• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

SRAM 2X10 = End of MTB Triple?

Sep 30, 2009
3
0
0
Visit site
SRAM has made clear their disdain for the granny triple on the road bike side, but it appears that they are trying to kill the triple on the MTB side, not just for elite XC racers but for weekend warriors too. Looks like in a few months, you won't be able to purchase an X9 with a triple. Holy Crap! This is bad.

By my math, the lowest gear ratio on their new 2x10 setup is a 28/36, or a ratio of .77777. Compare this to the X9 setup on my current bike, with a lowest gear of 22/32 and a ratio of .6875. The 2x10 lowest ratio is 13.5% higher in its lowest gear, roughly equivalent to me swaping my 32 rear cog for a 28. How many weekend XC warriors would be willing to do that to save a few ounces? I am willing to bet not many.

I think this is an example of the MTB industry innovating itself to death. I think people will "upgrade" to a new bike and find that they just don't enjoy the challenge anymore, and they won't be able to put their finger on why. And if these gearings become the norm, it will ultimately discourage new entrants to the sport.
 
Dec 29, 2009
409
0
0
Visit site
norgischnellman said:
SRAM has made clear their disdain for the granny triple on the road bike side, but it appears that they are trying to kill the triple on the MTB side, not just for elite XC racers but for weekend warriors too. Looks like in a few months, you won't be able to purchase an X9 with a triple. Holy Crap! This is bad.

By my math, the lowest gear ratio on their new 2x10 setup is a 28/36, or a ratio of .77777. Compare this to the X9 setup on my current bike, with a lowest gear of 22/32 and a ratio of .6875. The 2x10 lowest ratio is 13.5% higher in its lowest gear, roughly equivalent to me swaping my 32 rear cog for a 28. How many weekend XC warriors would be willing to do that to save a few ounces? I am willing to bet not many.

I think this is an example of the MTB industry innovating itself to death. I think people will "upgrade" to a new bike and find that they just don't enjoy the challenge anymore, and they won't be able to put their finger on why. And if these gearings become the norm, it will ultimately discourage new entrants to the sport.

whoa whoa whoa....shimano has just announced two 10-speed mtb groups with triples. sram is not the industry. never has been.

ed rader
 
Apr 29, 2009
18
0
0
Visit site
Actually, in 2x10 terms, a 26x36 is closer to the 3x9's 22x30. You're in effect losing two cogs of your bottom end. I think most will agree that a 22x34 is in effect a walking speed gear, as well as an outlier that just isn't very needed. Much like a 44x11.

I remember very well the days when your smallest ring on a 3x7 was a 26 and your smallest cog was a 28!

Personally speaking, and this is with 20+ years in the mix, it's nice for simplicity terms to remove a ring up front. One still needs to recognize that this is not an easy sport; it's an endurance sport, which requires some modicum of preparation. Now, whether that be training, dieting or simply trying to ride on days that you're not hungover, I'll leave that to the peanut gallery.

I'm just glad we're not using 48t big rings anymore, they shifted like hell!

From here; http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/
22 18.2 % 26
36 1.2 1.4
2.9 %
35 1.2 1.4
2.9 %
34 1.2 1.4
3.0 %
33 1.3 1.5
3.1 %
32 1.3 1.5
3.2 %
31 1.3 1.6
3.3 %
30 1.4 1.6
3.4 %
29 1.4 1.7
3.6 %
28 1.5 1.7
 
Apr 28, 2010
1
0
0
Visit site
I think the idea of the 2 x 9 is a great way to simplify the shifting of the mountain bike. No longer will you have to put up with the annoying and dreaded cross chain grinding and the smaller rings up front reduce pedalling friction.

Another thing, if you can't pedal it up the hill with the gears you're running, well that gives you something to work toward. Nuff said.
 
Apr 29, 2010
6
0
0
Visit site
Not so

The demise of the 3x crankset has been greatly exaggerated!

Although you can't tell from this article, X0, X9 and X7 will all have 3x crank and shifter options
 
Apr 28, 2010
11
0
0
Visit site
norgischnellman said:
Looks like in a few months, you won't be able to purchase an X9 with a triple. Holy Crap! This is bad.


. How many weekend XC warriors would be willing to do that to save a few ounces? I am willing to bet not many.

if these gearings become the norm, it will ultimately discourage new entrants to the sport.

most beginners couldn't balance at the low speeds afforded by super low gears.

most beginners (and many many weekend warriors) do not use gears to their benefit

most beginners would be better off on a 1x1 with a gear as low as it needs to be
 
Dec 29, 2009
409
0
0
Visit site
bmick1174 said:
I think the idea of the 2 x 9 is a great way to simplify the shifting of the mountain bike. No longer will you have to put up with the annoying and dreaded cross chain grinding and the smaller rings up front reduce pedalling friction.

