Road 1X - useful or just a fad?

[pwa]

It seems to me that the advantages of 1x are for those who can't get on with front mech shifting, probably exacerbated by the fiddliness of getting front STI shifting to work smoothly and trim. For someone who doesn't get many issues in that area I can see nothing to be gained by losing chain ring options.

Personally I don't see that as a problem at all,double and triple chainsings have been in existence with STI/Ergos for over twenty years and IME work flawlessly.

Probably because you know which way round a screwdriver goes, and how to work a barrel adjuster. I get passed on climbs by roadies on carbon framed bikes bristling with top end kit and still I can hear their bleedin chain rubbing the front mech cage. Either they don't know how to trim or they can't because it isn't set up right. That noise would drive me nuts.

[geomannie]

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.

[reohn2]

It seems to me that the advantages of 1x are for those who can't get on with front mech shifting, probably exacerbated by the fiddliness of getting front STI shifting to work smoothly and trim. For someone who doesn't get many issues in that area I can see nothing to be gained by losing chain ring options.

Personally I don't see that as a problem at all,double and triple chainsings have been in existence with STI/Ergos for over twenty years and IME work flawlessly.

Probably because you know which way round a screwdriver goes, and how to work a barrel adjuster. I get passed on climbs by roadies on carbon framed bikes bristling with top end kit and still I can hear their bleedin chain rubbing the front mech cage. Either they don't know how to trim or they can't because it isn't set up right. That noise would drive me nuts.

All it needs is some education,the internet's full of it with stap by step instructons on YouTube.The first thing I did when I got BB7 disc brakes was to go to YouTube and seek instruction videos of how to maintain and adjust them,and hour later I was clued up.

[reohn2]

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.

Why not go to a wider 11-30cassette and an Apline double with say 24/39 c/rings If the chainset is a 74/110 BCD you don't even need to change the chainset just replace the inner and middle rings,leave the front mech in the same position it is now and swap the cassette

[geomannie]

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.

Why not go to a wider 11-30cassette and an Apline double with say 24/39 c/rings If the chainset is a 74/110 BCD you don't even need to change the chainset just replace the inner and middle rings,leave the front mech in the same position it is now and swap the cassette

I might in time but what I have works. Nevertheless, I remain intigued by the simplicity of a single chain-ring

[reohn2]

I might in time but what I have works. Nevertheless, I remain intigued by the simplicity of a single chain-ring

Forgive me I thought you were having problems with your present system.

[Samuel D]

This thread has answers in favour of multiple chainrings coming from several positions. To sum up, multiple chainrings:

• give racers closer ratios and higher transmission efficiency, for equivalent other parameters
• give tourists a wider range of gears, for equivalent other parameters
• give long-distance and commuter cyclists lower running costs, for equivalent other parameters
• give the rest of us a compelling combination of these benefits.

This leaves few niches where single-chainring set-ups make clear sense.

On the other hand, many cyclists have great difficulty both setting up and properly using even two chainrings, never mind three. I often hear what pwa hears or variations on the theme. And when hitting a steep incline in a group, my ears are filled with the cacophony of front shifting under too much power at too low cadence, i.e. too late and with no mechanical understanding whatsoever. Single chainrings would solve problems for these people.

[reohn2]

This thread has answers in favour of multiple chainrings coming from several positions. To sum up, multiple chainrings:

• give racers closer ratios and higher transmission efficiency, for equivalent other parameters
• give tourists a wider range of gears, for equivalent other parameters
• give long-distance and commuter cyclists lower running costs, for equivalent other parameters
• give the rest of us a compelling combination of these benefits.

This leaves few niches where single-chainring set-ups make clear sense.

On the other hand, many cyclists have great difficulty both setting up and properly using even two chainrings, never mind three. I often hear what pwa hears or variations on the theme. And when hitting a steep incline in a group, my ears are filled with the cacophony of front shifting under too much power at too low cadence, i.e. too late and with no mechanical understanding whatsoever. Single chainrings would solve problems for these people.

