Any recommendations which way to go for XC/Trail use?
Thanks,
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
Thanks,
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
11-32 Cassette vs. 11-34...
Chris2fur
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
Any recommendations which way to go for XC/Trail use?
Thanks,
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
Thanks,
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
Joined
·
5,718 Posts
It really depends on you. The 11-34 has a slightly lower gearing for extreme climbing and lets you stay in the middle ring longer without having to go to granny. The 11-32 is going to have closer ratios with slightly smaller jumps in gears for tighter candence matching. What do you have now? What chainrings are you using?Chris2fur said:
I'm currently running an old 11-30 with standard 46/34/24 up front. Works fine for me.
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
Currently running 11-32, but....
Thanks.
The 11-32 I'm running is on my light-weight hardtail. I'm building up a 5-Spot and figure I may have more trouble peddling the extra weight up hill. Chainrings will be 44/32/22, which , BTW, is what I thought was "standard." I thought maybe the only real change was on the biggest rear cog, but I guess it makes sense to transition to the larger size. Still, most of the cogs would be the same, wouldn't they?Homebrew said:
Thanks.
low never hurt anyone
better to have a low gear you mostly never use, than to wish you had a lower gear when you really need it. much depends on where you ride, and your fitness.
my fitness is good, but my backcountry bike sees trails up and over 12k' in the San Juans so my low gear is a 20t chainring with a 34t cog and it ain't too low.
Down at only 7k' I climb most everything in the middle ring. Altitude makes a huge difference.
better to have a low gear you mostly never use, than to wish you had a lower gear when you really need it. much depends on where you ride, and your fitness.
my fitness is good, but my backcountry bike sees trails up and over 12k' in the San Juans so my low gear is a 20t chainring with a 34t cog and it ain't too low.
Down at only 7k' I climb most everything in the middle ring. Altitude makes a huge difference.
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
Thanks.
-Chris
That's kind of what I'm thinking. This bike will go with me on vacation trips where I'll be on varied trails at various altitudes. I don't too often wish I had a taller gear unless I'm going down hill on a road ride. On several occasions, I have gone to drop into my lowest rear cog only to find out I was already there.bulC said:
-Chris
Hey Chris, with a bike like the Spot, I don't think you'd have...
I also agree that one of the best things about 34s is the extended use of the middle ring/big cog combo on climbs. Just get the Shimano not the SRAM, unless you want to shift from a 28 cog everytime you use the 34.
...a problem holding it straight at low speeds with the 11-34, it's a very stable handling bike. You can expect to have to spin a bit faster cadence when in the 34 though, and It's best reserved for short steep sections, when paired with the small ring.Chris2fur said:
I also agree that one of the best things about 34s is the extended use of the middle ring/big cog combo on climbs. Just get the Shimano not the SRAM, unless you want to shift from a 28 cog everytime you use the 34.
Joined
·
5,718 Posts
While that is standard (meaning the most common found on almost all bikes) gearing, it's "compact" bolt pattern (104/64 for 4 arm and 94/58 for 5 arm) and not "standard" bolt pattern (110/74 for 5 arm and 112/68 for XTR 4 arm).Chris2fur said:
You'll probably be happy to have that 34T at some point, and the 11-34 has a better spread. Here are the tooth counts from Sheldon Brown:
XT ar 11 12 14 16 18 21 24 28 32
XT as 11 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 34
Joined
·
726 Posts
What derailleur are you using? I had a hard time getting the derailleur pulley to clear my 11-34 with my short cage XTR derailleur on my XCE (even with the chain one link shorter than I felt was safe with the big-big combo). Ended up busting the b-tension plate on my derailleur because of the extreme angle the b-tension screw made with the derailleur hanger. No problems what-so-ever with the long cage derailleur tho, so I'm not sure if that's a concern.Chris2fur said:
12-27
HT
I just went from a 11-32 to a 12-27 and so far so good. Most climbs here a short power climbs. I never used the 28 or 34 while in the middle ring and rarley use the granny so a 12-27(Dura ace) works for me. The few "long" climbs are 1-1.5 miles long and max out at 10% so the tighter gearing helps.Tullebukk said:
HT
Joined
·
7 Posts
11-34-bailout
It all depends on how strong you are and what's an efficient pedaling cadence-
I prefer the 11-34 and I prefer the 11-34 SRAM because it's got the best of both worlds-
tight spacing through the cogset like an 11-32 but it's got a "bailout" 34 - the jump doesn't offend me - in fact it's much nicer to accept this jump and not have as many 2 tooth jumps throughout the cog-
It all depends on how strong you are and what's an efficient pedaling cadence-
I prefer the 11-34 and I prefer the 11-34 SRAM because it's got the best of both worlds-
tight spacing through the cogset like an 11-32 but it's got a "bailout" 34 - the jump doesn't offend me - in fact it's much nicer to accept this jump and not have as many 2 tooth jumps throughout the cog-
If you live in an area with a lot of steep terrain of varying grades...
This is about the only product I think SRAM messed up with, they should have at least offer an optional 11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30-34 cassette configuration.
...like here in the NW, it's not just the jump from 28 to 34 that's the problem. Having to choose between 28 and 34 for your low gear is quite a drastic difference, often times the 28 is too high, and the 34 is too low.Ritz-izzle said:
This is about the only product I think SRAM messed up with, they should have at least offer an optional 11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30-34 cassette configuration.
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
Thanks everyone for the very useful info...
...especially the laid out cog comparison. I'm thinking the trailbike approach should be 11-34 since the bike itself will be heavier than what I'm used to and many of the rides will be at higher altitudes than I normally ride at.
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
...especially the laid out cog comparison. I'm thinking the trailbike approach should be 11-34 since the bike itself will be heavier than what I'm used to and many of the rides will be at higher altitudes than I normally ride at.
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
I feel like a little boy reading this thread. I ride a sub 25 lb bike and run a 11-34 in back and 46-34-24 up front and i am in granny gear a lot. There are a few climbs i cannot do without the 34t, i will go curl up in a ball while you men ride.
Hold on there guy, none of that, let-someone-elses-technique,...
It might interest you to know, that a 24-34 gear is taller than a 22-32, and taller still than a 20-30. Many people use 22-32, I've used both 22-32, and 20-30, and I consider myself to be a fairly good climber. It's just that I use the low gears where I need them, which conserves me the energy to hammer elsewhere. I also consider this to be the reason I can still knock out a 60 mi ride, with 11,000' of elevation gain, in about 11 hours, even though 2/3 of the climbing is on trail, and well into my 40s. You can't keep your knees healthy well into your older years, without taking care of them. I've met some young riders, racers, and bike messengers, that have hammered tall gears so much, they need Ibuprophen when they ride because their knees hurt.
From the discription you gave, it sounds like you have some very steep terrain, like we do in the NW.
Don't let anyone tell you what's right for you gear wise, your enjoyment of the sport is much more important than how you compare to others that are involved in it.
Here's those gear ratios, the bigger the number, the taller the gear:
20-30----------.667
22-32----------.688
24-34----------.706
See what I mean, you're up in the elite 700 club, if you really want to compare. I've ridden with some very good climbers that used 24-34 gears on their bikes. One of them is the type that held out for years to finally go front suspension, and beat most of us in our bike club up the mountain and down with his old beater Mongoose. His bike often had loose BB bearings, sticky cables, and always clip and strap pedals.
Just recently he tells me he's probably in the worst shape of his life. A few weeks later he shows me his mud crusted bike, and the way his friend incorrectly installed his chain after a mechanical on their last ride. It was actually routed the wrong way around the stop pin on the jockey cage of the derailleur, and he just kept riding thinking it was the mud.
I'm still wondering if the guy routed it that way intentionally, so he'd have a better chance of keeping up with him!
...define how good a climber you are.Ratt said:
It might interest you to know, that a 24-34 gear is taller than a 22-32, and taller still than a 20-30. Many people use 22-32, I've used both 22-32, and 20-30, and I consider myself to be a fairly good climber. It's just that I use the low gears where I need them, which conserves me the energy to hammer elsewhere. I also consider this to be the reason I can still knock out a 60 mi ride, with 11,000' of elevation gain, in about 11 hours, even though 2/3 of the climbing is on trail, and well into my 40s. You can't keep your knees healthy well into your older years, without taking care of them. I've met some young riders, racers, and bike messengers, that have hammered tall gears so much, they need Ibuprophen when they ride because their knees hurt.
From the discription you gave, it sounds like you have some very steep terrain, like we do in the NW.
Don't let anyone tell you what's right for you gear wise, your enjoyment of the sport is much more important than how you compare to others that are involved in it.
Here's those gear ratios, the bigger the number, the taller the gear:
20-30----------.667
22-32----------.688
24-34----------.706
See what I mean, you're up in the elite 700 club, if you really want to compare. I've ridden with some very good climbers that used 24-34 gears on their bikes. One of them is the type that held out for years to finally go front suspension, and beat most of us in our bike club up the mountain and down with his old beater Mongoose. His bike often had loose BB bearings, sticky cables, and always clip and strap pedals.
Just recently he tells me he's probably in the worst shape of his life. A few weeks later he shows me his mud crusted bike, and the way his friend incorrectly installed his chain after a mechanical on their last ride. It was actually routed the wrong way around the stop pin on the jockey cage of the derailleur, and he just kept riding thinking it was the mud.
I'm still wondering if the guy routed it that way intentionally, so he'd have a better chance of keeping up with him!
Joined
·
267 Posts
Dang, and I've always been running 24-32 and thought it was crazy low. (.750, much taller than the above numbers) I wonder if I'll be blown away when my new crankset with its 22t granny gear shows up, giving me a .688 ratio.