Another thing, if you can't pedal it up the hill with the gears you're running, well that gives you something to work toward. Nuff said.

tom ritchey thought the same thing about 10 years ago and marketed 2 x 9 components (cranks and cogs) that never gained traction. maybe it'll be different this time :)?

ed rader
 
Mar 31, 2009
11
0
0
www.barbrides.com
I've been on the XX for a few weeks now and haven't missed my granny gear yet (I opted for the 42/28 front rings). I was apprehensive to ditch the triple but am now a convert. The XX shifters feel much better than my old XO's, the XX's have a shorter throw and feel more crisp. The only downside I have found so far is that all the bolts are torx and I had to go out and buy a torx screwdriver to put my bike together.

Barb
 
Apr 29, 2010
6
0
0
Visit site
Barbarella said:
The only downside I have found so far is that all the bolts are torx and I had to go out and buy a torx screwdriver to put my bike together.

Barb

Really??? You must have the one multitool amongst the entire market that doesn't have torx
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
elperrito said:
Actually, in 2x10 terms, a 26x36 is closer to the 3x9's 22x30. You're in effect losing two cogs of your bottom end. I think most will agree that a 22x34 is in effect a walking speed gear, as well as an outlier that just isn't very needed. Much like a 44x11.

<snip>

One still needs to recognize that this is not an easy sport; it's an endurance sport, which requires some modicum of preparation. Now, whether that be training, dieting or simply trying to ride on days that you're not hungover, I'll leave that to the peanut gallery.

<snip>

+1. Well put post. Bolded part gets my vote for quote of the week :D

I'm a hair suspicious of the OPs actual motive for this post in the first place...

Considering that singlespeeds are very rideable/raceable with some training...and alot of the pros are even rolling 1x10 setups...2x10 just seems to me an excellent alternative to the triple up front...

But I certainly don't think the triple will be killed off...if you can still find them on the road, where they are thoroughly puked upon, then you'll certainly continue to find them off the road...
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
Visit site
Hard to imagine writing the obituary of the triple just yet. I like having the range on both ends my triple gives me. Here in the Colorado high country, we have long steep, loose, climbs in the thousands of feet and while I don't use my lowest gear that often, I'm glad I have it when I want it.

Not to mention, while many Mountain bikers are pretty fit by sedentary couch potato standards, few are super hard core racers. I think most of those people who ride in mountainous areas will continue to be glad to carry that little bit of extra weight.
 
9000ft said:
Hard to imagine writing the obituary of the triple just yet. I like having the range on both ends my triple gives me. Here in the Colorado high country, we have long steep, loose, climbs in the thousands of feet and while I don't use my lowest gear that often, I'm glad I have it when I want it.

Not to mention, while many Mountain bikers are pretty fit by sedentary couch potato standards, few are super hard core racers. I think most of those people who ride in mountainous areas will continue to be glad to carry that little bit of extra weight.

There is a lot to be said for a 2x10 with a 36 tooth cassette. Most people only ride moderate terrain, so they may not need a super low granny gear. A 28x36 is still a pretty dang low gear.
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
There is a lot to be said for a 2x10 with a 36 tooth cassette. Most people only ride moderate terrain, so they may not need a super low granny gear. A 28x36 is still a pretty dang low gear.

No doubt a lot of people live in places where they don't need a super low gear and a double is probably a good way to go for an upper level racer. but most people aren't upper level racers.

Like I said though, Even though I might not use it all that often, I do like having the range of a triple not only for those long, steep, granny 2-3000 vert slogs, but for those high speed buff single tracks and dirt roads.

Not to mention with the increase of heavier, less efficiently pedaling "all mountain" bikes (never quite figured what "all mountain" is supposed to mean) lots of folks need the lower gears just to get up the hills at all.
 
9000ft said:
Not to mention with the increase of heavier, less efficiently pedaling "all mountain" bikes (never quite figured what "all mountain" is supposed to mean) lots of folks need the lower gears just to get up the hills at all.

That's what chair lifts are for. ;) You don't think anyone wants to ride one of those boat anchors uphill do you?
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
That's what chair lifts are for. ;) You don't think anyone wants to ride one of those boat anchors uphill do you?

Ha! I'm not talking about 40 lb DH bikes, I'm talking about 38 lb AM bikes, big difference.....:p

With some of the - I dunno what you call them - heavy XC or light AM weighing in the upper twenties, I think you'll not see the end of the triple any time soon. XC race bikes might be a different story though. I have a 2008 s-works epic and it came spec'd with an XTR triple, but the 09s came with the carbon specialized double.

