# Modern trend for extremely low gearing



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

So what’s with the fashion of tiny front ring and dinner plate cassettes? That’s seriously low gearing, 30-51 for instance?
Do they really ever get used, I mean I could probably walk really slowly and still be faster than pedalling the bike.
Maybe there’s a case for serious mountain up hills but round a trail centre or buggering about round the countryside?


----------



## ColinJ (20 Dec 2020)

That is _really_ low - 0.59:1. I don't think _that_ would get much use!

My mountain bike has 22/32 - 0.69:1. I didn't use it often in that gear, but on 25+% climbs I _sometimes_ did.


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Dec 2020)

It'd be less embarrassing to walk up.


----------



## MichaelW2 (20 Dec 2020)

The dinner plate rear sprockets are used because small front chainrings have gone out of fashion.
MTB/ touring triples used to be min around 20 gear inches ( down to 17"). 
The 30/57 is 15.75"

You need ultra low gears for loaded touring off road and on ultra steep roads. You cant push a loaded bike up a steep trail at 3mph.
You can pedal down to 2mph without falling off and no cycle tourist has ever complained about having gears too low.


----------



## gom (20 Dec 2020)

22:34 on three bikes.
I sooner be riding a bike than pushing it.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

Just a quick search 
https://www.wiggle.co.uk/vitus-rapide-29-crx-mountain-bike-2021
11-51 12 sp with 30 up front.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> The dinner plate rear sprockets are used because small front chainrings have gone out of fashion.
> MTB/ touring triples used to be min around 20 gear inches ( down to 17").
> The 30/57 is 15.75"
> 
> ...


Ehh? Small front chain rings gone out of fashion? From what I’m seeing on MtB are 30 or 32?


----------



## screenman (20 Dec 2020)

Please, please can I be first, they have more money than sense


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Dec 2020)

Apologies- didn't appreciate this was an MTB thread... my old bike has 52/39 with a 11-32 5-speed freewheel.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Please, please can I be first, they have more money than sense


So is it just a fashion thing?


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

This bike I’ve just linked to above - 
In the blurb-
Ready to attack the most challenging XC courses, the Vitus Rapide 29 CRX Mountain Bike is agile, stable and fast. Its light carbon frame has a modern geometry, plus it's enhanced with Shimano XT 1x12-speed gears and RockShox forks.
Isn’t that a bit odd with 30 -51 ?


----------



## flake99please (20 Dec 2020)

I have a fat bike with 30/52, and have needed this low gear on several occasions already. I may fit a 32 chain ring (maximum permissible) and see how I get on with it.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

flake99please said:


> I have a fat bike with 30/52, and have needed this low gear on several occasions already. I may fit a 32 chain ring (maximum permissible) and see how I get on with it.


Ok, where have you needed that?


----------



## flake99please (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Ok, where have you needed that?


Up the Pentland hills (off track) and on the sand dunes at Gullane.


----------



## lane (20 Dec 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> It'd be less embarrassing to walk up.



Was out for a walk this morning. Cyclist comes up behind me then gets of to walk. He says he has managed to cycle up it twice (not very steep). I say you need lower gears then have a look at his bike - he has a triple but is on the middle ring. I don't think he quite understood how the gears work.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Ehh? Small front chain rings gone out of fashion? From what I’m seeing on MtB are 30 or 32?



Well they used to be 22 front rings (well there still are if you run 9 speed triples). It’s only 8% lower gear what mtn bikes had almost 25 years ago. So in effect an extra gear. So not a huge jump in that time.


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Dec 2020)

@lane, is it a safe bet that his seat was set too low too?


----------



## MichaelW2 (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Ehh? Small front chain rings gone out of fashion? From what I’m seeing on MtB are 30 or 32?


Those used to be MTB middle rings.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> Those used to be MTB middle rings.



Still are on mine


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Dec 2020)

I did the C2C on a Giant hybrid ten years ago with a 48-36-26 with an 11-32 cassette... it's Mrs A_T's go to bike now as it gets her up any hill she wants..


----------



## screenman (20 Dec 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> @lane, is it a safe bet that his seat was set too low too?



Do me a favour look up bike for Tuesday on youtube, the guy talks a lot of sense.


----------



## Gunk (20 Dec 2020)

It is just a fashion, I’ve never known a time where you had a gear on a cassette larger than a chain wheel


----------



## screenman (20 Dec 2020)

Gunk said:


> It is just a fashion, I’ve never known a time where you had a gear on a cassette larger than a chain wheel



Got it on all my mtb bikes.


----------



## Drago (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Ehh? Small front chain rings gone out of fashion? From what I’m seeing on MtB are 30 or 32?


Thats pretty big compared to the 20 or 22 crawlers that festooned many MTB triples until a few years ago.


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Do me a favour look up bike for Tuesday on youtube, the guy talks a lot of sense.


Thanks screen man- haven't seen BFT before- subscribed- even happy to try lowering my seat by 10mm to try it, though I don't rock on my hips when pedalling so happy I've set it right for me...


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Well they used to be 22 front rings (well there still are if you run 9 speed triples). It’s only 8% lower gear what mtn bikes had almost 25 years ago. So in effect an extra gear. So not a huge jump in that time.


Yeah but with a triple you still have the 2 other rings? 30 with a 10 is hardly “fast”


----------



## Gunk (20 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Got it on all my mtb bikes.



I have on my 3x10 MTB but not as a single chainwheel


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah but with a triple you still have the 2 other rings? 30 with a 10 is hardly “fast”



So your complaint is too low a high gear , not too low a low gear?


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Dec 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> 11-32 5-speed freewheel


Intrigued. I'm surprised you can get a freewheel with a smallest sprocket less than 13t. Link?


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Dec 2020)

Ah, you could be right Ajax... in fact it might even be a 14- I'll check the old Suntour box!

It may be 14-18-24-28-32!


----------



## FishFright (20 Dec 2020)

The single front and wide rear gears comes from a need to remove the front mech so the suspension has more flexibility for pivot and linkage positions. Which is fine for riding park style places and DH but its horrible to pedal with its huge gaps in the lower gears. Why it's on hardtails is beyond my comprehension not matter how many times I watch the GMBN sales pitches.


----------



## Hacienda71 (20 Dec 2020)

I went 1x12 last year on the mtb and thought will I ever use the 50 t on the rear. On the road bike I was running a standard double. 
Riding it at Coed y Brenin with a group of this forum the 50t came in very handy. On steep technical climbs it is great. I have an issue with 1xdrive trains in general which is the ability to index them perfectly. I do love the simplicity of no front mech though (reminds me of 5 speeds back in the day). Ultimately it is a slight compromise.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

This is kinda what I’m suggesting - a 30 with a 10-51 on a light carbon XC bike is just a bit strange to me,
My 34 -11 tops out at around 23 mph before its free wheel time.....


YukonBoy said:


> So your complaint is too low a high gear , not too low a low gear?


it’s not a complaint, it’s a discussion on whether extremely large cassettes and a quite small Single front chain wheel is a fashion as to my mind it’s super low and not very high particularly for super light XC hard tail mtbs’s maybe I’m wrong?


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

FishFright said:


> The single front and wide rear gears comes from a need to remove the front mech so the suspension has more flexibility for pivot and linkage positions. Which is fine for riding park style places and DH but its horrible to pedal with its huge gaps in the lower gears. Why it's on hardtails is beyond my comprehension not matter how many times I watch the GMBN sales pitches.


Exactly this


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

Hacienda71 said:


> I went 1x12 last year on the mtb and thought will I ever use the 50 t on the rear. On the road bike I was running a standard double.
> Riding it at Coed y Brenin with a group of this forum the 50t came in very handy. On steep technical climbs it is great. I have an issue with 1xdrive trains in general which is the ability to index them perfectly. I do love the simplicity of no front mech though (reminds me of 5 speeds back in the day). Ultimately it is a slight compromise.


Yes that is probably useful I agree, but on every new mtb whether that’s the intended use or not? Not so sure, which is what I’m suggesting, if you had a 12 on some of the flat trails I use you’re basically using probably 9 or 10 gears max.


----------



## si_c (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Exactly this


I have a 1x (32t front, 11-46 rear) drivetrain on my hardtail - it's much simpler and cleaner to maintain and doesn't really have any downsides on an MTB in my experience. The lack of a need to maintain a front derailleur also means that shifting is more consistent and the cranks can be positioned in a better overall position chainline wise.

