Road 1X - useful or just a fad?

[thelawnet]

Regarding sprocket wear these cassettes have 2 to 3 times as many teeth of an eight speed cassette..so all things being equal you would expect 2-3 times the life..further mitigating the cost issue.

The smaller cogs will get more use as you will be forced to run 36/11, say, rather than 48/15.

You aren't likely to see any more life from the larger cogs either, as they will be aluminium and will wear quicker than steel.

Of course if you buy one of Sram's £300 cassettes, then when your small cogs wear out, they aren't even individually replaceable, as they would be on a £20 cassette.

And that's before you get into the extra wear on the system due to narrower chain/cogs.

[reohn2]

Regarding sprocket wear these cassettes have 2 to 3 times as many teeth of an eight speed cassette..so all things being equal you would expect 2-3 times the life..further mitigating the cost issue.

The smaller cogs will get more use as you will be forced to run 36/11, say, rather than 48/15.

You aren't likely to see any more life from the larger cogs either, as they will be aluminium and will wear quicker than steel.

Of course if you buy one of Sram's £300 cassettes, then when your small cogs wear out, they aren't even individually replaceable, as they would be on a £20 cassette.

And that's before you get into the extra wear on the system due to narrower chain/cogs.

Though I don't see why bigger cogs of say 30t and larger made from quality aluminium should wear any quicker than chainrings of similar sizes andmthey would be used less often and for shorter periods.
I do agree about the smaller 36x11 v 48x15 though and the inability to swap out individual sprockets

[Brucey]

Though I don't see why bigger cogs of say 30t and larger made from quality aluminium should wear any quicker than chainrings of similar sizes andmthey would be used less often and for shorter periods.
I do agree about the smaller 36x11 v 48x15 though and the inability to swap out individual sprockets

On the face of it I don't see why the chainring and sprocket in similar material shouldn't wear at comparable rates. But then again things are slightly different here; on a chainring the chain is busy engaging whilst it is most heavily loaded and on a sprocket it is busy disengaging whilst under load. I think this may mean that

a) the load is more likely to be shared between teeth on a chainring and
b) the chain rollers may be less likely to move around whilst under load on a chainring vs a sprocket.

Both these things would tend to make the wear rate on a chainring lower than on a sprocket, despite the wear not being spread around all the chainring teeth the same way, because the chainring is timed to the crank.

In any event aluminium sprockets tend to get the wotsits beaten out of them in short order, and in addition slightly worn chainrings will usually accept a new chain quite happily, whereas slightly worn sprockets more often don't.

cheers

[reohn2]

Though I don't see why bigger cogs of say 30t and larger made from quality aluminium should wear any quicker than chainrings of similar sizes andmthey would be used less often and for shorter periods.
I do agree about the smaller 36x11 v 48x15 though and the inability to swap out individual sprockets

On the face of it I don't see why the chainring and sprocket in similar material shouldn't wear at comparable rates. But then again things are slightly different here; on a chainring the chain is busy engaging whilst it is most heavily loaded and on a sprocket it is busy disengaging whilst under load. I think this may mean that

a) the load is more likely to be shared between teeth on a chainring and
b) the chain rollers may be less likely to move around whilst under load on a chainring vs a sprocket.

Both these things would tend to make the wear rate on a chainring lower than on a sprocket, despite the wear not being spread around all the chainring teeth the same way, because the chainring is timed to the crank.

In any event aluminium sprockets tend to get the wotsits beaten out of them in short order, and in addition slightly worn chainrings will usually accept a new chain quite happily, whereas slightly worn sprockets more often don't.

cheers

I thought a bit more about this after posting and was reminded that the only cassette sprocket I/we've (as it was on a tandem) ever distorted and bent was a steel XT one riveted to and alu spider.My understanding is that it bent due a bad change and because the sprocket had less sideways give in it such as an HG500 one would,as any bending moment is on the cheaper cassette is from the freehub and on bigger cogs where it's more likely to happen under higher torgue loads is more able to spring back to it's original and straight position.Whereas on a spider the sideways force is over a smaller radius distance and less likely to spring back.
The bigger the sprocket the more the torque and the chance with unsypathetic changes,it's possible with sprockets as big as 42t> made from aluminium there could be similar problems.

[squeaker]

even so you would be better off with a larger chainring and larger sprockets; lasts longer, is more efficient, etc etc.

True, but that's all I had in my spares box when I built the bike

Cool! Please post a couple of photographs!!

Better late than never...

[Airsporter1st]

I would really have to wonder about the design of a pump which is such a faff to use!

What you call 'faff' is simply technique. With most mechanical equipment, good or correct technique on the part of the human operator is important for the equipment to work properly and often to avoid causing damage. This is true of bikes and especially true of tools (which is what a pump is after all).

The various points that Samuel D has listed might look like a faff when written down (as would detailed instructions for optimum use of even something as simple as a screwdriver), but they are all things which most of us who use frame fit pumps or a similarly designed mini-pump do automatically without thinking about it, either because we realised that this was how the pump should ideally be used when we first got a frame fit pump or because we saw clubmates or friends using them and copied them because we could see that it was the best way. In either case there was an element of intuitive mechanical sympathy involved.

As Samuel points out, it's a bit of a surprise when you come across cyclists who lack such mechanical sympathy. Some of them just don't know any better because they have never been shown or had the opportunity to learn from others, and they might quickly improve their technique if they spend time with other riders, but some others are irredeemable and you soon make a mental note never to let them ride your bike or lend them any expensive/delicate tools.

I can well imagine that for the latter group, some modern developments in cycling might have much more appeal than to the rest of us, such as electronic shifting, 1x gearing and the practice of taking your bike in to the LBS fairly regularly for the sort of servicing and adjustment which many of us would do ourselves.

There is nothing inherently wrong with reducing the need for skill or mechanical sympathy in riding and maintaining a bike, or using tools, as long as you are happy with the various likely trade offs of increased cost, increased weight, reduced lifespan, and/or lack of repairability.

It might be the designers who lack mechanical sympathy. I have in recent years been retrofitting compressors with dry gas seals at anywhere between USD300k and USD 1M per casing. You would be amazed at some of the design cock-ups I’ve encountered and had to fix in the field.

[Dave W]

Could be a fad, who knows. I bought a Cannondale Slate with a single ring, thought it would be useless. I love it!

[Janwal]

Just joined the forum so I would like to add my thoughts to this topic.
I changed from 34/50 and 11-32 Ultegra to Sram 1x11 40 with 11-42 cassette.(This is about equivalent to a 13-36)on my Trek Domane disc as I liked the simplicity of the system. My riding is around hilly Huddersfield,anything from 25 to 50 miles two or three times a week or 100 milers in the summer,on 65 year old legs!
The bigger gaps between cogs just are not a problem you just spin a bit more or push harder.The resistance you get from the jumps is actually nicer to ride. When I hire bikes in Majorca with compact Ultegra on it now annoys me with the slight change in resistance on closer ratios and I find I nearly always change two or three in a row to feel any benefit.
In a group of similar friends I can ride easily at 20 mph if needed for a fair number of miles,we rarely need to go any faster.
I am usually the first to the top on many climbs and Down hills are for freewheeling so don’t need that end of the range!
Climbing is fine as I have the ratios to cope. Did Hardknotts and Winnets this summer on it in a 65 mile loop,no problem and my legs were fine. Not as fine as the real ale on the way back though!
Not dropped a chain yet with having the narrow wide chainring and clutched rear mech.
The chainring has alternating thick and thin teeth, which grab the chain’s link plates, locking the chain on the ring without any supplementary retention.
By design you get next to no wear with a narrow wide ring as the teeth don’t touch the chain rollers as such as you do on an ordinary double and you aren’t dragging a chain over them as you would with a double ring. So replacement cost is going to be less. An 11-42 cassette is not much different in price to an Ultegra 11-32.Chains cost the same.
Groupset weight is not massively different. Ultegra is about 150gms lighter so not going to be noticed that much.
It does everything I need for my style of riding and I get the impression that a lot of those knocking it on here haven’t tried it and dislikes are probably more perceived than actual.
I like mine so much that I have will be ordering a new lightweight Trek Emonda Alr frameset in January and transferring my Rival 1 groupset from my winter Boardman cx team and making the Domane the winter bike.

[landsurfer]

All of my bikes .. ok all 2 of them ... Spa and Jamis .... SPA 34 tooth single chainset ... 12 - 40, 9 speed cassette .... LEJOG and lots more and Pan Celtic 2019 beckons ...

[Oceanic]

Ask the poor riders who rode for Team Aqua Blue.

One of the Aqua Blue riders said that 1x was unsuitable for some races, but went on to say 'when I retire, I’ll only ride 1x'.

[Brucey]

I do quite a lot of riding on 5s hub. You could say many of the same things as that (Janwals comments about 1x11) about the 5s hub too, except that I know it won't suit everyone!

