[Closed] 1 x 11 - not convinced

So what's the deal?

The cassettes have more teeth and offer about the same ratios as multi chain rings set ups?

I suspect...

What he said. More teeth = better wear also.

Keep up at the back!

I'm a decent climber and have yet to come across anything (proper hills included) that I can't ride up on my 36T cassette, nevermind with a 45T expander or whatever people use now. If I don't ride it, it's because gears wouldn't make a difference and the bike's on my shoulder instead. Going 1x10 or 1x11 is not for everyone but it's great for those fit enough or who have it set up to meet their needs.

wl - Member

So what's the deal?

The deal is that you don't understand 1x11, and you've used that lack of understanding to make a pointless, uninformed mini rant.

Ha, it's true I'm a late adopter. Even so, the folk I know whose new bikes have 1 x 11 aren't getting the lowest gears you need for super-steep climbs - gears I do have on my old-school 2 x10. Plus, despite the theory, I hear folk saying those massive rings on the back wear out super-quick in the real world. I'm not having a go - just genuinely a bit mystified about this 'progress'.

I personally never found anything much wrong running 1x9 years ago.
Am now on 1x10 only as things went that way but will resist the 11 urge thankyou very much.

atm just building up a SS hard tail and am quite happy having a choice now.

10-42t x 32t
I promise that there isn't a single climb that I haven't managed to clear in the Peak District that I could on my 3x9. In fact I've got up a couple that I didn't previously due to being forced to have a slight bit more momentum.
It feels harder, but you adjust quickly.

If I were somewhere where a climb might go on for more than an hour, I might be tempted to drop to a 30t.

By the time you've pedalled out the top gear you're going plenty quick enough for anything more interesting than fire road or totally wide open grassy slopes.

I also really value the extra clearance, lack of clutter, lower weight and also the ability for manufacturers to try some different ideas out without being limited to front mechs.

ymmv

The deal is... you get slapped down if you diss the latest fashion 😉

I do, for daring to use tubes instead of Stan's goo.

2x makes more sense for what I ride. And I prefer to ride, rather than take my bike for a walk. But I can see the point of 1x. Although If I ever got 1x I'd at least want options... and funnily enough both Sram and Shimano have given exactly that on their latest 11sp releases. So 2x11 obviously isn't "wrong" or unfashionable enough to release to the market.

I made sure in my 1x set up I still had a low enough gear that's near comparable to a 2x set up. Sure I lost the equivalent of one gear, but for the climbs I need that type of gear I'm better off walking or running.

I think it's partly down to SRAM trying to genuinely offer something that has as few drawbacks for the largest number of people as possible, that sets them apart from Shimano (as it did when it first came out) with fewer moving parts to wear out, and de-complicates setting up your bike.

that; and I think in right in saying that the geometry changes needed to make FSLT 29ers work better was ideally to get rid of the front mech as it was impeding frame design, which SRAM have pretty much achieved.

I'm not that strong but the only climbs I've walked on 1x10, are climbs I'd probably have walked on 2x10. The only time I really find it a downside is snow/ice where a real crawler gear can be useful to keep traction at a snail's pace but 32/42 is a low, practical gear- pretty much equivalent to 22/28 after all

wl - Member
On the one hand manufacturers are banging on about having it all: 170mm sub-30lb bikes that open up more of the mountain. On the other hand, more bikes are coming with 1 x 11 set-ups (and sometimes no front mech compatibility) which means that in actual fact riders will have to push their shiny new bikes up the kind of long, steep and techy hills that proper mountains have (hills they'd have pedalled up with their old 2 x 10 set-ups). Plus the cost is crazy and those posh cassettes don't last two minutes, or so I hear. So what's the deal?

Fairly typical 2x10 setup has a lowest gear of 26x36 = .72

Typical 32/42 1x11 is .76 - that's pretty close. With a 30t (.714) or even 28t front ring, it's lower than the above.

42t cog will wear much the same most other cassette cogs by virtue of the size, even though it's alu - and it's replaceable.

I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.
good old 3 x 9 was and still is far better.
and don't quote the weight saving crap.....most men can afford to lose a stone or 2. adding the weight of a front mech/shifter/ring mean nil.

I thought the same as you OP, but some of my friends are on Sram 11sp and I've had a few tries and had to admit I was wrong.

It does give a low enough crawler gear to climb mountains.

[i]ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.[/i]

Lollerz!

