Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

· innate behaviour
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been seeing more and more of this. I am not so curious about why in regards to the Rohloff internal, but instead when using standard 9 speed cogset in rear.

1. Why run just one sprocket up front?

2. Can you really access all gears in the rear if you choose the correct front sprocket...which results in the use of 9 total speeds?

3. Is this more "realistic" to do on a 29er vs. a 26" wheel? Why?

4. Will you end up with a better downhill AND climbing gear selection than I have on my SS that is set up 32 X 16?

Many thanks!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
48,161 Posts
jet9n8 said:
I have been seeing more and more of this. I am not so curious about why in regards to the Rohloff internal, but instead when using standard 9 speed cogset in rear.

1. Why run just one sprocket up front?

2. Can you really access all gears in the rear if you choose the correct front sprocket...which results in the use of 9 total speeds?

3. Is this more "realistic" to do on a 29er vs. a 26" wheel? Why?

4. Will you end up with a better downhill AND climbing gear selection than I have on my SS that is set up 32 X 16?

Many thanks!
1. Simpler and some riders do not need the extra range of a double/triple.

2. Yes, just like using the middle ring.

3. No. Wheel size does not matter

4. 9 ratios is always a larger selection than 1.
 

· innate behaviour
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
shiggy said:
1. Simpler and some riders do not need the extra range of a double/triple.

2. Yes, just like using the middle ring.

3. No. Wheel size does not matter

4. 9 ratios is always a larger selection than 1.
Thanks shiggy.....kind of what I figured, but thanks for the clarification. Sounds like the middle chainring has got to be around a 30 - 32 ish size yeh? I am going to hit the trails in my middle chainring only to see what happens today. Peace..
 

· !Vamos, flaco!
Joined
·
1,360 Posts
shiggy said:
1. Simpler and some riders do not need the extra range of a double/triple.

2. Yes, just like using the middle ring.

3. No. Wheel size does not matter

4. 9 ratios is always a larger selection than 1.
That's right. :thumbsup:

I rarely used my small or big rings up front before I took the plunge. I like to push a bigger gear climbing and can spin pretty well for when I have to ride a long, sustained downhill pedalling, such as on the road. Plus, there's a good bit of overlap between gears in the middle ring with those in the small and big rings. I haven't missed it at all.
 

· Rohloff
Joined
·
1,602 Posts
jet9n8 said:
Thanks shiggy.....kind of what I figured, but thanks for the clarification. Sounds like the middle chainring has got to be around a 30 - 32 ish size yeh? I am going to hit the trails in my middle chainring only to see what happens today. Peace..
For me, I found I was almost never in the big ring and didn't like switching between the small and middle ring. I tried SS but I found, while I could get used to cranking up hills, I could never get use to coasting so much on the flats and down hills. Then I went out like you and just stayed in my 32T middle ring to try the 1x9 concept. I found I didn't have enough low gearing and I had plenty of high gearing. I think a 1x9 with a 28-30T ring would work great for me ... but I ended up going with a Rohloff.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I kinda get 1x9. 1 chainring, no gear change mechanism on the front

I dont get 2x9 though, all the hastle of a 3x9 with 2/3rds the gears?


Also why doesnt someone build a Rohloff style internal gear system but place this effectivly in the bottom bracket, keeps the rear wheel simple and light. yes it'd take a bit of engineering (no more so than a normal Rohloff ) and a new frame build to accomodate it but IMO it seems the most elegant solution.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
Last call...

rjd said:
I kinda get 1x9. 1 chainring, no gear change mechanism on the front...I dont get 2x9 though, all the hastle of a 3x9 with 2/3rds the gears? Also why doesnt someone build a Rohloff style internal gear system but place this effectivly in the bottom bracket, keeps the rear wheel simple and light. yes it'd take a bit of engineering (no more so than a normal Rohloff ) and a new frame build to accomodate it but IMO it seems the most elegant solution.
 

Attachments

G

·
jet9n8 said:
1. Why run just one sprocket up front?

2. Can you really access all gears in the rear if you choose the correct front sprocket...which results in the use of 9 total speeds?

3. Is this more "realistic" to do on a 29er vs. a 26" wheel? Why?

4. Will you end up with a better downhill AND climbing gear selection than I have on my SS that is set up 32 X 16?

Many thanks!
1.getting rid of the front D gets rid of lots of headaches. i never dropped a chain on the front, never had any chainsuck, had less chain (less chances for a weak link and lighter), short rear D which reduces problems with rock hits and bent hangers, snappier shifts... the list is pretty long for me.

