amediasatex wrote:say, an uphill TT where weight is crucial
Well that's never going to be an issue under current UCI regs. They can already build bikes far lighter than the 6.8kg limit if they choose to (they often don't) so the weight saving of 3-4 lost sprockets is a non-starter as they're already able to build to minimum weight if they want.
They already run smaller or bigger range cassettes depending on the stage and the way 11speed cassettes are configured means the first ~6-7 sprockets are normally very similar between cassettes anyway, it's just the jumps at the big end that vary so no real gain there.
Basically they are not weight-bound as it is in terms of performance, and there are no real world situations where saving 3 sprockets worth of weight makes any difference, so for them there is literally no benefit in losing them and locking the mech out etc.
The real weight weenie guys are the hillclimbers, most for the top guys run fixed anyway, but the few that do use gears already do drop un-needed sprockets, but they do it from 11speed cassettes, and run 11speed chains etc. as it's lighter than using the heavier 7 speed sprockets. ie: they might be only running 3/4/5/7/whatever 'gears' but they're not running '7 speed gear'.I can think of lots of reasons why 1x systems suit bike manufacturers (and even bike shops) but rather fewer that are of real benefit to cyclists....
I do tend to agree, but... I'd caveat 'cyclists' with 'normal everyday cyclists' . Offroad/MTBs are a different matter entirely where 1x can make a big difference, both in terms of simplicity, mud clogging and more technically, full suspension performance with regards to pivot placements. Many modern FS bikes are optimised for a small chainring size window of 2-4 teeth, running significantly outside of the window can introduce some negative behaviours, that in the old days were just accepted as compromises/quirks, or mitigated by alternative designs that suffered elsewhere because of it. There's still a huge amount of marketing lead drivel and fashion following going on, but it's not all pointless nonsense
As always horses for courses... what suits the niche user or racer isn't necessarily right for normal use, but ti doesn't mean it doesn't have it's use and benefits in other scenarios.It would at least allow racing technology to break away from more workaday stuff.
I would love to see more acceptance from the industry and the bike comics that racing equipment and 'normal' equipment should be different and stop perpetuating the myth that racing technology is appropriate for the masses.
Sure there can be trickle down and parallel development, but at the moment it is driven by racing far too much in my opinion.
I would love to see them putting as much effort into developing normal equipment as they do to racing, but I doubt it'll happen, not enough money in it, and too much of a hard sell to Mr and Mrs Public.
I pretty much agree with everything you've posted,racing is a million miles away from the vast majority of cycle yet influences it negatively.