Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[zion zig zag]

I've got a 28/46 and I'm always reaching for another gear. Dammit, I guess that's all there is.

Ha, I'll try to downshift like three times in 15 minutes, like the bike is lying to me and there is one more hidden gear.

[John_B]

Ha, I'll try to downshift like three times in 15 minutes, like the bike is lying to me and there is one more hidden gear.

Who are you and why do you watch me when I ride?

Although I'm on a 28/42. I'm impressed by the people that spin out 32/10. I gotta start riding faster I guess.

[gravitylover]

Speaking of cassette gear spacing, has anyone spent time with the Box One Prime 9? It had fallen off my radar, but the news about SRAM 10-52 GX has me thinking about it again. The Prime 9 has better spacing for the lowest two gears (opinion), it's lightweight, and in theory is less finicky to setup.

I've had the Box 2 on a bike since the winter and love it. It was super easy to set up. I don't miss the 3 extra gears at all and it runs quieter than any 11 or 12 spd that I've used the last few years.

Spin out? LOL. Never...

[jm2e]

Ha, I'll try to downshift like three times in 15 minutes, like the bike is lying to me and there is one more hidden gear.

At least once a ride, I’ll look back at the cassette because I’m sure it’s not shifting up to the largest cog. Or I’ll wait till the flat and click it through all the gears thinking one’s out of play.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jono]

At least once a ride, I’ll look back at the cassette because I’m sure it’s not shifting up to the largest cog. Or I’ll wait till the flat and click it through all the gears thinking one’s out of play.

Sounds like SRAM's big step down to first should have you covered. Let us know how it goes.

Only partly kidding. 45 to 51 seems slightly more friendly than 52, but by the time I'm dropping into my very last gear it's about 50/50 that I wish it was another notch lower yet. Same with the top, really. Going from 15% steps to 24% might just do the trick.

[EWG]

Ok, at this point I have to ask you boys what the hell people are trying to accomplish with $400 dinner plate gears. As a comparison, back when there were granny gears on bikes a normal low was a 24/32. That's pretty close to 19 gear inches. Some people went with 24/30 at 19.9 gear inches, and some went smaller at 22/34 which is 17.25 and essentially a circus act to spin upright.

I live where everything good includes steep climbs. My 27.5 is 32/42, which give me a low gear of 21.25. That's a bit high for where my fitness is now, honestly, and I think I'd better better of with a 30 at 19.9, essentially a 24/32. I guess if I had unlimited money and choices I'd go 30/44 for 19 inches, but a single gear inch isn't killing me.

I've ridden a 17.5 ratio, and holy crap. It's like churning butter. I can't imagine going lower.

However, a 28/52 is 15.92 inches on a 29er. 15.1 on a 27.5 Who needs this? Even with a 30 it's 17.1. Is anyone riding this with a 30 front? Why? Just go lower in the front instead of riding a 34/52!!!

That's my complaint/rant when you get right down to it. Going to a 32 or 30 or even a 28 if you can is so much cheaper, simpler, better mechanically and lighter than a huge pie plate rear cassette. They makes zero sense. If you need that kinda gear range? Get a 2x. Adding two teeth in the back will get you an extra 10 gear inches for the downhill - almost nothing. Adding a 44 in the front (second ring) get you 30-35 inches - now that's a difference. Use the smaller ring going up, use the bigger ring going down, profit. And now you have a reasonable gear spacing without huge freakin jumps between your gears.

52 tooth cassette. Good lord.

Edit: ok, now I read a number of you are on things like 30/51. Sorry. I wasn't trying to offend. But honestly, at that point, why wouldn't you go to 2x? You are introducing to many issues. Your gear spacing is so gapped out. I'm baffled. Genuine question. Let me know the thinking.

[Andeh]

Because front derailleurs are fucking garbage (unless they're controlled by robots).

