Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    harrisburg, pennsylvania
    My Bikes
    1976 Schwinn Super Le Tour, tricked out with modern components
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Isn't 1x10/1x11 cross-chaining?

    I hear people talk about simplifying to a 1x10 or 1x11 setup -- just one chainring up front. But isn't that automatically cross-chaining in the last two or three high-gear cogs?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
    My Bikes
    7 single speed road
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that's a good question. and, i think, it is, but not as bad as it is with two front rings, but close, IMO.

  3. #3
    7-speed doomsday prepper ThermionicScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CID
    My Bikes
    1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX
    Posts
    8,298
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Perhaps, but I think the assumption is that you'll be spending the vast majority of your time in the center of the cassette, rather than the far ends. (A 1x setup ideally has the chainring centered with the cassette.) This assumes you've put some good thought into your overall range, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
    There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
    RUSA #7498

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    harrisburg, pennsylvania
    My Bikes
    1976 Schwinn Super Le Tour, tricked out with modern components
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suppose you could set it up so the single front chainring it outboard farther than the smaller of a 2x10 but not out as far as the big ring in a 2x10. Today's 10 and 11 speed chains have more lateral slack than old five and six speed chains, right? So maybe a single ring positioned in between where the small and large ring sit on a double crank would make the lowest two and highest two cogs acceptable?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA USA
    Posts
    3,014
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by motorapido View Post
    I hear people talk about simplifying to a 1x10 or 1x11 setup -- just one chainring up front. But isn't that automatically cross-chaining in the last two or three high-gear cogs?
    No because a single (or triple middle) ring chainline can split the difference between small and big on a double.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    harrisburg, pennsylvania
    My Bikes
    1976 Schwinn Super Le Tour, tricked out with modern components
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, then, other than the occasional convenience of using a single front shift to equate to two or three cog shifts, why the heck don't we all go 1x11? Let's all admit it. No matter how well we set up our FD, nine times out of ten, a problem shift is a front shift. I have one of those Fredly anti-chain-drop gizmos up front that I love for preventing dropped downshifts, but despite my best efforts, it is not terribly uncommon for an adjustment to become a little discombobulated and cause me to drop the chain on an upshift to the big ring. It happens. Rarely. But it happens. And when it does, it is a royal pain.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
    My Bikes
    7 single speed road
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by motorapido View Post
    Well, then, other than the occasional convenience of using a single front shift to equate to two or three cog shifts, why the heck don't we all go 1x11? Let's all admit it. No matter how well we set up our FD, nine times out of ten, a problem shift is a front shift. I have one of those Fredly anti-chain-drop gizmos up front that I love for preventing dropped downshifts, but despite my best efforts, it is not terribly uncommon for an adjustment to become a little discombobulated and cause me to drop the chain on an upshift to the big ring. It happens. Rarely. But it happens. And when it does, it is a royal pain.
    probably because even a few can't seem to agree on much of anything!

    but go 1x11 or 10 if you want to. i tossed my FD in 1995 and haven't had any good reason to look for a new one since. that includes a 12,000 mile tour on a 1x7. but i imagine that since most people paid good money for the extra chainring and brifter they darn well think that they need it. besides, all the pro roadies use a FD, right?

    i suppose it's the same logic that leads bogey golfers to think they need all those clubs.

  8. #8
    Nigel nfmisso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    My Bikes
    1980s and 1990s steel: CyclePro, GT, Nishiki, Schwinn, SR, Trek........
    Posts
    1,062
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by motorapido View Post
    Well, then, other than the occasional convenience of using a single front shift to equate to two or three cog shifts, why the heck don't we all go 1x11? Let's all admit it. No matter how well we set up our FD, nine times out of ten, a problem shift is a front shift. I have one of those Fredly anti-chain-drop gizmos up front that I love for preventing dropped downshifts, but despite my best efforts, it is not terribly uncommon for an adjustment to become a little discombobulated and cause me to drop the chain on an upshift to the big ring. It happens. Rarely. But it happens. And when it does, it is a royal pain.
    I don't know; why aren't you running a 1x ?
    Nigel
    Mechanical Design Engineer

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    harrisburg, pennsylvania
    My Bikes
    1976 Schwinn Super Le Tour, tricked out with modern components
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This might be a slippery slope. 3x10 leads to 2x10 leads to 1x10 leads to 1x11. And next thing you know, you have hit rock-bottom, and you find yourself in Roloff land.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North of Boston
    My Bikes
    Kona Dawg, Surly 1x1, Karate Monkey, Rockhopper, Crosscheck , Burley Runabout,
    Posts
    1,883
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The newer rear derallieurs keep the mech. parallel to the rear cogs. Check out some of the sram stuff.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    4,405
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Isn't 1x10/1x11 cross-chaining?

