MTB 2x10 drivetrain
Discussion
I'm quite interested in a Specialized Camber that comes with a SRAM 2x10 drivetrain. What is the thinking behend 2x10, weight saving? Is it bascially going to cover the same range of gears as my old 3x9? Any downsides to consider?
What is slightly confusing to me is the next cheaper Camber has 3x10 so I can't believe one chainring less saves enough weight to be justified / noticeable?
Thanks!
What is slightly confusing to me is the next cheaper Camber has 3x10 so I can't believe one chainring less saves enough weight to be justified / noticeable?
Thanks!
2x10 will become a standard I think, less weight and far more flexible gear options, a mate has just changed over from a 3x9 to the 2x10 Sram set up, it is a dream to ride, gear changing is slick with far more usable gearing. The change between the two front rings if very slick compared to a triple.
Be honest how often do you get out of your middle ring on a 3x9 set up? I reckon I ride my middle ring 90% of the time, only go into the granny ring on steep climbs, rarely use the big ring, maybe on a fast down hill once in a blue moon.
Is the 10 speed chain strong enough? Time will tell I suppose!
Be honest how often do you get out of your middle ring on a 3x9 set up? I reckon I ride my middle ring 90% of the time, only go into the granny ring on steep climbs, rarely use the big ring, maybe on a fast down hill once in a blue moon.
Is the 10 speed chain strong enough? Time will tell I suppose!
for me a 2x10 upgrade will be nice, i rarely use my middle ring as i am either climbing using the smallest chainring or giving it the beans in the big ring. I do spin out on trails using the middle ring on my current set up (24-34-42) but i guess as a roadie too i am used to pushing 39/53 so i prefer big numbers.
2x10 is nothing to do with weight saving but about more accurate shifting at the front and possibly providing a bit more ground clearance. with pedals flat you might notice the big chainring takes a pounding on rocky terrain, hopefully 2x10 will reduce the chainring damage. in my mind, the addvantage is primarily about accurate shifting, a front mech that as an example, only has to shift from 26 to 38 should operate far better than one that has to go from 24 to 42 as the range is obviously smaller. 2x10 cassettes will be pricey and the rear mechs will require a lot of maintenance. i can see people who are not used to regular maintenance getting very annoyed with 2x10!
given that shimano are pushing the high end technology through the groupsets at the moment, i think they will be doing a budget 2x10 in the next year or two as they are rumoured to be doing a budget Di2 also.
2x10 is nothing to do with weight saving but about more accurate shifting at the front and possibly providing a bit more ground clearance. with pedals flat you might notice the big chainring takes a pounding on rocky terrain, hopefully 2x10 will reduce the chainring damage. in my mind, the addvantage is primarily about accurate shifting, a front mech that as an example, only has to shift from 26 to 38 should operate far better than one that has to go from 24 to 42 as the range is obviously smaller. 2x10 cassettes will be pricey and the rear mechs will require a lot of maintenance. i can see people who are not used to regular maintenance getting very annoyed with 2x10!
given that shimano are pushing the high end technology through the groupsets at the moment, i think they will be doing a budget 2x10 in the next year or two as they are rumoured to be doing a budget Di2 also.
I'm thinking of going 2x9, I run a singlespeed most of the time anyway, so already have more gears than I'm used to on my FS bike, and can count the amount of times I've been in the big ring offroad on one hand. The switchbacks and tight singletrack of the south downs really doesn't call for a 42 tooth big ring unless I'm cycling down a very steep road, and in that event pedalling seems unnecessary.
I went from a triple to a double front, using what i had on the bike.
I just never used the big ring so unbolted it and put washers in its place rather than cutting down the bolts, adjusted the derailleur so it doesnt shift the chain too far and away i went, it is a nicer bike to ride with the gears being nicer at the front plus i get more ground clearance and the weight saving is a little bonus but not why i did it!
I just never used the big ring so unbolted it and put washers in its place rather than cutting down the bolts, adjusted the derailleur so it doesnt shift the chain too far and away i went, it is a nicer bike to ride with the gears being nicer at the front plus i get more ground clearance and the weight saving is a little bonus but not why i did it!