The gear range you have with 1x11 is narrower than the gear range on your ultegra. It rather begs the question if you could have got a 13-36 cassette easily, would that not have been a better solution for you? When running on the big ring the transmission is smoother, more efficient and long lasting; using the 1x setup you have is a bit like running on the inside ring of a double all the time; necessary when going up hills but not optimally efficient the rest of the time, because of the small chainring/sprocket and the bad (worse) chainlines.

See

http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=34,50&RZ=13,15,17,19,21,23,25,28,32,36&UF=2150&TF=90&SL=1.9&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=DERS&KB2=40&RZ2=11,13,15,17,19,21,24,28,32,37,42&UF2=2150

for a comparison. I have set the maximum allowable chain angle to 1.9 degrees, which means that two extreme gears using the double chainset are 'not recommended' because of the severe chain angle. This is OK because you won't use these gears very often, and the 'permissible' range is still from 28" to 90". However the same 1.9 degrees means you lose four of the available gears in the 1x11 setup, leaving you with just five gears of 34 to 72" which have tolerable chainlines. Your 'tapping along' gears have as bad chainlines as are allowed and are also inefficient because of the small sprockets used. The whole lot will wear faster.

You can get some idea of the adverse chordal loss effects of smaller sprocket/chainring size (alone, the chainline is kept constant here) by looking at this graph.



you can see that at the same overall gear ratio, using a 39T chainring costs you about one watt or one and a half watts vs using a 53T chainring. There will be a similar discrepancy between a 40T and 50T chainring. Somewhere online there is a graph that combines both chainline and sprocket/chainring size effects. I'll post that too when I get a chance (see below).

https://www.ceramicspeed.com/media/3502/cross-chaining-and-ring-size-report.pdf
see graph on p12.

Given that folk will happily spend quite a lot of money on tyres that roll faster by one or two watts, it amazes me that they throw this kind of advantage (and more) away by running transmissions of this kind.

BTW the idea that the narrow-wide chainrings are somehow immune to wear is a fanciful notion; they wear like normal where the rollers bear, and wear faster than normal on the sides of the teeth because the chainline is more often terrible

cheers

[Oceanic]

When most cycling was club runs, a fair chunk of the group knew where they were going, this made it easier to predict when to change to the smaller ring.

Now we have GPS and sportives, the following is not uncommon...

You are in a group moving down hill at 25mph, you spot a red arrow indicating a turn, or maybe the GPS beeps to tell you that a turn is coming. Either way you shout a warning to the rider behind you and hit the brakes. As you try to avoid crashing into the hastily braking rider in front of you, it is all too easy to make the turn, and realise that you should have changed to the small ring before you turned off the main road on to the hill.

1x solves this problem. That's why I swapped my compact chainset for a 44 x 11-42.

[Brucey]

I think it is as quick or quicker to dump the chain onto the small ring than it is to make multiple downshifts at the rear. Kinder on the chain too.

cheers

[Oceanic]

I think it is as quick or quicker to dump the chain onto the small ring than it is to make multiple downshifts at the rear. Kinder on the chain too.

cheers

That's assuming that you haven't been forced in to the position of trying to change down while grinding up hill in too big a gear.

[thelawnet]

When most cycling was club runs, a fair chunk of the group knew where they were going, this made it easier to predict when to change to the smaller ring.

Now we have GPS and sportives, the following is not uncommon...

You are in a group moving down hill at 25mph, you spot a red arrow indicating a turn, or maybe the GPS beeps to tell you that a turn is coming. Either way you shout a warning to the rider behind you and hit the brakes. As you try to avoid crashing into the hastily braking rider in front of you, it is all too easy to make the turn, and realise that you should have changed to the small ring before you turned off the main road on to the hill.

1x solves this problem. That's why I swapped my compact chainset for a 44 x 11-42.

Hmm.

11-42 is e.g.
11-13-15-17-19-22-25-28-32-36-42

11-28 is e.g.
11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28

If you are going downhill in 44/11, then that's 50/12 or 50/13.

To go from say 44/11 to 44/22 is five shifts up.

To go from 50/12 to 34/17, that's one shift down from 50 to 34, and four shifts up from 12 to 17.

I don't quite see the saving?

More specifically, a 50/34 jump is around 3 gears on the 11-42 setup. When I'm going up a hill I'll dump a chainring first as it saves frantically shifting up the entire cassette?

(Also if you are truly into grind mode then shifting a rear derailleur is going to be a nasty clunk, so it's not going to really help the problem.