Lollerz!

you are obviously going to like it. 😀

I thought the same until I got a bike with it on. 30T at front 10-42 at back perfect for everything I used to ride on 3x9, and with no lost chains, near silent and faultless operation. Wouldn't go back.

There's clearly no right and wrong. For me personally though, I can just ride up the climb from Honnister visitor centre to the quarry at the top, but only using the very lowest of my 2 x 10 set-up. I know for sure I'd not make it in any gear that's higher, even slightly higher. There are others hills like this too, so for me 2 x 10 seems the best bet as I'd rather pedal than carry whenever possible.

I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.
good old 3 x 9 was and still is far better.
and don't quote the weight saving crap.....most men can afford to lose a stone or 2. adding the weight of a front mech/shifter/ring mean nil.

Nice sweeping generalisation 🙂

[i]There are others hills like this too, so for me 2 x 10 seems the best bet as I'd rather pedal than carry whenever possible.[/i]

If it works for you, then it's cool, there's no-one forcing you to adopt a gear system that isn't right for you, and certainly no one sized fits all solution.

There's nothing wrong with a multi-ring chainset or a 1xn drivetrain, different strokes for different folks and all that. Most of us using 1xn will have arrived at it after plenty of time spent using 2x/3x setups so it's not like we just happened upon it...

If you don't [i]'get it'[/i] no worries it's probably not for you, they still make multi-ring chainsets because there's still a market for them, no need to snipe at those of us who make slighty different drivetrain choices life's much too short...

Nice sweeping generalisation

typical stw answer....... 😆

I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless

Haha, nonsense. I rarely ride trail centres and find 1x10 32 front 36 rear almost fine for many of the big mountain days I have done local to here in Aberdeen. If you don't like 1x that's fine but don't talk nonsense, no-one is forcing it upon you. I will be going 1x11 when the new xt 11-42 cassettes are available as it will make the climbs easier but if I can't get up them in that gear a lower gear is not the answer.

10-42t x 32t
I promise that there isn't a single climb that I haven't managed to clear in the Peak District that I could on my 3x9

Same for me.

1 x 10 or 11 for my riding there is no downside. And its rare that I ride in a trail centre these days, most of the time I'm riding in the peaks, wales, or lakes.

It does get easier for sure, I'm running 42x10 and had a 32t fitted as standard but dropped to a 30t and will be changing back to the 32t again shortly as I'm spinning too much.

I love the x11 as its fast and ideal for my style but its sooooo sodding expensive tho 😕

old-school 2 x10

You lost me at this...MOST of the mountain bikes out their (actually ridden regularly, not in magazine adverts) are still running 3x8 or 3x9.

??? Anyone who knows me knows im pretty unfit. And not in a kind of false modesty way, i am truly unfit and often at the back on most rides.

Ive been on 1 x 11 for a few months now using a 30t front ring. having ridden in the lakes, peaks and dreaded train centres i am happy to say the 1 x 11 set up has not held me up at all. There is hardly any difference in ratios from my old 2 x 9 set up and if anyone could notice a difference it would be me cos i need all the help i can get.

Worth starting this post just for the touchy replies - typical STW. I'll no doubt end up with 1 x 11 eventually, but mainly because manufacturers are moving that way. Who knows, maybe I'll even think it makes sense one day, but not if it means I have to push up hills I once rode.

I remember several threads where people had gone 1x, but elected to run a granny ring without a front mech, so if the going gets [i]really[/i] tough they could stop and manually switch front rings.

I guess a triple crank is the better bet for this than a double though to get a better chain line?

Not sure how much weight running granny and bash rings would add?

ton - Member

I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.

So by extension there must have been no such thing as a proper mountain biker until about 1999, since up til then the bikes were nigh on useless for the places they frequent? What with smaller cassettes and larger granny rings, which gave higher bottom gears than today's 1x11 bikes. I remember how we all just rode around forestry commission car parks and hoped someone would invent the trail centre.

(I may be slightly off on the year... There were 32T 8-speed blocks but I think the groupsets of the time generally came with 26T grannies? So just in case- the point is that it's only fairly recently that mountain bikes aquired such low gears; my 1x10 bikes are lower geared than my 90s bikes)

My take on 1X is that is works brilliantly for two groups - the skinny little runts (I'm just jealous!) with a good power to weight ratio and the proper biffer wheezers. The first group can get up the hills no bother with the slightly reduced bottom range. The 2nd were always walking at the very mention of a hill so it makes no odds. If you are somewhere in the middle and especially if you pride yourself on never walking it might not work so well.