I need the range going uphill especially as noted by @Hacienda71 above on technical terrain and if I am getting close to spinning out the high gear speedwise then I'm probably going downhill so standing and not pedalling anyway. It's an MTB not a road bike.

On the road I hit 25mph and whilst it is admittedly starting to get a bit towards the edge of what I find comfortable it's sustainable. If I was riding a flatter course I could easily change the front chainring and have a completely different gear range or switch the cassette out. I do this on my road bikes too so why is it unreasonable to think that an MTBer would?

Shimano do still do a 2x12 XTR setup for those who prefer it but for most people a 1x12 is more than enough for what they are likely to need.


----------



## Hacienda71 (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> Yes that is probably useful I agree, but on every new mtb whether that’s the intended use or not? Not so sure, which is what I’m suggesting, if you had a 12 on some of the flat trails I use you’re basically using probably 9 or 10 gears max.


It depends I suppose. A lot of MTB's are not used for their intended use as they are great utility bikes. I suppose there is an argument you can increase the size of the front ring to give you a more appropriate spread but retain the simplicity of the 1x drivetrain. I spin out on the fs MTB in the low 20's. I never had an issue with a triple on my road bike and liked having a granny gear. Same with my 2004 Stumpjumper. Wonder if the bike industry likes the reduced cost of a 1x setup. Same RRP 1 less mech 1 less lever, cable, chainring etc. or if it is just a new trend to raise revenue. Sorry getting cynical as I get older.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

si_c said:


> I have a 1x (32t front, 11-46 rear) drivetrain on my hardtail - it's much simpler and cleaner to maintain and doesn't really have any downsides on an MTB in my experience. The lack of a need to maintain a front derailleur also means that shifting is more consistent and the cranks can be positioned in a better overall position chainline wise.
> 
> I need the range going uphill especially as noted by @Hacienda71 above on technical terrain and if I am getting close to spinning out the high gear speedwise then I'm probably going downhill so standing and not pedalling anyway. It's an MTB not a road bike.
> 
> ...


Yeah good points


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2020)

What were people doing to their front derailleurs? Mine just worked, very little maintenance year to year.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

Hacienda71 said:


> It depends I suppose. A lot of MTB's are not used for their intended use as they are great utility bikes. I suppose there is an argument you can increase the size of the front ring to give you a more appropriate spread but retain the simplicity of the 1x drivetrain. I spin out on the fs MTB in the low 20's. I never had an issue with a triple on my road bike and liked having a granny gear. Same with my 2004 Stumpjumper. Wonder if the bike industry likes the reduced cost of a 1x setup. Same RRP 1 less mech 1 less lever, cable, chainring etc. or if it is just a new trend to raise revenue. Sorry getting cynical as I get older.


Yeah, I’ve just gone to 1x 10 with 34, 11-42 and where I am and my intended use would probably have got away with sticking with the 11-36 that I had already, just don’t really need the low gears, they may come in handy in the future who knows where I might be riding! But seeing 50’s on the back and 30’s up front on some of the new bikes especially those designed for more my type of riding - trail centres etc seems a bit of a waste, it’s all opinions and horses for courses.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Dec 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> What were people doing to their front derailleurs? Mine just worked, very little maintenance year to year.


I know, it doesn’t have to do a lot does it, it just doesn’t look as cool a 1x  fashion? Obviously I’m being a bit silly here and I do know the benefits of a 1x system.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> I know, it doesn’t have to do a lot does it, it just doesn’t look as cool a 1x  fashion?



I say just worked. It’s still working more than a decade on. Haven’t touched it in over a year when I replaced the inner cable.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> So what’s with the fashion of tiny front ring and dinner plate cassettes? That’s seriously low gearing, 30-51 for instance?
> Do they really ever get used, I mean I could probably walk really slowly and still be faster than pedalling the bike.
> Maybe there’s a case for serious mountain up hills but round a trail centre or buggering about round the countryside?


Downhilling.. The gearing allows those who don't necessarily have the fitness to get back up the hills


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> So what’s with the fashion of tiny front ring and dinner plate cassettes? That’s seriously low gearing, 30-51 for instance?
> Do they really ever get used, I mean I could probably walk really slowly and still be faster than pedalling the bike.
> Maybe there’s a case for serious mountain up hills but round a trail centre or buggering about round the countryside?


Yes they do get used. In the Transcontinental Race a lot of riders had that gearing and were still pushing. That ultra low gearing lets riders try and ride in places they usually would ride in.


----------



## TheDoctor (20 Dec 2020)

Gunk said:


> It is just a fashion, I’ve never known a time where you had a gear on a cassette larger than a chain wheel


My late lamented Carbon Uberbike had a 48/38/24T chainset, and a 12-26T cassette, I think. It may have been 12-28.
Either way, I needed that stupid low gear up Mt Ventoux. If I was doing it again, I'd still want a chainring smaller than the biggest sprocket on my cassette.


----------



## ColinJ (20 Dec 2020)

TheDoctor said:


> I'd still want a chainring smaller than the biggest sprocket on my cassette.


That applies to _all_ of my bikes, except for my singlespeed where the ring has 2.74 times the tooth count of the sprocket.


----------



## screenman (21 Dec 2020)

Hacienda71 said:


> It depends I suppose. A lot of MTB's are not used for their intended use as they are great utility bikes. I suppose there is an argument you can increase the size of the front ring to give you a more appropriate spread but retain the simplicity of the 1x drivetrain. I spin out on the fs MTB in the low 20's. I never had an issue with a triple on my road bike and liked having a granny gear. Same with my 2004 Stumpjumper. Wonder if the bike industry likes the reduced cost of a 1x setup. Same RRP 1 less mech 1 less lever, cable, chainring etc. or if it is just a new trend to raise revenue. Sorry getting cynical as I get older.



They must have seen a demand in the market before starting to produce them, yes you are starting to sound like your dad.


----------



## fossyant (21 Dec 2020)

There are some advantages to 1x. Simplicity, less faffing changing the front gears (some folk can't get it), better drive chain wear, lower chance of the chain coming off, lots of choices of chain ring, especially direct fit.

Downside, rear mech cage is longer and closer to ground = more rock strikes and 12 speed is a little 'fussy' to set up. Cassettes can be an absolute fortune to buy. You can get cassetes to fit standard shimano hubs but you don't get smaller than an 11 - which for most is fine, and they are cheaper.

Personally I chose 2 x 10 on ine rather than the 1 x 11 model - ex. roadie that likes a closer gear range and much of my training is XC, with trails and trail centres thrown in here and there. Downside to 2 x 10 - my chain rings are getting harder to source.


----------



## Jenkins (21 Dec 2020)

FishFright said:


> The single front and wide rear gears comes from a need to remove the front mech so the suspension has more flexibility for pivot and linkage positions. Which is fine for riding park style places and DH but its* horrible to pedal with its huge gaps in the lower gears*. Why it's on hardtails is beyond my comprehension not matter how many times I watch the GMBN sales pitches.


There's no large gaps with the modern 12 speed SRAM stuff - my 11-50 SX Eagle cassette is effectively a standard 11-36 ten speed with a couple of extra gears (42 & 50) added on. The spacing is 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28, 32, 36, 42, 50


----------



## Justinslow (21 Dec 2020)

Compared to my 10 speed 11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32-37-42T
Still depends where you ride, I reckon I could have stuck with an 11-36 with my 34 front where I ride, the 10speed -wide range is clearly a compromise, understandable as to add a couple of bigger ones you lose smaller ones.


----------



## FishFright (21 Dec 2020)

Jenkins said:


> There's no large gaps with the modern 12 speed SRAM stuff - my 11-50 SX Eagle cassette is effectively a standard 11-36 ten speed with a couple of extra gears (42 & 50) added on. The spacing is 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28, 32, 36, 42, 50



That looks a lot like big gaps to me. I have an 11 - 36 on one of my mtb's as it was cheap at the time but I'll have to replace it before too long for its gappyness.

ETA But I'm a spinner not a grinder so I much prefer a tighter block.


----------



## DRM (26 Dec 2020)

I'd say it's because of the way you climb on an MTB, rather than the way you climb on a road bike, off road you get your backside way back on the saddle to weight the rear wheel, so it doesn't spin out and lose traction, same technique on a gravel bike, on a road bike you can stand up and spin a bit faster going up and down the gears depending on if your stood or sat.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> I'd say it's because of the way you climb on an MTB, rather than the way you climb on a road bike, off road you get your backside way back on the saddle to weight the rear wheel, so it doesn't spin out and lose traction, same technique on a gravel bike, on a road bike you can stand up and spin a bit faster going up and down the gears depending on if your stood or sat.


On the really steep stuff we have round here it is a balancing act - sit back for traction, lean forward to avoid accidental wheelies. It is usually possible to find a compromise position that achieves both.


----------



## Blue Hills (26 Dec 2020)

gom said:


> 22:34 on three bikes.
> I sooner be riding a bike than pushing it.


22 36 on two of my tourers with triples, about to build up another if I can get it to work.will get me loaded to the heavens up pretty much anything. Have no need at all for a stupidly expensive dinnerplate. 
Admittedly i'm not an MTBer, though one of my tourers is effectively an MTB.


----------



## Astore (26 Dec 2020)

I guess it's what you're used to. My old Saracen (above) back in 1985. 52-36 on the front 13-32 5 speed on the rear . The thing would go up the side of a house, and have a fair turn of speed downhill too. In fact, I still ride pretty much the same gearing today on my Thompson. 50-32 on the front 14-28 7 speed at the rear. I don't do MTBs and this works really well in pretty much all conditions on my rides round Argyll, which is a pretty hilly county in places. Works for me, and I'm now closer to 60 than 20






In fact, a lad came round to look at buying my old Raleigh Scorpio, took one look at the gearing on my Summer bike - 14-24 7 speed rear, 42-52 on the front and couldn't believe that I managed anything but flat rides on it.


----------



## Blue Hills (26 Dec 2020)

Astore said:


> View attachment 565350
> 
> 
> I guess it's what you're used to. My old Saracen (above) back in 1985. 52-36 on the front 13-32 5 speed on the rear . The thing would go up the side of a house, and have a fair turn of speed downhill too. In fact, I still ride pretty much the same gearing today on my Thompson. 50-32 on the front 14-28 7 speed at the rear. I don't do MTBs and this works really well in pretty much all conditions on my rides round Argyll, which is a pretty hilly county in places. Works for me, and I'm now closer to 60 than 20
> ...


Very nice bikes.
I have the impression that you ride pretty light though, not loaded.


----------



## simongt (26 Dec 2020)

What amuses me about the current 'fashion' for single wee chainwheels and dinnerplate 11 speed cassettes is the amount of time that the chain must be running way out of line.


----------



## simongt (26 Dec 2020)

Astore said:


> couldn't believe that I managed anything but flat rides on it.


Seems that once again that the uninitiated will believe anything that's in fashion - !


----------



## chriswoody (26 Dec 2020)

simongt said:


> What amuses me about the current 'fashion' for single wee chainwheels and dinnerplate 11 speed cassettes is the amount of time that the chain must be running way out of line.



But why is that a problem? It's been shown that it's not inefficient to have the chain running at those angles. It also has no adverse effect on chain or component wear. From my own experiences, I don't suffer from increased wear of my chain or cassette over a more traditional 2x or 3x system, so I'm really not sure why some folk see it as some kind of issue. 

Personally having ridden a bike with a 1x system for the last year, i wouldn't go back to a 2x or 3x if you paid me. However, that is with the caveat that the majority of my riding is off-road where I think they do hold an advantage over more traditional set ups.


----------



## screenman (26 Dec 2020)

simongt said:


> What amuses me about the current 'fashion' for single wee chainwheels and dinnerplate 11 speed cassettes is the amount of time that the chain must be running way out of line.




What amuses me is the way people do not like choice and although not in this case cost/price is so often mentioned.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Dec 2020)

All this talk of extreme chain angles... You will only be traversing half a cassette either side of the perfect chainline. I don't have any problem staying on the middle ring of my triple for the whole cassette.

I'd quite like a 1x system. I am going to experiment with one by sticking an expansion 42 sprocket on a 12-36 cassette and removing one of the middle sprockets.


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> What amuses me is the way people do not like choice and although not in this case cost/price is so often mentioned.


I think folk are perfectly entitled to question particular choices.
Me on 1x dinner plate, i can see uses on serious offroad, not much else.
Oh, and I'll feel free to mention cost if it gives you a buzz, as in cost-benefit for many applications.


----------



## DRM (27 Dec 2020)

Astore said:


> View attachment 565350
> 
> 
> I guess it's what you're used to. My old Saracen (above) back in 1985. 52-36 on the front 13-32 5 speed on the rear . The thing would go up the side of a house, and have a fair turn of speed downhill too. In fact, I still ride pretty much the same gearing today on my Thompson. 50-32 on the front 14-28 7 speed at the rear. I don't do MTBs and this works really well in pretty much all conditions on my rides round Argyll, which is a pretty hilly county in places. Works for me, and I'm now closer to 60 than 20
> ...


It's a lovely bike, but comparing it with one used off road is pointless, an MTB or Gravel bike needs the lower gears as climbing off road is a totally different ball game technique wise to that used on tarmac.


----------



## screenman (27 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> It's a lovely bike, but comparing it with one used off road is pointless, an MTB or Gravel bike needs the lower gears as climbing off road is a totally different ball game technique wise to that used on tarmac.



But who wants to spend money on off road bikes when roads are there, total waste of money.


----------



## DRM (27 Dec 2020)

simongt said:


> Seems that once again that the uninitiated will believe anything that's in fashion - !


It's not "Fashion" it's designed to do a job, off tarmac, it'll also allow the fitment of wider tyres, so that the rear won't catch on a front mech, wider tyres = more comfort/grip off road, it's like comparing a Land Rover with a Ferrari both are very good at what they're designed to do, but are useless when trying to use one in the others terrain.


----------



## DRM (27 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> But who wants to spend money on off road bikes when roads are there, total waste of money.


Thats where gravel bikes come in, best of both worlds innit


----------



## screenman (27 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> Thats where gravel bikes come in, best of both worlds innit



Well almost but not quite, my mtb's will go places my cross bikes could not.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (28 Dec 2020)

Hacienda71 said:


> Wonder if the bike industry likes the reduced cost of a 1x setup. Same RRP 1 less mech 1 less lever, cable, chainring etc. or if it is just a new trend to raise revenue. Sorry getting cynical as I get older.



Right to be cynical. It's all marketing shite designed to sell more new bikes with a worse choice of gears for a bigger profit margin.
i haven't fallen for it and neither have all the other thousands of owners who are still defiantly riding around on their 80's and 90's vintage 26" rigids with practical 22/34/42 or 28/38/48 triples and 14-28 5 or 6 speed freewheels on the back. They just work and they keep working for years for peanuts in running costs. Most MTB's spend 99% of their miles not actually MTB'ing in the same way road racing bikes spend 99% of their mileage doing things other than actually racing. Triple-equipped bikes are inherently practical.
Comparing modern 1 x MTB transmissions with 5 speed racers is not really like for like. The racers were often sold like this to keep the purchase cost down for youngsters, not to cream extra profit for the manufacturers, and they were usually geared 46T on the front and 14-28 on the back. My 5 speed Raleigh Arena was geared 43, 50, 60, 70, 85 inches and worked fine on flattish terrain. A 10 speed version was at least £10 more expensive, and the buyer at least had the choice.


----------



## screenman (28 Dec 2020)

Have you got a choice of different beers to drink? Or do you stick to the Tesco own brand one. Money, marketing, that word that a lot on here hate so much profit, stop sounding like your dad's and realise not every cyclist wants the same thing, I certainly do not want to be scavenging in skips for my bikes.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (28 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Have you got a choice of different beers to drink?



Plenty of choice of beer here thanks. All good beer and good value. Plenty of choice of bikes to ride too. Also good value, especially the free ones. No overpriced marketing hype scam jobs.


----------



## screenman (28 Dec 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Plenty of choice of beer here thanks. All good beer and good value. Plenty of choice of bikes to ride too. Also good value, especially the free ones. No overpriced marketing hype scam jobs.



