Cycling UK Forum

I have been reading up about 1x and the benefits do sound appealing, namely less mechanics to service, and buy/replace, and such.

However, having never ridden one, I am not yet sold that just one cog would offer enough range? I would mostly ride on roads, as even if I want to off-road I would still ride to and from the off-road destination which necessitates using roads. Would be in the welsh countryside mind you so would be plenty of hilly roads.

I am thinking either having a really small cog on the front would make it too easily when using a small cog on the back too (similar to cross chaining 28-14 on the bikes I am used to) or vice versa, a medium cog on the chainring would make it not easy enough when using biggest on the back (like when you use middle cog and biggest on the back with 'classic' bikes for standing up powering up medium hills).

Perhaps I am underestimating just how much the dinner plates would make a medium sized cog easier and likewise, perhaps to a lesser degree, the fewer cogs on small ones, from 14 (usual classic smallest cog I believe) to 10?

Interested to hear how people with experience find them and if my concerns are unwarranted.

At the moment it seems like a 2 cogger would offer much more flexibility even though contemporary reviews seem to like to write that as a 'con', in their pros and cons, simply for the nebulous reason of 'feels outdated'.

I wonder if the one coggers provide enough high gearage for longish road stretches, at a leisurely pace, or that most mountain bikers don't need it and are in low gears nearly all the time anyway.

Even roadbikes have 1x setups I saw however they have much bigger chainrings no less cause for really low gears.

biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:18am I have been reading up about 1x and the benefits do sound appealing, namely less mechanics to service, and buy/replace, and such.

One thing you might consider is that this part is not strictly true.
Less gear choice means you spend more time in each gear. Also the extreme chainline demanded in the high and low gears creates greater wear in the chain and gear teeth when compared to a (correctly used) 2x or 3x bike.
Also the price disparity between the cassettes for each of these options can be quite eye-watering.

biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:18am Interested to hear how people with experience find them and if my concerns are unwarranted.

You are worrying about stuff that - at this level especially - simply does not matter.

Both systems have their pros and cons (although not really for any of the reasons you've stated), either will be absolutely fine for you , both systems give a nominally similar gear range and the chance of most people putting in the mileage to wear stuff out quickly is pretty low anyway.

Most people riding bikes at this sort of entry level barely know how many gears they have and, linked to that, many people will only ever use 2 or 3 gears anyway! There's a lot to be said for 1x for these people cos it's one shifter button - easier gear click here, harder gear click there.
Also, cross-chaining on a 1x system simply does not happen. Lots of folk (especially on here for some reason) get really really technical and uppity about it and bang on about how it's supposedly a 0.04% loss in efficiency and other such drivel that - in the real world - is about as much of a concern as wondering whether the temperature is 19.995 degrees C or 20.005 degrees C. It's 20 degrees, get on with life.

Getting hung up cos the low gear on this bike is 1% lower than on that bike is a waste of time.

This is going to turn into one of those scattergun threads where you'll get hung up on every detail of the bike - we've had people like this before, sometimes even down to things like whether they should spec a wheel with alloy or brass spoke nipples.

peetee wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:37am

biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:18am I have been reading up about 1x and the benefits do sound appealing, namely less mechanics to service, and buy/replace, and such.

One thing you might consider is that this part is not strictly true.
Less gear choice means you spend more time in each gear. Also the extreme chainline demanded in the high and low gears creates greater wear in the chain and gear teeth when compared to a (correctly used) 2x or 3x bike.
Also the price disparity between the cassettes for each of these options can be quite eye-watering.

What is chainline? Not up on all the contemporary jargon, yet, though fast learning!

Oh I do recall reading that point you made about greater wear with 1x, but why would it cost more to replace? Is it because the cassettes (any else likely to break like derailleur?) cost more than chainrings to replace?

What do you mean by "disparity between cassettes used for each of these options" what disparity and what prices?

Thanks.

biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:59am...
What is chainline?
...

"All About Bicycle Chainline":
https://sheldonbrown.com/chainline.html

Jonathan

rareposter wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:57am

Getting hung up cos the low gear on this bike is 1% lower than on that bike is a waste of time.

This is going to turn into one of those scattergun threads where you'll get hung up on every detail of the bike - we've had people like this before, sometimes even down to things like whether they should spec a wheel with alloy or brass spoke nipples.

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.

Coming up with theories and hypotheses, tinkering and improving are part of the fun.

When I first noticed that triple chainsets were going out of fashion I had a look to see if the current systems will still offer the same range as my 3x9. Now perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but I didn't find anything that would offer anywhere near the 17.5" to 108" I've got now, and for that reason alone I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole unless I was forced to. I didn't use 108" that often, even here in Essex, but I wouldn't want to give it up just to follow a pointless fashion.

