You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Are there any new mountain bikes that can have a front derailleur mounted? Preferably of the FS XC race flavour. It looks like Shimano still make front derailleurs for 12 speed setups, but I can't find anything that looks like I can actually run one on.
I know people are going to say that 1x is fine and front derailleurs were the devil's own work - but I've been on 1x for a while, and while I don't mind it for some applications, I'd still like a double for others.
Go and sit in the corner and think about what you’ve just said.
gravel bike? only 2x12 on google i can find is double pack vinyl.
worth messaging Scott and asking if they have recently done a 2x12 / 2x11 , likely some deadstock from 2020/21/22
Childrens bikes or bicycle shaped ojects. If your budget is £300 then you will find a new 'mountain bike' with a front derrailleur.
Wont be 12 speed though!
I knew I'd seen one.... the On-One Whippet has a front derraileur mount, but thats because its a ~10 year old design they are still passing off as recent:
https://planetx.co.uk/products/on-one-whippet-sram-sx-mountain-bike
Are there any new mountain bikes that can have a front derailleur mounted?
You'll probably have to look at an older model for that, most have now "optimised" the ability to use a front derailleur out of the frame design.
I'll be hanging on to my current, front derailleured, XC bike for as long as i can!
Some predictable responses.
I have 1x, 2x, and 3x bikes - I ride them all, I do kinda know what I want, even if it's unconventional.
1x is great for trail centres, but for multi-day, all-day, mixed terrain things, I kinda want the range and efficiency of a front derailleur setup.
I think you'll stuggle a lot in the full suss XC race category, those bikes are optimised to be light and stuff, and front mechs are a distant memory for that sort of thing. Something steel and more touring oriented would maybe have a better chance with FD compatibility,but sounds like that's not what you want
If you're running SRAM, can't you fit a band on axs front mech to pretty much anything with a seat tube? No need for cable routing.
If you want a complete bike I'd be looking at the trekking end of the market from the Germans. It might be that gravel has killed that off though
If you’re running SRAM, can’t you fit a band on axs front mech to pretty much anything with a seat tube?
Maybe.
Chainstay clearance is an issue on some. Profile of the seat tube is an issue on others. Direction of the seat tube can be an issue as well. FS hardware is usually in the way too.
Probably none in the FS XC type. Mine has, but it is 10 years old now. If you really want it, then probably hunt out a secondhand frame and build it up with new/used parts. Likely looking at non-boost too from that era. Eg Pivot ran a front mech mount on the 429SL up to 2016. When that was replaced with the Mach4SL then it went 1x. So you are likely looking at an 8 year old bike at best I think.
The canyon neuron only lost front derailleur compatibility in the last year. Some one will be selling a bike with a frame that can take a front derailleur because they haven’t up dated their carbon mould. The problem is finding out who
You may have more joy with a hardtail. My understanding is lots of FS designs are 1x as it allows them to do different/clever/silly things with the suspension design, without having to worry about the pivot point in relation to a chain that can change diamater around a larger or smaller chainring.
Whaaaat ?
Asking for a front mech is like pointing out in public that the emperor is stark bollock naked around these parts.
I'm selling a 2016 Ibis Mojo HD3 green/medium. That will take a front mech.
If you’re running SRAM, can’t you fit a band on axs front mech to pretty much anything with a seat tube? No need for cable routing.
Perhaps, but I think a lot of things have weirdly shaped seat tubes (particularly at the bottom bracket junction), or seat tubes in an odd position.
5lab
If you’re running SRAM, can’t you fit a band on axs front mech to pretty much anything with a seat tube? No need for cable routing.
No way to shift a front mech with MTB shifter on ACS, and no MTB AXS front mech, road only
Is the range really much better compared to 10-51?
I've just been gathering enough stuff to replace my gravel bike front mech.
As for bikes - Sonder Frontier or Cotic Solaris....?
2x isn't dead...
No way to shift a front mech with MTB shifter on ACS, and no MTB AXS front mech, road only
I think you can use sequential mode or assign a blipper or extra button to shift the front mech. This thread agrees with me
https://www.reddit.com/r/bikewrench/comments/1d26ia1/sram_axs_flat_bar_2x_chainrings/
Regarding front mech, there are only road ones available, but rival goes down to 43/30, you can probably blag the front mech onto smaller rings than that, say 40/28, which might be what the op needs
Is the range really much better compared to 10-51?
Yes.
Chainstay clearance is an issue on some. Profile of the seat tube is an issue on others. Direction of the seat tube can be an issue as well. FS hardware is usually in the way too.
