1x11 vs 2x10

[Bizkit031]

I'll stick with my 3x10 trail option,I prefer the insurance I have,not saving huge amount of weight. The amount of money you have to spend on your bike to lose weight is big,so I would rather lose the weight on myself then spend it on the bike.

[Fabian46]

I'll stick with my 3x10 trail option,I prefer the insurance I have,not saving huge amount of weight. The amount of money you have to spend on your bike to lose weight is big,so I would rather lose the weight on myself then spend it on the bike.

 

1kg on your body does not equate to 1kg on the bike.

[Bizkit031]

 

 

1kg on your body does not equate to 1kg on the bike.

1kg is 1kg no matter where you go.

[fandacious]

There is no right answer.

 

In 1x11, 2x10, 3x10 etc there are always gears we use most - the gears outside of those gears are "insurance".

 

"Insurance" can be in the form of pedaling 60kph+ on dirt roads ala Joberg2C style or cranking your ass off at 6kph up some crazy Dr. Evil hill at the Epic.

 

How much "insurance" you need will dictate how many gears you put on your bike.

 

Personally if you have 2x10 there is no reason to go 1x11 - all you'll gain is a few weight weenie grams and lose some "insurance". If you have cash to burn and bling trumps logic then bang on the 1x11 - pride of ownership rocks! You're in Joberg and are unlikely to need much insurance - 1x11 will serve your needs well.

 

theres the simplicity factor as well. Less things to break and go wrong

[BarHugger]

I run 1x10 with a 34 front ring and 11-36 at the back. The only limitation is the git in the saddle. I ride in tokai and can (if I'm feeling strong) get to the mast and make it around the noordhoek loop (which is a beeeeyatch of a route)

 

It would be great to have that bail out gear on the bottom end (the 42t) but it's not a necessity. The more you ride the stronger you'll get

 

 

As a bit of context to this... fully kitted, including bike, I am pedalling 130 kg up the hills. If I (as a moerse unfit weekend hacker) can do that, then well there you go

 

 

Joooooo..........strongs hey.

 

120kg (full kit and bike) on 2x10........with walking shoes......

[Cyklon]

1kg is 1kg no matter where you go.

 

From what I've heard, adding one kilo of rotational weight is about the same as adding 3 kilo of stationary weight. It sounds about right, too. Bottom line if it rotates on your bike get the lowest weight affordable. Any where else go on a diet.

[waveduke]

Ducks paddle, Scquirrels run/climb/chows nuts

 

bull****!

http://www.safariworkstaxidermysales.com/v/vspfiles/photos/SW1606-2.jpg

[Bizkit031]

 

 

From what I've heard, adding one kilo of rotational weight is about the same as adding 3 kilo of stationary weight. It sounds about right, too. Bottom line if it rotates on your bike get the lowest weight affordable. Any where else go on a diet.

yea that's if you got weight to lose,if you look at some of the race snakes they are so skinny looks like they gonna fall through their butts.

[Fabian46]

1kg is 1kg no matter where you go.

 

Maybe I worded it wrong. 1kg down on the bike makes a muuuuuuch bigger difference than 1kg body weight loss. 1kg is 1kg yes...but does not have the same impact in terms of mountain biking

[Bizkit031]

 

 

Maybe I worded it wrong. 1kg down on the bike makes a muuuuuuch bigger difference than 1kg body weight loss. 1kg is 1kg yes...but does not have the same impact in terms of mountain biking Yea that's is true as Cyklon said rotational max makes a big difference,but on just weight it's gonna be a lot easier and cheaper to lose it on yourself.

[Fabian46]

 

Yup, a set of ZTR crests doesnt cancel out a beer boep!

[Bizkit031]

 

 

Yup, a set of ZTR crests doesnt cancel out a beer boep!

Yea I put on some Flow ex in exchange for my Easton XC,gained exactly 200 grams but they are a hell of a lot more solid then the Easton's. But that's what I wanted those Easton are not made for jumping and rough terrain.

[GrantRH]

L

[Trackmonster]

Bro, I run 1x10 with a 36t narrow wide Rapide chainring upfront. ITs perfect and I don't need anymore gears. I used to stay in my big chainring a lot just like you do, but if you use the right ratio on the single chainring then you will never miss all the gears. I will never go back to a front derailer and 2x10 or 3x10. If you ever need a lighter gear then buy a rear cassette adaptor 40t or 42t, remove the 15t or 17t from the cassette and run it that way. I will never use such a small gear even up the mast in CT or much steeper climbs. Anyway I run XT and am an XT fan so blowing thousands on 1x11 isn't going to make any difference to me with one extra gear I don't really need. Go buy a narrow wide chainring, put it on and give it a go. My Narrow wide cost R500 so its not a financial risk worth worrying about.

[Sniffie]

 

 

Maybe I worded it wrong. 1kg down on the bike makes a muuuuuuch bigger difference than 1kg body weight loss. 1kg is 1kg yes...but does not have the same impact in terms of mountain biking

I still beg to differ. Power = mass x distance / time. The power you need to get up a climb is determined by your total mass (bike + kit + you) multiplied by the altitude gained, and divided by the time it took. Add to that; power needed to overcome wind resistance, plus power to overcome rolling resistance, plus power loss due to friction and other factors in the dive-train, bearings etc. There is also power lost due to components like frames and cranks flexing. The power formula above does not care where the mass is coming from whether it is from you, your bike or your kit.

 

I am afraid you were right in your last sentence: 1 kg is 1 kg after all.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sniffie

[Christie]

1kg is 1kg no matter where you go.

Correct. Yes, there is an academic difference between rotating an translating mass under acceleration, but for a bicycle acceleration is minuscule. The effect is so small that 1kg is effectively 1kg, no matter where you go. The other theories were created by marketers to sell more stuff to, well, how to put it, "less informed" folks with fat wallets.