Rotor 1x13 hydraulic groupset

[busb]

Some recent innovations such as hydraulic road disc brakes, thru-axles, wider & tubeless tyres I embrace - if I had limitless funds, I might even try electronic shifting but single chainrings strikes me as the cycle industry being more interested in churning incompatiblliy than anything else. I can remember an Australian biker on YouTube over a year ago comparing single to double - he was singularly unimpressed with the newer system on road bikes, siting poor chain line, crunchy changes & excessive wear.

However, both my own bikes have 10 & 11 speed 11 - 28 cassettes that I regularly shift 2 gears at a time on where I once preferred close ratios so in principle, yes but on road bikes, I remain deeply sceptical due to the technical shortcomings & motives of the manufacturers.

[Boring_Username]

Now if someone were to market a new 1x3 groupset, that could get me interested

[The utility cyclist]

Don't care who buys it, they aren't 'idiots', and the idea it's not "idiotic" either, the same old names crop up and call these things out

it's ideas put into print and like everything is being offered to people to buy. Buy it, don't buy it, but those who wouldn't buy this in a month of Sundays always have plenty to say about it, why even bother if it's not even on your radar, why does it bother you so much that you have to denigrate all the time.
As it is, I think it's ugly.

[reohn2]

Don't care who buys it, they aren't 'idiots', and the idea it's not "idiotic" either, the same old names crop up and call these things out

it's ideas put into print and like everything is being offered to people to buy. Buy it, don't buy it, but those who wouldn't buy this in a month of Sundays always have plenty to say about it, why even bother if it's not even on your radar, why does it bother you so much that you have to denigrate all the time.
As it is, I think it's ugly.

Please enlighten us with the wisdom of a 1x13sp drivetrain and I'll give you a 3x or even a 2x9sp reason that it beats it.

PS,I'm pleased to be one of the same old names that can spot idiocy when I see it

[fossala]

Don't care who buys it, they aren't 'idiots', and the idea it's not "idiotic" either, the same old names crop up and call these things out

it's ideas put into print and like everything is being offered to people to buy. Buy it, don't buy it, but those who wouldn't buy this in a month of Sundays always have plenty to say about it, why even bother if it's not even on your radar, why does it bother you so much that you have to denigrate all the time.
As it is, I think it's ugly.

My guess is people comment for the same reason you're commenting on the comments. We are social animals and want to express our thoughts.

[reohn2]

Don't care who buys it, they aren't 'idiots', and the idea it's not "idiotic" either, the same old names crop up and call these things out

it's ideas put into print and like everything is being offered to people to buy. Buy it, don't buy it, but those who wouldn't buy this in a month of Sundays always have plenty to say about it, why even bother if it's not even on your radar, why does it bother you so much that you have to denigrate all the time.
As it is, I think it's ugly.

My guess is people comment for the same reason you're commenting on the comments. We are social animals and want to express our thoughts.

People comment on the issues posted,whether positive or negative some people seem to like to comment on the commenter.
When something plainly useless and a backward step in technical cycling equipment is posted I'm moved to comment on,if someone else proves me wrong I'll be the first to apologise,in this instance I'll stick to my opinion until such a time as a reasonable argument is put forward to the contrary.
Some time ago someone posted of a CF rack called a "Taifin" I put forward my comments on that thread and why a Ti Tubus rack was lighter,stiffer,half the cost and better by far than the Tailfin and commented on what I saw as the Tailfin's technical failures,but was attacked personally by the same poster.
There's no counting the number of personal attacks TUC(formally Tonyf33 who was banned from the forum )aimed at anyone who disagrees with him when he's short of a constructive contrary argument,this Leopard hasn't changed his spots IMO.
Which is a pity as on other topics he put's forward some pretty good arguments.

[Brucey]

some folk just seem to want a pointless argument and/or to denigrate others.

Anybody can have 'opinions' about anything, (as someone once said, 'they are like ***holes; everyone has got one') but in the technical section one would hope it ought to be possible to have a sensible discussion about the merits and demerits of technology based on what it actually does and how it actually works.

cheers

[reohn2]

1. The compromised chainring size used in a 1x set-up demands smaller rear sprockets at cruising speeds. The result is greater power loss in the drivetrain for the majority of your ride.
2. Said smaller sprockets wear more quickly.
3. The wear problem is compounded by frequently awful chain angles.
4. Consumables are ridiculously expensive, both because they are presently aimed at early adopters and because they are more costly to make (huge 13-speed cassettes, ultra-narrow chains with counterbored side plates to achieve the necessary strength without the pin overhanging the plate, etc.).
5. Thirteen sprockets do nothing good for rear wheel strength, stiffness (hence disk-brake only according to Rotor), and/or weight.
6. Hydraulic actuation increases costs, breaks backward compatibility, and dissuades home mechanicking while offering no compelling upside.
7. Removing the front derailleur increases the risk of the chain falling off (see the recent Aqua Blue Sport 1x saga in pro road racing) and removes the possibility of quickly getting it back on without stopping and dirtying your hands.
8. Total range and/or close ratios are sacrificed compared to a double or triple with fewer rear sprockets and all the advantages accruing from that.
9. If your rear shifting stops working for any reason, you don’t have the usual front shifting left as a get-home aid.
10. The arrangement is unavoidably ugly on a road bike that should look sparse and lightweight.

Samuel's post again in case anyone missed it

[The utility cyclist]

Don't care who buys it, they aren't 'idiots', and the idea it's not "idiotic" either, the same old names crop up and call these things out

it's ideas put into print and like everything is being offered to people to buy. Buy it, don't buy it, but those who wouldn't buy this in a month of Sundays always have plenty to say about it, why even bother if it's not even on your radar, why does it bother you so much that you have to denigrate all the time.
As it is, I think it's ugly.

My guess is people comment for the same reason you're commenting on the comments. We are social animals and want to express our thoughts.

Sure, make comments about it from a technical point of view and how it might work for some groups but not others (and in this case it's for the high end racing type) but constantly slagging off stuff in the manner that happens but worse, the constant deriding of other people's choices in terms of what they buy that grates me. It's always the same handful of people on here that call out others because they've bought something they wouldn't (or even understand the purpose) so you get language like "idiotic", stupid, weak-minded, a 'fool' (and their money) and other derogatory comments about the people who buy these things,
It's pathetic and makes the forum a worse place for it.

[reohn2]

Don't care who buys it, they aren't 'idiots', and the idea it's not "idiotic" either, the same old names crop up and call these things out

it's ideas put into print and like everything is being offered to people to buy. Buy it, don't buy it, but those who wouldn't buy this in a month of Sundays always have plenty to say about it, why even bother if it's not even on your radar, why does it bother you so much that you have to denigrate all the time.
As it is, I think it's ugly.

My guess is people comment for the same reason you're commenting on the comments. We are social animals and want to express our thoughts.

Sure, make comments about it from a technical point of view and how it might work for some groups but not others (and in this case it's for the high end racing type) but constantly slagging off stuff in the manner that happens but worse, the constant deriding of other people's choices in terms of what they buy that grates me. It's always the same handful of people on here that call out others because they've bought something they wouldn't (or even understand the purpose) so you get language like "idiotic", stupid, weak-minded, a 'fool' (and their money) and other derogatory comments about the people who buy these things,
It's pathetic and makes the forum a worse place for it.

No you're wrong, for the reasons given in mine and others' previous posts.
What grates with me is the cycling industry palming off crap and polished up turds made to look like golden shiney intricate and technical bikes and equipment that no one needs,backed up with a cycling press bought by them through their advertisements in their magazines.

The result is some grossly overpriced products that aren't worth the material they're made from,if you can't see that then it ain't my fault.
I've no problem with real innovation,but drybollock 1x13 drive systems aren't it!

[Brucey]

its almost as annoying as folk who are unable or unwilling to discriminate between a justified criticism of a thing and a knee-jerk reaction. Their response appears to be a knee-jerk reaction. ...

It is as well to remember that most new products and ideas don't last the distance; in many cases this is deservedly so. The bicycle is a mature product and most so-called 'innovations' have mostly been either tried before and/or are weak extensions of extant ideas, with very limited benefits on offer. These benefits are largely overplayed by both the manufacturers and the cycling press (who dare not bite the hand that feeds them) alike. They of course don't even mention any potential downsides or limitations. I have nothing but respect for anyone who is prepared to 'have a go' at something but where are you going to get an second opinion on it? Places like this, and few others.


If you are mindlessly optimistic by nature or a bike industry shill you will greet every new product with nothing but joy and enthusiastically lap up all the BS that goes with it. If this is your bag then go talk to other sychophants, there are plenty out there. However if you want a more reasoned view, you have fewer places to find it.

cheers

[irc]

I can't see the logic. Take the 10-52 cassette.

10-11-12-13-15-17-19-22-26-31-37-44-52

If you are having 3 huge sprockets with associated weight then have them at the front as a double or triple. The only weight saving is the front shifter and derailleur. So a 2x10 or 3x10 with an 11-28 cassette gets the same range with closer ratios.

[reohn2]

I can't see the logic. Take the 10-52 cassette.

10-11-12-13-15-17-19-22-26-31-37-44-52

If you are having 3 huge sprockets with associated weight then have them at the front as a double or triple. The only weight saving is the front shifter and derailleur. So a 2x10 or 3x10 with an 11-28 cassette gets the same range with closer ratios.

It's because there isn't any,only marketing madness aimed at the gullible.

[Cyril Haearn]

Anyone here here never wasted a tenner or even more in a moment of madness?
13 is my lucky number, is there any other way of getting exactly 13 gears?
*irony off*
..
Maybe one could pick some up cheaply soon, cannibalise them to make several chainrings and a couple of 5-speed blocks

[pliptrot]

If we were to engage in a prosaic assessment of a bicycle as a tool, then we would conclude that more-or-less everything since clipless pedals and indexing (5mm sprocket pitch for 7 and 8 speed seemed sensible) is just noise. Those who think it all as that, are likely to be guilty of critical and objective thinking. Those who would criticize such thinking are -with all due deference-part of the problem. (That problem being us all being foisted with this sort of stuff...).