[Closed] 2x and 1x the truth pleae !

I did that and my chain kept coming off on rocky ground, so much so that I'd get confused, think I was in the wrong gear and try and shift the chain back on again even tho the mech couldn't move cos I'd limited the travel

Eventually I snapped the shifter arm off (only took a few rides to do it too)

Not sure why it was happening cos like you I reckoned if it didn't jump with a triple then why would it jump with a double and bash. Think it must be the ramps on the big ring that stop it - but anyway, yes it does jump and in my experience it can be a right ball-ache.

I've ended up going 1x10 with an 11-36 cassette (but it was something I wanted to do anyway). Saved about 600g on my previous set-up too, so I'm happy

Blackspire stinger will stop it, btw

I was running 2x10 with no chain device and its a pain. Fitted a blackspire twinty guide now and its so much better. without it the chain bounced off.
must say though, the old triple did me proud without at issue for bloody years. progress eh.

[img] [/img]

I think a 32t ring up front and 11-36 will do you fine depending of course on where you do most of your riding. I think that 1x9/10 makes you ride slightly differently anyway, and perhaps you attack the hills a bit more.
I certainly find it hard to ride behind folks who drop into their grannies at the slightest incline as they tend to climb a lot slower than I have to.

As for chain device, give it a go without, you'll soon know if you need one or not. I personally use a full chain device on my 1x9 full susser and have just switched back to 2x9 with a Blackspire Stinger on my hardtail. I find the chain keeps jumping off the front and it's driving me nuts.
Can't wait to go back to 1x9 with a full chain guide(After a particularly hilly trip I'm doing)

Thanks guys.
To be entirely honest, I am starting to think that unless I just go the whole hog and 11-36 out back and 1x , that I'm starting to hype myself into fixing something which, frankly, ain't broke ! 😕

I run 2x9 on my fatbike with no chain device. Given that's about 1" of undamped travel I'd have thought it a prime candidate for any chain jump problems but I have none.

I don't think you lose much by going 32t-11/36, except maybe for pedalling fast DOWNHILL.....
If you never do anything remotely technical downhill and like to get your kicks from pure speed, then a 32t front ring isn't for you. 🙂

Stick with 3x!

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but sometimes being hip and trendy isn't the best for all of us - a bit like 150mm stems and 300mm wide bars back in the late 80's 😕

As you mention, 1x gearing possibly works well for those who have legs like tree trunks and lungs the size of a hot air balloon, just so they can cope with not being able to select an appropriate gear in time for the sudden rise or dip that occurs just around the hidden bend...

With 3x gearing, large shifts in ratios can be achieved easily, effortlessly and....... Quickly.

2x gearing. What's that all about? Weight saving? Hardly, not when you take into account bash guards and chain devices. Like 1x, it removes a gear shifter from the bars that can then be replaced with a dropper post remote! Like 1x, 2x shares the same inconvenience for most of us that our bike becomes totally useless on road sections or even, dare I say, going remotely downhill because the highest gear available is 38:11, as opposed to 44 or 48:11.

Oh, maybe I need to buy myself a road bike to soothe my need for speed and wind in my hair, flies in my teeth?

This forum is often filled with talk of industry conspiracy when it comes to wheel sizes. IMO, a choice in wheel sizes is a good thing. The real industry con that is being trotted out to the masses is this apparent need for mountain bikes to have fewer gears and become less adaptable or mult-discipline through telling us that we need to have only one or two rings at the front! It's total bollox, but at least you can all go and spend more money on converting your once very useful and adaptable bike into one that is good for a little less. Oh, and don't forget to go off and buy a road bike!

So, please, I'm not a closed minded individual. I will gladly listen to any proposed advantages of 1x or 2x gearing that people come up with that they feel genuinely have helped them enjoy the sport more than they enjoyed it with 3x.

And please, advantages, not the usual justifications after having shelled out a load of hard-earned luka on an 'upgrade' that the media said was going to make me a happier person.

Mild rant over, sorry to the OP for kinda hijacking your thread, although hopefully I may have helped you make some kind of decision, that following the flock may not be in your own personal interests every time.