I'm on 30/50 right now on a 29, will be forced to go to 32/51 when my XTR setup gets here because my choice of vanity nickel plated chainring. It's fine, I'll complain a bit for the first month then HTFU.

[toast2266]

Ok, at this point I have to ask you boys what the hell people are trying to accomplish with $400 dinner plate gears. As a comparison, back when there were granny gears on bikes a normal low was a 24/32. That's pretty close to 19 gear inches. Some people went with 24/30 at 19.9 gear inches, and some went smaller at 22/34 which is 17.25 and essentially a circus act to spin upright.

I live where everything good includes steep climbs. My 27.5 is 32/42, which give me a low gear of 21.25. That's a bit high for where my fitness is now, honestly, and I think I'd better better of with a 30 at 19.9, essentially a 24/32. I guess if I had unlimited money and choices I'd go 30/44 for 19 inches, but a single gear inch isn't killing me.

I've ridden a 17.5 ratio, and holy crap. It's like churning butter. I can't imagine going lower.

However, a 28/52 is 15.92 inches on a 29er. 15.1 on a 27.5 Who needs this? Even with a 30 it's 17.1. Is anyone riding this with a 30 front? Why? Just go lower in the front instead of riding a 34/52!!!

That's my complaint/rant when you get right down to it. Going to a 32 or 30 or even a 28 if you can is so much cheaper, simpler, better mechanically and lighter than a huge pie plate rear cassette. They makes zero sense. If you need that kinda gear range? Get a 2x. Adding two teeth in the back will get you an extra 10 gear inches for the downhill - almost nothing. Adding a 44 in the front (second ring) get you 30-35 inches - now that's a difference. Use the smaller ring going up, use the bigger ring going down, profit. And now you have a reasonable gear spacing without huge freakin jumps between your gears.

52 tooth cassette. Good lord.

Edit: ok, now I read a number of you are on things like 30/51. Sorry. I wasn't trying to offend. But honestly, at that point, why wouldn't you go to 2x? You are introducing to many issues. Your gear spacing is so gapped out. I'm baffled. Genuine question. Let me know the thinking.

I mostly agree. I'm on a 32/51 (29er) and that's a pretty good low gear for me. I was on a 30/51 for a bit earlier this season, and the lower first gear was occasionally nice but not really necessary.

But to get at your question, I like the dinner plate because easier gears are sometimes nice, and it just expands the cassette's range. I don't like running a smaller chainring because it means I spend more time in smaller cogs on the cassette. That wears things out quicker, and as much as anything, it makes for a slacker chain that slaps around more. I'd rather run a bigger ring, stay in a lower gear on the cassette, keep the chain tighter, and still have an easy gear for crawling up steep stuff by virtue of the dinner plate.

[bagtagley]

I've done some exploring recently and could absolutely get away with a 28x52. Old orchard roads that run perpendicular to the terracing and go straight the fuck up, roughly 1500 vertical feet in .75 miles (the only example I have cause I rarely track my rides). 32x50 will get you up, but with a lot of effort. Being able to spin up and have some left in the tank for technical sections would be nice.

2x is a non-starter, except maybe on a gravel bike. 1x made a lot of modern geo possible since it's not necessary to design around a front mech. Suspension design is better because anti-squat doesn't have to be a compromise between two chainrings. No shifting means NW rings, which for me have all but eliminated chain drops except in the most extreme situations or dedicated DH.

I'm not going to run out and switch to 52t, but I'll consider it when I upgrade. Dinner plate cassettes have proven to be a non-issue for me. The only derailleur damage I've done hasn't been related to cog size, and would have effected any derailleur I've owned. 52t derailleurs work with 50t cassettes, so no planned obsolescence shenanigans. Seems pretty benign to me.

[toast2266]

1500 vertical feet in .75 miles

Jesus fucking Christ man. That's a goddamn cliff.

[bagtagley]

Jesus fucking Christ man. That's a goddamn cliff.

