[Closed] What's the point of 2x....?

Big range double 26/39 or similar gives you heaps of gears without the even greater overlap of 3x, you can run a bash and or chain guide with 2x.
Really what's the point of 3x on a mountain bike? Ever roadies seem to have given up on them.

Ground clearance
Fashion
Three multiplied by the number at the rear (10/11) is hard on the brain and too much to think about when your heart is pounding and you feel like an asthmatic.

Some people like more gears and a broader range, some like less with the relative simplicity that brings. That's it, end of chat.

My last MTB came with 2x, within a week I'd put my old 3x chain set on it and bought new mechs. I just like having the range without having a dinner plate sized sprocket at the back wheel , never been one for fashion and very rarely strike the big ring on logs or rocks.

I used to really like 2+Bash set ups. 22+32 chain rings with a "normal" cassette seemed to be spot on, 32 was fine most riding but the 22 inner was a nice bailout.

That being said now I'm on a 1x10 with a wide range cassette and 30T ring I'm not sure I'd go back...

Maybe the way forward is to have a single sprocket and 3+ chainrings. 😆

I've run with 1x10 on my last 4 bikes and didn't find the range in any way restricting. I've recently just changed all the drivetrain on my new Cannondale Habit from 2x10 to 1x10. I like the simplicity.
I suppose it is dictated by where you ride, in Rostrevor (Mourne Mountains) there are serious climbs but I find the 1x10 copes very well

I run 26-36 chainrings and bashguard with an 11-34 cassette on a 26" bike. Gives better clearance over logs and stuff but still have a bailout gear and enough top speed for the road. I've never missed the big ring, need the little one though.

Really what's the point of 3x on a mountain bike? Ever roadies seem to have given up on them.

Touring . Both MTB and on the road.

I still use 3x9 on two of my bikes. Mostly because they are older (2001 and 2005) and I have collected plenty of spares for them over the years. I have enough spare chainrings and cassettes to last me another 10 years at the current rate of wear.
2x10 on the others. Same scenario, I bought a few spares cheap when people were getting rid of new chainrings when the 1x fad started and so can't see the point of spending lots on something I don't really need. And the gearing suits me.

Touring . Both MTB and on the road.

Fashion. A triple provides better gearing. No big gaps or silly chain lines. The front mech is the simplest, most robust moving part on a bike and removes the need for a huge rear sprocket and great dangly mech that costs a bomb.
However what is new sells as MTB ers are very fashion concious and mob focused. Something else will happen in a few years.

I run 26-36 chainrings and bashguard with an 11-34 cassette on a 26" bike.

Exactly this, same setup, covers pretty much everything with all the ground clearance that I could want.

I run 3x12...

mattsccm - Member

Fashion. A triple provides better gearing. No big gaps or silly chain lines. The front mech is the simplest, most robust moving part on a bike and removes the need for a huge rear sprocket and great dangly mech that costs a bomb.
However what is new sells as MTB ers are very fashion concious and mob focused. Something else will happen in a few years.

^^This very much^^

I'm not immune from the various cycling fads Fat Bike, SS, 29"er, Gravel bike, City bike etc but on or off road my go to bikes have 3x front.

Maybe the way forward is to have a single sprocket and 5+ chainrings. 😆

Hi. I've one of each. An old Saracen blitz i converted to 3x9speed. It's got shimano's highest mtb gearing. a On One 456evo11, with shimano XT 2X10, 28-40t and a 11-36cassette and a On One Codeine 650b with XT 1x11, 36t and 11-46cassette.The blitz 3x9 is a beast , largest chainring is extremely high,but useable, middle is good and small is plenty low enough, done QECP on it , it made it around. The 456evo in my opinion is really suited to 2x10 ,28-40t and 11-36cassette with a very good topspeed, the half gears keep it on the boil, with minimal energy loss, and the inner ring and 11-36 Cassette mean i usually have a good choice of low gears for the climbs i do. My Codeine 650b with 1x11 36t and 11-46 Cassette needed a aftermarket chainring to get a okay topspeed, low gear is good. My take on the 1x,2x and 3x is the 3x9 is good ,but can't help thinking bad trail conditions could cause it problems. The 2x10 in the 28-40t, 11-36 variant on the 456 is the sweet spot on the trails i ride. But i personally find the 1x11 36t,11-46cass let the Codeine 650b down , due to a lack of flow, and having too low or too high low gears on climbs, while i can handle the 1x gearing, i just think it's over rated on certain terrain, conditions and trails. All in all , personally i feel of the 3 the 2x is the best when used with well thought out gear ratios.the 1x for me lacks flow and too high or too low climbing gears, it's usable but a pain in the a**e. 2x suits me best.

