Originally Posted by
gsa103
1x11 is almost perfect for commuting. A 42-46t front and wide range rear give you the main range for commuting and eliminate the need for a front derailleur. The triple is dead, with wide range cassette you can cover the same gear range as a triple with a double or single and have greatly simplified shifting patterns.
I dare you to
try and match the range I can make on a triple with little effort. Shimano and other companies
stock triples can almost be matched but the magic of a triple is that I don't have to go with the "stock" version. Going back to Dirk Freeken's gear calculator, it's easy to illustrate how limited a 1x11 system is.
A 38 tooth front with an 10-42 rear cassette gives a similar range as the middle of a stock 50/39/30 with an 11-34 cassette. But if I change the 30 tooth inner to a 24 tooth inner, I increase the range of the triple significantly over the 1x11 system. I could increase the size of the ring on the 1x system to get the same high but the low suffers. I could decrease the size of the ring to get a similar low but the high suffers. Pick your poison.
Of course there isn't much to stop me from using the triple with the same 10-42 cassette to make an incredibly stupid (by most people's standards but not necessarily mine) drivetrain. I'll grant you that having a 130" top gear is a bit over the top. So let's drop change to a mountain bike crank...44/34/22.
This gives a range of gearing from an almost usable 118" gear to a hill crawling 14" gear.
This is, by the way, incredibly close in gearing to what I run on my touring bike...a 46/36/20 with an 11-36 rear cassette. The 1x is stuck in high gear
Originally Posted by
gsa103
You illustrated the problem with triples. A 50-39 shift requires no rear shifting. That means it's only equivalent to 1 gear change in the rear. If I only need to make a small change, why would I shift the front when I can shift the rear easier. The wider chainring separation limits cross-chaining, meaning you have to shift the front more often.
A 50/39 would actually be a better set up than a 50/34 in terms of the shift pattern. It has fewer holes.
Compact doubles have huge holes in the shifting pattern that require weird triple shifts or huge changes in cadence when you shift from one range to another.
Comparing a 50/34 compact with an 11-36 to my setup, you can see how unsmooth the transitions are.
Originally Posted by
gsa103
The other argument for triples is that "I mostly use the 39t gear", in which case a 1x11 solution is simpler, lighter, and eventually cheaper.
Someone who "mostly uses the 39t gear" should learn how their drivetrain works and how to get more out of it. Adventure Cycling did an article on drivetrains recently and they quoted the guy who has pushed for 1x systems at Sram as saying something along the lines of changing the ring on a 1x completely changes the character of the bike. He suggested using one ring for fast pavement tours and another, lower, one for gravel grinding. I happen to agree with him that changing the ring can have a very large impact on the character of the bike. I just happen to carry the rings
on the bike and have this mechanism for switching between them without having to stop, get out my tools, remove the crank, fish the ring out of whatever bag it's in, change out the ring, install the crank and start riding again.
Simplicity is all well and good if it does something for you. If it just places limits on you, it's not good.