And it is a beautiful sunny morning 😀

EDIT: The smart money will be on the majority of recreational riders going back to triples within the next 2 years...

I run 1x10 std middle 32 up front plus 11 / 36 rear. No going back for me, you get to be stronger and most general things are rideable. Came back from CYB and certainly all blacks and reds are doable.
Also have 2x10 on hard tail. No chain device and no probs. only ride tracks and bridle ways on HT and spend 90% of time in top ring.
For gen trail riding go 1x10, you won't want anything more. Simple , low maintenance and a few grams

this apparent need for mountain bikes to have fewer gears and become less adaptable or mult-discipline through telling us that we need to have only one or two rings at the front! It's total bollox, but at least you can all go and spend more money on converting your once very useful and adaptable bike into one that is good for a little less.

I agree with what you are saying but I suppose it depends on how you want your bike to adapt. I personally ride a lot of dirt jumps, downhill tracks, 4x tracks and such like, so as a result, MY version of adaptable means less complication, less chance of ripping into your legs in a crash with a toothed ring, 100% chain-retention and maybe saving a little weight.
If the sort of riding you do is a lot of xc mileage and a lot of it on road, then of course, a 3-ring setup is for you.

I will gladly listen to any proposed advantages of 1x or 2x gearing that people come up with that they feel genuinely have helped them enjoy the sport more than they enjoyed it with 3x

The above (for me personally) 🙂

I have been running 2x for 2 years now. 34,40 and 26,38 with a block to 36 on the back.

No issues with dropping the chain. I have a clutch mech and I don't pedal backwards (no point doing that)! This may be why people drop their chains.

Riding all over the UK, on a hardtail including trail centres, rocks, Fort Will red downhill, Snowdon etc.

kayak23 - Member
I don't think you lose much by going 32t-11/36, except maybe for pedalling fast DOWNHILL.....
If you never do anything remotely technical downhill and like to get your kicks from pure speed, then a 32t front ring isn't for you.

2x gearing. What's that all about? Weight saving? Hardly, not when you take into account bash guards and chain devices. Like 1x, it removes a gear shifter from the bars that can then be replaced with a dropper post remote! Like 1x, 2x shares the same inconvenience for most of us that our bike becomes totally useless on road sections or even, dare I say, going remotely downhill because the highest gear available is 38:11, as opposed to 44 or 48:11.

To the OP Black Spire Stinger is the cheap and easy solution to 2x with a bash.

Yep, I'm with you on the increased height advantage that a smaller ring at the front gives when riding over logs, rocks etc. good point well made.

As is the specific riding you enjoy, although it does make the concept of an all-terrain bike a little innocuous.

Thank you.

That's it. Staying as [s]natur[/s]Giant intended. Not long replaced worn chainrings anyway and my big ring now has 44t as opposed to 43 following what in all fairness was a rare ding against a rock and only having caught it a handful of times on fallen small trees. I'll still get to keep a taller gear for the odd few miles on the road to the cafe on days I don't chuck the bike in the van.
Thanks people, no more itch to scratch.

That is what I call an informed result! 😀

I use 2*9 with bash on a BFe no chain device and 2*10 with bash on a Trek Remedy. Neither has a chain device and I don't drop the chain.

When I got these bikes I set them up as 2* as I rarely used the big ring (I much prefer spinning to mashing a big gear) and it was effectively becoming a toothless bash guard anyway. I never feel the gear range is inadequate.

I've got 2x9 on my Alpine (32 on the front and 11-32 on the rear) and I find I'm under geared a lot. Mainly on the flat and downhill. I find I'm nearly always in the smaller sprockets on the cassette and its showing as they wear much quicker due to smaller.
Will be switching it up to a 34 or 36 on the front this week so hopefully I'll use the full range of the cassette.

32x32 is not to bad for riding up most things, but the granny run is pretty good for slogging up alpine climbs for an hour or more.

