1x11?

[Audax67]

What is it with one chain ring? Why? have people lost the use of the fingers on their left hands? Can they no longer afford a front mech? Are they too new to cycling to get their heads around two mechs and how to use them? I can understand wanting more sprockets, especially if you don't understand or accept the alleged downsides, but why no second ring? I speak as someone who, as a lad in the 70s, aspired to a second ring like the kid down the road had.

Easier to adjust. For some (many?), adjusting a front mech correctly is a mystery akin to water-divining or raising the dead.

Mind you, I know more than a few who leave all that to the LBS.

[pwa]

What is it with one chain ring? Why? have people lost the use of the fingers on their left hands? Can they no longer afford a front mech? Are they too new to cycling to get their heads around two mechs and how to use them? I can understand wanting more sprockets, especially if you don't understand or accept the alleged downsides, but why no second ring? I speak as someone who, as a lad in the 70s, aspired to a second ring like the kid down the road had.

Easier to adjust. For some (many?), adjusting a front mech correctly is a mystery akin to water-divining or raising the dead.

Mind you, I know more than a few who leave all that to the LBS.

I don't use STI dual controls. I use bar end levers and my front (left lever) is friction, non-indexed, which means apart from setting the limit screws there is no adjustment. And I get three chain rings. Infinite trimming if the chain rubs the mech, which it rarely does. Indexing and front mechs don't go well together.

But losing the extra chain ring(s) seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water, just because they haven't worked out how to get a dual control system to work with a front mech.

[reohn2]

All my bikes .. SPA, TREK and BTwin have 1 x 9 set ups.
As long as your chainrings have no ramps or pins the chain stays firmly on the teeth.
My only whinge with the 1x? setup is the lack of choice of cog sizes.
My SPA has an 11 - 32 cassette but what i actually want is a 14 - 34 (or 36) cassette.
(feel free to point me in the right direction)

It's simple.
Take a Tiagra 14-25t 9sp cassette and an HG50 Deore 11-34t 9sp one.
Punch out the three rivets holding both cassettes together,this is best done from the smallest cog side.
Reassemble the cassette onto the freehub with desired ratios chosen from both cassettes.
I've been doing this for years on both solos and tandems.
Individual sprocket ramps aren't always correctly aligned but it doesnt matter,it works a treat especially with STI's where slight overshifting to bigger sprockets almost always occurs during shifting.
But if you're really picky you can,using a dremel type tool,grind off some of the largest castellation on any individual cog and move it around the castellations on the freehubs to get it nearer to sequence.

[Mr Evil]

What is it with one chain ring? [...] Are they too new to cycling to get their heads around two mechs and how to use them?..

If you've ever watched a "normal" person riding a modern multi-geared bike, then yes. Even if they have been riding for many years, they may never be able to fully utilize the available gearing.

[elPedro666]

Nothing to see here...

[elPedro666]

All my bikes .. SPA, TREK and BTwin have 1 x 9 set ups.
As long as your chainrings have no ramps or pins the chain stays firmly on the teeth.
My only whinge with the 1x? setup is the lack of choice of cog sizes.
My SPA has an 11 - 32 cassette but what i actually want is a 14 - 34 (or 36) cassette.
(feel free to point me in the right direction)

It's simple.
Take a Tiagra 14-25t 9sp cassette and an HG50 Deore 11-34t 9sp one.
Punch out the three rivets holding both cassettes together,this is best done from the smallest cog side.
Reassemble the cassette onto the freehub with desired ratios chosen from both cassettes.
I've been doing this for years on both solos and tandems.
Individual sprocket ramps aren't always correctly aligned but it doesnt matter,it works a treat especially with STI's where slight overshifting to bigger sprockets almost always occurs during shifting.
But if you're really picky you can,using a dremel type tool,grind off some of the largest castellation on any individual cog and move it around the castellations on the freehubs to get it nearer to sequence.

Rather than us a 14-34 why not just use a slightly smaller chainring with a standard ratio, 11-28 or whatever it is that gives the equivalent range?

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[Brucey]

....Rather than us a 14-34 why not just use a slightly smaller chainring with a standard ratio, 11-28 or whatever it is that gives the equivalent range? .

because you end up riding most of the time using smaller sprockets that are inherently inefficient and wear faster than larger ones.