Personally if I went 1X I'd prefer to suffer spinning out at the top end and put a small (maybe even 28T on a 29er) chainring on so the soft aluminium 42T was a rarely used emergency gear and I was mostly near the top of the cassette.

Why is it that no-one seems to talk about cadence, torque or power on these threads?

From my experience, and a quick scan of the numerous articles Google brings up, lower cadence is often more efficient than higher cadence but higher cadence causes less muscle fatigue. Obviously to run less low gears then you need the leg strength to make up for the lower mechanical advantage but that's something which most riders will develop when their lower gears are removed.

So it isn't so much about how steep the climbs are but about how long your rides are.

The other side of the coin is the high gears - most riders don't realise how fast they can spin with a bit of practice. I stopped pedalling coming down a road hill last week at 35mph odd - that's on 34-11 on a 26" (I topped out at 47mph). That gear is equivalent to 30:10 on SRAM 11 speed, which would give you a bottom gear of 30:42 which is barely different to 22:32 which was the normal 3x9 lowest gear.

MOST of the mountain bikes out their (actually ridden regularly, not in magazine adverts) are still running 3x8 or 3x9.

Totes.

3x9 here - on 7 MTBs, 3x8 here on one other.

2x10, or 1x11 would be positively hi-tech for me, but I have absolutely no interest in trying either.

Using Sheldon Browns calculator, my 1 x 11 set up with a 30t front has a similar "easy gear' to running a granny and 3rd largest cog on most common 3 x 11 set ups. Not exactly a big difference is it?

Fairly typical 2x10 setup has a lowest gear of 26x36 = .72

Typical 32/42 1x11 is .76 - that's pretty close. With a 30t (.714) or even 28t front ring, it's lower than the above.

This is all you need to read for those that don't get it and changing it to gear inches makes it even easier to read (or does to me)

2 ring 26 x 36 = 20.2
1 ring 32 X 42 = 21.3

1.1 gear inches are really not going to make a difference. My lowest gear is 55 gear inches (single speed) and I can't get up a good number of hills....

Fairly typical 2x10 setup has a lowest gear of 26x36

22x34 (standard 9sp lowest gear) = 0.65
32x11 = 2.9
36x11 = 3.27

to match with 1x11
28x42 = 0.67
28x10 = 2.8

So very close to a 9sp 22/32 double if you run a 28t front, loses out compared to a 22/36.

From my experience, and a quick scan of the numerous articles Google brings up, lower cadence is often more efficient than higher cadence but higher cadence causes less muscle fatigue. Obviously to run less low gears then you need the leg strength to make up for the lower mechanical advantage but that's something which most riders will develop when their lower gears are removed.

You are assuming a fixed speed between the two setups. I suspect many folk who want a smaller gear than their 1X setup gives want it not so they can have a higher cadence but so they can continue at the same slow cadence but at a lower speed with a lesser power.

Nothing against 1 x, but I can't see enough benefit to spend money on any of my bikes to change them over.

What I don't get is the narrow-wide chainrings as the bash guard is then lost. Even just hopping the bike over a typical horse step gate thing risks trashing the ring and chain, let alone proper riding?

Also, the above post comparing ratios ignores that you can go as low as 22 on the front of a 2x or 3x setup. 1x can't touch that without sacrificing the other end.

Oh and there are loads of climbs, particularly in the Lakes, where you'll get a lot further up if you can sit and spin rather than tiring yourself out pushing a gear that forces you to ride quicker. The motorway up Skiddaw for example.

I think it's partly down to SRAM trying to genuinely offer something that has as few drawbacks for the largest number of people as possible

Or it could just be that SRAM never could make a decent shifting front mech and chainset so just decided to get around the opposition by creating another bandwagon.

The use of the word "genuinely" when it comes to a large multi-national manufacturing business quite honestly amuses me! Do you genuinely think they have the best interests of other people at their heart?

