The Ultimate 2x10 versus 3x10 Page!

[Eldron]

The ratios are pretty close, and its likely that you wont use all 30 with the 3X10 anyhow. Not knocking it as they all have their place... similar to the 26er vs 29er arguement? In the end its which you prefer/utilise better? Personally i agree with Dangle, in that the 2x10 has made my riding more efficient and if i need another gear, walking may well be faster.

 

You missed the point completely - there is no efficiency/utilisation/power transfer difference - it's all the about the ratios. 3x10 has more ratios than 2x10 - not different, not more useful, not more efficient - thats all the same - there are just more ratios on a 3x10 with a wider range.

 

In practical terms it means you can keep pedalling at a higher speed with a 3x10 AND pedal at a higher cadence on the slow stuff with a 3x10. Wider range.

[Eldron]

2x10 does make you faster as it teaches you to ride your gears more efficiently

If a person can't get up a hill with their 2x10 set-up, then they should and will be walking it in any case.

 

Man I hate okes like you... You type the word efficient now every Tom, Dick and Harry will think a 2x10 is more efficient than a 3x10. Plus you said faster - I give up

 

I guess I'm just an extreme oke - I have a 3x10 and a 1x1.

 

Don't tell anyone I have a 1x11 on the way

 

Edit: I also have a 2x10, 1x7, 3x9 and 1x1 fixed. Silly enough for you????

Edited November 23, 2011 by Eldron

[Niner]

Dood - you must warm up your calculator - I used the 40 tooth which brings you closer to the 42 than the 39. Meh - it's all about the range - if you prefer pedalling faster then use the 24/37 - if you like trapping like Herr Jan then the 27/40 is for you - hell yoou can get a custom 29/42 made so you can match the 42 on the triple BUT you're going *** on the climbs with a 29 as your smallest chain ring...

 

Thats what I like about triples - you don't have to compromise - you can have all the gears you want.

I am not saying 3x anything is wrong....I am saying shoudl the ratio not be 26x39 and not 38? Or is that a shimano thing?

 

26x39 is designed to work together so you can not run a 26 wit a 42....on a Sram 2x10

 

Edit: Like I said I wished they made 3x 10 in XX....

Personally I dont like teh Shimano stuff....

Edited November 23, 2011 by Niner

[Eldron]

Sorry. Had to precis that. I'm working.

 

No worries - I still firmly believe that I don't need to pedal at all on my 29er SS. I just POMP china.

 

Dear god - now some knob is going say his 2x10 26er goes faster than his 3x10 29er....

[Eldron]

I am not saying 3x anything is wrong....I am saying shoudl the ratio not be 26x39 and not 38? Or is that a shimano thing?

 

26x39 is designed to work together so you can not run a 26 wit a 42....on a Sram 2x10

 

Oops my bad. Yeah it's a Shimano thing - they only offer a 26/38 and 28/40 on the 2012 XT. Shimano think a 12 tooth gap is the biggest a FD can handle. SRAM do 13 teeth. Bigger is better - if I had to buy a 2x10 is would probably be a 26/39 ratio.

[Paulst12]

You missed the point completely - there is no efficiency/utilisation/power transfer difference - it's all the about the ratios. 3x10 has more ratios than 2x10 - not different, not more useful, not more efficient - thats all the same - there are just more ratios on a 3x10 with a wider range.

 

In practical terms it means you can keep pedalling at a higher speed with a 3x10 AND pedal at a higher cadence on the slow stuff with a 3x10. Wider range.

Nope, i got your point 100%. The point i was making is that even though you have more ratio's on offer, the likelyhood you will use all of them is pretty low. Pretty sure you will only use close to 20 in the end anyway.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Paulst12

[amasendeinja]

Hmmm you've got a point or few there, but I still prefer the 2x10 setup.

 

I like fact that you can run through all the gears on both chainrings with no crossover problems - nice when you come around a corner and some bastard course designer has inserted a 50m long near-vertical climb and you're in the big blade.

 

I've never run out of gears, so my 28/36 "granny" has sufficed for everything I've encountered so far - I attribute this in large part to the fact that you make the best of what you've got. That being your easiest gear means you crank the thing harder and generally crest the hill without walking. I think the SS guys really experience this as they only have 1 gear and therefore it's pedal it or walk. Same applies - to me at least.

 

That said I've had more kuk in 1 year with my 2x10 X9 setup than I ever had with my old 3x9 X0 (might be because it was red) or XT before that.

- Rear derailleur replaced under warranty due to bad batch of springs in some units so too low spring tension = chain jumping off bottom of big blade.

- Front shifter seems "drift" all the time, can never get the damn to consistently shift well.