Having foolishly gone and bitten myself on such threads lately can I just propose we stop feeding the chainring trolls...

Who really gives that much of a shit about chainrings?

ground clearance and not having a big spiky thing to bite your leg

22/36 chainrings with a bash ring on the only bike I have left with dérailleurs

cookeaa - Member

Who really gives that much of a shit about chainrings?

This ^^^^^

They're just gears. Just run whatever gets you 'oop hill and down dale'

So 3x for bikepacking then? Seems to be the consensus.

Everything else on preference.

I'm going to be getting me a bikepacking rig and my 1x11 enduro monster just doesn't have the high range. Probably not enough low for really steep climbs fully laden either.

They're just gears. Just run whatever gets you 'oop hill and down dale'

I love the range the 2x11 gives me on my new xc bike, but I'll still end up swapping it to a 1x for weight saving & looks more than anything else.
Performance wise, the 2x is still superior IMO for so many types of riding.

Use whatever's right for your riding. Both my off-road bikes are 1x, both my road bikes are 2x.

[b]Most of the time[/b] you should be riding in the middle of whatever range you have. If you aren't then you need to sort things out.

chevychase - Member

Am I missing something other than perhaps a mild aesthetic value?

Overlap between the rings. 2x, you have 2 versions of a lot of your gears. 3 x, you have three of some gears.

2x means I have more gears than most of my mates and everyone knows the bike with the most gears must be the best.

The one that seems odd to me is 3x11, really not sure what benefit that's supposed to have over 3x10. Every other configuration has its own significant advantages and disadvantages.

mattsccm - Member

Fashion. A triple provides better gearing. No big gaps or silly chain lines. The front mech is the simplest, most robust moving part on a bike and removes the need for a huge rear sprocket and great dangly mech that costs a bomb.

Same old myths.

Big gaps- here's a 9-speed 11-34, a 10-speed 11-36 and an 11 speed 11-42, typical mtb casettes for the best part of a decade. The gappiest is the 9-speed.

11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30-34
11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-36
11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-42

Chain lines- the chainlines of all single, double and triple systems are well within the drivetrain's capacity so it's a non-issue.

Huge expensive rear mech- a medium XT is the same size and price regardless of how many rings you have. It used to be, you used a longer mech for triple than you do for single, but I think that's changed now and everything uses mediums?

Basically the only way ratios and mech size becomes a factor is if you're using narrow cassettes and short mechs- which is fair enough, but you know it's an oddity.

I've always found 3 ring front mechs go out of true and require more regular adjustment, whilst 2 rings don't, but still give me a usable top gear for road bits than 1x which is a little lacking.

All a bit 1st word problem, but 2x is my preferred compromise.

2x9 drivechain on my 29er is shagged so going to replace soon with....
2x10 I think. I [i]may[/i] have gone 1x11 if I had a wad of cash hanging around, maybe 34*10-42, but I don't, so 24/36*11-36. I've just got 1x11 on my "bestest" bike but so far I'm unconvinced about the longevity of it for high mileage use, we'll see how it goes. Can't see me ever going for a triple again tho, I binned my big ring a while back, for clearance and the fact I barely used it. Unless you're doing a lot of road miles* then triples give more range than [s]you[/s] I** ever need.

I'd probably stick with 2x9 if 9spd wasn't more expensive than 10spd

*So I guess touring bikes are going to use them for a while yet.
**which is all that matters really

The gappiest is the 9-speed.

mattsccm - Member
Fashion. A triple provides better gearing. No big gaps or silly chain lines. The front mech is the simplest, most robust moving part on a bike and removes the need for a huge rear sprocket and great dangly mech that costs a bomb.
However what is new sells as MTB ers are very fashion concious and mob focused. Something else will happen in a few years.