2x9 here, regularly riding in the Highlands and I'd not be without my lowest gear- 22 ring turning 32 cog, so 0.69 or a bit lower again than 2x10 and a noticeable amount lower than 1x11. Plus a better, more useable range overall and a higher top gear at 36t x 11. 1x11 is all very well in some geographies but would be a bit silly up here, to put it mildly. Using old 2x9 kit is both cheaper and much more durable too, with steel ring options and allows me to use a decent bash ring, which is essential for preventing folding or ground down rings.
Stop buying into the marketing BS on 1x11. You can get a chain, a cassette, crank with rings and BB and still have change for the price of a typical 11t cassette. And 9s will last longer too!

the most efficient cadence is the one that feels right for you

pretty much what convert says. Done the sums, and 28x 10-42 would give me basically the granny and middle of my 3x9 setup. Losing a gear at the top end wouldn't matter much. I tend to ride most of the time in the big ring, and end up spinning the granny to winch up hills for 20mins to 3 hours at a go depending where I am. That's all assuming 26inch. Would have to choose a different chainring for 29 I expect, and guessing that 650b would barely matter. unless it's that other 27+ "fashion"

I noticed the difference between 26 and 27.5 - running 1x10 both bikes had 34t chainrings but I changed the 27.5 to 32t.

The nice thing about 1x is frames can be designed around a much less varied chain line, so better optimised for good pedalling without kickback.

I've a 3x9 set up on my 26" soul, lowest is 22-32. I can spin that bottom gear quite nicely on the steep stuff, and wouldn't really want to be any higher.

On my scandal I went 2x10, 26-36 is lowest. That takes a bit of pushing uphill compared to the soul, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's any harder, just different. You build more momentum and carry more speed, so it just sort of ticks along.

But I reckon I could lose the big ring on the soul, as for the type of riding I do with it I barely ever use it. A clutch mech would be nice though, shame they don't exist for 9spd.

I may get a full sus frame, in which case I was thinking I'd go 1x10, but maybe not.......

It's not for me. I use the same bike for all sorts of riding and if I had it set up so that I could handle the steeper climbs I would miss the higher gears for tow path hacks and on road sections of routes.

[i]Do you genuinely think they have the best interests of other people at their heart[/i]

Obviously they're looking after their shareholders, but, yeah I 'genuinely' think that most designers set out to build a better mousetrap. Weird huh? 😆

1X11 works for a 'lot' of people and it won't for another 'lot'. c'set la vie.

EDIT: forgot, mostly for me (and I'm a resolutely average mountain biker BTW), I run out of gears at the other end!

good old trolling seems a bit redundant on here nowadays......... 🙁

The nice thing about 1x is frames can be designed around a much less varied chain line, so better optimised for good pedalling without kickback.

That is true - often overlooked advantage of 1X

chief, would you go 32T on your 26" bike?

The negative posts here include a lot of if's. The maths stack up for ratio's, if you get the opportunity, try it.

Losing the front mech and moving my reverb control makes up for losing a little bit of gearing.

Sometimes working a bit harder results in some improvements to your fitness.

Last year I would not have entertained a 1x set up.

convert - Member

That is true - often overlooked advantage of 1X

or, an often overlooked advantage of a multi-ring setup is that you can change the pedal-feedback behaviour of the system, simply by changing gear.

If someone can make a 1x11 that has a 9-56 tooth cassette, then if I've done the sums right, that'd go nicely with a 36t chainring and give me the ratio range I desire. 3x9 with no overlaps must be a bonus surely?

Guessing I'd need a Rohloff and the right ring/sprocket to get that?

or, an often overlooked advantage of a multi-ring setup is that you can change the pedal-feedback behaviour of the system, simply by changing gear.

Has anyone done that since the original marin [s]trail-quest[/s] mount vision 😆 Great climber that was when in the granny ring.

Losing the front mech and moving my reverb control makes up for losing a little bit of gearing.

I think this is a big reason why people do it TBH. The weight saving reason is bollox.

or, an often overlooked advantage of a multi-ring setup is that you can change the pedal-feedback behaviour of the system, simply by changing gear.