Yes, I think you would have to physically measure up frames to see whether they have the space to fit bigger chainrings and a front derailleur. Keep in mind the derailleur has to clear the rear tyre as well as the frame and suspension linkages. A Shimano E-type derailleur might work if the seat tube isn't round.
The Cotic Solaris Max (not the current latest model) can take one, I run it 2x10.
Is the range really much better compared to 10-51?
With a regular MTB 2 ring and 11 speed block I reckon you could get to 600% without silly combos, It's probably the nicer more regular changes that are most beneficial if you're doing longer distance stuff though.
But, as other posters have suggested, you're probably having to browse the 2nd hand market for a FS, a more regular shaped HT would be much easier.
Would a classified rear hub and 1x give the gear range the op wants?
^ there's an idea.
Save money and just buy an old mountain bike?
Is the range really much better compared to 10-51?
Only at the top. And sometimes the bottom. And sometimes both.
But apparently the " cockpit" looks much cleaner, which trumps everything else ..
Would a classified rear hub and 1x give the gear range the op wants?
Yeah, it's something I'm considering. But I really want the efficiency of larger sprockets, especially over the drag of an internal geared hub.
The problem you'll have is modern derailleurs are designed to move the top jockey wheel away from the cassette as you move into bigger gears. This requires the chain length to be set well. If you drop down to a small chainring, the chain length is too long and the mech hits the cassette. This is why GRX mechs are two quite different designs, 1x for large cassettes and 2x only work with close ratio cassettes.
The problem you’ll have is modern derailleurs are designed to move the top jockey wheel away from the cassette as you move into bigger gears.
Shimano make 2x12 MTB groupsets, so I don't think that's so much of a problem as finding a frame that's compatible.
With a regular MTB 2 ring and 11 speed block I reckon you could get to 600% without silly combos,
But would it actually work, thinking about the chain length needed for big-big and where'd all the 'spare' go when in the small chainring?
But would it actually work, thinking about the chain length needed for big-big
If you don't shift like an idiot you don't actually need enough chain for big-big, not do you need it all absorbed when in small-small.
Not outrageous...Not 600% admittedly, but close enough...592%
But you'd still struggle to find a full suss to put it on.
I still run 2x9 speed on most of my bikes, with 22-36 Deore front rings. If you matched those rings with an 11 speed 11=42 cassette, you'd have a 625% range. The 22-36 setup is a bodge and won't shift as cleanly as rings that are designed to work together, but I find I only shift once or twice per ride so it's not a big issue.
As others are saying, going 2x on 11 speed makes more sense than 12sp surely?
Stick with HG freehubs, less finnicky setup, rear mech not so low-dangling.
As others are saying, going 2x on 11 speed makes more sense than 12sp surely?
2x10 FTW.
We have it on one of our mountainbikes and two of our 'do it all'/gravel/hybrid bikes.
Perhaps an option would be to buy an old xc frame, like a Talkboy, and get some one to build you a custom front triangle for it.
or go full custom. Waltworks would probably be willing to make you what you’re after.
Sycip, too. They use ventsna suspension parts that don’t appear to have changed since the advent of 1x. Ventana themselves may also be able to help.
3x5 on friction shifters is the logical end to this thread.
Or go the whole hog and just settle for a hub with a different sprocket on each side. Who needs more than that!
That said, if you could still get it and frames that would take it, 2x di2 would be very tempting!
600% and usable gears is very achievable.
with a Pinion gearbox 😉
Single speed is the only logical end. Unfortunatley I am now too old to get up hills even in 32 x 18.
I am not convinced by a 70s road bike sized chainring as the largest cog on the back and great long dangly deralieur waiting to be taken out by any passing rock or root, because SRAM couldn't make a decent front mech.
It strikes me that 1 x 12 and beyond is getting near the point where someone actually has a good think and engineers something better.
I kind of hope that classified get enough traction that one of the big players brings out a less aspirationally priced competitor. Although I suspect sram would just buy them, make it shift with AXS electronics and Jack the price up.
So, I'm basically mulling over long distance bikepacking setups, with enough road/fireroads that I want the big gears*, but also enough real mountain biking that a gravel bike is the wrong tool for the job.
The classified hub looks like a neat solution, but it really fails for me in having a proprietary cassette. I could live with it failing and being locked into one ratio, I couldn't live with being unable to get any kind of replacement cassette in a hurry.
* I know most people do fine for really long distance stuff on 1x, but I find big gears more comfortable - I don't really care if it's all in my head.