Sorry, just pulled the elevation data and checked and it's closer to 1200. I just know it's really steep. I also acknowledge that it's not typical, but I know that people and terrain vary widely, and I'm not going to question someone's desire to run a 28x52 or any other shit that seems weird to me.

[toast2266]

Sorry, just pulled the elevation data and checked and it's closer to 1200. I just know it's really steep. I also acknowledge that it's not typical, but I know that people and terrain vary widely, and I'm not going to question someone's desire to run a 28x52.

1200 feet in under a mile is still insanely brutal. I'm impressed you're willing to ride up that.

My cut off for something that I'll actually pedal is somewhere in the neighborhood of 800ft / mile. You're making me feel soft.

[VTskibum]

Sorry, just pulled the elevation data and checked and it's closer to 1200. I just know it's really steep. I also acknowledge that it's not typical, but I know that people and terrain vary widely, and I'm not going to question someone's desire to run a 28x52 or any other shit that seems weird to me.

Virginia where they don't have to worry about (much) snow, some of those roads between Harrisburg and Charlottesville are crazy steep, much less the trails. Few in Blacksburg area where I did most of my VA riding, North Mtn Trail/Dragon's Back climb in particular was bad, but still only 1200ft/1.3 miles or so....

My new Stumpy is 30x50 which is slower than walking, but I've still used it on my local rolling terrain

[climberevan]

Edit: ok, now I read a number of you are on things like 30/51. Sorry. I wasn't trying to offend. But honestly, at that point, why wouldn't you go to 2x? You are introducing to many issues. Your gear spacing is so gapped out. I'm baffled. Genuine question. Let me know the thinking.

I'll bite.

Look at the pro road peloton: many of them are on compact cranks with 30t cassettes for steeper stages. When I started racing road bikes in 1996 we all ran 39/53 with 12-23 cassettes and would ridicule anyone who used the small front ring on rides that weren't in real mountains. Now, however, it's been discovered that spinning 100rpm is more efficient than 60rpm. Naturally the same applies off road.

I was a holdout on 1x for a few years, but once I tried it I was sold. The simplicity is what I like, but the weight savings is nice as well. 1x also frees suspension design from accommodating a derailleur or making the small ring fit. Wider chainstays allow bigger tires and stronger pivots. Having the dropper lever where the left shifter was is also way nicer than having it atop the bar. The only "issue" introduced is the wider gaps, and of course I'd prefer tighter gear spacing, but it's worth the trade off. When they develop a lighter 18speed Pinion gearbox I'll be excited to try it.

I suppose the other concern often voiced is running out of gear on descents. The fastest trails here (Tahoe/Carson) have one barely touching 30mph, and averaging in the mid 20s (for a top 5 on Strava), and I can apply meaningful power to over 25mph in the 30/10 on my 29er. I suspect many of the people worried about their gears not being big enough are not very smooth, or maybe they are using flat pedals. My GF has the same 50/11 on her road bike as I do and claims she spins out at about 40mph, but I can still apply power up to about 52. (It's pretty easy to see her bouncing above 100rpm.) I've ridden with guys from track backgrounds who can put out solid power at over 150rpms. So, for me, at least, running out of gear on singletrack is never a concern.

[Dantheman]

Speaking of cassette gear spacing, has anyone spent time with the Box One Prime 9? It had fallen off my radar, but the news about SRAM 10-52 GX has me thinking about it again. The Prime 9 has better spacing for the lowest two gears (opinion), it's lightweight, and in theory is less finicky to setup.

Looks cool, but a non-starter for me with no XD option.

Ok, at this point I have to ask you boys what the hell people are trying to accomplish with $400 dinner plate gears. As a comparison, back when there were granny gears on bikes a normal low was a 24/32. That's pretty close to 19 gear inches. Some people went with 24/30 at 19.9 gear inches, and some went smaller at 22/34 which is 17.25 and essentially a circus act to spin upright.

"Most cyclists are not athletes...They want to ride their bikes, they want to talk about gears, they want to wear the colorful clothing and shave their legs...wear their helmets and talk about how many miles they ride. But they're not athletes because they won't train and all they want to do is ride their bikes. Athletes do what's necessary to prepare to [excel at] their sport, which most everybody else realizes that that involves things besides playing your sport. We've all grown up now, it's 2010, you have to be strong, you have to do stuff off of the bike, right? Cyclists won't do that...all they want to do is ride their bike and wear the clothes, so they're not really athletes."



It's funny because it's true

Most people would pine for lower and lower gears less if they spent some time in the weight room. I get it though, our brains are fundamentally programmed to work less hard if that's an available option. I currently roll 30x42. Yeah, I'd use a lower gear if I had it, but usually if I can't ride it in 30x42 it's because the rear wheel is spinning in loose shit so a lower gear with more torque would probably just make that worse. I'm also not too proud to walk and walking probably isn't any slower than pedaling 28x52. YMMV.

2x? God no. A lot of new bikes won't even accept a FD, then there's the anti-squat and NW chainring/chain drop issues bagtagley noted.

The 42-52 jump on the new SRAM stuff is hilarious when you consider the Shimano cassettes that had the huge jump to the 46t cog.

Shimano: "Boy, that huge jump was really stupid, everyone hated that, we really should not do that again."
SRAM: "Hold my beer...."

[toast2266]

The 42-52 jump on the new SRAM stuff is hilarious when you consider the Shimano cassettes that had the huge jump to the 46t cog.

Shimano: "Boy, that huge jump was really stupid, everyone hated that, we really should not do that again."
SRAM: "Hold my beer...."

That was my thought as well. I hated it on the Shimano cassettes. Pretty sure I'll hate it on the Sram ones too.

[Bunion 2020]

Because front derailleurs are fucking garbage (unless they're controlled by robots).

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.

I am done now.

[californiagrown]

I have a 1x11 GX drivetrain on 27.5 wheels. IDK how many teeth in front or back. My mech went out of alignment last fall and my granny gear skips. I kept forgetting to adjust it before riding and after 2-3 rides i just got used to grinding in the 2nd to lowest gear. I still havent adjusted the derailleur because i dont need that bigger gear, i just got stronger by necessity and have stayed that strong because of regular riding.

I would be perfectly happy with a 5 speed with big range. I would probably be fine with 3 gears honestly, but 5 would let me ride flatter trails and not miss a gear. Im not a XC racer looking to maximize effeciency on every single section of the climb... im a hack looking to cruise on the climbs enjoying the forest, clean that techy bit, and then not pedal a single time on the descent back down. Im usually riding the brakes on the descent, i literally cannot think of a trail i would ride where i could spin out.

[Dee Hubbs]

Look at the pro road peloton: many of them are on compact cranks with 30t cassettes for steeper stages. When I started racing road bikes in 1996 we all ran 39/53 with 12-23 cassettes and would ridicule anyone who used the small front ring on rides that weren't in real mountains. Now, however, it's been discovered that spinning 100rpm is more efficient than 60rpm. Naturally the same applies off road.

Pros are not running compact chainsets. You are correct that they are running 11-30 and even an 11-32 on big/steep mountain stages, but you will not find a 50/34 chainset on any of their bikes.
The odd rider (like a sprinter struggling to get over a mountain pass day) will request a sub-compact 52/36, but you will never see a 50/34.

[bagtagley]

Most people would pine for lower and lower gears less if they spent some time in the weight room. I get it though, our brains are fundamentally programmed to work less hard if that's an available option. I currently roll 30x42. Yeah, I'd use a lower gear if I had it, but usually if I can't ride it in 30x42 it's because the rear wheel is spinning in loose shit so a lower gear with more torque would probably just make that worse. I'm also not too proud to walk and walking probably isn't any slower than pedaling 28x52. YMMV.