Anything over 20p a can is a waste of good money, it is all the same stuff you have been conned by the shiny adverts into thinking it tastes different.


----------



## DRM (28 Dec 2020)

No marketing hype scam, they’re designed to do a job, and do it well, and if bike manufacturers don’t sell enough bikes, they go bust, it’s responding to market demands, which really doesn’t include 1980’s Raleigh bikes


----------



## screenman (28 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> No marketing hype scam, they’re designed to do a job, and do it well, and if bike manufacturers don’t sell enough bikes, they go bust, it’s responding to market demands, which really doesn’t include 1980’s Raleigh bikes



Come to think about it what happened to all those old British brands?


----------



## Gunk (28 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Come to think about it what happened to all those old British brands?



They stopped trading at the same time you last bought a can of beer!


----------



## screenman (28 Dec 2020)

Gunk said:


> They stopped trading at the same time you last bought a can of beer!



Maybe they should have come up with idea's that created a new market and kept the staff in jobs, mind you some would see that as scamming.


----------



## Archie_tect (28 Dec 2020)

Ah McEwan's 80 shilling... 27p a can in 1977.


----------



## DRM (29 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Come to think about it what happened to all those old British brands?


They're all for sale alongside British motor bikes & British Leyland/Rootes Group cars, & Albion/Scammel/Commer trucks


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (29 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Anything over 20p a can is a waste of good money, it is all the same stuff you have been conned by the shiny adverts into thinking it tastes different.



Wrong. I'm pretty fussy about my beer and I don't drink cans as a rule. Nearly all bottled for home consumption and quite a bit is bottle conditioned. I take full advantage of any multibuy offers to get the best value.



DRM said:


> No marketing hype scam, they’re designed to do a job, and do it well, and if bike manufacturers don’t sell enough bikes, they go bust, it’s responding to market demands, which really doesn’t include 1980’s Raleigh bikes



I really really can't recall ever thinking "my old triple equipped bikes are really useless, so what I need is a single chainring instead" The market never demanded 1 x transmissions at all, it was the industry that started pushing them. Same goes for different wheel sizes and suspension. For what most riders actually use their bikes for you don't need suspension, you don't need dropper seatposts, you don't need 1 x gears, and you don't need stupidly long wheelbases combined with ultra-slack geometry.
The actual proportion of riders who gain anything from modern design trends is tiny, because only a tiny minority do anything more extreme than riding on gravel tracks and tame dirt banks in woods.
What happened is the bikes made back in the 80's and 90's were so practical as multi-purpose machines that riders saw no need to keep replacing them. All the 27.5" and 29'er hype and the long wheelbase full sus stuff was just an attempt to push bikes that most riders simply didn't and don't need. I don't need to buy a "gravel" bike as my steel touring and hybrid frames will take decent size tyres even with mudguards fitted, and the MTB/Touring gearing means they will go anywhere the tyres can find traction. I already have "gravel" bikes, they just aren't called that.


----------



## screenman (29 Dec 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Wrong. I'm pretty fussy about my beer and I don't drink cans as a rule. Nearly all bottled for home consumption and quite a bit is bottle conditioned. I take full advantage of any multibuy offers to get the best value.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think I have you worked out, you do not like spending money and dislike even more those that do for some reason.


----------



## Blue Hills (29 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> Have you got a choice of different beers to drink? Or do you stick to the Tesco own brand one. Money, marketing, that word that a lot on here hate so much profit, stop sounding like your dad's and realise not every cyclist wants the same thing, I certainly do not want to be scavenging in skips for my bikes.


plenty of great beers around and I have the impression that Skipdiver enjoys a range regularly - beer is a curious thing for you to choose as an example for of course there's also a lot of marketing bollocks thrown at (up into?) beer - weak wishy washy slop that some marketeer would have you believe is special in some way.


----------



## Hacienda71 (29 Dec 2020)

Why we ever changed from penny farthings I will never know.


----------



## byegad (29 Dec 2020)

Hacienda71 said:


> Why we ever changed from penny farthings I will never know.


Nah! Coming down from the trees was a bad idea, and some people query leaving the sea!


----------



## fossyant (29 Dec 2020)

DRM said:


> Thats where gravel bikes come in, best of both worlds innit



Nope. Compromised in both respects. MTB for gnarly stuff, road bikes for tarmac.


----------



## fossyant (29 Dec 2020)

screenman said:


> I think I have you worked out, you do not like spending money and dislike even more those that do for some reason.



He's also not ridden a modern MTB. I love my old 90's MTB, but it can't do anything like as well as my full sus can do. Oh and it has a dropper which is a fantastic bit of kit, especially when going down very steep rocky descents. Saves the plumbs from a battering.


----------



## Jody (29 Dec 2020)

fossyant said:


> He's also not ridden a modern MTB.



Same old broken record. Here's what I think and you're all wrong


----------



## ColinJ (29 Dec 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> When I moved to the US in the 80s I was gobsmacked that they put filling onto sandwiches using an ice cream scoop, not spread thinly with a small knife.


Years back, a colleague of mine had to work in the USA for a couple of weeks. His hosts took him out to their local diner for breakfast, proudly telling him that it was excellent value. He was given a 10 inch plate piled so high with food that it was overflowing onto the tray on which it was delivered to him. He said that he could only manage about 1/4 of it! The hosts asked if he didn't like it; why hadn't he eaten it all? (They finished theirs, and then ordered pancakes!)


----------



## DRM (29 Dec 2020)

fossyant said:


> Nope. Compromised in both respects. MTB for gnarly stuff, road bikes for tarmac.


Wrong, on road straight from home, wonder where that bridleway goes, go and have a look, full suss MTB useless on road, overkill on bridleways, perfect for really rough off road, road spot on on road, forget anything else.


----------



## DRM (29 Dec 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Wrong. I'm pretty fussy about my beer and I don't drink cans as a rule. Nearly all bottled for home consumption and quite a bit is bottle conditioned. I take full advantage of any multibuy offers to get the best value.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Old triple's aren't useless, quite the opposite, but things move on, my gravel bike does everything I want it to do, I don't do really rough MTB'ing anymore as A: I don't bounce like I used to, B: It's a pain loading the car up to go for a ride off road somewhere when I can jump on the gravel bike straight from home, same as the road bike jump on it and go for a spin on road, it's that simple.


----------



## Ajax Bay (29 Dec 2020)

Hauling this back from economics and beer, this is a clip from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_gearing which offers data aka facts.
"The approximate gear ranges which follow are merely indicative of typical gearing setups, and will vary somewhat from bicycle to bicycle." ['range' is the percentage of the highest gear over the lowest)

rangetransmissionusable gearsmean step180%3-speed hub gears334.2%250%5-speed hub gears525.7%300%7-speed hub gears720.1%307%8-speed hub gears817.4%327%typical 1 chainring derailleur setup (1x10, 11-36)1014.1%327%road 1 chainring derailleur setup (1x11, 11-36)1112.6%380%NuVinci continuously variable transmission[8]continuousnone409%11-speed hub gears1115.1%420%mountain 1 chainring derailleur setup (1x11, 10-42)1115.4%428%road 2 chainring derailleur setup (2x10, 50-34 x 11-32)1312.9%441%road 3 chainring derailleur setup (3x10, 52/39/30 x 11-28)1511.2%500%extreme 1 chainring derailleur setup (1x12, 10-50)1215.8%518%mountain 2 chainring derailleur setup (2x10, 38-24 x 11-36)1413.5%526%Rohloff Speedhub 14-speed hub gear1413.6%630%Mountain 2x11 derailleur setup (24/36 x 10-42)[9]1415.2%636%18-speed bottom bracket gearbox[10]1811.5%655%mountain 3 chainring derailleur setup (3x10, 44-33-22 x 11-36)1613.3%698%touring 3 chainring derailleur setup (3x10, 48-34-20 x 11-32)1514.9%


----------



## Justinslow (29 Dec 2020)

Anyway....
Here’s the bike I linked to earlier, Carbon, light, hardtail, built for XC and racing, could have been many “mountain” bikes I could have found, with a 51 at the back and a 30 up front. I get it that old fangled triples had even smaller front rings but they didn’t have 51’s at the back. It just puzzles me that a bike designed for fast XC would need such a set up? Why not have a closer spaced cassette that is less big?
I understand that some people do use them for very steep inclines and obviously I’m coming at it from my own experience and where I ride where that gearing would be useless (forest centres, around fields etc), I’ve got 10 speed 34 up front and 42 at the back and i don’t think I’ll ever use the 42 so effectively I’m riding a 9 speed.
Maybe for what I ride a “mountain” bike is wasted on me, maybe what I should be riding is a gravel bike?


