change over. Thinking about the mechanics of it, I can see the logic of sticking a huge gear in the rear cassette, so does it actually work?

lawman

Rich9 wrote:

What's with the 2x10 thing all of a sudden?
I've been looking closely at the new Boardman range and noticed the change over. Thinking about the mechanics of it, I can see the logic of sticking a huge gear in the rear cassette, so does it actually work?

having run a double 38-24t chaiset and 12-36 cassette for close to six months now, i think its absolutely brilliant, power along in the big ring, use the whole cassette, minimize front shifting right down to the point where i rarely use the 24t small ring, i dont think ill ever go back to a standard triple

supersonic

On my XC bike, I like the full spread of a triple - 44/32/22. But it depends on the bike and rider.

phz

2x10 is too many.

slainte rob

VWsurfbum

I use a 1x9 set up, 11-34 and i gotta say i havent needed anything else (once i got used to it) a 32t up front, saves a shed load of weight and keeps things simple like me.

.blitz

As above 1x8 on the Chucker and 2x9 on the Rize. I can see why some people might need a big ring but for the kind of riding I do which is trail riding with just a few non-pedally descents I don't need one.

DCR00

another 1x9 convert here

i ran 2x9 for about 6 months and used the middle ring twice, so ive dropped that as well

Fenred

1x9 all the way!

BG2000

Rich9 wrote:

What's with the 2x10 thing all of a sudden?
I've been looking closely at the new Boardman range and noticed the change over. Thinking about the mechanics of it, I can see the logic of sticking a huge gear in the rear cassette, so does it actually work?

It's worked fine on road/cyclocross bikes for a good 5 years now (or more) so there's no reason why it won't work on MTBs. At lot of top XC racers ride lots on the road as well, so just having 2 chainrings to think about becomes second nature.

But it may seem odd to someone who's only had triple chainsets (I'm not assuming you think it's odd by the way).

I think also, 2 x 9 was getting to the point where there was too much gear overlap (gears 1 to 9 are increasing in ratio, but then 10th is much lower than 9th, and so on...). So now that manufacturers can stick a 10th sprocket on the back, it made sense to ditch the 3rd chainring. Now there's only one set of overlapping gears, as opposed to two.

Obviously, the best way to eliminate gear overlap is running a single chainring with Rohloff at the back.

I've been running 2 x 9 for years, and I use most of the cassette evenly. Whereas on another bike with a triple, I tend to wear out the smallest half of the cassette.

But in terms of the market, it's all just the latest fad as 3 x 9 setups are still perfectly good.

rockmonkeysc

I run 2x9, much better (for me) than 3x9. Trying 1x9 on my hardtail, need to get stronger & less fat. Single speed is just plain wrong. Tempted to change my hardtail to 1x10

BG2000

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Single speed is just plain wrong.

Totally agree - save that for the velodrome where it belongs !

njee20

But it depends on the bike and rider.

This.

I've run doubles for 5 years, 2x9 with 32/44, 30/42 and 28/40, then 2x10 with 28/42, 30/42 and now single 36t. Would never go back to a triple on any bike, and haven't once missed a 22t inner ring, but there's clearly still demand for low gears!

.blitz

njee20 wrote:

...30/42...

What 30T ring did you use njee?

njee20

Extralite Octaramp in the middle position, but you had to file the spider, and there were no chainline advantages.

Also used a TA Chinook on the inner position, which was much better as it gave a better chainline, but can be quite close to the chainstay on some frames.

I found smaller rings better, I could spend more time in the big ring, and only use the inner for really steep stuff, hence now having gone single ring!

.blitz

Thanks for that have been looking for a 104 BCD 30T ring.

njee20

Can't beat TA ones, they're nominally middle rings, so they do have ramps and what not, but work perfectly as an inner on a double. I'd just check your frame clearance closely, IIRC Scott Scales don't have enough room.

Anonymous

I've been running 2x9 for a few years now. I only really miss the big ring on my commute (yes, I use the same bike for everything), or when I'm just blasting along a cycle path for a training/fitness ride. There's actually a really nice, scenic cycle route round here that goes along the coast, then ducks through some forest, it's actually quite a pleasant way to get fit.

When I'm off road, most of the times I get up to big ring speeds, they're not peddaly sections anyway.

joshtp

yeehaamcgee wrote:

I've been running 2x9 for a few years now. I only really miss the big ring on my commute (yes, I use the same bike for everything), or when I'm just blasting along a cycle path for a training/fitness ride. There's actually a really nice, scenic cycle route round here that goes along the coast, then ducks through some forest, it's actually quite a pleasant way to get fit.

When I'm off road, most of the times I get up to big ring speeds, they're not peddaly sections anyway.

PO-TA-TO

Stan..

Is have 10 at the back a ok or a pain for the average rider.
Do they clog up with mug easily and do they need more tlc that 9 speed.
if this is a FAQ sorry.

njee20

Nope, neither seems to be a problem, used 10 speed for 18 months now.

unixnerd

I don't know how folk are coping with such small front chainrings. My big ring is a 42t and I'm running 11-28 at the back. I ride cross country mainly on decent trails or well established single track and I'm only out of the big ring on the steeper hills, I can only think of one hill where I need the granny ring and it's not exactly flat up here.

I ride about a 70 cadence and am reasonably fit. My last bike was lower geared at the back and I was spinning out all the time on road sections or moderate downhills.

njee20

Are you running out of gears in the 42 regularly?

If so, you need to start racing, as the fastest XC racers in the world find it enough!

I think the point is that people accept they're limiting themselves on the road a bit, but that's not really what the bike's designed for. Personally I can pedal up to around 25mph with a 36t single ring, and that's plenty, happy not to pedal if it's quicker than that.

Edit: in fact if you're riding virtually everything in 42/28 or higher than you're clearly more than 'reasonably' fit, or don't sustain 70rpm, or don't ride many big hills!

BG2000

unixnerd wrote:

I don't know how folk are coping with such small front chainrings. My big ring is a 42t and I'm running 11-28 at the back. I ride cross country mainly on decent trails or well established single track and I'm only out of the big ring on the steeper hills, I can only think of one hill where I need the granny ring and it's not exactly flat up here.

I ride about a 70 cadence and am reasonably fit. My last bike was lower geared at the back and I was spinning out all the time on road sections or moderate downhills.

Yes, on the flat I'm spinning (more than 100rpm) in the 42 x 11. But that doesn't happen very often and isn't going to be a deciding factor in any races.

The other thing to consider here is that the chainline isn't the same when comparing a dedicated double MTB chainset and a triple chainset running two chainrings. The latter will place the chainrings closer to the frame. So an XX running 42/28 will be OK on most bikes whereas running a 42/28 on a triple crank will get close.

I'm running 42/28 Chinooks on RF Atlas cranks and I've got all three 2.5mm spacers on the RHS BB cup ! - and my chainstay still gets carved up if chainsuck occurs

unixnerd

Are you running out of gears in the 42 regularly?

I can't spin out 42x11 on the road unless I'm going down a decent hill. I have 52x12 on my road bike but the mtb has a lot more rolling resistance. Only spun out 52x12 once at well over 100rpm, that was fun :-) I've never computed average speeds for the mtb, don't even have a computer on it. My reasoning being that the mtb is for fun and to enjoy the scenery, now the road bike on the other hand.....