- 10 speed chains must be forged with silicon in them as the things stretch like rubber bands!(admin please delete this post if I'm not allowed to use the word "chain" and "stretch" in the same sentence)

 

About being lighter - near as makes no difference to me.

 

Think I'll be trying Shimano again sometime soon. At R7999 for a full 2012 XT groupset vs. R13400 for full XO on CWC it's a bit of a no-brainer methinks...

[Tieffels]

I really don't understand what the discussion is all about. I knew this 2x10 setup was a waste of time when ALL the 29ers came out with them. Dead giveaway..

[Chubba]

Well ja, I have to agree with you Enron, er sorry Eldron. I've ridden 2 x 10 on my Zula for the past 6 months and it sucks balls. Much harder going uphill and too soon out of gears going down. Going back to 3 chainrings as soon as I have some spare mula.

Have 3X10 on the Shova, and i reckon its the bees knees!

[Eldron]

Hmmm you've got a point or few there, but I still prefer the 2x10 setup.

 

I like fact that you can run through all the gears on both chainrings with no crossover problems - nice when you come around a corner and some bastard course designer has inserted a 50m long near-vertical climb and you're in the big blade.

 

I've never run out of gears, so my 28/36 "granny" has sufficed for everything I've encountered so far - I attribute this in large part to the fact that you make the best of what you've got. That being your easiest gear means you crank the thing harder and generally crest the hill without walking. I think the SS guys really experience this as they only have 1 gear and therefore it's pedal it or walk. Same applies - to me at least.

 

That said I've had more kuk in 1 year with my 2x10 X9 setup than I ever had with my old 3x9 X0 (might be because it was red) or XT before that.

- Rear derailleur replaced under warranty due to bad batch of springs in some units so too low spring tension = chain jumping off bottom of big blade.

- Front shifter seems "drift" all the time, can never get the damn to consistently shift well.

- 10 speed chains must be forged with silicon in them as the things stretch like rubber bands!(admin please delete this post if I'm not allowed to use the word "chain" and "stretch" in the same sentence)

 

About being lighter - near as makes no difference to me.

 

Think I'll be trying Shimano again sometime soon. At R7999 for a full 2012 XT groupset vs. R13400 for full XO on CWC it's a bit of a no-brainer methinks...

 

Thats not true - a SS has 3 gears: riding, walking and running! You do have a point though - on my SS I can ride a speed range of about 25kph with one gear! Kinda makes having gears seem a bit silly.

 

Forged in silicon he he he.

[Nimby]

I reckon if you're a heavier rider 3x10 is the way to go. You'll need the smallest chainring on the steep and long uphills and benefit from the largest chainring on the front on the downs /flats. As Eldron says its about stretching the limits - 24/36 & 42/11 is indisputably wider than 26/36 & 39/11 - even if there is greater redundancy in-between...

[Eldron]

I really don't understand what the discussion is all about. I knew this 2x10 setup was a waste of time when ALL the 29ers came out with them. Dead giveaway..

 

Congratulations! You've just made yourself "the one" in ye olde expression "there's always one".

[Thug]

What about us 1x9ers or 1x10ers?

 

Yes, I don't have the smallest small gear or the biggest big gear, but the ratios are perfect for my own riding style.

 

I can probably guarantee that a 32 chainring with an 11-36 cassette will be more than ample for most riders on this forum.

 

Oh, on a 29er of course :-)

[nolipoli]

The only time a 2x anything setup is preferable is when you need the outer chainring mount for a bash ring. This means using a granny and middle gear setup in front with something like a 24/36.

 

To those saying that it is faster to walk than use the granny - Maybe we are not as much interested in the speed of the climb, as much as how technical it is. More rocks equals more fun - and definitely requires the lowest gear you can get.

[rock]

when I had a 2x9 set up (26/36 up front on a 29er) I found that i kept shifting the front derailleur all the time, much more than when i was on a triple (22/32/44) when I juts as in the 32 all the time......

 

now am on 3x10 with the great ratio of 24/32/42.......24t feels more useful than the 22t and the 42t is a little easier to keep turning and now use all the 3 rings more often with much less funny chain lines......plus the dynasys front shifting is the best i've ever had but i will chalk a lot of that simply to the tighter ratios of the 3 rings now.

[Goodbadugly]

Can't say about the 3x10. I am still a 3x9 man. I tried a 2 blade (26/38) set up with a 34 cassette on the 3 towers stage race in October (ja I know this is a 10 speed topic). That gave me 18 gears. More than enough. BUT i missed that 32 middle ring so much. I can fling the chain just about anywhere on the cassette. The other thing that Eldron noted is the big drop from the big to the small ring. This takes getting used to.

So I am back on my 3x9 for the Sabie X. I love my 32 middle ring. Overlap in gears or not.