I've yet to hear of a designer stating that multiple chainrings could be an advantage to suspension design - more usual for a system to be designed around one ideal chainring and the others being a compromise. Not having to make that compromise acceptable has to free up the the designer to improve the system in other ways.

yeah... making space for new fangled semi-fat tyres 😉

well my 2 x 10 stuff is nearly worn out so I'm considering it

i reckon sram 1150 cassette, xd driver, chainring, and xt shifter / mech would be about £300, cheaper if you get the xt cassette as wouldn't need the driver

my current low gear is 24 / 36 = 0.67 (this is on a 29'er). I don't use this much but it does allow me to winch up some steep bits without getting off, or accelerate over tricky roots etc. I do use 24 / 32 quite a bit

28 / 42 would give me the same low gear at 0.67, 30 / 42 I could probably go with (only about 7% difference to 24 / 36)

so my concern would more me around top gear. 28 or 30 / 11 (Shimano) would be lower than an old school middle ring, so I can only see me going SRAM for the 10. 30 / 10 is close to 38 / 13 so I'd lose my fastest gear (38 / 11)

so it seems I'd lose about half a low gear and my fastest gear if 1 went 30 up front with 10 / 42

went from 3x9, to 1x11. Not found anything I can no longer climb. more than happy with it.

convert - Member

I've yet to hear of a designer stating that multiple chainrings could be an advantage to suspension design

he may not thank me, but i was para-phrasing Cy Turner.

he didn't present it as a clear-cut reason for sticking with multiple chainrings, just that there are interesting things that curious bike-geeks might enjoy thinking about.

nickc, the 26" bike used to have a 32t. In the last five years I've gone:

3x9 (42-32-22 11-32)
2x9 (36-22 11-32)
2x9 (36-22 11-34)
2x9 (32-22 11-34)
1x9 (32 11-34)
1x10 (32 11-36)
1x10 (33 11-36)
1x10 (34NW 11-36)

Been on 1x10 for about 3 years, the last set-up for 2 years. Had the 27.5 full-sus 18 months, swapped from 34NW to 32NW 9 months ago.

So many hilarious generalisation posts here. All against the idea of 1x as well funnily enough.

I'm terribly unfit frankly and have noticed no drop in what I can and can't go up since I went 1x9 first and now 1x10 (11-40t & 32t).

A lot of the 'arguments' against are from people who haven't seemingly used it, and consider advancing of technology (or just a different option as thats all it is) in any field of bikes to seemingly be black magic or something. Something other than 26" wheels?!!!! Dear God, you heathens!! And so on.

Also, the bike looks a damn site nicer in a 1x setup
The bar is far less cluttered
It saved some weight

Don't say there is no advantage to it existing. Just say that you personally don't want to use it, and move on.

I find a front mech is alright for trail centre riders who ride smooth terrain and therefore aren't so worried about their chain slapping around. However, for riding real mountains in the lakes, I have found a 1x setup to be a revelation.

On difficult terrain, the main problem is traction rather than gearing and so even if you have lower gearing you end up not using it or your wheel will spin.

Both systems have their compromises so there will be people who will always prefer one over the other. I'm not sure what there is "not to get" though.

A couple of things I've found about climbing in less low gears is that your power stroke is longer and the force impulse at the tyre is less sharp, so it seems easier to get up and over more lumpy slippery bits.

Chief, your progression isn't hugely different to me! Only I've stopped here:

[i]1x10 (32 11-36)[/i]

but with an NW ring.

happy with it, but might try a 34T to regain a bit at the high end

If you can't ride 30t 11-42, then you should probably take up golf or another sport that involves motor powered vehicles.

I find a front mech is alright for trail centre riders who ride smooth terrain and therefore aren't so worried about their chain slapping around. However, for riding real mountains in the lakes, I have found a 1x setup to be a revelation.

Have you tried 3x10 with a clutch mech? done a lot of rocky riding on mine and never had a drop, the fact i can put it in the big ring cuts noise from chainslap on the chainstay compared to my 1x10 bike with its smaller ring.

On difficult terrain, the main problem is traction rather than gearing and so even if you have lower gearing you end up not using it or your wheel will spin.

Terrain such as drainage gaps can require you to hold a higher speed or higher gear for a 'punch' of speed. But these scenario are not all the time tho, and having a lower gear is always nice regardless.

It's not just about the bottom end. It's easy to pick a ratio for that. It's not possible to pick a ratio for that, and still keep all the top end ratios too.

And some of us ride up alps, not just a peak or a trail centre uplift van.

[b]chiefgrooveguru[/b]
the force impulse at the tyre is less sharp

I'll have to take your word on that..........

I was at c-y-b on Saturday, riding my prehistoric bike with 3x9, and found that I did lose the chain a bit, and didn't use the big ring, so 2x10 with clutch mech would probably be a bit better option, but I ride all over the place, on the same bike, so having options is best for me. There will always be compromises, but for now I'd rather have more gears, and drop the occasional chain, than less.