Tom kp

This forum is often filled with talk of industry conspiracy when it comes to wheel sizes. IMO, a choice in wheel sizes is a good thing. The real industry con that is being trotted out to the masses is this apparent need for mountain bikes to have fewer gears and become less adaptable or mult-discipline through telling us that we need to have only one or two rings at the front! It's total bollox, but at least you can all go and spend more money on converting your once very useful and adaptable bike into one that is good for a little less. Oh, and don't forget to go off and buy a road bike!

😆

Why on earth do you think you need so many gear ratios (many of which are nearly duplicated)?

Like 1x, 2x shares the same inconvenience for most of us that our bike becomes totally useless on road sections or even, dare I say, going remotely downhill because the highest gear available is 38:11, as opposed to 44 or 48:11.

'Totally useless' - yeah. 🙄

Do you just enjoy pedalling really hard down a fire road? Or are you just super-awesome?

This forum is often filled with talk of industry conspiracy

I actually think it works the other way too. For years and years, most of the 'Industry conspiracy' talk about new bikes was about amount of gears. You'd hear people say,'How many gears has it got?', equating more gears with better bikes.
As a result you saw most people riding bikes with 21 gears and upwards who had no need for them whatsoever and had even less chance of ever setting them up to work if anything went wrong.

I think 1x drivetrains are largely a good thing for 'the masses', but of course, it all depends on what and how you ride.

It's true though, I often do spin out on my 32t-11/36, but then it's a compromise I'm willing to accept.

Moved from 3x9 to 2x10 (40/28 and 11-36) with a clutch mech, no chain devices, no dropped chains, it's made the grand total of sod all to my riding.

I was using 2x9 and then 2x10 with just a small/middle ring and no bash ring. I did use a double specific SLX mech though which seemed to hold the chain better than a standard mech.

[img] ?nocache=3279[/img]

I'm on 1x10 now though and happy with that. 11-36 though.

[img] ?nocache=4906[/img]

As you mention, 1x gearing possibly works well for those who have legs like tree trunks and lungs the size of a hot air balloon, just so they can cope with not being able to select an appropriate gear in time for the sudden rise or dip that occurs just around the hidden bend...

I'm really unfit at the moment and generally a spinner but I find 1x10 ok even on longer rides that I really don't have the fitness for - the key is to get the ratios right, surely?

Clutch Mech

just gone from years of triple to 2x10 on a new build Soul. I have 11-36 on the back, 24-38 on the front and a clutch mech, all new XT. Can't say I am missing any gears that I dont have, and I am definately not missing hitting the big ring on logs and rocks. I do find I need to think a bit more about shifting, probs just getting used to it, and I have noticed that the rear mech gets used to pretty much its full extremities if inadvetently ending up big/big or small/small, which is easier to end up in that with triple.

Chain has never dropped, and if I pedal backwards in big/big it climbs down the cassette, but I wouldn't do that in 'real life' anyway

slackalice - Member

I will gladly listen to any proposed advantages of 1x or 2x gearing that people come up with that they feel genuinely have helped them enjoy the sport more than they enjoyed it with 3x.

Loads of extra ground clearance. No jaggy big ring to cut your legs up.

Single ring is similiar to singlespeed- it's not an improvement exactly (though, for hard use the superior chain retention is good), it's just a way to make your riding a bit different. I really like it. I also really like not having to fit and index front mechs!

I don't even think it's different. I would just ask why use a triple or double if a single ring is sufficient for what/how you ride? Using a triple just provides me more gears that I don't use or need. For me, the benefit is that it's simpler. I guess it's lighter too but that doesn't really bother me.

Otherwise, why don't you fit a quadruple?

OK, I'll accept that if you're buying a complete bike you may not want to mess with it and change to a single but I reckon most of us here build up our own bikes to suit us rather than going standard so it's pretty straightforward.

1 x 10 11-36 34t is the sweet spot for me, both for fitness and the terrain I ride.

I originally set out with a 36t on the front but found it hard work. Now that I'm fitter i'll probably switch back.

I use the BB mounted Superstar Components chain guide. It's never given me any bother or dropped chains and I don't exactly romance my bikes round a trail !

