1x vs 2x?

[Nearholmer]

^^^

That would only be truly useful to people seeking to purchase metric penny-farthings.

[Jdsk]

^^^

That would only be truly useful to people seeking to purchase metric penny-farthings.

What are those in decimal currency... ?

: - )

Jonathan

[biker38109]

I disagree. A single number that tells you all you need to know about a particular gear ratio, or a set of single numbers by which you can instantly judge the range of a system, or compare two systems. A small number is an easy gear, a larger number is harder. What's not to like?

Bring back gear inches into general use, I say!

It seems unnesesarily complex for my current purposes.

For comparing bikes I want to buy they all have descriptions of front and back teeth so, since I am already familiar from general oldschool 15/18/21 speeds I can get a rough idea of how easy a gear is (that is really all I care about vs hard) from how many teeth front and back cogs have.

Not as accurate as your euclidean calculation sure, but gives a ballpark comparison quickly.

[Nearholmer]

What are those in decimal currency... ?

I was actually trying to recall the sizes of old French coins, to give an equivalent, but could remember them!

PS: Grand-bi is the equivalent French term, it seems.

[axel_knutt]

I am not bothered about range, but rather just want a really low lowest gear, the rest is inconsequential to me, except 'average' performance in the rest of the range.

If all you want is the lowest gear possible you don't need a gear change at all, just a single sprocket and a single chainring. If you try that I don't think you'll like it, in which case gear range will be important to you.

It's pointless talking about individual gear ratios or numbers of gears until you've established the range that you want.

The range is determined by the individual ratio that will get you up the steepest hill you want to tackle, and the individual ratio for the steepest downhill you want to pedal without spinning out.

Before I fitted 17.5" - 108", my bike came with 25.2" - 118". I was happy to sacrifice 10" off the top to get a 17.5" bottom gear, but I wouldn't have wanted to lose any more.

Can you rather give your old english gear range to me in teeth of lowest/highest gears front and back so I can understand it? ?

No, because it's the ratio of the two that determines the gear ratio (along with wheel diameter and crank length).
22F 11R is the same gear ratio as 44F 22R, all else being equal.

Gear Inches is an insane and archaic system, but you just have to get used to it!

The most sensible way is to divide chainring teeth by sprocket teeth, then multiply by wheel radius divided by crank radius, that way you get a proper dimensionless gear ratio that includes all the relevant variables.

A single number that tells you all you need to know about a particular gear ratio

Except that it doesn't tell you all you need to know because it excludes the crank length.

(Cue a re-run of the never-ending thread full of people who can't understand why crank length is part of the gear ratio.)

[Jdsk]

...

It's pointless talking about individual gear ratios or numbers of gears until you've established the range that you want.

The range is determined by the individual ratio that will get you up the steepest hill you want to tackle, and the individual ratio for the steepest downhill you want to pedal without spinning out.
...

And we're now on page 3 without knowing these for the OP.

Jonathan

[Cyclothesist]

The OP said earlier (I paraphrase) that they wanted a good low climbing gear and weren't too bothered about the top range.

[Jdsk]

The OP said earlier (I paraphrase) that they wanted a good low climbing gear and weren't too bothered about the top range.

Thanks

The problem is that those words can mean very different gearing to different people. But putting numbers on them would immediately unlock this part of the process... anyone?

Jonathan

[Cyckelgalen]

"Gear inches" is just as useful as any other method to describe a drivetrain gearing, albeit less intuitive and more difficult to calculate (easy if you use an online gear calculator, though).

"Gear ratio" is how much the wheel spins per every single revolution of the crank, 1:1.5 for instance.

"Gain ratio" is the least used, I believe. It is how much the bicycle travels per every unit that the pedal travels.

Gear inches as low as 20 is not a useless ratio, as stated upthread. They very much a necessity for loaded touring. Rohloff has a 19-inch low gear.
As others have said before, I wouldn't sacrifice the range of my 3x9 and 3x10 for the convenience of having only one shifter. I do need and use that range, but that will depend on the intended use of the bike. For the intended use that the OP describes, I would go for a 2x drivetrain at least.

[Cyclothesist]

Ball park 20" or a bit lower for climbing, above 80" for top.
They're looking for a mountain bike style with good climbing gears. They said earlier that they essentially have 3 main speeds in mind: a priority climbing gear, a mid pootling along gear and a top gear that they can cruise along with a tailwind.
Maybe they could confirm I have that right?

The Voodoo Bragg mentioned in the earlier post has a 19" bottom gear and 81" top. 1x 9 speed
The Polygon a 14" bottom gear and 91" top. 2x 10 speed.
Unless the Polygon weighs a ton it looks like a better fit in terms of low gear, range and price.

[biker38109]

I am not bothered about range, but rather just want a really low lowest gear, the rest is inconsequential to me, except 'average' performance in the rest of the range.

If all you want is the lowest gear possible you don't need a gear change at all, just a single sprocket and a single chainring. If you try that I don't think you'll like it, in which case gear range will be important to you.

Well you made a reductio ad absurdum.

I clearly state there I still want some range, just average performance for the rest as low gear is paramount, but want 'average' range for the rest.

As the sentence continues...

Not bothered about big jumps either. I would even be fine with like 3 gears! One - super low for steep hills, low for medium/flat slow cruise, high for flat/downhill.

That is clearly hyperbole but the point is I am not particular about the rest of the range but want it to exist to be able to ride normal terrain other than steep hills.

[Pendodave]

For gear inch calculators, my preferred site is :
https://ritzelrechner.de
Really easy to play with.

As for the OP... I guess it really depends on how slowly they want to cycle along the road.
My own experience is that 1x spins out more quickly on the road than I would like, but that was with an 11t smallest cog. A 10t might just about be acceptable.
What might not be acceptable is the price of 10t-44t cassettes. They are a lot more expensive than (say) 11-34.

[biker38109]

Ball park 20" or a bit lower for climbing, above 80" for top.
They're looking for a mountain bike style with good climbing gears. They said earlier that they essentially have 3 main speeds in mind: a priority climbing gear, a mid pootling along gear and a top gear that they can cruise along with a tailwind.
Maybe they could confirm I have that right?

The Voodoo Bragg mentioned in the earlier post has a 19" bottom gear and 81" top. 1x 9 speed
The Polygon a 14" bottom gear and 91" top. 2x 10 speed.
Unless the Polygon weighs a ton it looks like a better fit in terms of low gear, range and price.

Indeed, I just clarified the point as you posted that reply.

Thanks for the breakdown, the polygon sounds like a nicer fit then.

Do you know if the huge 12 cassettes would be compatible for this bike too? Or only 9 speeds going to be compatible for the 9 speed cassette? I doubt, from what you say, I would have any cause to look further given those ratios and may be into falling over sideways while peddalling furiously territory with bigger back cogs?

[biker38109]

For gear inch calculators, my preferred site is :
https://ritzelrechner.de
Really easy to play with.

As for the OP... I guess it really depends on how slowly they want to cycle along the road.
My own experience is that 1x spins out more quickly on the road than I would like, but that was with an 11t smallest cog. A 10t might just about be acceptable.
What might not be acceptable is the price of 10t-44t cassettes. They are a lot more expensive than (say) 11-34.

Ah this does highlight a very good point stated earlier then about the price differentials between the very small/large cassettes on 1x and the reasonable priced 9s for 2x. This does make it seem to make a lot more sense to go with the 2x then, especially as that range seems more suited to what riding I will want to be doing.

Does going from 11 to 10t on the back really make much of a difference anyway also compared to having a second cog on the front it must be diminishing returns? The price of the 1xs it more about them being 'trendy' is it?

[rareposter]

And we're now on page 3 without knowing these for the OP.

Very true although it's complicated by the fact that the OP doesn't know either other than they want "a low gear".

Since pretty much all MTBs you can buy off the peg (decent ones anyway, not BSO!) have a low gear of somewhere around 18", pretty much any MTB will do the job. How it does that job (via a 1x, 2x or 3x) is one of those arguments that can (and have in the past on this forum) taken up pages and pages of debate and discussion with no real resolution. There is no "best" system, they all have pros and cons and we return to the central point that, without having ridden any of the modern systems, the OP is not really in a great place to decide.

A lot of blokes like to talk technical what's wrong with that? It's a normal male thing you will find in any area you get a bunch of blokes together. I enjoy that as part of a given hobby so it isn't a 'waste of time' to me, and many other blokes I think.

Absolutely valid point although - as with many things - once you dive too deeply into the technical aspects, you lose the wider point of the discussion. Camera forums for example are chocka with ridiculously in depth stuff about lenses and many people lose sight of the central point of "I want to take a decent photograph" and to be quite honest for most people most of the time, a smartphone does the job!

Same here - bike forums the world over are full of wildly technical and esoteric stuff about gear inches etc but the central point is that you want to ride up a hill so any entry level MTB will do the job!