----------



## Jody (29 Dec 2020)

Justinslow said:


> It just puzzles me that a bike designed for fast XC would need such a set up? Why not have a closer spaced cassette that is less big?
> I understand that some people do use them for very steep inclines and obviously I’m coming at it from my own experience and where I ride where that gearing would be useless



But fast XC still isn't going to spin out on a 1x unless there are long flat downhill sections or even on flat tarmac. I was skeptical, but measured side by side with others you would be hard pushed to notice the difference if you couldn't see it. But for the larger cassette you get more clearance, less weight and a cleaner look.

I've still got a triple on a 11-36 cassette and it does everything I need. But it's definitely needed around here.


----------



## Blue Hills (30 Dec 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I don't know if this is the thread for it but I read that Campagnolo's new Ekar groupset has a smallest sprocket of 9T. Nine teeth!
> 
> I know that 11T sprockets cause some harrumphing on here. I imagine a 9T one would cause intense spluttering. And imagine ... imagine ... if it was also outrageously expensive
> 
> ...


Credit where credit is due, the trolling is all Campag's.
Loved this:
"13 sprockets make the logic of a Road 1x system possible"


----------



## matticus (30 Dec 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Credit where credit is due, the trolling is all Campag's.
> Loved this:
> "13 sprockets make the logic of a Road 1x system possible"


Pfft 

They could of course argue that 13 is 3 more than were needed by hundreds of pros riding GTs across the Pyrenees etc on 52/42 chainsets... Or 12 more than rode up the same cols the first time IIRC!
But is 1x13 the most logical road system currently available? Not for most riders, in most terrain, I'd say!



Dogtrousers said:


> https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/campagnolo-ekar-13-speed-cassette-2021/rp-prod202618 9-36 sprocket. Costs £235
> 
> This post is pure troll


£235?? remind me how much those _extravagant _front shifters and chainrings cost!

:P


----------



## rivers (30 Dec 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I really really can't recall ever thinking "my old triple equipped bikes are really useless, so what I need is a single chainring instead" The market never demanded 1 x transmissions at all, it was the industry that started pushing them. Same goes for different wheel sizes and suspension. For what most riders actually use their bikes for you don't need suspension, you don't need dropper seatposts, you don't need 1 x gears, and you don't need stupidly long wheelbases combined with ultra-slack geometry.
> The actual proportion of riders who gain anything from modern design trends is tiny, because only a tiny minority do anything more extreme than riding on gravel tracks and tame dirt banks in woods.
> What happened is the bikes made back in the 80's and 90's were so practical as multi-purpose machines that riders saw no need to keep replacing them. All the 27.5" and 29'er hype and the long wheelbase full sus stuff was just an attempt to push bikes that most riders simply didn't and don't need. I don't need to buy a "gravel" bike as my steel touring and hybrid frames will take decent size tyres even with mudguards fitted, and the MTB/Touring gearing means they will go anywhere the tyres can find traction. I already have "gravel" bikes, they just aren't called that.



Meh, my cross/gravel bike will handle most of the trails up at Ashton Court and Leigh Woods, as well as a lot of the singletrack, bridleways, and off-road stuff around here. Hell, I've taken that bike around Ben Nevis (just some of the blue trails, it can't handle more than that) But, after having a play on the trails at Ashton Court/Leigh Woods on a full sus, I have to say it was a lot more fun, and I picked up a lot more speed on the MTB. Will I trade in my cross bike? No, it's great for winter and a lot of the off-road stuff I do. But that full sus can go to different places. Will I ever get the full potential out of it? No, but it's fun. And well, quite frankly, I ride a bike because I find it fun.

Oh, and it's currently a triple, but will be doing a 1x conversion on it in the spring. Why? Because the big chain ring and little chain ring are superflous to my needs.


----------



## screenman (30 Dec 2020)

matticus said:


> Pfft
> 
> They could of course argue that 13 is 3 more than were needed by hundreds of pros riding GTs across the Pyrenees etc on 52/42 chainsets... Or 12 more than rode up the same cols the first time IIRC!
> But is 1x13 the most logical road system currently available? Not for most riders, in most terrain, I'd say!
> ...




What has price got to do with it? Is everything you own the cheapest you can buy? Of course most of us do not need these things but why should that stop us buying something we do not need but want.


----------



## bitsandbobs (30 Dec 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Wrong. I'm pretty fussy about my beer and I don't drink cans as a rule. Nearly all bottled for home consumption and quite a bit is bottle conditioned. I take full advantage of any multibuy offers to get the best value.



I'm not entirely sure if this tangent is especially relevant to the thread, but cans are a good example of improved technology usurping traditional wisdom. I rarely drink anything from a bottle these days as cans are superior in pretty much every way, even for something that needs some conditioning. I'd make an exception for a lambik.


----------



## ChrisEyles (31 Dec 2020)

I reckon 32/50 is a very sensible bottom gear to have for punchy steep or very long rough off road climbs. I certainly use the 22/32 bottom great on my old school triple equipped MTB a fair bit. 

Personally I don't like double cranks as the gap between small and large rings tends to be too large, necessitating multiple changes across the cassette accompanying a shift up front. 

Nothing wrong with 3x8/9 though - performs as well as 1x12 in terms of available gears and is much much cheaper to replace when it wears out. Plus shifting into the big ring on descents adds chain tension, which is almost as good as having a clutch rear mech. 

The top gears on a 3x8 set up are arguably unnecessarily high for proper MTB use - you're not going to spin out 42x11 on fat knobby low psi tyres - but they do make the bike a bit more versatile should you choose to fit slicks and do a bit of road riding. 

Bikes seem to be getting generally more high tech (read expensive) and more specialised/specific. I'm willing to believe 1x12 is in fact optimal for proper MTB use, but for me the cost and reduced versatility put me off it. Other kit like dropper posts and decent suspension I'd consider well worth the expense and maintenance, but 1x12 is a marginal gain at best for the consumer. 

I reckon one big reason for it's current ubiquity is that it's easier/cheaper for bike companies to design frames without worrying about chain ring/FD clearance.


----------



## matticus (31 Dec 2020)

Can someone please quantify the tyre issues with a front derailleur? (I've had a 80s rigid MTB with a triple, but that was with 26" !)

A vv quick google shows people saying they can only fit 42mm - is that typical? And is seat-tube clearance relevant with modern bikes?
42mm would be plenty for all the riding I do, but I don't currently yearn to be a serious Off-Roader! I'm mainly curious...


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (1 Jan 2021)

ChrisEyles said:


> Bikes seem to be getting generally more high tech (read expensive) and more specialised/specific. I'm willing to believe 1x12 is in fact optimal for proper MTB use, but for me the cost and reduced versatility put me off it. Other kit like dropper posts and decent suspension I'd consider well worth the expense and maintenance, but 1x12 is a marginal gain at best for the consumer.
> 
> I reckon one big reason for it's current ubiquity is that it's easier/cheaper for bike companies to design frames without worrying about chain ring/FD clearance.



As I've said before none of these trends are being driven by consumer demand. It's all pushed by marketeers thinking up new ways to sell riders who already have perfectly functional bikes, yet another new bike. The problem, from their perspective, is that bikes last too long. Once they've sold a quality bike to a customer they might not ever get a repeat sale, in the case of something like a traditional tourer. The bike is durable, it's running costs are low, and it does the job, so the owner sees no reason to replace it after a few years, they just replace worn parts and keep riding it! 
In the case of 1 x transmissions, the bikes are quicker/cheaper to assemble as you have got less chainrings, no front mech, no shifter, and no need to fit those parts and set them up so they work properly. Not only have the marketeers persuaded a customer to buy another bike, but they have sold a bike with a better margin, and more expensive maintenance parts, so increasing their future revenue if the owner sources their bits through a manufacturer-affiliated retailer.