I think its more of a lack of mechanical sympathy,I've even heard pro riders complaining about other pros lacking that sympathy.
I think it stems from a world of 'I press this button and this happens" the expectation is that the machine handles everything once the button/lever is pressed,Di2 doesn't help either.
I think it's a generation thing and an upbringing of no mechanical aptitude because it's a specialist job.

[Samuel D]

Well, yes. I live in a big city, so most cyclists are like other city dwellers (and many country dwellers nowadays): they spend their days in an office removed from all mechanical contraptions beyond the keyboard and coffee maker. There are no farmers’ kids here who’ve worked around machinery from the age of six.

As we move deeper into the so-called knowledge economy, knowledge of practical things inevitably recedes. This is a common source of shock and dismay to me, as you can tell from my posts. No-one whom I’ve offered my frame pump to has had any idea how to use it. They put it on the wheel valve at whatever position they encounter it and wag the pump handle back and forth at arm’s length until, very soon, that becomes difficult. Thereafter they don’t complete the stroke, and so ends useful pumping. All the while the valve is tugged every way but straight.

It isn’t obvious to them to spin the wheel so the valve is at a suitable height for supporting the pump head wrist (the left) on the crouched knee and then to swing the right shoulder into the action with the right arm bent at the elbow to get some force economically. It’s not obvious to them to drive the handle to the end of its travel lest all the work be wasted. They don’t have the coordination to keep the valve straight and unloaded while pumping forcefully between the hands.

I think this trend to mechanical ignorance is a major driving force behind things like Di2 and hydraulic brakes. They’re not necessarily bad in themselves – although to me they’re distasteful for all kinds of reasons – but they remove the need for mechanical wit. Until they go wrong, when they’re handed over to a professional mechanic anyway.

One-by may be similar, which isn’t to say that everyone who uses it is a mechanical dunce.

[RickH]

RickH
I've just checked the 2016 Sutra the gearing is 36tx10/42 11sp cassette the range is 24 to 100inches.
If say it were an Alpine double(you may detect that I'm a convert ) with say 28t and 39t rings and a 9sp 11/32t cassette the range is similar at 21 to 99inches but ratios are closer,drivetrain parts cheaper and parts life longer.
11sp Sram XG 1150 cassette is £79 at CRC and 11sp chain is £25
Compare that with 9sp (or even 10sp)11/32 cassettes at around £17 to £25 and chains at £13 to £15
1×11sp doesn't seem to have a lot going for it IMO

I'm not saying you're wrong but having got the 1x system with the bike I'm happy with it &, apart from the 2 issues I mentioned, it has been trouble free, doesn't seem to be wearing things out rapidly & the bike is a joy to ride. I just need to get the engine tuned better!

I think this trend to mechanical ignorance is a major driving force behind things like Di2 and hydraulic brakes. They’re not necessarily bad in themselves – although to me they’re distasteful for all kinds of reasons – but they remove the need for mechanical wit. Until they go wrong, when they’re handed over to a professional mechanic anyway.

I'm doubly dammed! The Kona has hydraulic discs too! IMHO they are the nicest brakes I've ever used.

[Scunnered]

First, 1x does not imply 11 spd - 1x10 works well and even 1x9 can be acceptable with careful choice of sprockets.

I recently converted a double chainring to a single on my do-everything (gravel) bike just to try it out (too many opinions are expressed just from reading other opinions). As a result:

* I have lost the highest and lowest gears, which I never used anyway.
* Much of the time I am using the middle few sprockets, instead of large sprockets on large chainring and vice-versa, so better chainline most of the time.
* No front changing (obviously)

For me, the marginal gains outweigh the marginal cons, so I will be staying with 1x for now.

[Samuel D]

First, 1x does not imply 11 spd - 1x10 works well and even 1x9 can be acceptable with careful choice of sprockets.

True.

Another way of thinking about this is that 11 sprockets have a clearer purpose with a single chainring. It gives all those sprockets something useful to do.

On the other hand, multiple chainrings enable the use of fewer sprockets with their attendant benefits (notably cheaper consumables).

* I have lost the highest and lowest gears, which I never used anyway.
* Much of the time I am using the middle few sprockets, instead of large sprockets on large chainring and vice-versa, so better chainline most of the time.

Surely these points just prove your double set-up was not optimised to begin with? That may have been out of necessity. It’s almost always the case if you buy a built-up bicycle or accept Shimano’s typical limitations. It’s often impossible to find sensible cassettes and sensible chainring sizes or cranks that allow them.

The plethora of sprockets have given people the impression they don’t need to personalise their gearing, and that impression is correct if they’re not fussy about the finer details of use and efficiency. Maybe that’s the greatest benefit of all those gears for the average buyer.

[Brucey]

every time they have added a cog at the back (a process that has been going on -at an ever increasing rate- for at least seventy years now), some bike manufacturers have cried

"ah, with this new extra cog at the back giving you 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13 (*) gears maybe you don't need two/three(*) chainrings at the front any more!..."

(*) delete as appropriate

and sometimes it is OK; you either don't really need that many gears or the larger gear gaps are quite tolerable after all. The same arguments apply to the simpler IGHs too.

But the idea that it really is 'better' than a 2x or 3x system is really not a convincing argument. You don't need to be a genius to spot that

a) with a 1x setup there is a great temptation to use smaller chainrings and sprockets than you might otherwise; these wear more quickly
b) FDs keep the chain on nicely, last almost indefinitely anyway and don't weigh much; there are plenty of other bicycle parts that could do with improvement more than FDs, IMHO.
c) with a double chainring you always have more gears that work efficiently and don't wear the chain and sprockets so quickly vs a 1x
d) any given 1x system can be replaced with a 2x system which uses chain/sprocket consumables which are much cheaper (for a given life expectancy).
e) is you use a 2x system with fewer sprockets at the back, you can build a less dished (and therefore stronger and/or lighter) rear wheel.
f) 1x chainrings are (for now) more expensive than 2x type chainrings
g) you don't need a fancy RD with a 2x system

I built a 1x bike for a chum to commute on; the thing is that he has a relatively flat commute and only really needs three gears to cover 99% of the miles he is likely to do on that bike. The bike uses a 6s freewheel and cheap 7/8s chain. To replace them both costs less than £15. The chainring is a Brucey-modified 1/8" chainring (the teeth are filed down so that they are snug with the 3/32" chain; it doesn't unship in the use it sees and the chainring has done about five chains so far....). The fallback plans were to

1) use a steel chainring if it wore too quickly and
2) to add a second chainring and FD if the gear range/gear intervals weren't quite right.

Note that even a humble 2x6 system offers more, better gears than even a 1x11, a stronger rear wheel, and is of course much cheaper to run. The indexed shifting is incredibly positive and is of course very tolerant to any wear that there might be in the RD.

It should never occur to anyone with a well chosen 2x6 system to 'upgrade' to a 1x11, should it....?.....

cheers

[Scunnered]

* I have lost the highest and lowest gears, which I never used anyway.
* Much of the time I am using the middle few sprockets, instead of large sprockets on large chainring and vice-versa, so better chainline most of the time.

Surely these points just prove your double set-up was not optimised to begin with? That may have been out of necessity. It’s almost always the case if you buy a built-up bicycle or accept Shimano’s typical limitations. It’s often impossible to find sensible cassettes and sensible chainring sizes or cranks that allow them.

In order to make my double set-up more optimal than stock, I selected sprockets from two cassettes to make a "franken-cassette". It work ok, gear changes were fine, I just had to buy two cassettes...

f) 1x chainrings are (for now) more expensive than 2x type chainrings
g) you don't need a fancy RD with a 2x system

My crank has an odd BCD, but I found a cheap chainring to match from china, too early to say how long it will last
I just used the existing RD with a 11-32 cassette, so all I bought was the chainring and cassette

[100%JR]

I tried it on my last MTB.11-36+42t Expander plus a 30T on the front.I ditched the 42T expander and went with 11-36.TBH it made sense on the MTB but now I'm seeing 50t Cassettes which just look odd.I've no desire to change what I have on my road or CX bikes,11-30r with a compact.