The possible intervals between the gears are also changed appreciably. For example taking a 2T interval; 14-16T is a ~14% difference whereas 11-13T is ~18% .

cheers

[elPedro666]

....Rather than us a 14-34 why not just use a slightly smaller chainring with a standard ratio, 11-28 or whatever it is that gives the equivalent range? .

because you end up riding most of the time using smaller sprockets that are inherently inefficient and wear faster than larger ones.

The possible intervals between the gears are also changed appreciably. For example taking a 2T interval; 14-16T is a ~14% difference whereas 11-13T is ~18% .

cheers

If the overall range is the same then the intervals must also be equivalent. I get what you mean, but a standard 11-28 (for example) doesn't suffer appreciably from odd spacing. Between the smallest cogs there's only going to be 1 tooth jumps anyway.

I thought the evidence for smaller rings being less efficient was sketchy at best but I'm happy to be updated on that!

I reckon my way is cheaper, lighter and better shifting (because the ramps/gates are as intended). [emoji14]

Wear rates are influenced so much more by cleanliness that I wouldn't worry about the effect of losing a few teeth off a chainring, plus you're only buying one cassette at a time rather than two so you're still quids in (am I starting to sound tight...? [emoji38]).

Should get away with a shorter chain and rear mech cage too, sharpen up the shifting further and lose a bit more weight.

Can you tell I was a fan of Microdrive in the early nineties...? [emoji6]

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[Mr Evil]

Another advantage of larger sprockets and chainring is that they are quieter and less likely to vibrate horribly from chordal action.

[Brucey]

If the overall range is the same then the intervals must also be equivalent. I get what you mean, but a standard 11-28 (for example) doesn't suffer appreciably from odd spacing. Between the smallest cogs there's only going to be 1 tooth jumps anyway.

the average interval is the same if the %age range is the same and there is a similar number of gears, but the individual intervals are most certainly not the same. If you are fussy about gear intervals then all derailleur systems that use a single ring are, frankly, a bit crap. Basically you have a choice of 1T, 2T, 3T , 4T intervals and there is no way of constructing a set of sprockets than maintains an even %age change or indeed any sensible progression you might choose to want. I would argue that the choices just get better when you use larger sprockets, but that is not to say that some folk might prefer a certain sort of unevenness for their own peculiar reasons.

I thought the evidence for smaller rings being less efficient was sketchy at best but I'm happy to be updated on that!

well-known for about a hundred years, proven science, exploited in Rio (not before time) to provide a marginal gain that helped with the medal haul. In simple terms they got 0.5% improvement in transmission efficiency vs penalties in terms of aero and weight that were not significant. Canny club riders had been doing the same thing for years.

IME small sprockets wear not only faster but in a worse way; the chances of having a new chain skip on a worn small sprocket are vastly greater vs a larger sprocket, used with a given % worn chain. If you use small sprockets then you either need to buy a new cassette every time or you need swap chains out well before (say) they are 0.5% worn, i.e. earlier than normal.

cheers

[reohn2]

Thanks Brucey,saved me a bit of typing there

[elPedro666]

My experience is clearly tainted by the fact that I wear out large sprockets, not small ones [emoji15]

[emoji38]

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[reohn2]

My experience is clearly tainted by the fact that I wear out large sprockets, not small ones



I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my stupid phone.

Its possibly yer age

[iandriver]

Have been hearing reports of chains shipping on 1x set ups. Seems that front mech does more than change rings. Some major swearing going on from a couple of riders on Sundays CX.

[Brucey]

Have been hearing reports of chains shipping on 1x set ups. Seems that front mech does more than change rings. Some major swearing going on from a couple of riders on Sundays CX.

Doesn't surprise me; you are meant to use a mech with a damper in it, and not all do. Even with one it should still be possible to unship the chain...

It is as well to remember that BITD the hot ticket for some courses was to use a 1x6 or 1x7 system in which the chain was deterred from unshipping by using a chainguard ring both sides of the chainring. Even so, it was still possible to unship the chain if you tried hard enough...

cheers