I think the only real benefit would be to go 1x10, 2x10 or even 3x10 is just a huge expense over the very cross compatible and strong 3x9 set-up (unless your buying already on a new bike) for not a huge gain in either weight saving or significantly better ratio's.
In reality I want the mtb world to fast forward a couple of years to bikes with integrated gearboxes on the BB like the pinion one currently on test atm, as standard on a branded HT between £1,000 - £1,500.
In reality I want the mtb world to fast forward a couple of years to bikes with integrated gearboxes on the BB like the pinion one currently on test atm, as standard on a branded HT between £1,000 - £1,500.
Edited by OneDs on Monday 21st March 15:57
rhinochopig said:
Personally I don't think a 10spd chain is strong enough for off-road use.
I run a 1x9 on my hardatail and when I'm fit have never needed any other gears. Saves a chunk of weight too.
HorsesI run a 1x9 on my hardatail and when I'm fit have never needed any other gears. Saves a chunk of weight too.
t.It's absolutly fine. Even with hamfisted changing it's not been an issue. Bad fitting, however, is.
1 x 10 is the best compromise - you get 90% of the gearing you would with a 3 x 9 setup, and you don't really lose much apart from the extremes - you generally choose either if you like going up or down in your compromise.
2 x 9 is the same, but generally a budget component exercise which will be abolutely fine for most riders out there.
OneDs said:
I think the only real benefit would be to go 1x10, 2x10 or even 3x10 is just a huge expense over the very cross compatible and strong 3x9 set-up (unless your buying already on a new bike) for not a huge gain in either weight saving or significantly better ratio's.
In reality I want the mtb world to fast forward a couple of years to bikes with integrated gearboxes on the BB like the pinion one currently on test atm, as standard on a branded HT between £1,000 - £1,500.
And an integrated system won't be complicated nor more prone to failure (seriously, have you ever pulled a BB out of a frame?).In reality I want the mtb world to fast forward a couple of years to bikes with integrated gearboxes on the BB like the pinion one currently on test atm, as standard on a branded HT between £1,000 - £1,500.
Edited by OneDs on Monday 21st March 15:57
The reason why the deraillier system is so popular is because its tried and tested and easy to maintain for even the most simple of owners. The myriad of standards coming out will never ever catch on - bikes are simple, and should stay that way.
The 1 x 10 type setups take this one step further. Don't forget a lot of this has come from the style of riding favoured in freeriding where you need a reliable system that stays hooked up on the bouncy DH's - therefore running a single speed up front with a chain device is popular, amongst the popularity of mud plugging XCers.
neil_bolton said:
And an integrated system won't be complicated nor more prone to failure (seriously, have you ever pulled a BB out of a frame?).
The reason why the deraillier system is so popular is because its tried and tested and easy to maintain for even the most simple of owners. The myriad of standards coming out will never ever catch on - bikes are simple, and should stay that way.
The 1 x 10 type setups take this one step further. Don't forget a lot of this has come from the style of riding favoured in freeriding where you need a reliable system that stays hooked up on the bouncy DH's - therefore running a single speed up front with a chain device is popular, amongst the popularity of mud plugging XCers.
I kind of disagree that the current derailer set up is simple whether 1x9(10) or other wise, for me it's the most complicated, temperamental and maintenance hungry setup you can go for.The reason why the deraillier system is so popular is because its tried and tested and easy to maintain for even the most simple of owners. The myriad of standards coming out will never ever catch on - bikes are simple, and should stay that way.
The 1 x 10 type setups take this one step further. Don't forget a lot of this has come from the style of riding favoured in freeriding where you need a reliable system that stays hooked up on the bouncy DH's - therefore running a single speed up front with a chain device is popular, amongst the popularity of mud plugging XCers.
I'd go for a alfine or a rollo whatever if it didn't shove loads of weight on the rear and didn't cost so much or weaken the rear triangle.
neil_bolton said:
Horsest.
It's absolutly fine. Even with hamfisted changing it's not been an issue. Bad fitting, however, is.
1 x 10 is the best compromise - you get 90% of the gearing you would with a 3 x 9 setup, and you don't really lose much apart from the extremes - you generally choose either if you like going up or down in your compromise.
