Cycling UK Forum

I was just about to get a Martin Fairfax 2 and thought I would have a quick look at the Fairfax 1 and spotted something that caught my attention. The Fairfax 1 has 3 cogs on the crank and is 21 speed (the 2 has 2 on the crank and is 16 speed).

Coming from a 30-speed Audax this seemed good but the reason I really like it is not really because it has more gears, it's the 3 cogs on the crank I really like. What I love about this is a lot of the time you just sit on the middle cog on the crank and can use all the gears on the back. With 2 on the front, you should not use all the back gears. Depending on which cog you are on you either should use the top couple or the bottom couple of gears on the back. I love the way this makes things simpler.

The other main difference seems to be that on the 2 the Dicc breaks are Hydraulic, on the 1 they are Mechanical. I know this adds complexity and means you can't really service them yourselves. Or even even service them yourself. So are they really necessary on road/gravel bikes? Are you just paying more/adding complexity? Do they really cause significantly less hand strain when going down very long steep hills?

The only other differences seem to be steel forks on the 1, so 1kg heavier and lower gear. The 2 goes ridiculously low (ratio 0.65). The 1 still has a ratio of 0.82 which is still very low.

I cant decide but saving £100 may make me decide the 1. I really love the 3 cogs on the front.

My first thoughts are "don't be fooled by the numbers" with the gears.
What do I mean by that ??
Both bikes use an 11-34 cassette, the Fairfax 1 uses a 7 speed cassette while the Fairfax 2 uses an 8.
This means that all the steps between the gears on the Fairfax 1 are going to be that little bit bigger.
In practice this means ....
You'll have to work a little bit harder to climb the gears spin your legs a fraction faster before the shift and work that little bit harder to get your legs back to their optimal cadence after the shift.
It will be a little bit harder to match the speed of a group ride. Your legs are more likely to be spinning a little bit to fast/slow for comfort at the group speed.
They are both minor points but they add up at the end of the day to how much you enjoy riding the bike.

Luck .....

benedwards wrote: ↑15 Sep 2023, 9:56pm
The other main difference seems to be that on the 2 the Dicc breaks are Hydraulic, on the 1 they are Mechanical. I know this adds complexity and means you can't really service them yourselves. Or even even service them yourself. So are they really necessary on road/gravel bikes? Are you just paying more/adding complexity? Do they really cause significantly less hand strain when going down very long steep hills?

Hydraulics are simple, reliable, and have a lovely modulation. Nothing complicated about them at all they’ve been around on cars all my life so it’s a well tested system.
Servicing them is simple and for fluid changing all you usually need is a hex key and a syringe.
As for hand strain I’m not one for braking a lot but if I do, it’s usually with a finger or two with hydraulics.

benedwards wrote: ↑15 Sep 2023, 9:56pm With 2 on the front, you should not use all the back gears. Depending on which cog you are on you either should use the top couple or the bottom couple of gears on the back. I love the way this makes things simpler.

I wish this cross-chaining myth would die already.
On a triple chainset, it can be an issue especially in small-small because the chain can catch on the inner face of the largest ring due to the angle it's going across.

This is not a problem on a double chainset (although it's still generally regarded as good practice to avoid small-small and big-big) but all the rest of the gears are fine.

And as Paulatic says ^^, hydraulic disc brakes are perfectly simple and reliable. They're tried and tested technology, they've been standard on mountain bikes for 20+ years now.

Whichever suits you best will be the better bike, if you save some cash all the better, but the price difference wouldn't be enough to influence me. No disrespect to your choices, but both are fairly low grade components on what is probably a decent frame, I'd choose on the forks. If you get plenty of use from the bike everything else is likely to end up getting replaced anyway and either way you'll have had good value before they do.
Disc brakes - I prefer hydraulics, you can currently get a set of Shimano DEORE BL-M4100 for under £40. If you think you'll prefer the Fairfax 1, I wouldn't let the brake difference sway me.

Its what my budget is. Also the low gear is significantly lower than any other Hybrid. Its a ration of 0.65. Others dont go lower than 0.8 whitch is a 20% diferennce. Alough this is only significant for verry steep hills. The frame is the important bit, other stuff can be incrementaly upgraded. The fairfax 1 is actualy 0.81 and has steel forlks so I think I will go for the 2. Also my understanding is using all gears on a 2 cog derailiure is OK but with three posibly not. Think I will get the 2.

rareposter wrote: ↑16 Sep 2023, 12:50pm

benedwards wrote: ↑15 Sep 2023, 9:56pm With 2 on the front, you should not use all the back gears. Depending on which cog you are on you either should use the top couple or the bottom couple of gears on the back. I love the way this makes things simpler.

I wish this cross-chaining myth would die already.
On a triple chainset, it can be an issue especially in small-small because the chain can catch on the inner face of the largest ring due to the angle it's going across.

This is not a problem on a double chainset (although it's still generally regarded as good practice to avoid small-small and big-big) but all the rest of the gears are fine.

And as Paulatic says ^^, hydraulic disc brakes are perfectly simple and reliable. They're tried and tested technology, they've been standard on mountain bikes for 20+ years now.

So not a myth so mutch for triple, whitch is what I have, but good to know it is not an issue with doble. Thanks for letting me know. That is really good to know.