And this 'far less on the bars' stuff is rather exaggerating the matter, you lose one cable, and one shifter, shimano sit neatly under brakes anyway, so hardly any difference. It just allows you a nicer dropper remote position.

andytherocketeer - Member

It's not just about the bottom end. It's easy to pick a ratio for that. It's not possible to pick a ratio for that, and still keep all the top end ratios too.

Yup; but 32:11 is pretty high for offroad- bearing in mind downhill bikes are usually only geared to 36:11.

Easy answer fashion led crap forced on us poor mountain bikers.
Real answer genuine change in thinking that works slagged off by people who have never tried it or can't do the maths.

depends what you ride

32:11 is not particularly high at all

basically in to freewheeling territory instead of pedalling on quite a bit of terrain I'd be riding. as I said, I ride the big ring much of the time, and that's 44t.

I rode up a particular hill near me on my old 3x9 bike 2 days before getting my new bike with 1x11. I can happily say, I got up with both, sometimes 'wishing' I had just one more gear - but don't we all think that occasionally ?
If your bike comes with 1x11 then you are VERY lucky. If you want to add it to your current bike -don't !! It's far too expensive. Simples !
As a rider who was always sooo reluctant to move away from 8 speed, I can honestly say I absolutely LOVE my 1x11 more than anything I've ridden.

By the way the problem for me with the above 30t 11-42 ratio Kudos mentioned is not on the climbing its at the other end 30 into 11 is a bit too low for most as a top gear.

I use 2x10 at the moment on two of my bikes 2x9 on the other that gives me an ideal spread of ratios. Im fit enough to enjoy riding, and ride up mountains. Thanks for the advice Kudos but I am happy mountain biking and don't want to do motorsport. The one thing you should learn is that there are many different styles and opinions in riding MTBs none are wrong. Thats why we have rigids, single speeds fat bikes DH bikes XC bikes Jump Bikes and Trail bikes Trial bikes and others.

I went 3x10 with 10-36 to 1x10 32T with 10-36 over a year ago and I've found that I immediately just got further up awkward stuff to begin with because of the momentum carried into it with 1x10 and not having to do an emergency granny shift that could drop a chain has been amazing.

I also found that traction is the limiting factor with any setup. If it's so steep the 1x10 won't do it the 3x10 wouldn't have done it either, I found.

I ride the mountains in North Wales plus the normal TC stuff. Anything I've got off and walked has been because no bike would get up it or I'm at an Enduro race and pushing up is just plain fashionable + saves energy. I pretty much have to fall off before I'll give in and push when I'm out on solo rides. I get really annoyed with myself if I didn't manage a climb and I'll go back to the bottom and try again.

I will admit that certain very long climbs, say over 3 miles, on uphill fire roads or when you're very tired can be a little draining but the 1x10 system has made me fitter. Winter can be challenging too but it's great for fitness.

I love 1x10. Saves weight. Chain never comes off. Looks better. You make better use of all the cassette cogs. It's cheap and easy to maintain if you stick to 1x10 and buy XT cassettes, SRAM chains and a N/W chainring. Job lot wearable drive-train costing £33+£16+£35. Switch the chain every 450 to 650 miles and it never misses a beat.

I'm running 26 inch wheels and I'm happy riding Jumps, Drops, AM, XC, Trail, Enduro, DH or Free ride. It's just Mountain Biking for fun.

1x11 is old hat anyway.

1x12 is where everything's headed.. 8)

Much better.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
🙄

I use 2x10 at the moment on two of my bikes 2x9 on the other that gives me an ideal spread of ratios. Im fit enough to enjoy riding, and ride up mountains. Thanks for the advice Kudos but I am happy mountain biking and don't want to do motorsport. The one thing you should learn is that there are many different styles and opinions in riding MTBs none are wrong. Thats why we have rigids, single speeds fat bikes DH bikes XC bikes Jump Bikes and Trail bikes Trial bikes and others.

I was just trolling the troll. Not serious at all. 😀

Whats wrong with you lot, 3x11 is the way forward..
Surely having 33 gears is better than 10/11, who had the most gears was always the best when I was a kid.
😀

WTF?!! *stands back, crosses arms and looks on in amazement*

New Shimano XT it is then 🙂

Sram only bothered to do 1x11 and 2x11. At least Shimano give options.

Personally, I'm waiting for 1x13 shimano.

Why is it that no-one seems to talk about cadence, torque or power on these threads?

Are you saying people are doping? 😉