2 x 9 is the same, but generally a budget component exercise which will be abolutely fine for most riders out there.
Yeah horsest.It's absolutly fine. Even with hamfisted changing it's not been an issue. Bad fitting, however, is.
1 x 10 is the best compromise - you get 90% of the gearing you would with a 3 x 9 setup, and you don't really lose much apart from the extremes - you generally choose either if you like going up or down in your compromise.
2 x 9 is the same, but generally a budget component exercise which will be abolutely fine for most riders out there.
t - that's why you can buy chains with different tensile strengths for applications such as trials, jumping etc. Most 10 speed chains have a lower tensile strength than a 9 speed as they have thinner side plates. Thinner plates equate to a lower twisting and damage resistance, which is typically the root cause of the failure mechanism.YOU may have not had any failures yet, but a data sample of one is hardly representative.
OneDs said:
I kind of disagree that the current derailer set up is simple whether 1x9(10) or other wise, for me it's the most complicated, temperamental and maintenance hungry setup you can go for.
I'd go for a alfine or a rollo whatever if it didn't shove loads of weight on the rear and didn't cost so much or weaken the rear triangle.
The only reason why you think it's uncomplicated is that you never need to pull it apart. However, when you do need to pull it apart, it's the most nightmarish thing ever.I'd go for a alfine or a rollo whatever if it didn't shove loads of weight on the rear and didn't cost so much or weaken the rear triangle.
At least with the deraillier system, it's simple as buggery. If you get someone who knows what they're doing to show you (and I love showing people as it's great to share this experience having worked for years in a bike shop as a mechanic) it's a piece of piss.
Those who gripe are just absolving responsibility of a few basic maintenance tricks, and some simple learning of one of the most simplest systems going: Pull cable, deraillier goes up, let it go, deraillier goes down. If you want to index (which is basically a notch for a small increment of cable tension) you do the exact same thing.
It's not ruddy rocket science.
However, the inside of an Alfine or Rolhoff is. And as for feckin Sturmey Archer >stillscarred<
rhinochopig said:
Yeah horsest - that's why you can buy chains with different tensile strengths for applications such as trials, jumping etc. Most 10 speed chains have a lower tensile strength than a 9 speed as they have thinner side plates. Thinner plates equate to a lower twisting and damage resistance, which is typically the root cause of the failure mechanism.
YOU may have not had any failures yet, but a data sample of one is hardly representative.
Mate, be careful who you start trying to tell who does what.t - that's why you can buy chains with different tensile strengths for applications such as trials, jumping etc. Most 10 speed chains have a lower tensile strength than a 9 speed as they have thinner side plates. Thinner plates equate to a lower twisting and damage resistance, which is typically the root cause of the failure mechanism.YOU may have not had any failures yet, but a data sample of one is hardly representative.
As a DHer whom regularly razzes down the Alps, and all sorts of big pointy places in the UK, I think I'm in a fairly good position to make a judgement.
Also as someone whom still does quite a bit of bike spannering, owns several bikes with 10 speed, and has been through the mill with regard to chains having worked in bikes shops over the last 15 to 20 years, I think I'm in a position to say: Horses
t.Yes, trials chains, BMXs etc are all stronger, that's because they don't inherently need to change gear.
We're moving onto 11 speed now, and it all seems ok for the roadies, but don't forget the MTB world tends to wait for a couple of years before jumping over, so I should think that if the boys at Shimano think that chains will hold out then they're pretty well educated - not some jumped up s
te who doesn't like the idea of change because they're already got something that works quite nicely for them.As for me personally, I've been doing a LOT of muddy riding, a lot of pretty extreme riding, including riding a few National DH courses recently, and racing in the Urban DH in Plymouth this weekend - I've mashed my 10 speed chain under extreme gear change pressure (I know you shouldnt, but I do as I'm brutal on kit), I've had chainsuck into my DH chain device and just wrenched it through, and it's just come back for more.
The ONE thing that effects chains snapping the most (apart from extremities of condition, i.e. being slammed into something, rear mech being snapped off, that sort of thing) is being badly installed.
I wonder how many people actually know how to get rid of stiff links without resorting to a chain device, or how to even check for one. Nor do they probably know how to fit one correctly (and by that I mean the correct length of chain).
All of those things are 95% attributable to the demise of both SRAM and Shimano chains.
But obviously, as I've heard many times before, you're probably an engineer, and know best. Not someone who's actually spent 20 years fixing the ruddy things in shops, races and shows.
Mmkay tinkerbell?
ETA: I might add, we had all this luddite naysaying when 9 speed chains and systems appeared. Oh. And when 8spd appeared etc etc
Edited by neil_bolton on Monday 21st March 16:59
neil_bolton said:
The only reason why you think it's uncomplicated is that you never need to pull it apart. However, when you do need to pull it apart, it's the most nightmarish thing ever.
At least with the deraillier system, it's simple as buggery. If you get someone who knows what they're doing to show you (and I love showing people as it's great to share this experience having worked for years in a bike shop as a mechanic) it's a piece of piss.
Those who gripe are just absolving responsibility of a few basic maintenance tricks, and some simple learning of one of the most simplest systems going: Pull cable, deraillier goes up, let it go, deraillier goes down. If you want to index (which is basically a notch for a small increment of cable tension) you do the exact same thing.
It's not ruddy rocket science.
However, the inside of an Alfine or Rolhoff is. And as for feckin Sturmey Archer >stillscarred<
Completely agree that geared hubs are significantly more complicated internally, but you don't need to adjust, maintain, clean or replace components anywhere near the same way as you do with a derailer system. I'm not saying that derailers are dead in the water, because as you point out there is no real standard for anything else and they certainly have their place particularly on the road, it would just be nice to see a viable alternative with minimal serving requirements and not loaded on the rear wheel for off road biking.At least with the deraillier system, it's simple as buggery. If you get someone who knows what they're doing to show you (and I love showing people as it's great to share this experience having worked for years in a bike shop as a mechanic) it's a piece of piss.
Those who gripe are just absolving responsibility of a few basic maintenance tricks, and some simple learning of one of the most simplest systems going: Pull cable, deraillier goes up, let it go, deraillier goes down. If you want to index (which is basically a notch for a small increment of cable tension) you do the exact same thing.
It's not ruddy rocket science.
However, the inside of an Alfine or Rolhoff is. And as for feckin Sturmey Archer >stillscarred<
OneDs said:
Completely agree that geared hubs are significantly more complicated internally, but you don't need to adjust, maintain, clean or replace components anywhere near the same way as you do with a derailer system. I'm not saying that derailers are dead in the water, because as you point out there is no real standard for anything else and they certainly have their place particularly on the road, it would just be nice to see a viable alternative with minimal serving requirements and not loaded on the rear wheel for off road biking.
True, but what happens when you open that internal device after 3 years when it's finally ground to a halt and you realise its a nightmare inside, full of twigs, squirrels and water, and that the bike shops don't carry spares because the next new type of device has come along (Gripshift, iDrive, etc anyone)?Makes the chain and deraillier seems quite trusty.
cjs said:
Be honest how often do you get out of your middle ring on a 3x9 set up?
Very, very rarely, and by that point it's usually time for a rest.I could lose the big ring and not be bothered except for the very odd downhill road section. And even then, I suspect more leg speed would sort that out.
Edit: And I should also point out that mine is a 3x8 setup. That I ripped the rear mech off last saturday...
neil_bolton said:
OneDs said:
Completely agree that geared hubs are significantly more complicated internally, but you don't need to adjust, maintain, clean or replace components anywhere near the same way as you do with a derailer system. I'm not saying that derailers are dead in the water, because as you point out there is no real standard for anything else and they certainly have their place particularly on the road, it would just be nice to see a viable alternative with minimal serving requirements and not loaded on the rear wheel for off road biking.
True, but what happens when you open that internal device after 3 years when it's finally ground to a halt and you realise its a nightmare inside, full of twigs, squirrels and water, and that the bike shops don't carry spares because the next new type of device has come along (Gripshift, iDrive, etc anyone)?Makes the chain and deraillier seems quite trusty.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff