2x10 gears

danlightbulb

A while ago I was looking at the Carerra Fury, which I thought was a nice bike, however I was put off by the 2x10 gear setup, because I thought it would be harder to pedal up the hills.

However I have since re-looked at it, and when I calculated the gear ratios, actually found the 2x10 to be marginally easier in its lowest gear than a 3x9 setup, which really surprised me. The ratio is quite alot different at the top end though with the 3x9 going up to a ratio of 4 compared to the 2x10's ratio of 3.27 in the highest gear.

Am I correct in my calculations here? Is a 2x10 in its lowest gear no harder to pedal up hills than a 3x9 in the granny gear?

The fury is 24-36 T on the front and 11-36 T rear, giving a low ratio of 0.67 and a high of 3.27.
A 3x9 is 22-32-44 T on the front and 11-32 T rear, giving a low ratio of 0.69 and a high of 4.

Thanks
Dan

delcol

i have a 2x10 on the butcher and have never struggled on a climb with it.. i cant rember what size my cassette is 34 or 36...

supersonic

danlightbulb wrote:

A while ago I was looking at the Carerra Fury, which I thought was a nice bike, however I was put off by the 2x10 gear setup, because I thought it would be harder to pedal up the hills.

However I have since re-looked at it, and when I calculated the gear ratios, actually found the 2x10 to be marginally easier in its lowest gear than a 3x9 setup, which really surprised me. The ratio is quite alot different at the top end though with the 3x9 going up to a ratio of 4 compared to the 2x10's ratio of 3.27 in the highest gear.

Am I correct in my calculations here? Is a 2x10 in its lowest gear no harder to pedal up hills than a 3x9 in the granny gear?

The fury is 24-36 T on the front and 11-36 T rear, giving a low ratio of 0.67 and a high of 3.27.
A 3x9 is 22-32-44 T on the front and 11-32 T rear, giving a low ratio of 0.69 and a high of 4.

Thanks
Dan

Essentially this is correct, though you can get 11-34 and 12-36 rear cassettes for 9 speed.

The problem for some with doubles lies if they often have to chop and change between the front rings. I found I was doing this a lot on a 39/26 setup, yet missing the very tallests and shortest gears, so the worst of all worlds. Sometimes that 32 you stay in longer.

No right ot wrong, just what feels right

danlightbulb

Found this website: http://gear-calculator.com/

Amazing how many almost identical gear combinations there are!

Anonymous

2x10 generally will get you near enough the coverage of 3x9 though you have to pick the front ring combo that suits the style of riding. Preference for climb or preference for high gear speed.

The ratios also typically have less overlap. Not sure if that's a brand thing, but certainly the case with SRAM 2x10.

Yes they're close, but not identical. What it does let you do is have most the gears you want in the small ring and most the gears you want in the big. You can run for quite a while in the small rather than it just being the granny you only use on savage climbs, and when things are really flowing you can just sit in the big ring but it will also climb fairly well. At least that's what I find with 12-36 and 26/39.

Though I went 1x10 on the hard tail, 12-36 with 34t. Cuts down on front mech and makes big climbs a little more difficult but not much more and lose a bit of the top but not an issue for me.

p.s. the classic SB calculator also - http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

diy

A big difference IMO between a 32T on the rear and 34T on the rear on 9sp. I could probably live with a 12 instead of 11 at the other end.

I have a compact on my road bike 2x10 with the lowest gear being a 26. When I first started riding it I was convinced I was going to change it for at least a 28. But you get used to it and adjust to suit. I would say though that the difference in ratios suggested will be the difference between maxing on a 1:4 vs 1:3. My whyte 901 has a 3x10 and it is very good at climbing with a 36/22 setup.

oodboo

If you're looking at entry level mtbs then I wouldn't get too hung up on the gear ratios.

Grubbythumb

So to those already using 2 X 10, how do you get on with those occasional tough climbs?

I am a retro rider (apparently), and I'm used to 3 X 7, 8 or 9. I do a lot of trail riding (and have done since the 1980's), and occasionally have to drop to the granny ring, for those short steep, or ski slope type climbs. I want to go 2 X 10 on my next build, and have been thinking about this very subject.

Anonymous

If it's short steep I might just stay in the big ring and climb. Bit more effort but dropping to the 'granny' is a sharp drop down (I wouldn't call the small on a 2x10 a granny though).

The small ring I'll drop to when I'm out of steam, but as pace picks up or even I'm on the flat I can keep using that ring and get a fair pace out of it. On the old 3x9 I'd generally jump to the middle ring as quick as possible as the small was far too much of a granny.

Also should be noted that 2x10 doesn't have cross chain issues. You can run big to big or small to small if you like. Less redundant gears, though they are similar in the cross over area, but you can run through one ring or the other and don't have to jump from one to the other all the time. In my experience that is.

Grubbythumb

deadkenny wrote:

Also should be noted that 2x10 doesn't have cross chain issues. You can run big to big or small to small if you like. Less redundant gears, though they are similar in the cross over area, but you can run through one ring or the other and don't have to jump from one to the other all the time. In my experience that is.

This is one of the key reasons why I fancy trying out 2 x 10. Although, as I'll be installing it on a 15 year old Roberts frame, the purists aren't too happy with me :twisted:

cooldad

They'll have your Dog's Bolx for that.

Grubbythumb

Indeed

njee20

No right ot wrong, just what feels right

This. I was the opposite - found 32t a bit small and 44t a bit tall, so really liked a double up front (28/40 with an 11-34 block or 28/42 with an 11-36).

Now find 1x10 with a 36t ring even better mind!

bennett_346

Why is it even called a granny ring?

cooldad

Because it helps people with old granny legs get up hills. Like me.

The Rookie

In the US older trucks (4x4's to us) and pickups without hi-low range gearboxes had super low first gears you wouldn't use in normal driving called granny gears, I always assumed it came from that.......

cooldad

Right but why were they called granny gears?

mintedox

"Granny shifting, not double clutching like ya should" Vin diesel - 2001


I reckon granny means slow. I have never associatied grannies with small rings.

Chunkers1980

mintedox wrote:

I have never associatied grannies with small rings.

Is that from your vast experience of GILF?

Plyphon

mintedox wrote:

I reckon granny means slow. I have never associatied grannies with small rings.

mintedox

I'm glad Bluto liked it.

cooldad

mintedox wrote:

I'm glad Bluto liked it.

That would be Captain Haddock I think.