    Has anyone thought of using 2 x 5? Think of it. No cross chaining. Wide range of gears. Heck you could shift it with downtube shifters.

  12. #12
    7-speed doomsday prepper ThermionicScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CID
    My Bikes
    1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX
    Posts
    8,298
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by motorapido View Post
    Well, then, other than the occasional convenience of using a single front shift to equate to two or three cog shifts, why the heck don't we all go 1x11? Let's all admit it. No matter how well we set up our FD, nine times out of ten, a problem shift is a front shift. I have one of those Fredly anti-chain-drop gizmos up front that I love for preventing dropped downshifts, but despite my best efforts, it is not terribly uncommon for an adjustment to become a little discombobulated and cause me to drop the chain on an upshift to the big ring. It happens. Rarely. But it happens. And when it does, it is a royal pain.
    It's more than an occasional convenience for me, and I haven't dropped a chain in years.

    I'm sure SRAM is working hard to get us all on a 1x11 (or 12 or 13) setup before too long, though. They've fought mightily to defeat the triple.
    Quote Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
    There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
    RUSA #7498

  13. #13
    Senior Member Campagnono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Haute-Normandie
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big chainring View Post
    Has anyone thought of using 2 x 5? Think of it. No cross chaining. Wide range of gears. Heck you could shift it with downtube shifters.
    Yeah, awesome. 52/42 x 13/19. Sounds great. "Wide range of gears." Perfect for Sean Kelly and any egotist.

    "You need a very low gear to climb the Tourmalet, something custom created, 42 x 21 or even 42 x 23."

    It's insane, why didn't they just at least entertain the notion of compact gearing? You don't need a power meter for an answer. They still had math in 1975. Instead we just got Merckx climbing Ventoux with 42 x 19 and this just perpetuated the wasted-effort hard an fantasy which still lingers.

  14. #14
    rebmeM roineS JanMM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    My Bikes
    RANS V3, RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer
    Posts
    11,603
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Campagnono View Post
    Yeah, awesome. 52/42 x 13/19. Sounds great. "Wide range of gears." Perfect for Sean Kelly and any egotist.

    "You need a very low gear to climb the Tourmalet, something custom created, 42 x 21 or even 42 x 23."

    It's insane, why didn't they just at least entertain the notion of compact gearing? You don't need a power meter for an answer. They still had math in 1975. Instead we just got Merckx climbing Ventoux with 42 x 19 and this just perpetuated the wasted-effort hard an fantasy which still lingers.
    Even if that were true, which I believe it is, that's just impossible!
    Last edited by JanMM; 08-18-14 at 07:12 PM.
    RANS V3 (steel), RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer

  15. #15
    7-speed doomsday prepper ThermionicScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CID
    My Bikes
    1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX
    Posts
    8,298
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Merckx used a 44T inner ring, didn't he?
    Quote Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
    There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
    RUSA #7498

  16. #16
    rebmeM roineS JanMM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    My Bikes
    RANS V3, RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer
    Posts
    11,603
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
    Merckx used a 44T inner ring, didn't he?
    That, too, would be impossible, true or not. (I can barely make it up southern Indiana hills with 30/32 gearing - 559 wheels).
    RANS V3 (steel), RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer

  17. #17
    Andrew R Stewart Andrew R Stewart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    My Bikes
    Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Raleigh Pro, Trek Cycle Cross, Mongoose tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder
    Posts
    3,238
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cross chaining is really about the chain angle, exiting off the cogs or entering onto them. The tooth profiles, the chain design and the chain stay length all contribute. Depending on these variables some cases might run smoothly for the same chain angle that another system might tend to be rough or want to jump. The additional aspect is with a double or triple ring the chain can catch the inside of the larger ring when to smaller/est rear cogs. Of course this isn't a possibility with a single ring. Andy.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    My Bikes
    too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
    Posts
    21,041
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    People get worked up over cross chaining like it's something terrible, but it's not. Discounting the issue of chainring rub when using the ninner ring with outer rear sprockets, everything else is a matter of degree.

