1x vs 2x?

[biker38109]

Perhaps I have taken for granted the range of 3x riding (or say 2x because the biggest chainring is hardly every used).

As I think of it though I don't really use most of those cogs even on the 5 speed freewheel. Probably the smallest (actually second smallest as the wire is not calbrated to hit the smallest and won't go down!) and the biggest.

I would say 80% of the gear changing action happens between smallest and medium chainrings, which is frequent.

[Bmblbzzz]

Gear inches and gear development (or progression, as someone referred to it a page or two back) are essentially the same measurement. It's just that the former uses imperial units and, more importantly, leaves the last bit of arithmetic (multiplying by pi) to you. But you don't really need to know how far you'll travel in one pedal rotation – unless that's the measurement you're used to – so you don't really need to multiply by pi either. And that's the key to why gear inches continue to be used in Britain (and probably other English-speaking countries): people are used to it. Plenty of people are used to "chainring teeth x sprocket teeth" of course, but it's less useful because it makes assumptions about wheel size. Okay for comparing eg one track bike to another (which I dare say is it's origin) but not for comparing a touring bike to a mountain bike, or a time trial bike to a recumbent.

[JohnR]

On my bike builds a 2x with a 16 tooth difference between the chainrings effectively adds three more steps in the gearing range compared to a 1x with the same cassette. Whether you get those steps at the top or the bottom of the range depends on the size of the chainrings but I always like to keep a gear or two spare at the bottom end for tiring legs or an unusually nasty hill.

[biker38109]

On my bike builds a 2x with a 16 tooth difference between the chainrings effectively adds three more steps in the gearing range compared to a 1x with the same cassette. Whether you get those steps at the top or the bottom of the range depends on the size of the chainrings but I always like to keep a gear or two spare at the bottom end for tiring legs or an unusually nasty hill.

Sorry could not follow. Are you saying 2x is preferable or 1x?

[biker38109]

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.

Fair points. I don't think the difference is insignificant though.

Ball park 20" or a bit lower for climbing, above 80" for top.
...
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.

I think there has been useful information gleaned from the discussion and the difference between the two comparisons above appears more than inconsequential. It steers me more towards the 2x option as seems more suited to my tastes.

All speculation as I haven't ridden either kinds and I guess a quick ride on both at a shop could clear a lot up but I am not living in a city any more with easy access to big stores so I am compensating for that.

[Nearholmer]

any entry level MTB will do the job!

So will many hybrids, and the reason I keep recommending hybrids instead of MTBs is that, price-for-price you get better quality components because the cost of a suspension fork is avoided. They weigh less, and have less to go wrong too.

[biker38109]

any entry level MTB will do the job!

So will many hybrids, and the reason I keep recommending hybrids instead of MTBs is that, price-for-price you get better quality components because the cost of a suspension fork is avoided. They weigh less, and have less to go wrong too.

Interesting. Since I recently had a bike with no suspension at all which I quickly got used to I think I would prefer having that money go into better quality, more welcome components, rather than have a lackluster front suspension fork, which seems what it would be for the price point I would be aiming at.

So hybrid doesn't mean what it means for cars? I was thinking it meant an e-bike but it has nothing to do with being electric I take it from your post, only to do with the intended terrain it is suited to?

[rareposter]

So hybrid doesn't mean what it means for cars? I was thinking it meant an e-bike but it has nothing to do with being electric I take it from your post, only to do with the intended terrain it is suited to?

Hybrid means a lot of things for bikes but basically back in the days when you could buy a "road bike" or a "mountain bike", along came "hybrids" - a mix and match of the two so stronger and more capable off road than a road bike would ever be but faster and more comfortable on road than a mountain bike could be.

Hence a "hybrid" of the two types of bike. Nearholmer's suggestion is good, that Pinnacle that was linked to previously is a nice bike.

The bike industry now has evolved and developed ever more types of bike and in some respects "gravel bike" has taken over from "hybrid" but it's really splitting hairs. You can find some gravel bikes / hybrids that are little more than slightly chunkier road bikes; you can find some that are pretty much slighter lighter weight MTBs. Very broad range of styles.

[rareposter]

Go Outdoors have a big sale on at the moment:

https://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/16245347/c ... 9-16245347

That's pretty fantastic - £400 for a bike that retails at £700!
2x9 drivetrain, low gear of about 16.5"

[JohnR]

On my bike builds a 2x with a 16 tooth difference between the chainrings effectively adds three more steps in the gearing range compared to a 1x with the same cassette. Whether you get those steps at the top or the bottom of the range depends on the size of the chainrings but I always like to keep a gear or two spare at the bottom end for tiring legs or an unusually nasty hill.

Sorry could not follow. Are you saying 2x is preferable or 1x?

2x gives a wider range which, for many people, is preferable. Think of it as effectively adding 48, 54 and 62 teeth cogs to the 11 - 42 cassette.

[Nearholmer]

2x gives a wider range

An oft-repeated not-necessarily-truism.

By careful selection, you can get ranges using 1x that equal or exceed what many 2x deliver, just that they usually come with fewer steps in between.

There’s nothing magic about 2x or 3x, they’ve simply been historic necessities to achieve wide range, and as cog, chain, and derailleur tech has advanced, they’ve gradually become less necessary. 3x has gradually become somewhat niche as more cogs can be got across the back, and one can foresee the day when the same happens to 2x.

I’ve often said that my ideal would be a 1x, with a range of about 500% (currently available), and about 20 steps in between (currently not feasible, but we’re up to 13 already).

I suggest that Brucey is being a bit too dismissive in saying that 1x is only for MTBers, because these days it is practical for more applications than that. It certainly works for CX and some “gravel”, and it works for some sorts of utility cycling too ……. It’s a heck of a lot more flexible for that than any hub gears (which are 1x themselves, of course) except the most expensive, although if isn’t yet really cheap enough itself at very wide range.

Nobody would have invented 2x or 3x unless “back end limitations” forced them to.

[Bmblbzzz]

I'm not sure about hybrids having better components than MTBs for the same money. My experience of a cheap one of each was that the MTB had slightly better components, much better frame, and better suspension. Yes, hybrids frequently have suspension. Mine only had suspension forks (which I wasn't in any case interested in) but some have rear suspension too, particularly those aimed more at shopping and commuting than leisure riding. Both the MTB and the hybrid had 3x, by the way, though the MTB had a slightly lower overall range and the shifters, in particular, were far better.

[Nearholmer]

To illustrate the point I’m trying to make about range of ratios, here are some figures for notable “off the shelf” sets known for their wide range (please somebody check this for errors):

Rohloff 1x(hub) 500% 14sp

Campaign Ekar 1x 467% 13sp

Shim Deore. 1x 510%. 12sp

Shim GRX 2x 475% 22sp (yes, they are all usable, although one is very inefficient! This set can also be tweaked to a wider range in a reliable way by going outside recommended tolerances)

Now, these are all “fancy” sets, expensive, so not what the OP really needs to know about, and as you move down through the price ranges things tend to get more restrictive in range terms, although Microshift, and perhaps the incoming Shimano Cues get some very impressive ranges for pretty good prices.

[Cyclothesist]

Well Biker38109 you've probably got more information than you really wanted but all of it is good in helping you make a decision on a bike that suits you. The 1x v 2x/3x debate goes on and there isn't a one size fits all answer to that.
The most important quality of a bike is that it should make you want to ride it when you look at it. So pick something that'll make you smile and want to go out for a ride. Happy hunting!

[Brucey]

...I suggest that Brucey is being a bit too dismissive in saying that 1x is only for MTBers.......

considering that isn't what I said, I can't say that I agree. However, I would note that whatever you do with your 1x, you can turn it into a 2x and have twice as many gears, more range, or w.h.y. IMHO the best way of exploiting modern chains etc is probably to give 'enough' gears (by range or number) in a 2x format in conjunction with a stronger rear wheel. Currently rear wheels are ~x4 more likely to fail vs. fronts, in good part because of the heavy dishing. Shimano CUES 9s is, IMHO, a bit half-baked. If they had more firmly embraced the idea of using dished sprockets, they could have built a 9s cluster which requires the same low wheel dish as when you build 7s/130mm or 7s/135mm.