A personal opinion...
Recent Shimano, Sram and Campag double and triple chainring systems work well. They work well across a variety of cycling disciplines including commuting, touring, road, gravel, trail and cross country mountain biking. They provide a good range of gearing enabling climbing up steep gradients and cruising at speed. The parts are cheap/reasonably priced. Maintenance is simple.
1x is a modern take on a throw back to a time when 1x was the norm before efficient front derailleurs were widely available. There is some advantage for downhill mountain biking/racing in terms of chain retention when traveling fast over very bumpy terrain.
The disadvantages are several:
- To achieve a decent gear range huge diameter heavy cassettes are required.
- The gear range is less than that achievable with 2 or 3x
- The jump between gears is bigger and clunky
- The cassettes are ridiculously expensive
- The chainline is arguably worse than 2 or 3x when in the high or low end of the cassette.

I do think 1x on road and gravel bikes is a marketing fashion that has no advantage for the average rider. I wouldn't buy a bike like that. I also believe 2 or 3x is the best option for most recreational cross country mountain bikers. If you're a downhill mountain biker speed demon then 1x is a good choice.

Just looking at the Polygon Xtrada which is 2x: https://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/16537654/p ... 5-16537654

The 22x/36 sounds a nice range. The cassette goes only to 11-42.

Same pricerange as the Voodoo Braag which is 1x. That one has 32/11-46t.

How do the 2 lowest/highest gears compare? Particularly the lowest, as not too bothered about high gears so long as I am not madly spinning on flat ground.

biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:59am , but why would it cost more to replace? Is it because the cassettes (any else likely to break like derailleur?) cost more than chainrings to replace?

What do you mean by "disparity between cassettes used for each of these options" what disparity and what prices?

Thanks.

I don't know why the cassettes are so expensive. There is a bit more metal and an extra cog or two but this is outweighed by proportionally extra expense.
Depending on tbe price level of your bike the comparable 2x or 3x bike could have a 8 or 9 speed cassette and then the price difference really is eye-watering.
By disparity I mean that the largest cog on 1x cassettes are almost always greater than 40 teeth and 2x & 3x bikes usually max out at 36 teeth.

peetee wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:27am

biker38109 wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 9:59am , but why would it cost more to replace? Is it because the cassettes (any else likely to break like derailleur?) cost more than chainrings to replace?

What do you mean by "disparity between cassettes used for each of these options" what disparity and what prices?

Thanks.

I don't know why the cassettes are so expensive. There is a bit more metal and an extra cog or two but this is outweighed by proportionally extra expense.
Depending on tbe price level of your bike the comparable 2x or 3x bike could have a 8 or 9 speed cassette and then the price difference really is eye-watering.
By disparity I mean that the largest cog on 1x cassettes are almost always greater than 40 teeth and 2x & 3x bikes max out at 36 teeth.

Look at my last post above, it seems the polygon could be 'best of both worlds' with 42 big cog with 22 on the smallest on 2x drivetrain.

I was looking up cassettes though before this and i think you can get 52 ones for only 30-50 quid, that doesn't seem eye watering to me. Yes I have seen ones for hundreds too but they seem to be the exception. So I was more asking why you think they were eye watering as had not found that so far.

When 10 speed cassettes, possibly even 9 or 8, people applauded that they could have smaller gaps between the gears. Along came fashionable 1X and that gave rise to cassettes with enormous range and big differences between gears. Which is "better"; back to having big differences or having closer ratio gearing? Your choice, but I am sticking to my double and triple chainsets with 8 or 10 cassette.

You will also hear people say that having 2 or 3 chainrings adds to wind resistance ----- then along came disc brakes hanging in the breeze. All the fickleness of people trying to sell or justify the latest thing.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 10:23am 17.5" to 108"

Can you explain what these metrics mean? I only know how to go by teeth of smallest and largest cogs on either side for high/low. 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. 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.

To get that choice of gear ratios with 1x you have to consider the more expensive options whereas sticking to multiple chainring bikes means you can achieve the gear ratios of choice without digging deep into your pockets at point of sale or later in maintenance.

Step one is to look at the overall gear range that you actually use, so if like many riders you never use the smallest cog on the back, ignore that, and ask yourself whether you could do with a lower bottom gear. That will tell you what you actually need.

Then have a look at the options for achieving that in 1x, which is likely to mean looking at 10, 11, 12, and if you want to spend lots on electronics, 13 speed cogs.

If you can secure the spread/range you need, and I’d be surprised if you can’t by using something like a Deore 12sp setup with the 10-52 (I think that’s right) cassette, you can now think about whether the number of intermediate gears will be enough, so not too much thrashing about looking for intermediate gears that aren’t there.

FWIW, I did six years on 1x11 for mixed on and off road, and found it fine for 99% of the time when doing day rides (once in a blue moon I span-out on road sections), but …… touring on it, even with a fairly light load for ‘B&B’ wasn’t great. I always defaulted to pedalling up, rather than spinning down, when there was no ideal gear, which often resulted in me whipping along slightly quicker than ideal, causing me to tire needlessly. Eventually I changed to a bike with 2x11 and that problem went away.

In terms of maintenance and mud-clogging: insignificant difference. Modern 2x designed for off-road is amazingly robust and crud tolerant, shifting smoothly even when invisible under a caking of cr@p, and I never need to adjust the front (or the back, come to that) from one years end to the next.