    Obviously, a single chainring can only align perfectly with only a single sprocket. So all but two combiantions (on a 2x?) are aligned or close. Then they get steadily worse as you move away from the center of the cassette.

    If you figure that the single ring is placed in the middle of what would have been a pair (or the middle position of a triple), then the "cross chain" issue is only worse by 3.5mm or less than one rear shift..

    BTW- all my bikes are set up so I can use any combination, and chainrings and cassettes are chosen so most of my riding is in the aligned combinations on either side of the cassette's center. This means I spend less time in poorly aligned combinations, but I do use whatever gear is right for conditions without obsessing over the cross chain issue.
    FB
    Chain-L site

    An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

    “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

    “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

    WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Campagnono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Haute-Normandie
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
    Merckx used a 44T inner ring, didn't he?
    53 x 49 for Paris Roubaix, 53 x 44/46 for the Ardennes, and his "mountain set-up" was 52/53 x 42, because that's what real men do.

    I still don't understand why the slide rule wasn't broken out and never used to solve "if we can spin up a 9% slope at 100rpm in 34 x 27 and generate far more watts than grinding 55rpm in 42 x 19, then what the hell are we doing bolting on these giant gears?"

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
    My Bikes
    7 single speed road
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Campagnono View Post
    53 x 49 for Paris Roubaix, 53 x 44/46 for the Ardennes, and his "mountain set-up" was 52/53 x 42, because that's what real men do.

    I still don't understand why the slide rule wasn't broken out and never used to solve "if we can spin up a 9% slope at 100rpm in 34 x 27 and generate far more watts than grinding 55rpm in 42 x 19, then what the hell are we doing bolting on these giant gears?"
    it's a big IF, IME.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,101
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hueyhoolihan View Post
    it's a big IF, IME.
    34x27 @ 100 rpm is 10 mph. 150lb rider and that'd be about 350W.

    Quite doable for a pro.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
    My Bikes
    7 single speed road
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by achoo View Post
    34x27 @ 100 rpm is 10 mph. 150lb rider and that'd be about 350W.

    Quite doable for a pro.
    i wasn't referring to the gradient and speed or wattage necessary, it was the "FAR MORE" stuff. IOW, the comparison was iffy, IME.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big chainring View Post
    Has anyone thought of using 2 x 5? Think of it. No cross chaining. Wide range of gears. Heck you could shift it with downtube shifters.
    And then you can make the sprockets and chain rings thicker, and use a more rational width chain, and use a Suntour derailleur set. But still have cross chain issues, but eight (or seven) speeds ought to be enough. We can still call it a "ten speed" though. Back to the future. It's what I run on my 30-ish year old Univega.

    -mr. bill
    Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    4,405
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post

    And then you can make the sprockets and chain rings thicker, and use a more rational width chain, and use a Suntour derailleur set. But still have cross chain issues, but eight (or seven) speeds ought to be enough. We can still call it a "ten speed" though. Back to the future. It's what I run on my 30-ish year old Univega.

    -mr. bill
    I don't have much issue with the use of all ten on my early 70's bike boom bikes. 18 inch chainstays keeps the chainlines reasonable.

    And I actually do use a 42/52 and 13-19 freewheel. I live in flatlandia so its perfect gearing for my type of riding.

  25. #25
    Disco Infiltrator Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Orangevale CA
    My Bikes
    76 Paramount, 02 Hardrock, 72 Super Sport
    Posts
    1,144
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The total gear range available from a MTB 3x8 or 9 setup is 42:11 top to 22:32 bottom or maybe more. That's 5.5:1 or more from top to bottom, and it comes with nice double-step shifting. The 2x10 setups will get you the range but the shift on the front seems tremendously huge. The giant SRAM cassette is 10-42 which is obviously 4.2:1. So the range still isn't there. (And have you seen what it costs?)

    I'm certain that 8x11-32 could be reasonable for my own commute. More gears would be ok but not required. It would not be if I want the bike to have more purpose, like tolerating a bad day with my heart condition, or going offroad, or towing the trailer I just got, or doing wheelies.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •