Road 1X - useful or just a fad?

[rualexander]

So, the two people who have contributed to this thread that are actually running 1x systems are happy with them and like them.
The other contributors who aren't running 1x systems, don't like them and don't see the point in them.
Interesting.

[pwa]

So, the two people who have contributed to this thread that are actually running 1x systems are happy with them and like them.
The other contributors who aren't running 1x systems, don't like them and don't see the point in them.
Interesting.

Everyone seems happy with what they have got.

[Racingt]

I normally ride a triple but have been thinking about going to a single front chain-ring for a while. I ride 28/38/48 front and 27/12 back and I find that unless the hill very steep (and I live in Scotland) I rarely change down to my inner front 28. Similarly, On the 38 i can top out at about 30mph on downhills which is plenty fast for me.

While for fully laden touring I would be loath to ditch the triple (though I am open about the outer ring), for general use I reckon that a single 38 front matched to say 11/28 rear would be simple, cheap and easy to maintain.

I think that there is a lot to be said for a single front chain-ring but the SRAM 42 tooth cassettes (or example) are ridiculously expensive http://www.wiggle.co.uk/sram-xx1-11-speed-cassette/. Why would anyone bother to fit one, except on their bestest, bestest Sunday bike only to ridden in the most perfect of weathers? That kind of defeats the purpose of the single front chain-ring, robustness & simplicity.

Wow! That’s a crazy price, I had no idea.
My latest new bike has several modern features, a compact DI2, 30mm tyres setup tublesss, hydraulic discs, etc.
I really love the 30 mill tyres, tubeless seems a no-brainer, hydraulic discs are simply superior, OK, Di2 I’m not totally sold on yet, hence my curiosity to see if 1X was another progressive step.
The next bike will be a more robust, gravel type of bike.
Thanks for the two contributors who actually run the system, good to hear from you.

[Cugel]

You can get used to anything, even pedalling a 53X11 at 40 rpm. Or having a jump in ratios that take you from spin to heave or vice-versa.

But when under various kinds of cycling "pressures" such as found in road racing or time trialling, in touring over very bumpy countryside with heavy loads and/or tired legs; or many other "hard times on a bike" .... well then the optimum gear ratios for the optimum power and cadence becomes far more critical.

I wouldn't want to do without close rstio gears, either when being "pressured" by a club run or at the end of a 100 miler through the fells. I wouldn't want to be without at least the option of selecting two or three very low gears when knackered and still far from home. So, a one-by gearing arrangement will never do. It requires either a small gear range or big ratio jumps. I don't want either.

In practice I find a standard Shimano 52-39-30 chainset is ideal with a "franken-cassette" of 14-32 or even 15-36. The 39 ring can use all of the sprockets and do anything between 8mph and 20mph. The big ring is good to be in for the fast club run sections, where 16-30mph is happening for a while. The small ring is good for getting just the right cadence to hang on up the long and variable-slope climbs at 5-12mph.

As others say, just learn to adjust and maintain these arrangements so they work as well as they are designed to do. As this is beyond many people these days. I vote to have the triples and so forth available for those that want them whilst allowing the mechanically incompetent insensitive pedallers to have their one-bys.

The cycling fashion police have not heeded my vote, although there is sure to be a "new, improved, at-last" 4 ring chain set before too long (to go with the svelte new 5 speed cassettes).

Cugel

[RickH]

So, the two people who have contributed to this thread that are actually running 1x systems are happy with them and like them.
The other contributors who aren't running 1x systems, don't like them and don't see the point in them.
Interesting.

Everyone seems happy with what they have got.

I'm happy with my 1x11 SRAM setup because it works well (for me at least). I do ride other bikes, mainly a 3x9 Shimano setup when piloting my friend's tandem. I'm not a great fan though of the STI wiggly brake levers, I prefer Campag or SRAM where the gear shifting doesn't use the brake lever.

[thelawnet]

I think that there is a lot to be said for a single front chain-ring but the SRAM 42 tooth cassettes (or example) are ridiculously expensive http://www.wiggle.co.uk/sram-xx1-11-speed-cassette/. Why would anyone bother to fit one, except on their bestest, bestest Sunday bike only to ridden in the most perfect of weathers? That kind of defeats the purpose of the single front chain-ring, robustness & simplicity.

Depends.

You have:

* 11-50t 12-speed HG-driver cassettes - £70
* 3 different grades of 10-50t 12-speed XD-driver cassette starting at £140

* 5 different grades of 10-42t 11-speed XD-driver cassette starting at £80
* a 11-42t 11-speed HG-driver cassette for £50

* an 8-speed 11-48t cassette for e-bikes for £340 (yes, really)

On the Shimano side

* a 10-45t or 10-51t 12sp HG+ cassette around £225
* a 10-45t 11sp HG+ cassette around £200
* 3 grades of 11-40, 11-42, 11-46 HG 11sp cassettes from around £40-£50
* a 11-42t HG 10sp cassette for £30

So a 1x11-42 system is not expensive at all, I suspect because of competition.

If you want into the 10t game, then you have to pay for Sram/Shimano's patents.

Obviously this is a monstrous waste of cash, but I suppose the theory is that with 1x, that extra 10 vs 11t becomes quite important, as it's an extra 20% range. The fact that you get far more range with a double, let alone a triple, than making a smaller cog at the bottom is apparently lost on these people.

Note, by the way:

1x12 'Eagle' system:

cassette 11-50 615g
r/d 339g
shifter 112g
32t crank 705g
chain 278g

= 2,049g (range 4.55x)

vs XT 3x10 speed

cassette 11-36t 343g
r/d 266g
f/d 125g
shifters 249g
40/30/22 crank 783g
chain 273g

= 2039g (range 5.95x)

The problem being that as cassettes get larger, the weight becomes more significant, so you either have something very heavy and quite expensive, or something lighter but extremely expensive and prone to having the teeth chip off.

[Brucey]

nice comparison that. Obvious that the cassettes will weigh/wear differently but it looks like shimano's hollow cranks and a decent RD weight more than makes up for the weight of extra chainrings and the FD etc

cheers

[mattsccm]

I tried it and didn't like it. 20 years ago my CX bike ran a single ring as was the fashion. Didn't worry racing but when on the road it was too gappy. And that was with something like a 14-28 at the back. A modern cassette with tiny and huge sprockets is worse.
I was much more tolerant of poor cadence then as well although I suspect that being brought up on 5 speed blocks with a 13-17 on hasn't conditioned me to modern thinking

[pwa]

So, the two people who have contributed to this thread that are actually running 1x systems are happy with them and like them.
The other contributors who aren't running 1x systems, don't like them and don't see the point in them.
Interesting.

Everyone seems happy with what they have got.

I'm happy with my 1x11 SRAM setup because it works well (for me at least). I do ride other bikes, mainly a 3x9 Shimano setup when piloting my friend's tandem. I'm not a great fan though of the STI wiggly brake levers, I prefer Campag or SRAM where the gear shifting doesn't use the brake lever.

I'm using 3x9 with bar ends on my two bikes and I've been using that set-up since getting fed up with the front shift of STIs about a decade ago. I can shift without thinking, I'm so used to it. And the brake levers are selected with no need to think about gears. Whatever feels nice in the hand and works with my brakes.

If I had a bike with 1x11 I would just stick with it. Unless there were something awful about it, which I suspect there isn't. I'm not a restless seeker after perfection. If something works okay, that is good enough for me. Mind you, I'd suffer marital breakdown if I had to spend in excess of £200 on a cassette!

[thelawnet]

nice comparison that. Obvious that the cassettes will weigh/wear differently but it looks like shimano's hollow cranks and a decent RD weight more than makes up for the weight of extra chainrings and the FD etc

the problem is fairly obvious in that as the cassette the weight of each cog grows with the square of the number of teeth, unless steps are taken to reduce it. With an 11-50t cassette you can either make it cheap(ish) and very heavy, or spend lots of money reducing weight. A 615 gram cassette isn't the end of the world, but it certainly puts paid to weight saving arguments.

As a wear part a expensive cassette is bad, whereas you wouldn't mind paying once for F/D and left shifter that might never need to be replaced. I am pretty sure in any case that a quality f-d, shifter & 11-36 cassette would be cheaper than an 11-50 cassette.

(Presumably there are greater forces on cogs rather than chainrings, as aluminium chainrings seem to work ok, but cassettes are best made of steel. )

[cycle tramp]

Personally speaking, if it looks like something you mayenjoy uding then try it! Life is too sbort not too. And that's thw same with all bike transmissions, whether its hub gear, fixed wheel single speed or multiple gears.. siomewhere is a transmission that suits you. But you won't know unless you try

[zenitb]

My "plus" bike came withe the SRAM GX 1x11 groupset. Me and my son both now agree its much better for typical singletrack than a 3x system and I can see why its becoming dominant on MTBs. The bigger cable pull per gear and the smooth clutch mech must be helping of course (common to 2x and 3x setups) but the fact you dont get the sudden big drop/spinning as you run out of gears and drop down a front ring on an unexpected gradient change is great. You can forget about the front mech faff and focus on the trail - just press the "easier" and "harder" buttons as needed. As other posters have stated you really need to try a modern 1x system to appreciate its benefits - at least off-road.

I still have shimano 3x8 on my two touring bikes of course but I am starting to question this along the lines of the OP so it was great to see this discussion thread and I have enjoyed reading all the comments. Do I really need a 95 inch gear on my tourer?

The other point that I think has been missed is "the jobs not done". 1x is evolving with more speeds and new hub standards emerging and "trickling down" to cheaper groupsets. When I grew up a front mech "10 speed" 5x2 gear "racer" was an unaffordable luxury..now look where we are...watch this space

[Brucey]

some MTB racers have stuck with 2x systems (even though they don't need the extra gear range) citing that

a) the chain doesn't fall off and
b) specifically because the 2x system offers a big handful of gears in one hit, using the FD.

cheers

[pwa]

My "plus" bike came withe the SRAM GX 1x11 groupset. Me and my son both now agree its much better for typical singletrack than a 3x system and I can see why its becoming dominant on MTBs. The bigger cable pull per gear and the smooth clutch mech must be helping of course (common to 2x and 3x setups) but the fact you dont get the sudden big drop/spinning as you run out of gears and drop down a front ring on an unexpected gradient change is great. You can forget about the front mech faff and focus on the trail - just press the "easier" and "harder" buttons as needed. As other posters have stated you really need to try a modern 1x system to appreciate its benefits - at least off-road.

I still have shimano 3x8 on my two touring bikes of course but I am starting to question this along the lines of the OP so it was great to see this discussion thread and I have enjoyed reading all the comments. Do I really need a 95 inch gear on my tourer?

The other point that I think has been missed is "the jobs not done". 1x is evolving with more speeds and new hub standards emerging and "trickling down" to cheaper groupsets. When I grew up a front mech "10 speed" 5x2 gear "racer" was an unaffordable luxury..now look where we are...watch this space

When it comes to 1x systems being simpler to use because changing is just Up or Down, that is exactly what you get with a Rohloff hub gear system. 14 gears, and all you have to do is move the twist grip one way or the other. Up or Down. I can see how that simplicity of use can help when you are offroad and want to be focusing on the ground in front of your front wheel.

[amediasatex]

some MTB racers have stuck with 2x systems (even though they don't need the extra gear range) citing that

a) the chain doesn't fall off and
b) specifically because the 2x system offers a big handful of gears in one hit, using the FD.

cheers

They are in the minority though Brucey, I haven't seen a 2x system at the pointy end of any of the local or national XCO races for the last 2-3 years if not longer, there's a few still using 2x in the lower categories or if they're new to racing but 1x has overwhelmingly taken over. You'll always get some outliers in any distribution, just like some people still race on fully rigid bikes at some venues, but they're not representative of the majority.

I believe there's a small number on the world circuit that are running 2x for some rounds but even there they are the minority. In endurance and marathon circles things are a little different, I still see a fair few 2x and even 3x setups at the 24hr races, but then there's also a lot of SS riders at those events so that doesn't necessarily tell you much!

Your point a is still largely a result of setup, chains too long, worn NW ring, slack clutch etc. although many racers (me included on one bike) do use a small non-contact front chain device as well for extra security but by and large losing the chain on a properly setup 1x system is exceedingly rare, and on a par with the frequency of front mech issues/jams. Point b is a valid one but largely overcome with planning and knowing the course, you should never be surprised like that on an XC race as you'll know the course and know your shift points and the difference in time between a front ring dump shift and a sweep of the thumb lever at the rear is negligible. In a racing situation is often the shift the other way that gives 1x the benefit, you can lose more time not being able to get back on the power waiting for your front mech to shift up the big ring and change 1 or 2 sprockets at the back than you will dropping half a cassette at the other end, I've genuinely gained places due to this.

I've been racing XCO and 24hr races for the last 20 odd years and 1x really is one of those things that has bought a lot of genuine benefits to the table, I'm not saying it doesn't have some downsides (like any system), but on the whole the upsides far outweigh them.

If we're talking about general day to day riding, even for MTB, I have different opinions on 1x though
I'm not an advocate for pacy road riding at all (I still use triples on most of mine!), but can see a use on more sedate or utilitarian bikes where the jumps between gears aren't the issue they are for fast riding where you need to be more optimised, but that's exactly the kind of situation where an IGH is often a better solution anyway.

Horse for courses and all that...