----------



## flake99please (1 Jan 2021)

ChrisEyles said:


> I reckon one big reason for it's current ubiquity is that it's easier/cheaper for bike companies to design frames without worrying about chain ring/FD clearance.



Interesting thought. However, my 1x12 fat bike has a FD mounting option (with caps for internal wire routing). Proof that Trek at least haven’t taken any shortcuts with their frame design.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> As I've said before none of these trends are being driven by consumer demand. It's all pushed by marketeers thinking up new ways to sell riders who already have perfectly functional bikes, yet another new bike. The problem, from their perspective, is that bikes last too long. Once they've sold a quality bike to a customer they might not ever get a repeat sale, in the case of something like a traditional tourer. The bike is durable, it's running costs are low, and it does the job, so the owner sees no reason to replace it after a few years, they just replace worn parts and keep riding it!
> In the case of 1 x transmissions, the bikes are quicker/cheaper to assemble as you have got less chainrings, no front mech, no shifter, and no need to fit those parts and set them up so they work properly. Not only have the marketeers persuaded a customer to buy another bike, but they have sold a bike with a better margin, and more expensive maintenance parts, so increasing their future revenue if the owner sources their bits through a manufacturer-affiliated retailer.



Not everyone wants the same as you, I certainly do not.


----------



## Gunk (1 Jan 2021)

flake99please said:


> Interesting thought. However, my 1x12 fat bike has a FD mounting option (with caps for internal wire routing). Proof that Trek at least haven’t taken any shortcuts with their frame design.



Or they use a generic tube that’s also used on other frames.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (1 Jan 2021)

screenman said:


> What has price got to do with it? Is everything you own the cheapest you can buy? Of course most of us do not need these things but why should that stop us buying something we do not need but want.



Price has got a lot to do with everything. How frequently can you afford to break it? Serious MTB'ers who really go for it and aim to be fast can do a lot of damage to their bikes and the more expensive the parts are, the more expensive the repairs get.
Would you leave a fancy bike with an expensive 1 x 12 transmission locked to some railings in a rough area where some hooligan might decide to kick your wheels and rear mech in just for the fun of it? I wouldn't, but that's your choice. My choice is I don't ride or drive anything I can't easily afford to fix if it breaks.


----------



## screenman (1 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Price has got a lot to do with everything. How frequently can you afford to break it? Serious MTB'ers who really go for it and aim to be fast can do a lot of damage to their bikes and the more expensive the parts are, the more expensive the repairs get.
> Would you leave a fancy bike with an expensive 1 x 12 transmission locked to some railings in a rough area where some hooligan might decide to kick your wheels and rear mech in just for the fun of it? I wouldn't, but that's your choice. My choice is I don't ride or drive anything I can't easily afford to fix if it breaks.



My choice is the same in your last line. Surely you have a bike for every occasion though.


----------



## ChrisEyles (1 Jan 2021)

@SkipdiverJohn in the specific case of MTBs used for "proper" off road riding, I think technology, geometry and riding styles have changed quite substantially over the last twenty years, so regularly swapping or adding bikes is not quite so crazy as replacing a perfectly good tourer/commuter every few years. 

EG a modern slack angle 29er hardcore hardtail will be a totally different experience on the same trails to an older short travel xc full susser. Pretty much any well maintained MTB will get the job done, but these aren't really supposed to be purely practical machines, they're big boys toys, and I don't think the variety of bikes on offer is a bad thing for the consumer (even if they do only exist to push more sales!). 

In the specific case of 1x12 drive trains I completely agree with your post - probably cheaper to produce, parts are crazy expensive to replace and there was never any consumer demand for it that I'm aware of. 

Other innovations I have to grudgingly admit are worth the silly price tags, particularly dropper posts - it's not all emperors new clothes. 

I'd also have to agree that most MTBs are capable of vastly more than their rider uses them for, and that something like a rigid 90s MTB would be more appropriate for a lot of people. 

If you've not tried one, I'd recommend renting a modern MTB from a trail centre and having a thrash around on one. Once you get over the silly wide handlebars I'll bet you'll enjoy it and find yourself and to ride terrain you'd never considered possible before.


----------



## flake99please (1 Jan 2021)

Gunk said:


> Or they use a generic tube that’s also used on other frames.



It’s a carbon frame. I would assume it’s a more complex manufacturing process to incorporate the optional FD mount than without.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (1 Jan 2021)

ChrisEyles said:


> I'd also have to agree that most MTBs are capable of vastly more than their rider uses them for, and that something like a rigid 90s MTB would be more appropriate for a lot of people.
> 
> If you've not tried one, I'd recommend renting a modern MTB from a trail centre and having a thrash around on one. Once you get over the silly wide handlebars I'll bet you'll enjoy it and find yourself and to ride terrain you'd never considered possible before.



I don't dispute for one minute the modern MTB's are more capable on really rough terrain and can be ridden much faster because the suspension absorbs some of the beating a fully rigid bike would dish out to the rider.
What I find really strange is that I see the riders of such machines doing exactly the same with them as what I do with my bikes; riding them on the roads, then getting off the tarmac on to a gravel path and maybe riding around some dirt banks with the odd bump, dip, and tree root here and there. The types of bikes people are often using are complete overkill for the kind of riding they are doing, and on easy terrain they are at a disadvantage compared to me because their bikes are heavier, bigger, and more draggy to propel around..


----------



## Jody (1 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> What I find really strange is that I see the riders of such machines doing exactly the same with them as what I do with my bikes; riding them on the roads, then getting off the tarmac on to a gravel path and maybe riding around some dirt banks with the odd bump, dip, and tree root here and there. The types of bikes people are often using are complete overkill for the kind of riding they are doing, and on easy terrain they are at a disadvantage compared to me because their bikes are heavier, bigger, and more draggy to propel around..



You might find that because you live in a mainly flat, concrete jungle surrounded by parks and canal paths? 

I'm lost as to why you always show up on MTB threads to push your view of cheap utilitarian and urban cycling . 

We get it. You don't like spending money and don't like new technology.

Out of interest, how often do you ride the brecons, peaks, lake district Etc? Maybe one day we could meet up and you could show us what your skip finds are capable of


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Jan 2021)

ChrisEyles said:


> @SkipdiverJohn in the specific case of MTBs used for "proper" off road riding, I think technology, geometry and riding styles have changed quite substantially over the last twenty years, so regularly swapping or adding bikes is not quite so crazy as replacing a perfectly good tourer/commuter every few years.
> 
> EG a modern slack angle 29er hardcore hardtail will be a totally different experience on the same trails to an older short travel xc full susser. Pretty much any well maintained MTB will get the job done, but these aren't really supposed to be purely practical machines, they're big boys toys, and I don't think the variety of bikes on offer is a bad thing for the consumer (even if they do only exist to push more sales!).
> 
> ...


liked, but what's the female equivalent of big boys toys?
Liked yours and skipdivers posts as I'm pretty sure that many of these more extreme modern MTBs do very little serious bouncy off road stuff (written as an ex ride leader who once lead a very mixed bunch of riders London to Brighton, including a banker on a vast collection of expensive springs he desperately swapped mid-ride with a friend


----------



## screenman (2 Jan 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> liked, but what's the female equivalent of big boys toys?
> Liked yours and skipdivers posts as I'm pretty sure that many of these more extreme modern MTBs do very little serious bouncy off road stuff (written as an ex ride leader who once lead a very mixed bunch of riders London to Brighton, including a banker on a vast collection of expensive springs he desperately swapped mid-ride with a friend
> [/QUOTE
> 
> My daughter-in-law has more bikes than myself, I only have 6.


----------



## ChrisEyles (3 Jan 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> liked, but what's the female equivalent of big boys toys?
> Liked yours and skipdivers posts as I'm pretty sure that many of these more extreme modern MTBs do very little serious bouncy off road stuff (written as an ex ride leader who once lead a very mixed bunch of riders London to Brighton, including a banker on a vast collection of expensive springs he desperately swapped mid-ride with a friend



Hmm, good point... "big human's toys" doesn't have quite the same ring to it and "adult's toys" best avoided altogether... 