2X9 on My HT (SLX mechs like you OP) 11-32 + 22/36/Bash and no chain device at present, The range is 18 - 85 Inches which suits me (YMMV) I did take a few links out of the chain to increase the tension a bit though, on my Previous build I used almost the exact same draivetrain but with a bottom roller guide.

TBH I haven't dropped my chain very much since leaving the device off maybe once every 20 rides and it only goes off the bottom so a pedal strocke or two pulls it back on. while I keep meaning to buy and fit stinger, I'm really not sure I can be arsed now, I could probably improve chain retention a shade more by removing a couple more links too.

Yes the Bash effectively acts in the same way that a big ring would to help keep the chain from going off the top, except it doesn't bend when bashed (clues in the name really), and it has takena couple of knocks.

I have thought about ditching the Bash as a weight saving measure and may well do so at some point, I'd possibly re-fit a bottom guide roller at the same time, I don't really know, it would negate the weight savings a bit, I think shortening the chain by a few links is probably worth doing if you're ditching the big rig though, if 10 speed is an option it's probably worth looking at Shadow +

Having said all of that, there's nothing really wrong with using a triple, if it provides the gearing you want and your not ****ting that 44T into rocks all the time then just stick with what works for you...

Both my bikes have had 2x for the last couple of years. It really simplified my shifting - only 1 shift either way, and less of it! On a triple, so much of the rear cassette is unusable on each ring, due to the extremes of the chain lines. add to that the duplication of gears, and I doubt there were more than 20 gears usable anyway. With a double, all of the 20 are usable.

I thought I would miss the Granny gear, but Ive now realised I only used it because it was there.

Ive just set up my Heckler 1x9 with a 32T on the front, and full chain device. It is for the Alps, and i was a bit worried about the lack of climbing gears. I took it for a 40k local test ride on sunday (Local roads, steep hills and Bedgebury red route) and was pleasantly surprised - I got up everything.

Whenever you met a group of roadies, the conversation used to always turn to gear ratios. As a young mountain biker with 21 gears, I never understood it until I started road riding - you never quite had the right gears on the bike and there was always some sort of compromise.

Now it seems Mountain biking has gone the same way. In terms of range of gears, a triple is the best choice - you can spin up steep climbs when tired and you can bomb along the road at daft speeds and still have gears to spare. However, as the longer chain slaps around a bit and occasionally jumps off the gears you want, and most annoyingly, the dinner plate sized chainring bashes on rocks and end up searching for a more sensible sized 40t.... Or you take it off, you only really need it for the road and you can make that compromise...

So then you're left with 2 rings, but the chain slaps worse because you no longer tension it with the big ring, large cassette sproket combo as that's too smaller a gear. So you try experimenting with chain retention devices...

Which eventually leads to 1 ring. Which is great, it's silent, you never lose the chain, you find you don't have to worry about which front gear you're in....And yet you don't *quite* have enough gears. You turn into a road talking ratios, grinding up steep hills slowly etc. when you could spin up quicker.

So it's all compromise. My trail/Enduro bike is a 1x9 (would be 10 if I had the cash) as I love the single ring setup. My xc race bike is a triple because I also use it for longer events and like the granny when I'm tired, but also want the speed on the road. Very excited by Srams idea of single ring and hope Shimano will come up with something similar soon.

Hi
I run 1 by 10, 32 oval up front with 11-32 at the rear.(29er). Xtr through out. It's all I need, done trail centres, big hills.
Best set up I've had.

It all depends on the type of riding you do. For me it is all about steep shortish climbs and shortish descents where you tend not to pedal, so I have little need for the higher gear ratios and it is just cleaner, simpler and neater to ditch the front mech. I had a 2x10 on my bike with no chain retention and found i rarely used the larger chainring, so I just ditched it (replaced with a bash guard) and ditched the front mech and associated gubbins. I had no problems with dropping the chain, even over rocky sections, but when my X7 mech snapped on me I got an x9 type 2 rear mech. I could do with a slightly larger chainring but as I don't really use the higher gears that much, as the descents are fast enough especially if you learn to pump, I don't see the point in gooing for a larger chainring. On the steeper climbs I prefer to run a lower gear anyway as it gives you the ability for those extra spurts of accelaration to get over rocks and steps which you wont have if you were to listen to some on here and 'MTFU' and push a stupid high chainring up front. There is some willy waving done in that department as to who is pushing the biggest chainring.