I don't disagree, and despite my gripes, I also got used to a 30x42. But optimal > possible, IMO. I noticed a significant difference in my energy levels over long rides after switching to a 32x50. Pushing those harder gears requires leverage, body english, and corrections that add to the inherent effort. Being able to settle into a slow grind, climb painfully slow, and control my heart rate made long rides much more enjoyable for me. Also, I hate the gym.

[sb]

Crashing is a young mans game.

[Dantheman]

Also, I hate the gym.

I don't like it either, but I like the results. I also just think that Rip quote is hilarious and on-point. If I wasn't on the IR this season I'd probably have upgraded to Shimano 12sp already to get the amazeballs shift quality and the 51t would just be the cherry on top. Moving my top-end up to 32x10 would also be nice.

[Boissal]

An observation from my first 2 rides going from 34t front 50t back to 32t front 51t back: I ride faster at a lower HR with less knee pain and feel fresher on top. I shaved a couple of minutes off my best times on Yeti (2ish miles 800'ish feet) and Flying Dog (3.5ish miles 1100'ish climb) and that came much earlier in the season than I'd expect, usually I don't get close to my PRs until the fall when I've ridden consistently and have a bunch of miles under my ass.

The main difference is in short steep sections (switchbacks and angry bumps) where I can hop in granny gear and spin much faster for a few seconds before dropping back down a cog or two. In the past my RPM would drop a lot and while the speed was probably the same my knees would get pissed from not spinning smoothly and probably from having to pull upward a lot. I should have made the switch sooner based on my experience on the road bike, for years I tied my manhood to my ability to climb BCC on the 50t chainring but a couple springs ago I decided to limit the amount of hurt I put on myself and dropped to the 34t baby ring. It was a much more pleasant climb and I probably cut over 5 minutes from my best time. My dick didn't shrivel either (grew by inches but that's another story) and that made me a firm believer in the high-RPM approach. I know that's very rider-dependent though, some people can put out the same amount of power I can at half the RPM...

I'll probably switch back to the 34t ring if I travel somewhere flatish with longer mileage rides but if I'm in for 5k of climbing over 30 miles I'll take all the furious granny spinning I can get! As far as spinning out a 32-10, I finished my ride on slight downhill pavement yesterday and tried to see what top speed I could get to. I gave up around 32 mph since my legs were fried. I don't think I've come close to that speed on trails and if I did I sure as shit wasn't trying to push any harder as I was hanging on for dear life...

[bagtagley]

Spinning out happens on roads and dirt roads which are a necessary evil here. 32x10 is the limit for riding rolling valley connectors without going a little nuts or having to do the goofy high RPM sprints.

[evdog]

Most people would pine for lower and lower gears less if they spent some time in the weight room. I get it though, our brains are fundamentally programmed to work less hard if that's an available option. I currently roll 30x42. Yeah, I'd use a lower gear if I had it, but usually if I can't ride it in 30x42 it's because the rear wheel is spinning in loose shit so a lower gear with more torque would probably just make that worse. I'm also not too proud to walk and walking probably isn't any slower than pedaling 28x52. YMMV.

Fully agree. Still riding 30x42 as well. I'm usually a late adopter but I was used to riding 1x on DH bikes. When I got my Mojo SL around 2009 I found the bike would lose traction easily whenever I used granny gear so I took it off and went 1x. Not having granny gear was tough at first as I was running 32 x 32 or 34. Had to stop many times on climbs to catch my breath but after a month or two I got in way better shape and was able to bust out most climbs no problem. It did almost kill me doing a bunch of high alpine riding on a CO roadtrip when I had to replace the drivetrain mid trip and could only get my hands on a 34T ring and 32 cassette.

Personally I don't want a dinner plate. Gearing that low only helps on climbs that are steep and smooth. Once a trail gets chunky or loose spinning too high RPMs means I can't burst to get up tech spots and its too easy to lose traction and spin out. And as DTM says above, if I have that 52 I'll definitely be in it. And probably still trying to shift into the non-existent 56 or 60 : )