Now you've made me ponder this, mountain biking does seem to be much more male dominated than road cycling (probably with more beardy manly man types too). Wonder why that is - marketing must play a part but presumably they'd target a female audience if they thought there was money to be made? My wife would say "cause women have more sense"


----------



## johnblack (4 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I don't dispute for one minute the modern MTB's are more capable on really rough terrain and can be ridden much faster because the suspension absorbs some of the beating a fully rigid bike would dish out to the rider.
> What I find really strange is that I see the riders of such machines doing exactly the same with them as what I do with my bikes; riding them on the roads, then getting off the tarmac on to a gravel path and maybe riding around some dirt banks with the odd bump, dip, and tree root here and there. The types of bikes people are often using are complete overkill for the kind of riding they are doing, and on easy terrain they are at a disadvantage compared to me because their bikes are heavier, bigger, and more draggy to propel around..


Swiss army knife bike. I can ride my 29er to the pub or on the roads for a few hours, then take the same bike on the gravel, bridle paths, woods and forests, downhills and really technical off road. It can do everything (within reason) It's far more capable when I need it to be and loses very little in less demanding circumstances.


----------



## Tripster (5 Jan 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> liked, but what's the female equivalent of big boys toys?
> Liked yours and skipdivers posts as I'm pretty sure that many of these more extreme modern MTBs do very little serious bouncy off road stuff (written as an ex ride leader who once lead a very mixed bunch of riders London to Brighton, including a banker on a vast collection of expensive springs he desperately swapped mid-ride with a friend


I use my hard tail MTB for a lot of stuff. I like the wide bars for leverage and hate the feel of drop bars off road like the current gravel bikes. I ride in the lake district and trail centres and everything up to technical stuff ( steep dh Rocky expert level descents) . What I also do is use it on the promenade with my kids, or the cycle path to take them for a butty. Totally overkill and unnecessary but comfy and easier than putting on shoes and clipping into SPD on other bikes. Maybe the riders skip diver sees are doing the same ? Just have the one bike and use it for everything. How are we to know they don’t hammer the serious trails other days ?


----------



## Jody (5 Jan 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> Liked yours and skipdivers posts as I'm pretty sure that many of these more extreme modern MTBs do very little serious bouncy off road stuff



I'd say the more expensive and extreme bikes are almost exclusively ridden for their intended purpose. You don't see many DH bikes on canal paths because they are absolute pigs at anything other than pointing downhill and getting airborne.


----------



## ColinJ (13 Jan 2021)

Justinslow said:


> So what’s with the fashion of tiny front ring and dinner plate cassettes? That’s seriously low gearing, 30-51 for instance?
> Do they really ever get used, I mean I could probably walk really slowly and still be faster than pedalling the bike.
> Maybe there’s a case for serious mountain up hills but round a trail centre or buggering about round the countryside?


I just accidentally found a photographic example!

My sister has moved to Devon so I hope to be having a lot of post-Covid cycling holidays down there. I have been busy checking out interesting-looking routes for future epic rides and was just using Streetview to virtually grovel up Porlock Hill when I spotted a mountain biker doing it for real. He is using exactly that kind of gear - '_tiny front ring and dinner plate cassette_'!







It looks a damn hard climb. When I have a go at it, I will be using the lowest gear that I have, and it had better be lower than 1:1!


----------



## fossyant (13 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I don't dispute for one minute the modern MTB's are more capable on really rough terrain and can be ridden much faster because the suspension absorbs some of the beating a fully rigid bike would dish out to the rider.
> What I find really strange is that I see the riders of such machines doing exactly the same with them as what I do with my bikes; riding them on the roads, then getting off the tarmac on to a gravel path and maybe riding around some dirt banks with the odd bump, dip, and tree root here and there. The types of bikes people are often using are complete overkill for the kind of riding they are doing, and on easy terrain they are at a disadvantage compared to me because their bikes are heavier, bigger, and more draggy to propel around..



I see the kids locally messing about on 'reasonable' entry level stuff and even some good bikes - but it doesn't break, it's tough enough, but it won't do what even an older middle agged bloke with limited 'skills' expects out of his MTB. My son's Carrera is fine for him, has been great. It won't be good for me, no young 'bravado' here, and I hit the off road stuff far harder than he can because he doesn't ride much. He won't come out on a local 8 mile loop with me, and it's not technical. He loves his car.... it's better than my car...


----------



## ColinJ (13 Jan 2021)

Hmm... I just looked at the toll road alternative. That looks a lot more sensible and more scenic. I will have to climb up the A39 for the challenge, come straight back down, and then climb the toll road for the views!


----------



## Ajax Bay (14 Jan 2021)

ColinJ said:


> grovel up Porlock Hill


I was going to point out to you the toll road option (£1). It is a delightful graded climb with only the odd car on a wide well-surfaced road with superb views once out of the woods. You can also go via Porlock Weir further to the west on a narrower road marked 'toll' (but I've not been that way yet). I note several single chevrons.


----------



## Blue Hills (14 Jan 2021)

Ajax Bay said:


> I was going to point out to you the toll road option (£1). It is a delightful graded climb with only the odd car on a wide well-surfaced road with superb views once out of the woods. You can also go via Porlock Weir further to the west on a narrower road marked 'toll' (but I've not been that way yet). I note several single chevrons.


You have roads down there you have to pay a toll on when cycling?


----------



## Ajax Bay (14 Jan 2021)

Yes. I went through the first time, assuming cyclists were 'free' (it's a long way from the sign to the toll hut) but the second time (months later, on a hilly 200 from Bridgwater to Croyde and back) the bloke stepped out and I surrendered a pound. Well worth it though. The main road is no fun going up with labouring motors crowding round the corners and general holding up traffic (which I'd normally not 'worry about'). And the toll road is as I described earlier: just superb.
The other toll road on the 'coast road' for cars though is after the Valley of the Rocks, at Lee Abbey. There's an honesty box in the middle of the road.


----------



## matticus (14 Jan 2021)

Luvvin your new GPS display Mr Ajax!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Jan 2021)

matticus said:


> Luvvin your new GPS display Mr Ajax!



Remember plotting those type of graphs in geography at school.


----------



## Ajax Bay (14 Jan 2021)

The good old days, ehh?
There seemed to be no way I could swap from 'miles' to 'kilometres'.
As an aside I was pleased to climb out of Lynmouth without putting a foot down. Is the hardest (albeit short) climb I've ever ridden (harder than Hardknott or Rosedale Chimney).


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Jan 2021)

Ajax Bay said:


> The good old days, ehh?
> There seemed to be no way I could swap from 'miles' to 'kilometres'.
> As an aside I was pleased to climb out of Lynmouth without putting a foot down. Is the hardest (albeit short) climb I've ever ridden (harder than Hardknott or Rosedale Chimney).



Robin Hoods bay is a decent climb out


----------



## Ajax Bay (14 Jan 2021)

That's true (RHB) - on the way back on Day 3 of Mille Pennines for me. Suspect Bushcombe Lane climbing out of Bishop's Cleeve is the very hardest (UK), because of its narrowness and road surface - I have been down but never up (except many times by car to visit relative).


----------



## 8mph (24 Jan 2021)

my lowest gear is 22/34, I could do without it for off-road, it only gets used on road climbs during longer rides.


----------



## jowwy (31 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Wrong. I'm pretty fussy about my beer and I don't drink cans as a rule. Nearly all bottled for home consumption and quite a bit is bottle conditioned. I take full advantage of any multibuy offers to get the best value.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that because you haven’t found any single chain ring bikes in the skip yet?..or carbon bikes??.....cause I bet if you did, you wouldn’t turn down the chance of having one


----------



## simongt (31 Jan 2021)

Saw an MTB recently with 'reverse' gears - a single what looked like at least a 48 tooth chainring and an umpteen speed cassette.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jan 2021)

jowwy said:


> Is that because you haven’t found any single chain ring bikes in the skip yet?..or carbon bikes??.....cause I bet if you did, you wouldn’t turn down the chance of having one



I've acquired two FOC single chainring scrappers so far, both 20" shopper types. I did my usual trick of taking off all the useful bits then ditching the frame and any other unwanted parts.
Not interested in carbons at all. If I found one I would salvage any bits that would fit my steel bikes. The frame would go back in the skip. I don't consider them proper bikes.