I have :

A Sov HT with 1x9 and a top device
A TranceX with 2x9 and a bash
A Tracer 275 with 2x10 with a clutched mech

All of these work well for my riding (UK and Alpine singletrack, moderate DH tracks, rocky stuff etc), but I'm not a big jumper.

I tried running the Sov without a top device but as soon as the trails got proper rough, the chain would bounce off the bottom and fall off the top. The top device stops it falling off the top so that it re-seats on the bottom as soon as you pedal again.

I ran the TranceX without the bash successfully in the UK, but I would de-chain regularly on a trip to Liguria. The guide (Ady from Riviera) handed me a bash to put on and it seems to stopped the problem.

The clutched mech on the Tracer 275 is a miracle. I've given it hell and the chain just stays on.

The 1x9 system on the Sov is perfect for shorter local rides in all weathers, but I've managed weekends away to Brechfa/Cwmcarn. I think I manage because the bike stand-up sprints so well. But Im OK with a bit of pushing when the legs give up. I mainly use this for local riding though.

I have considered running 1x systems on the TranceX and Tracer as they are both pedalling-friendly suspension systems. But these are bigger travel bikes for all-day all-mountain rides, especially the Tracer which is 30lb. And the TranceX doesn't tolerate standing-up sprint pedalling very well. It's much more sensible to have a granny ring you can sit and spin efficiently all day, even when you are tired, on this kind of bike/riding.

Is 1x just a good excuse to get off and walk?

Is 1x just a good excuse to get off and walk?

Nah , that's singlespeeding

shortcut - Member

Is 1x just a good excuse to get off and walk?

It's a terrible excuse to get off and walk, hasn't happened to me once yet 🙂

The smart money will be on the majority of recreational riders going back to triples within the next 2 years...

Yea good one. I have been riding 1x8/9 since '98, it just suits my riding. I can't see myself ever going back to 3x apart from on a road bike. Yes I have 2x9 on my HT but I rarely use the granny and as I don't need to ride my MTB on the road for more than half a mile I don't need a 44t. If you need a 44t for DH off road you're either on a straight boring fire road or you need to start looking for sponsorship.

I've been 2 x 9 fir more than 5 years.

Its just works. No jaggy big ring to cut me and bash on rocks. Changing the middle to a 36T ring covers most of the missing larger gears.

Still have the granny ring for long draggy climbs of which there are plenty in Scotland.

Bash / front mech and a shortened chain works to keep the chainn where it should be

The smart money will be on the majority of recreational riders going back to triples within the next 2 years...

Err why? I really never used the 44t off road. I was barely out of it when on the road, but I have road bike for that now.

Oh do you mean people riding hybrids on towpaths?

My new(er) bike has 2x10 and I think it's amazing. GOing back to my triple on the Trance feels wrong IMHO. I did run 1x9 on my old bike but got fed up of dropping the chain 🙁

Ran all the configuration's, for an allrounder XC sorta do everything bike triple is where its at for me.

its horses for courses I rekon, when I built a bike specifically for bigger days (alps trip) a double was the preffered choice, just for the clearance.

1x9 and 1x10 on my bikes here, 32t up front but 29ers, so feels more like a 34.

Gets me up damn near anything, natural or otherwise - but then I'm fortunate to be a (relatively) young, strong, rider with the legs and lungs to attack the climbs. Sitting and spinning up something is rarely an option (though I can sit and spin up remarkably steep stuff - I'm tall with long levers).

I miss the top end more than the low end. I ride SS on the XC bike over winter, and to commute, so I'm pretty used to hauling up hills and I can spin fairly fast too.

I prefer 1x as on the AM/enduro bike the security of the chainguide is very welcome, and on the XC bike it's also the security, less chain flapping about, less to get clogged up, a little less weight, less clutter on the bars and simpler riding - just one gear shifter to think about! I'd propose the counter argument - why have twice the complexity and those extra rings, when they bring me little benefit?