2. for the riding i was doing i had no problems using the full cassette on 1x9. i did however offset the front ring so it was slightly inside of the center of the cassette. this gave me a slightly better chainline in my biggest cog for climbing.

3. no. there is a local racer at the semi pro level here in socal that runs a 1x9 with a 38T front ring on a 26" bike. dude is crazy fast and his bike is REALLY light.

4. yes and no. you will have higher and lower gearing. better gearing depends on you and is only dependent on what you like/want. some people love single speed climbing, i for one don't prefer it.

1x9 is a cool option to simplify the drivetrain, but it is a compromise just like anything else.
 
G

·
rjd said:
I dont get 2x9 though, all the hastle of a 3x9 with 2/3rds the gears?
a big ring is just too tall to be of much use to me on my 29er. i don't however do much flat or road riding on the mtn bike where it might be usefull. with my 36t middle ring on my XC rig and my limited racing experience, i don't give up much on top end gearing to the guys on 26" bikes with a big ring.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,051 Posts
Another plus that I enjoy from my 1x8 is that it simplifies all my gear changing to one shifter.

The complications of using two shifters at once, cross chaining, etc was distracting and annoying enough to convert me to SS. SS wasn't my cup of tea, so I found the perfect middle ground in a 1x8. I still have enough range of gears to do almost anything, but my only thoughts about shifting are "up" or "down"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
I am going 1x9 simply because I ride to and from the trails and the novelty of my dinglespeed has worn off. It is the same pain in the butt to to 1x2 as it is 1x9 so I'm just gonna put 9 speeds on the rear. I know for a fact that I don't need more than 9 so I'm not bothering with a front d or chainrings.

Brandon
 

· Always Learning
Joined
·
9,593 Posts
rjd said:
I kinda get 1x9. 1 chainring, no gear change mechanism on the front

I dont get 2x9 though, all the hastle of a 3x9 with 2/3rds the gears?
2 x 9 is probably not the best all around riding choice, but it is an ideal choice for XC racing (I run the Middleburn Duo 29/42). I'm not sure having a twist shifter or trigger shifter on the left side of the bar and a front derailleur is really that much of a hassle at all. 2 x 9 is pretty standard in the XC race crowd.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
rjd said:
I dont get 2x9 though
Simple: 3x9 -> 2x9 + bashguard. I doubt anyone removes a ring and doesn't put something back in its place. I don't use the big ring on either of my bikes (I don't care to pedal downhills THAT fast) so I replace the big ring w/ an E13 supercharger. Slightly more clearance to to boot (and they really do slide over big logs well).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
BruceBrown said:
2 x 9 is probably not the best all around riding choice, but it is an ideal choice for XC racing (I run the Middleburn Duo 29/42). I'm not sure having a twist shifter or trigger shifter on the left side of the bar and a front derailleur is really that much of a hassle at all. 2 x 9 is pretty standard in the XC race crowd.
???? The XC race crowd? How about just trail riding, allmountain riding and freeriding. For the bigger bikes it's either a single or dual ring plus a bash guard. Get away from the XC crowd for a minute and you see it's pretty standard everywhere in mountain biking now.

Aside from the single speed, I've run a 2x9 setup on all my mountain bikes since 1999. I had no use for a big rig while trail riding, but love the extra clearance I have by running a 22-34-bashring. I never question that my ring will clear a log, because it doesn't matter.

All that being said, I feel more manly with fewer gears, but I'm not enough of a stud to ride SS so my bike is set up 1x9.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
i've liked the 1x8 on my redline overall... i'd like a little lower gearing though (stock is 34t crank with 11-32) i'd say the most imprtant thing is getting a good gear ratio set for what you need... i don't need the full 11x34 top end... i could use something a bit lower... a 32 crank may do it... if not a 34 on the cog would...
 

· local trails rider
Joined
·
12,294 Posts
26er guy here...

I can climb anything local on my "big bike" with a 34 tooth chainring. It is a bit harder on a 26er SS, geared 32x16 or 18. When the HT bike was still 27 speed, those climbs killed me in granny ring too. The pain just lasted longer :D

I also like having a bashring and some ground clearance.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top