----------



## jowwy (31 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I've acquired two FOC single chainring scrappers so far, both 20" shopper types. I did my usual trick of taking off all the useful bits then ditching the frame and any other unwanted parts.
> Not interested in carbons at all. If I found one I would salvage any bits that would fit my steel bikes. The frame would go back in the skip. I don't consider them proper bikes.


So single chainring bikes are a useful trend to you then???


----------



## matticus (31 Jan 2021)

Ajax Bay said:


> That's true (RHB) - on the way back on Day 3 of Mille Pennines for me. Suspect Bushcombe Lane climbing out of Bishop's Cleeve is the very hardest (UK), because of its narrowness and road surface - I have been down but never up (except many times by car to visit relative).


Yeah, I've only been down it. Sketchy, but o doubted it was a Top Ten climb ...

Internet says it has a max of 25%
https://cyclinguphill.com/cleeve-hill-bushcombe-lane/


----------



## Milzy (31 Jan 2021)

It’s complete poppy cock and it makes me throw my best China cups & sauces on the hard floor.


----------



## matticus (31 Jan 2021)

Saucy.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jan 2021)

jowwy said:


> So single chainring bikes are a useful trend to you then???



Single chainrings have the virtue of reduced weight and simplicity if you want to run a minimalist set up like converting a 3 x 6 MTB or hybrid to a basic 6-speed hack for local use on flattish terrain. I've got no intention of running a single front chainring in conjunction with an oversized rear cassette. If I remove something from a bike it is purely because I don't want to have to maintain it or lug it around all the time.


----------



## jowwy (31 Jan 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Single chainrings have the virtue of reduced weight and simplicity if you want to run a minimalist set up like converting a 3 x 6 MTB or hybrid to a basic 6-speed hack for local use on flattish terrain. I've got no intention of running a single front chainring in conjunction with an oversized rear cassette. If I remove something from a bike it is purely because I don't want to have to maintain it or lug it around all the time.


So it’s not marketing guff then just to sell bikes....as you have put it many times on this forum


----------



## fossyant (1 Feb 2021)

This thread is talking about 1x MTB gearing, not your touring bikes, not road bikes, and not shoppers. It's also not talking about pub bikes.

It's for proper MTB's. If you are doing XC, then 2 x is probably more suitable due to closer spaced sprockets - Shimano still do XT and XTR in their 12 speed groupsets. Trail, enduro etc then 1x can make things much easier - less to think about when the terrain suddenly changes and you need to drop 3 or 4 gears quickly. You don't need big gears either as you are usually freewheeling and using body weight to balance the bike properly on descents. You'll really only use the small sprockets on road, which is where the bike isn't at it's best.

The downside is the cassettes are now rather expensive, but so are ruddy chain rings anyway. My larger chain ring is about the same price as a decent 10 speed cassette - guess which wears out fastest.

I chose 2 x 10 rather than the 1 x 11 model as my main riding is XC / cross country mixed in with some hard climbs and descents. at least with 1 x and direct mount, it's far easier to find chain rings and the fitting is standardised. It takes some internet research getting chain rings for my 2 x 10 now without having to pay £100 to import one from Taiwan !


----------



## chriswoody (1 Feb 2021)

fossyant said:


> This thread is talking about 1x MTB gearing, not your touring bikes, not road bikes, and not shoppers. It's also not talking about pub bikes.
> 
> It's for proper MTB's. If you are doing XC, then 2 x is probably more suitable due to closer spaced sprockets - Shimano still do XT and XTR in their 12 speed groupsets. Trail, enduro etc then 1x can make things much easier - less to think about when the terrain suddenly changes and you need to drop 3 or 4 gears quickly. You don't need big gears either as you are usually freewheeling and using body weight to balance the bike properly on descents. You'll really only use the small sprockets on road, which is where the bike isn't at it's best.
> 
> ...



Don't forget Gravel/Adventure bikes too.  My kona comes with a SRAM 1x11 system and the 10 tooth sprocket is really useful on road. Generally the spread of gears is fine for where I live (10 - 42 Cassette, 36 tooth chainring), however, for loaded off-road touring it's too high. I'm going to put a 32 tooth chainring on the next time I tour.

As you say, it's all a tad expensive to replace, that said, I'm really impressed how long it all lasts. Riding a lot of off-road in an area that has really sandy gritty soil I've got well over 4000km out of my cassette so far and I'm on my second chain.


----------



## Broadside (18 Apr 2021)

Ajax Bay said:


> That's true (RHB) - on the way back on Day 3 of Mille Pennines for me. Suspect Bushcombe Lane climbing out of Bishop's Cleeve is the very hardest (UK), because of its narrowness and road surface - I have been down but never up (except many times by car to visit relative).


Bushcombe Lane is a nasty climb, I can’t say I enjoyed it last year but I managed to keep going to the top. Hardknott Pass is something else, I got to 100m from the top before I conked out. As far as difficulty goes I would rate Bushcombe 9/10, Wrynose 10/10 (I only just manged to keep going) and Hardknott 11/10 because it beat me. I wouldn’t attempt Bushcombe again, it’s not a great road and doesn’t tempt me back. Hardknott was intriguing though and I think I will return for another go but with at least another 4 teeth on my cassette! The descents off Hardknott and Wrynose are horrendous at the moment, the cars have chopped up the tarmac so bad that doing anything over 15mph was dangerous so it’s a bit of a hand acher getting down and that was with hydraulic discs brakes on my road bike.


----------



## Stevec047 (20 Apr 2021)

I switched my 2x8 to a 1x8 with a 32 oval chain ring up front. Two reasons I did this, the first was to loose the front derailleur and lesson the risk of a malfunction out on the trials, as I had a number of occasions where it would get jammed with rocks and mud.

The second reason was to allow for a wider range of gears at the back to help on the long slots up the trails before getting to the fun parts.

At no point was this a costly exercise, the oval chain ring cost about £30, a new wider ratio 11/38 cassette was around £40 but the difference it has made is night and day, no more skipping chain on the front derailleur and a much smoother ride.


----------



## T4tomo (20 Apr 2021)

Ajax Bay said:


> As an aside I was pleased to climb out of Lynmouth without putting a foot down. Is the hardest (albeit short) climb I've ever ridden (harder than Hardknott or Rosedale Chimney).





Ming the Merciless said:


> Robin Hoods bay is a decent climb out



Rosedale Chimney is harder than either way out of RHB, I'm from those parts, but both are a proper challenge.


----------



## Yakboy (28 Jun 2021)

With a 1X set up you can also run an oval chainring which really smooths out power delivery on the climbs.


----------



## Blue Hills (28 Jun 2021)

Yakboy said:


> With a 1X set up you can also run an oval chainring which really smooths out power delivery on the climbs.


power delivery?
I'm just happy to get up.


----------



## Pale Rider (28 Jun 2021)

Yakboy said:


> With a 1X set up you can also run an oval chainring which really smooths out power delivery on the climbs.



Were both rings oval on the roadie oval gears of a few years ago?


----------



## Yakboy (28 Jun 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Were both rings oval on the roadie oval gears of a few years ago?


Shimano also did Biopace rings for MTB's back in the 90's but they put the oval in the wrong place. I know you can get 2X TT Oval set ups but I think you have to be very careful shifting rings. I love my Absolute black oval rings, run a 32T on my enduro bike and 30T on my fat bike as I like steep techy uphill stuff I really notice the difference as you pedal more "round" and are less likely to spin out on muddy sections. Been using them for about 5 years now.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (28 Jun 2021)

Broadside said:


> Bushcombe Lane is a nasty climb, I can’t say I enjoyed it last year but I managed to keep going to the top. Hardknott Pass is something else, I got to 100m from the top before I conked out. As far as difficulty goes I would rate Bushcombe 9/10, Wrynose 10/10 (I only just manged to keep going) and Hardknott 11/10 because it beat me. I wouldn’t attempt Bushcombe again, it’s not a great road and doesn’t tempt me back. Hardknott was intriguing though and I think I will return for another go but with at least another 4 teeth on my cassette! The descents off Hardknott and Wrynose are horrendous at the moment, the cars have chopped up the tarmac so bad that doing anything over 15mph was dangerous so it’s a bit of a hand acher getting down and that was with hydraulic discs brakes on my road bike.



Wrynose is relatively tame compared to Hardknott. I remember Wrynose after Hardknott on the Fred Whitton and not thinking the former was much to talk about.


----------

