1x11?

[RickH]

12 months on & nearly 1900 miles (pretty much the entirety of my solo cycling) & I've no complaints with my set up (Kona Sutra Ltd running SRAM Rival 1 gearing). Despite years of using doubles & triples, I like the simplity. To change to a higher gear you shift the single shifter one way (a light press on the paddle) to shift lower you shift the other way (a firmer press & shifts up to 3 sprockets if you continue to push the paddle further). Until you reach one end of the block or the other you just keep shifting as needed.

The gear range is pretty much the same as on my old bike, running a Campag 3x10 (13-29 R, 26/39/50 F). I reckon the 3x10 gave me 15 unique gears (but requires 2 triple shifts at the back combined with a shift at the front to run through them) so the 1x11 has somewhat wider gaps but they are mostly concentrated at the ends of the range where it matters less.

The combination of narrow-wide toothed chainring & clutch in the derailleur seem to have been effective - I've not had a single chain unshipping & I only recall noticing a slight chainslap on a couple of occasions (the OEM thin clear protector on the DS chainstay is virtually unmarked).

[Brucey]

....The gear range is pretty much the same as on my old bike, running a Campag 3x10 (13-29 R, 26/39/50 F).....

the range is close
http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS&KB=26,39,50&RZ=13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=3.5&UN=MPH&GR2=DERS&KB2=38&RZ2=10,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32,36,42&UF2=2170

but then again the triple setup you had before wasn't especially wide range, constrained as it was by the use of campag parts.

With the 1x11 setup there are four shift intervals that are 17%, and one of 20%. These gaps are a lot bigger than with the 3x10 setup, enough to trouble some folk. [e.g. With the 38T chainring, I'd find myself endlessly shuffling between the 14T and 16T sprockets...]

The large shift intervals are not at the ends of the gear range, they are spread throughout; every third shift is a 17% one right through the range and at the top you have a bonus 20% shift.

cheers

[busb]

YouTube Link: 4 BIG PROBLEMS Of 1x10, 1x11, 1x12 Drivetrains. 1 By Drivetrain - THE TRUTH. Part 1.

The video is 15m long. Can you summarise what the conclusion is?

1. Chain-line compromised.
2. Power loss due to extra friction.
3. Lack of gears for optimal cadence, run out out gears at high/low speed.
4. Parts wear quicker.

Part 2 covers Sram XX1 Eagle Drivetrain 1x12 (10t to 50t), which he says works well but still does not allow optimum cadence.

OK - didn't get as far as part 2 but found the results rather ironic in that the gravel bike was the favourite. I'd always thought that 1 By made some sense on MTB by reducing the chance of chain jamming but hadn't realised the wear or back-pedalling issues.
I haven't done any off-road for over 10yrs & every time I scrutinise MTBs in a LBS with their tiny single chain rings, I feel disinclined to go offroad on a new bike! I can get the move away from triples but not doubles. 1 x 12s on Grand Tours? I p** myself laughing that the bike industry's collective marketing machine has managed to flog such a naff idea, knowing they could sell bikes all over again to correct the mistake. I'm not against new ideas at all, having converted my hybrid to tubeless but loss of cadence doesn't appeal to me.

[RickH]

....The gear range is pretty much the same as on my old bike, running a Campag 3x10 (13-29 R, 26/39/50 F).....

the range is close
http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS&KB=26,39,50&RZ=13,14,15,16,17,19,21,23,26,29&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=3.5&UN=MPH&GR2=DERS&KB2=38&RZ2=10,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32,36,42&UF2=2170

but then again the triple setup you had before wasn't especially wide range, constrained as it was by the use of campag parts.

With the 1x11 setup there are four shift intervals that are 17%, and one of 20%. These gaps are a lot bigger than with the 3x10 setup, enough to trouble some folk. [e.g. With the 38T chainring, I'd find myself endlessly shuffling between the 14T and 16T sprockets...]

The large shift intervals are not at the ends of the gear range, they are spread throughout; every third shift is a 17% one right through the range and at the top you have a bonus 20% shift.

cheers

A few years ago I might have baulked at big gaps but looking back I've got smaller gaps than my wide 5 speed (14-34 or something like that) that I had in the 70s & it has a 12-28 7 speed hidden in the range.

[Brucey]

I agree big gaps and uneven gaps are not the end of the world per se but they are a bit of a shock to the system if you are used to something different; some folk complain bitterly about such things.

I have to say that on a double or a triple (with, say, 7 at the back) I get used to the cassette so I know roughly what sized shift is coming up, but I think I'd lose track on a 1x11.

cheers

[thelawnet]

A standard 3x10 MTB has 11-36t plus something like 40/30/22

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/latin-america/xtc-slr-3

The 11-36 cassette has its biggest gap between the first two cogs, 11 and 13, of 18%.
11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32-36
The total range is 5.95x

There are roughly 14 distinct gears, using the 30 ring and the 11-36, plus the 40/11 and 40/13, and then 22/36 and 22/32. (You'd use more in practice).

Going to 2x10 you can use a 11-42 cassette
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/int/fathom-2
11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32-37-42
This introduces a bigger gap, of 20%, between the 15 and 18 cogs. However the total range actually increases, with an effective extra bottom gear, although you lose the equivalent of half a tooth on your cassette by going from 40 to 38t.

By spending lots of money on 1x11, you can get an 11-46 cassette instead.

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/ae/xtc-a ... 9er-1-2017

11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-46

This fixes the 15-18-21 gaps, but instead you end up with a massive gap from 37 to 46 of 24%.

Your range ends up with one gear lost off the bottom of the 3x10 setup, and a gear-and-a-half at the top end.

The benefit of this isn't clear!

With 2x10 you get two fairly clear and usable high and low ranges (and if you stick with 11-36 you end up with effectively only one less gear than 3x10), but with 1x you get much less range and extra gears are fairly marginal.

So it's something like 14 gears (3x10) vs 13 gears (2x10) vs 11 gears (1x11). Adding the front derailleur extends your range by 3 gears at no cost compared to 1x11 (since the cassette, rear derailleur & chain are cheaper), but keep ongoing maintenance costs down.

[reohn2]

With an 11-36(11,13,15,17,19,21,24,28,32,36) cassette and a 22/30/40 chainset on 29er(700c) x 2.4in tyre gives 17.8inch to 105inch gear range.The 40t big ring is useless to me,but gives 27 useable ratios out of 30.
Disgard the the 40t ring and theres still 19 useable ratios from 17.8inch to 79.6inch
Top gear of 30x11 is rarely used on my MTB,bottom OTOH is used a lot and 22x11 is a forbidden cross chain gear,so effectively I have a 2x9 and thats all I need.

For anyone who wants a higher top set,swap the 30t ring for a 34t and they have a 17.8in to 90in range



For a road or touring bike looking at the same 11-36 10sp cassette and 26/40t chainset with 700cx32 tyres and you have an 19.6in to 99in range with 19 useable ratios.

With the 11/36 10sp cassette the middle most used ratios are all closely spaced and so much more useful.

As you say 1x11 who needs it?

[thelawnet]

The other issue is that 11 cogs are heavier than 10, and larger cogs much more than smaller ones.

An 11-speed XT 11-46t cassette is 11,13,15,17,19 plus 21-24-28 spider and 32-37-46 spiders, with the 37 and 46 cogs themselves aluminium (the spider arms are aluminium) and weighs 437g. The SLX cassette is the same thing but with individual 21, 24, 28 cogs instead of the spider, and weighs 482g. An all-steel, spiderless cassette would weigh around 600g.

There is a Sunrace cassette with 11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32-36-40-46 cogs, with only the 46t in aluminium and a 465g weight, or 534g with all-steel cogs (but still aluminium spiders).

By contrast a comparable 11-36t steel (with aluminium spiders) 10-speed is only 341g, and SRAM's weight-weeny super-pricey machined 8-cogs-in-1 11-36t is only 208g.

The increase in cassette weight is essentially proportional to the square of the increase in number of teeth. So while you gain 25% more range on your cassette, you gain 50% more weight. Or you can get incredibly expensive cassettes (a friend has an SRAM Eagle with a tooth snapped off, oops), and/or ones with soft aluminium instead of steel teeth.

The aforementioned 1x11 with 32t 11-46t Shimano drivetrain when compared with 3x10 with 40/30/22 has a missing bottom gear (20/36), and then essentially the next three lowest gears (which are compressed into two) will have you chewing up an aluminium cog.

So increasingly large cassettes are an increasingly bad idea....

[reohn2]

TBF, you have to include a front mech,shifter,cable and the two extra chainrings to compare a 3x9 or 10sp with a 1x11sp drivetrain.

[MikeF]

1x11. The latest designer fad. How pointless is that im thinking,...........

12 speed is now the latest. I’m still using 8 and the chains are cheap.

[thelawnet]

TBF, you have to include a front mech,shifter,cable and the two extra chainrings to compare a 3x9 or 10sp with a 1x11sp drivetrain.

The shifter/mech/cable are around 300g. The XT crank weighs the same between double and single, but this is because the single uses a steel ring, the double aluminium. Twice as many rings, but half as hard (maybe?)!

Obviously 1x is lighter, my point was more that the weight of the larger cassette creates an extra cost and engineering implication that doesn't exist with a smaller setup. There's precious little room to cut the weight of shifters & mechs.

[RickH]

Obviously 1x is lighter, my point was more that the weight of the larger cassette creates an extra cost and engineering implication that doesn't exist with a smaller setup. There's precious little room to cut the weight of shifters & mechs.

The cassette 10-42 (XG-1150) that came on mine has a quoted weight of 394g for all steel - there's not much, if any, surplus metal as each sprocket is pinned to the next largest & 7 (at least) don't touch the central carrier tube at all. The 42 is (unsurprisingly) very like a spiderless chainring & only the 3 smallest sprockets actually look like they meet the central tube. The "suspended" sprockets consist of a ring with the teeth, a smaller metal ring (that the next smallest sprocket is pinned to) and some spars joining the two together.

[elPedro666]

Setting aside the overall weight for a moment, adding - or perhaps I should say transferring - weight from the centre of the bike onto the rear wheel and also increasing the rotating and (on full-suss) the unsprung mass has to be a bad thing.

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

[reohn2]

I think we're splitting hairs on the weight distribution idea.

[elPedro666]

I think we're splitting hairs on the weight distribution idea.

I'd have to disagree - shaving weight off your wheels (tyres, cassette etc) has to be the most dramatic way to alter a bike's handling, drastically moreso if it's also unsprung mass. Taking it further, the effects of moving to a BB gearbox on a full-suss bike are really quite spectacular in terms of the suspension performance.

Can't believe I've got that reply in before a fervent singlespeeder beat me to it... [emoji38]

[emoji6]

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