You'll probably not like it at first, unless you use it only on...
I for one, think mixing up your climbing between lung gears (high cadence), and leg gears (low cadence), keeps you from burning out either. This is a philosophy of rest by alteration rather than stopping, akin to the Fartlek.
Some think this is actually more energy consuming, and less efficient, but often they don't impliment it properly. Making note of subtle changes in grade as you climb is key, utilizing taller gears on the tapers, or "false flats", and lower ones on the rises. Further mixing it up by ocaisionally stand up climbing (with momentum) on the rises, can help too, rather than gearing down.
Climbing a lengthy ascent in one position, with little gear changing, may often "feel" comfortable, due much to the psychology of "less change, less effort". Often this results in cramping either at the top, or later on in the ride though, as not changing position or resistance level can stiffen your muscles from lack of stretching and recovery cycles, which promotes better circulation and fuel burning.
As you can see I really love discussing climbing techniques. I think if more people embrassed it to this degree, they would be less inclined to give up on it and shuttle or forego the epic distance stuff.
FR sounds like a hoot to me, but I'll never give up my XC, or lump them into the same
category.
That being said, I really do admire those that can ride a FR rig all day long, with lots of climbing. I just wonder how many years they can keep doing it, without heart or knee failure.
...very steep sections that you had to walk before. Some think even 22-32, let alone 22-34, is too low a gear to pedal, and keep a straight line. It takes some getting used to, and generally involves higher pedaling cadence.RidgeRunner said:
I for one, think mixing up your climbing between lung gears (high cadence), and leg gears (low cadence), keeps you from burning out either. This is a philosophy of rest by alteration rather than stopping, akin to the Fartlek.
Some think this is actually more energy consuming, and less efficient, but often they don't impliment it properly. Making note of subtle changes in grade as you climb is key, utilizing taller gears on the tapers, or "false flats", and lower ones on the rises. Further mixing it up by ocaisionally stand up climbing (with momentum) on the rises, can help too, rather than gearing down.
Climbing a lengthy ascent in one position, with little gear changing, may often "feel" comfortable, due much to the psychology of "less change, less effort". Often this results in cramping either at the top, or later on in the ride though, as not changing position or resistance level can stiffen your muscles from lack of stretching and recovery cycles, which promotes better circulation and fuel burning.
As you can see I really love discussing climbing techniques. I think if more people embrassed it to this degree, they would be less inclined to give up on it and shuttle or forego the epic distance stuff.
FR sounds like a hoot to me, but I'll never give up my XC, or lump them into the same
category.
That being said, I really do admire those that can ride a FR rig all day long, with lots of climbing. I just wonder how many years they can keep doing it, without heart or knee failure.
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
This has been very informative...
Gnarlygig--thanks for taking the time to get into the details of the gear ratios. It's one of the areas that I haven't messed with much and I learned something from your posts.
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
Gnarlygig--thanks for taking the time to get into the details of the gear ratios. It's one of the areas that I haven't messed with much and I learned something from your posts.
-Chris
http://www.enduroforkseals.com/
Joined
·
12,710 Posts
That's what I use...
.... and love it. My rig has a 22/32/44 up front and a 11-34 in back. The 22x34 combo is ridiculously low, but that's a good thing.
I'm kinda heavy, at nearly 200# and ride hilly stuff. I'm a slow climber, but getting faster all the time. One thing I attrubute that to is my 34t big cog. I can stay in the middle ring longer.
I guess the trade off is that your gears aren't as close together, but I get more benifit out of that extra low than I do out of close ratios.
The only other downside I can see is that you need an extra bit of chain and a frame/deraileur combo that lets you use it. On my K2 Razorback, the deraileur hangar is so tight up to the axle that my deraileur's jocky wheel rides on the 34t cog. I had to do some modifications to my XT deraileur to fix that. I had to take apart the knuckle and drill an extra hole for the wound up spring to make it extra tight, so it rides back a tad. The B screw was all the way in before I did this and still wasn't tight enough, now it's about halfway in.
.... and love it. My rig has a 22/32/44 up front and a 11-34 in back. The 22x34 combo is ridiculously low, but that's a good thing.
I'm kinda heavy, at nearly 200# and ride hilly stuff. I'm a slow climber, but getting faster all the time. One thing I attrubute that to is my 34t big cog. I can stay in the middle ring longer.
I guess the trade off is that your gears aren't as close together, but I get more benifit out of that extra low than I do out of close ratios.
The only other downside I can see is that you need an extra bit of chain and a frame/deraileur combo that lets you use it. On my K2 Razorback, the deraileur hangar is so tight up to the axle that my deraileur's jocky wheel rides on the 34t cog. I had to do some modifications to my XT deraileur to fix that. I had to take apart the knuckle and drill an extra hole for the wound up spring to make it extra tight, so it rides back a tad. The B screw was all the way in before I did this and still wasn't tight enough, now it's about halfway in.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