^^This very much^^

I'm not immune from the various cycling fads Fat Bike, SS, 29"er, Gravel bike, City bike etc but on or off road my go to bikes have 3x front.

Let me understand this. Because cycling is indeed open to innovation and change and that sometimes this translate into stuff that is not needed nor helps, should I not adopt something that I have really liked for 7 years (x1 ring) and makes a big difference to my riding so that I am not accused of being a fashion victim or a sheep ?

The binary thinking is obvious on that one.

1x is clearly not for everyone but it really isn't a fad.

For me the front mech is crude and medieval but I have no issues with anyone using one. I expect the same level of tolerance.

should I not adopt something ..//.. so that I am not accused of being a fashion victim or a sheep ?

BTW do the gappy 46/48/50 cassettes end up negating the weight saving of dropping the front mech? I think we may be close to form/fashion over ruling function there. Or is getting rid of the front mech really worth these downsides?
<edit> sunrace 11-50 526g apparently, xt 9spd cassette 263g, 155g for the mech, 140g for the shifter, you'll need an inner ring too so no, big 1x is still lighter. Gappy gears tho.

Some people like more gears and a broader range, some like less with the relative simplicity that brings. That's it, end of chat.

and some are followers of fashion

I still remember 3x7 setups with 12-28 cassettes. Boasting about 21 gears to astonished onlookers.

Big gaps- here's a 9-speed 11-34, a 10-speed 11-36 and an 11 speed 11-42, typical mtb casettes for the best part of a decade. The gappiest is the 9-speed.

11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30-34
11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-36
11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-42

Funnily enough 9 speed is obviously the 'gappiest' as it has less jumps to get from 11 to 34. But stick a double or triple on the front and you can get around any of the gaps with judicious usage of the front chainrings. Or use an example with a 9 speed 11-21 cassette and a double chainset maybe?

Maybe the way forward is to have a single sprocket and 5+ chainrings.

I suspect that a hipster somewhere has already done this, to add range to his "fixie".

Calling a single speed a fixie is another thing that annoys me.

The dinner plate sized cogs are obviously an attempt to provide the total range of a 2x or 3x setup but do you actually need that range? While a 1x drivetrain won't cover the entire range you can optimise it for a particular use. In practice I've found that you'll only need to try one or two sizes of front ring before settling on one that works for you.

1x is only expensive if you just look at a system like SRAM Eagle but that's a bit like saying 2x/3x systems are expensive and quoting Di2 prices. Something like a Sunrace cassette is a little pricier than an XT but then you don't need the front shifter and mech.

Or use an example with a 9 speed 11-21 cassette and a double chainset maybe?

you can get around any of the gaps with judicious usage of the front chainrings

breatheeasy - Member

Or use an example with a 9 speed 11-21 cassette and a double chainset maybe?

Yeah, I thought it best to stick to examples that people actually use tbh.

D0NK - Member

BTW do the gappy 46/48/50 cassettes end up negating the weight saving of dropping the front mech?

The only 50T cassette is Eagle so let's look at that

10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42-50
11-13-15-17-19-21-23-26-30-34

Again not especially gappy (remember the gaps are proportional, 42 to 50 looks big on paper but in practice it's almost identical to 11 to 13) Not everyone likes this sort of setup of course but it's been the mtb default for some time.

if I was riding with 9/10/11/12 rear cogs, I might opt for a double chainring as it would give a broader range of gears.

But why not go triple at the front?

From my experience, 3*9 never worked at the extremes of gear combinations and was too temperamental.

It seemed like one step forward, two steps back.

So I went 'back' to 3*8 as it suited my riding style (wide range of gears, extra low gears since I ride 29', and the reliability to work regardless of the gear combinations.)

A single chainring would probly be best for pedelecs as you're letting the motor do the bulk of the legwork.

The only 50T cassette is Eagle so let's look at that

http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/exclusive-sunrace-launches-11-50t-cassette/

Fair point! You can't buy it yet though