A guy like me who, while not an elite racer by any means, is still pretty damn fit (albeit a bit over the hill:rolleyes:) needs all the help he can get to make it up the tough ones without embarrassing himself too bad. Like someone said, mountian biking is a hard sport. Personally, after 25 years at it, I don't need it to be a whole lot harder for it to remain fun anymore.
 
Mar 10, 2009
106
0
0
Visit site
As previously mentioned there will still be triple options out there, the Shimano 10speed option's all have triple cranks or in the XTR in a triple or a double. I also agree that a 2x10 setup has enough gears for most rider's. I think there will be a lot more cross over with a 3x10.

I personally run a 1x9 (36x11-32) setup that is until I can afford a 10speed cassette. I do have trouble with some steep climbs but that is when it becomes training and not just riding. I am not an elite racer by any means but I do like to climb fast.
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
BrandonT said:
...I personally run a 1x9 (36x11-32) setup that is until I can afford a 10speed cassette...

Man, I've been waffling on converting my SS to a 1x9 since last season...a bit OT but what cogset are your running to get the 36?

As an aside, it's rather nice to have a thread/conversation in the MTB forum :D
 
Mar 10, 2009
106
0
0
Visit site
flyor64 said:
Man, I've been waffling on converting my SS to a 1x9 since last season...a bit OT but what cogset are your running to get the 36?

As an aside, it's rather nice to have a thread/conversation in the MTB forum :D

There is an XX cassette that is 11-36 but here in Canada it retails for $515. That is a bit out of my price range.

I also agree that is it nice to have a conversation on the MTB forum.
 
Sep 30, 2009
3
0
0
Visit site
I'm a hair suspicious of the OPs actual motive for this post in the first place...

Not sure what you are suspicious about. I have been a huge SRAM supporter, I wish them all the success in the world. I am just passionate about having the right gearing to get up the hill at a cadence that is efficient and doesn't blow my knees out...again. I am usually pretty fit (sometimes less so than others, like now for instance) but not racer-boy fit. I am too old and busy with my life to ride as much as I want, and I think there are a lot of guys like me out there.

The point is, just because you can make it up the hill in an improper gear doesn't mean you should. Maybe if your are on short rollers you can muscle through it. But if you are doing long steady climbs, like 1000-3000 ft on a regular basis, very few riders should be using any kind of double.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
I really don't think the triple is going anywhere; there is still a need for it. I've raced plenty times wishing I had more gears :rolleyes:. Regardless of how many groups offer a double it will never be the standard. Many pros just run a single up front anyway. They figure what gearing they will need for that specific race and save the weight and handlebar clutter by eliminating unnecessary chainrings. In races, I very seldom shift my front; terrains don't often change that drastically, but when they do, I'm not too proud to drop into my granny gear. I really think this is just another typical SRAM attempt at innovation. Personally, I think their MTB kits are garbage.
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
norgischnellman said:
Not sure what you are suspicious about. I have been a huge SRAM supporter, I wish them all the success in the world.

No worries...it was just an odd first post to the forums...then you didn't ring back in for a couple weeks...highlight one product that is apparently bad and will "kill off" all the other stuff out there...so it was suspicious to me.

But you've weighed back in, so it's all good...still not sure how you see XX as the death of the triple or availability to proper gear ratios for climbing though.
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
BrandonT said:
There is an XX cassette that is 11-36 but here in Canada it retails for $515. That is a bit out of my price range.

I also agree that is it nice to have a conversation on the MTB forum.

Yeah the XX cassette is about that price here too (maybe even more :eek:), so I think I will wait for the Shimano XT 10 speed to come out to get that 36 toother :D...Online Shops that are pre-selling it have it for a reasonable ~$70 or so...
 
Mar 19, 2009
122
0
0
Visit site
I now I'm not typical (and slow) but.....

I can make more sense of the philosophy of SRAM 2*10 than Shimano 3*10.

I only have access to tight, slow trails with walkers coming up towards me so I can lose the big gears and opt for 39/26 and 12-36. (85"-19") but I can see that some might need the extra range at the top end if they are riding on fast enough trails. Also our club champion runs 2*9 and doesn't use his small ring all that much.

I am assuming that 2*10 should be lighter for a given budget.

Looking at what I've just typed I think the answer depends on your riding but 2*10 would make sense if I can ever afford to replace my groupset. (Please feel free to reach your own conclusion) I suppose the answer to the OP is "no".
 
I guess all one has to do is take a demo bike out for a ride and make their own belief based on their own conclusion.

I reckons its pretty cool we got so much range to chose from and with the bargains on the net, its never been more affordable.
 

TRENDING THREADS