I’m basically mulling over long distance bikepacking setups, with enough road/fireroads that I want the big gears
Yeah, I'm sort of with you on this.
I think 1*12 is amazing. Apart from this specific use case, when I'd prefer a large range. Although I'm probably just going to go with a smaller chainring and put up with losing some of the top end.
Also doesn't need to be super modern geometry as you won't be trying anything rad when the bike's laden with bags.
Can a Jones or a Stooge take a front derailleur?
Surly are still 2 x capable.
Does it need to be new? Last generation Intense Primer has a mech mount. Pedals really well and old trail geometry is now modern xc downcountry geo.
Surely there must be a steel suspension frame that happens to have the right diameter seat tube?
Yeah, I think an older second hand bike might be the answer I'm looking for.
thols2…what on earth rides are you doing with only 2 gear changes???
That classified hub looks super clever, and quite complicated. It advises for ‘XC and light trail riding only’ though whatever that means?? Not exactly sure what about it is fragile but I’m assuming I would break it…
what on earth rides are you doing with only 2 gear changes???
Using the big ring to get to the bottom of the hill. Using the small ring to get to the top of the hill. Using the big ring to ride down the hill and go home.
What about a schlumpf HSD? Cheaper than the classified hub 🙂
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/schlumpf-drive-2-speed-chainset/
An AXS front derailleur can be shifted without a lever, using the button on the front of it. Not ideal, but will work.
Or a BB mounted front derailleur might work. Doesnt need to be 12 speed compatable either. Doesnt really matter how many gears you have on the back since a front derailleur just moves the front rings. Just might need to bend the cage of it a little to accomodate a wider cassettes chainline.
Or a BB mounted front derailleur might work.
Yes, you need the BB mount plate
https://www.bike-components.de/en/Shimano/E-Type-Backplate-for-FD-M980-E-FD-M780-E-p30966/
Plus an E-type derailleur
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/deore-m6000/FD-M6000-E.html
Then you need to find the maximum chainring size that the frame will accept and a crankset that is compatible. You can get a Cues crankset with 22-36 rings
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/cues-u6000-11-speed/FC-U6000-2B.html
Or XT with 24-34, 26-36, and 28-38
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/deorext-m8000/FC-M8000-2.html
But apparently the ” cockpit” looks much cleaner, which trumps everything else
I wonder if that new Scott has front mech compatibility...
It strikes me that 1 x 12 and beyond is getting near the point where someone actually has a good think and engineers something better
Why? Better in what way? I mean, for most casual mountain bikers/roadies rear mechs are a known quality, they're simple, they work, they're easy to live with and they do the job they're supposed to. Yes they go wrong, but fixing them is a piece of cake that even ham fisted home mechanics can sort out, and they're 'relatively' cheap and long lasting. Personally I've never bust one, it happens sure, but it's an easy fix to get back up and running again.
It's like the alternative front suspension or belt drive gearbox whatever alternatives They may solve some 'problems' that traditional drive trains or components have, but for most folks, the stuff on their bikes works as well as it needs to.
Yeah I'm of the same.opinion as nickc above.
I'd go so far as to say in a lot of instance 1x actually is "something better".
Acknowledging of course that not all use cases are the same and that closer range, multi-ring setups do suit some uses better still, but I do think 1x12 and now 1x13 is bringing 2x and 3x closer to the point of redundancy.
and they’re ‘relatively’ cheap and long lasting
They definitely are. I have two bikes;
A 1996 MTB with a 1996 XT rear mech that still works perfectly
A 1990 road bike with a 1990 Shimano 600 rear mech that still works perfectly.
Pretty good going I would say, in fact the road bike has a full 34 year old Shimano 600 groupset (even down to the seatpost and headset) and it all works as well as when new apart from the headset that is a bit rough and being replaced.
Why? Better in what way? I mean, for most casual mountain bikers/roadies front mechs are a known quality, they’re simple, they work, they’re easy to live with and they do the job they’re supposed to. Yes they go wrong, but fixing them is a piece of cake that even ham fisted home mechanics can sort out, and they’re cheap and long lasting. Personally I’ve never bust one, it happens sure, but it’s an easy fix to get back up and running again.
FTFY
It was a problem that never needed fixing, has anyone done the maths to see if 1x is still lighter?
Yes, it's nice to have the option and I do run 1x but seriously doubt the supposed cost and weight advantages are a valid argument any more.
but seriously doubt the supposed cost and weight advantages are a valid argument any more.
There isn't an argument to be had anymore, but even if there was things like being able to put pivots where they are best located, not worrying about mech clearance on chainstays or tyres are far more compelling.
It was a problem that never needed fixing,
very few of the current bikes that are so good would be on sale now if there was still a requirement to have a fixed point in the geometry to accommodate a front mech
has anyone done the maths to see if 1x is still lighter?
Was that ever the serious argument? To my mind, freeing up that bit of real estate, and the alternate being 'good enough' to allow the range of current FS designs was more than worth 1. the loss of the front mech and 2. a bit of weight gain.
Was that ever the serious argument?
Well it was trotted out by plenty of folk "saving" the weight of a granny ring, mech and shifter.
As for frame designs, the progression to high pivots wouldn't have been a thing. Oh, wait. How many fantastic bikes have come out only because they have pivots where the front mech would have been? If it was even a thing DH would have done it years before.
There isn’t an argument to be had anymore,
Was there ever? Really?
but even if there was things like being able to put pivots where they are best located,
As above.
not worrying about mech clearance on chainstays or tyres are far more compelling.
Tyre clearance? Really? How thick is a mech band?
As for stays, a dual with a 22t granny and 36t main isn't going to tax the stay that much.
Fat bikes manage to do all that and still accommodate front mech without stupid scalloped stays. DH has 83mm BBs that could have accommodated wider tyres, the problem wasn't the mech, the problem was trying to squeeze fatter tyres into the 73mm BB standard width which resulted in the bodge that was Boost.
I can run 2.4s in any of my MTBs with a mech, barring my Tues (obviously). What am I missing out on for an XC use case?
Tyre clearance? Really? How thick is a mech band?
The derailleur cage has to clear the tyre and the chainstays through the full range of suspension movement.
If it was even a thing DH would have done it years before.
They did, Balfa BB7, Brooklyn Race link, Sunn Radical+ (the original one Nico won lots on), the list goes on...
There were lots of DH bike designs in the 90s/00s that recognised the benefits of a higher pivot and not having to accommodate a front mech took advantage in various ways.
They did, Balfa BB7, Brooklyn Race link, Sunny Radical+ (the original one Nico won lots on), the list goes on…
There were lots of DH bike designs in the 90s/00s that recognised the benefits of a higher pivot and not having to accommodate a front mech took advantage in various ways.
****. That was panning out differently in my head ?
And I've missed the edit window.
BUT THE KLEIN MANTRA WOULD WORK WITH A FRONT MECH! CAN'T PIVOT HIGHER THAN THAT!
The derailleur cage has to clear the tyre and the chainstays through the full range of suspension movement.
Which is what, A bawhair wider than the chain? High pivot nonsense aside (that's a valid argument I'll concede) there were still boost frames with adequate clearance for a front mech as evidenced by the suggestions on the last couple of pages. And remember we're talking about XC bikes here.
to me, 1x seems odd on road and gravel bikes. Definitely benefits mountain bikes, more so than boost spacing or 27.5 ever did.
Which is what, A bawhair wider than the chain?
what is the chain line in the smallest ring? I’ve no idea, but it’s a lot less than 52mm.
there were still boost frames with adequate clearance for a front mech as evidenced by the suggestions on the last couple of pages.
there were non boost frames with room for front derailleurs, too. It didn’t mean that the suspension wasn’t compromised as a result
weren’t 1x and boost conceived when bike designers still thought that chain stays should be as short as possible?
The only time with 1x when a chain is now dropped is when the drivetrain is worn out, 2x or 3x used to be multiple times a ride - even worse on proper rough terrain.
Isn’t the narrow wide chain and rings a factor in 1 x though - never drop a chain anymore whereas it used to happen a lot. In my experience 1 x is loads better!
If you constantly derailed your chain you need to learn to adjust your gears correctly.
How many threads are there on here about gear hanger straightening and 12 speed noise and adjustment.
All I said was maybe instead of adding another cog to the cassette, it might be time to look at developing new ideas, I don't think I even included how many chainrings it should have.
In a way front mech are even more crude than rear mech, but dérailleurs is a technology in an evolutionary culture du sac.
Look at some of the full suspension designs with lots of extra cogs to make the gear work with the suspension are you sure this is the zenith of bike design?
weren’t 1x and boost conceived
Boost was conceived to work with 2x
Boost was conceived to work with 2x
I know. The point was the short chain stays. There were also claims of the need to fit plus sized tyres with short chain stays.
The only time with 1x when a chain is now dropped is when the drivetrain is worn out, 2x or 3x used to be multiple times a ride – even worse on proper rough terrain.
I think that's a lot more to do with clutch mechs than nw chainrings.