[i]However[/i] I will say that if I wasn't able to ride regularly enough to keep my fitness up I'd probably drop back to a triple/double. If I've been off the bike ill or injured the lack of low spinny gears can kick my ass a bit!

However I will say that if I wasn't able to ride regularly enough to keep my fitness up I'd probably drop back to a triple/double.

Are you stalking me?

As I've said, fitness was my concern too but having now used 1x10 for a full weekend's riding around Wales, my concerns proved unfounded and I was fine. I don't think I wished for a lower gear at any point.

Maybe if I was going to do a proper epic event (TransAlp and the like) I'd go to a double for the wider range (until 10-42 cassettes become cheaper!) but otherwise, I can't see that I would.

Have folk with a 36-38t "big ring" on a double not found them a bit spinney? I was a bit worried at first going to a double for general XC would be a bit much, but if anything, it's the opposite.

FWIW I never jagged my leg on, or bent my 44t and used it ( in the chilterns) quite a bit

slackalice - Member

Like 1x, 2x shares the same inconvenience for most of us that our bike becomes totally useless on road sections or even, dare I say, going remotely downhill because the highest gear available is 38:11, as opposed to 44 or 48:11.

Not sure if trolling or... 38T is a pretty big ring for a downhill bike, but you're probably right and they're all totally useless at going downhill.

nickc - Member

Have folk with a 36-38t "big ring" on a double not found them a bit spinney?

Nah... i thought I might but I did the numbers and realised that I was only actually losing the highest couple of gears. I was using the big ring offroad but very rarely using the highest gears.

I had a 36 on my 26" bike. The only time it was a bit small was on the road but then my mtb is for riding offroad so I can live with that 🙂

my biggest gear is now 38-11 and I came from 44-11. Don't find that I am spinning out, although I don't ride it on road for more than a couple of huundered metres.

Thanks guys, I suppose there's a bit of getting used to it, average pace hasn't really moved since I swapped, guess its all in my head.

2x9 here for about 3 years. 36 and a granny on the front (can't remember what the back is but prob 34), SLX medium cage mech and no bash or chain device.
Certainly don't miss the big ring for the riding we do (and I'm old) and the only time the chain comes off the front is when I change from small to middle while being on a small cog at the back - even then it's not very often.

Both my main bikes are 1X with 36t rings. I might spin out a little bit on road, but not much, and its not the end of the world as I prefer my bike to be geared towards mtbing. Also I HATE front mechs - the 1x9 has a chain device, the 1x10 with Sram clutch mech hasn't and its bloody awesome, not dropped a chain once yet.

Even when I was 2X i think I still had a 36 ring, 32 is way too low, but you can still spin up stuff with 36 if you get a high range cassette.

I started using 2* set ups around 2003 and have not missed the big ring. Since then I've moved into a 1*10 setuup and am fine; I can ride up everything that I want to or need to with a 34 tooth chainring in the front. I like having less clutter and running a chain device means no more dropped chains.

It was hard work at first but I was pretty unfit when I started riding again last year.

Dan; glad to hear that you've finally got a proper set up on the Heckler.

slackalice - Member
Stick with 3x!

As much as having less gears on your bike is a marketing ploy.. so was having more in the first place..

When I was a wee chavvy, we didn't ask what make your bike was, or how much it weighed, or even what size the wheels were.. The only thing any of us were interested in was 'how many gears 'as it got mate'?

I think the modern 1x approach is the sensible middle ground, although I still haven't got my head around the concept of a 11-36 cassette yet.. seems a bit obscene

Not as obscene as a 10-42 😉

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=91007

yunki - Member

When I was a wee chavvy, we didn't ask what make your bike was, or how much it weighed, or even what size the wheels were.. The only thing any of us were interested in was 'how many gears 'as it got mate'?

Maybe that's why I was first drawn to 2x9... 18 gears just seems like the correct number for a bike.

If you are going 2x then the front DR acts as an upper chain guide so you probably wont need one (unless you have a Remedy which seems to like dropping the chain). With a 1x and no front DR you will need a guide, possibly only and upper. Generally speaking and depending how you ride.