1x vs 2x?

[Nearholmer]

I can understand having high gears for racing, not that I’m capable of racing, and in fact my cruising gear on easy roads, and if ever I find one a truly nice long easy gravel road, is only one down from the top on GRX. My cadence is quite low at that, but those top gears aren’t something I’d want to jettison - when I had 1x and reduced the chain-ring to 40, giving a top of 112”, I used to spin-out on road downhills, which I didn’t like.

Maybe it depends on the mix of the ride, but certainly where I live I can be struggling along cross-country at 24” one minute, and zipping along on road the next.

[pq]

Interesting, it's top gears like that which I find incomprehensible. Only a few times did I use a gear that big when I was racing, and that was on drag strip courses when I was on form. My 10pb was done on 100"fixed. Merckx mostly used a top gear of around 110" to do what he did, so a non-racing amateur using bigger than that on an off road bike has never made much sense to me. My gravel bike's top gear varies a bit but is usally around the 70" mark. I almost never use it off road - it's too big on the flat and descending off road means using my legs as shock absorbers, not for going faster. On big road desents obviously I spin out, or at least I would do if I had any interest in pedalling down them, but road descents isn't what the bike is for. The rest of the time it's a big enough gear to push on at 20mph+, not that I have the legs for that these days. Still we're all different...

[Nearholmer]

We are indeed all different, and especially so in preferred cadence.

There’s a sort of meme abroad that we should all spin at a fairly high cadence, derived from some sorts of performance cycling, where doing so is “efficient”, although I’m not certain on what measure of efficiency (I think it actually maximises power output, which may or may not be what one wants to do if the objective is other than winning a race).

But, people have a fair range of different “happy cadences” and associated resistances, which you will see on even quite tight, peloton-group, club rides. Everyone travelling at the same speed, but a surprising range of cadences. I’ve related before that there’s a chap who cycles past our house on his way to and from work, obviously an experienced “serious” cyclist, and he rides incredibly “light”, high cadence, low resistance, to a degree that I find almost comical to look at, whereas I ride fairly low cadence, high resistance, and certainly when I fancy a rest in mid ride, I drop the cadence, and go for a few minutes milling along at quite high resistance. I never go fast, hitting 25mph is highly exceptional, so I’m using high gears for low cadence, not speed, and downhill I might be putting barely any effort in, coasting effectively, but I like to have some resistance there for reasons of control.

[NickJP]

I converted two of my wife's bikes to 1x12 (she's been riding 3x and 2x setups for almost half a century), and the 1x setups have been a success. Both are setup with 36t N-W chainring and 10-50 cassette, giving gears from 97" down to 19". We're presently touring Austria/Italy/Switzerland, and she's on an older bike that has 2x10 gearing. After a couple of days on that, she asked if it could also be converted to 1x.

[mattsccm]

I bet it has been mentioned several times in the above pages, but I for one find that gaps between gears annoying with a single ring set up.

[MartinC]

This is a perennial discussion (and includes 3x too). Everybody (literally) is different, we all live in different terrain and every riders objectives, requirements and resources are different. Our 1st world affluent markets aren't truly demand led - manufacturers skew them to fit what they want to supply and lead fashions to create the demand they want. It's worse in the UK where the bike is considered a piece of sporting equipment. Currently the front derailleur has been improved to the point that it's such a PITA that a 1x is the least worse choice for a lot of people.

All 3 are sensible choices in different circumstances and will be until a 21 speed Rohloff that weighs 500g and costs £50 arrives covering everybody's needs. But I shan't be holding my breath.

[biker38109]

I can understand having high gears for racing, not that I’m capable of racing, and in fact my cruising gear on easy roads, and if ever I find one a truly nice long easy gravel road, is only one down from the top on GRX. My cadence is quite low at that, but those top gears aren’t something I’d want to jettison - when I had 1x and reduced the chain-ring to 40, giving a top of 112”, I used to spin-out on road downhills, which I didn’t like.

Maybe it depends on the mix of the ride, but certainly where I live I can be struggling along cross-country at 24” one minute, and zipping along on road the next.

I can't understand wanting to pedal while going downhill as there is no need since gravity is moving you.

I ran my new sprocket on route's gearing through sheldon's gear calculator and my highest gear of 32/12 will be 70 gear inches. I already have that gear on current setup, which is only one above the highest now of 32/11 and 70 feels more than fine for me. Yes I would spin out downhill but I just don't pedal! On flats I tend to come to almost a stop, pedal a bit, slow down, rinse and repeat.

I just also ran an sram 12 speed 11-50 cassette paired with a 30t chainring through the calculator and the steps look the same of even less than my above setup's results so not sure what this talk is about larger steps with 1x.

Of course this is purely academic but I am just entertaining myself until my bits arrive I have ordered.

I do seem like a good candidate for 1x given that I would not care about the losing of higher gears which is said to be either or with 1x. Of course the price makes it out of the question but I see the logic in that choice now over just hype, or at least on paper.

Beyond all that though I do enjoy double shifting and that cute 20t granny ring! 1x does seem more efficient though given the above. Did I overlook anything, speaking only of the narrow range low gearing I would be interested in. I understand if people want their bigger rings and don't want to compromise their range it would not make as much sense.

[rareposter]

I just also ran an sram 12 speed 11-50 cassette paired with a 30t chainring through the calculator and the steps look the same of even less than my above setup's results so not sure what this talk is about larger steps with 1x.

It's very dependent on what cassette you're using and on what terrain.

Normally, on a road bike, smaller gear steps are more desirable since the terrain is more regular and cadence wouldn't usually vary too much.
On a gravel bike or MTB, steps between gears can be much larger without any negative effects since the terrain can vary dramatically sometimes within very short distances and actually wider gaps are more beneficial. If you have to go from (say) 50" gear to a 30" one pretty quickly, you don't want to be doing 8 shifts to achieve that, you want it in 3 or 4 shifts. Also, cadence will vary a lot more off-road and there will be plenty of times when you're freewheeling such as on technical descents or doing short bits of pedalling to get over an obstacle combined with moving your bodyweight around.

1x is a lot simpler in use off-road, you never have to wonder that you're in middle chainring and (say) 8th largest cog (out of 9) and if you need to go to the 9th largest but will you make it up the hill in middle-big or if you need to drop it down to the inner chainring and maybe move to the 7th largest and leave yourself more leeway at the back for later shifts....
It simply a case of lower gears press this, higher gears press that.

But equally, as discussed above, personal preference plays a strong part in it too.

[Nearholmer]

^^^
Excellent summary.

I think that maybe people who ride mainly on roads don’t appreciate the sheer quantity of gear changes, and the need for large ratio changes at zero notice that happen off-road.

I moved from 1x to 2x because I found the steps tiring when doing multi day, loaded rides, and if they weren’t part of the equation, I’d go back to 1x. In fact, today I spotted the latest GRX 12x, with extra-dinner-plate cassettes, and that set me off thinking about this all again, and what I’ll do when the current gubbins all wears out …… doubtless it costs a fortune though, so …… oh, I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it!

[oaklec]

the last 1x I had was a 50's Hobbs road bike and it was 1x 4 with a FW sturmey hub. The weight of the hub made the bike feel "back heavy". Does the same thing happen with modern bikes given the size and presumeably weight of the dinner plate cassettes and large mechs needed to operate them?

[rareposter]

the last 1x I had was a 50's Hobbs road bike and it was 1x 4 with a FW sturmey hub. The weight of the hub made the bike feel "back heavy". Does the same thing happen with modern bikes given the size and presumeably weight of the dinner plate cassettes and large mechs needed to operate them?

If it is any heavier - which I doubt - then it's unnoticeable. The cassettes are super machined and drilled compared to the more traditional smaller ones.

Besides, it's normally the case that if you have a bike with 3x, you don't then convert it to 1x. You just ride the thing. So there's no direct comparison available unless you specifically select a 3x bike, weigh every part of it and it's weight distribution, then strip it and rebuild it with a 1x and repeat the weighing.

The only one I did notice was riding a road bike with a Classified Powershift rear hub, a 2 speed internal gear system which removes the need for a front mech and inner chainring so you can run a 1x on road but still get the full 2x range of gears and that was ever so slightly rearward biased compared to a road bike with a normal 2x drivetrain.
There's a thread on the Powershift here:
viewtopic.php?t=154122

[Nearholmer]

Most of the big cogs is fresh air anyway. When you view a cassette from the rear, it becomes very apparent that they are pretty much just a ring with teeth on the outer edge, rather than a disk.