View Single Post
Old 11-12-17 | 02:43 PM
  #19  
Doge's Avatar
Doge
Senior Member
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,588
Likes: 427
From: Southern California, USA

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Originally Posted by FrozenK
... focus on technique is where he'll see benefits since he seems to already have fitness.
...
This thread is about equipment - aka parts.

I don't see a lot of cross earn-a-living pros. I'm around that level on road, and maybe MTB. Some riders we know do both - and cross better. I just look at their stuff.

Road is 2X and no plans to switch. Road TTs - not as much. Even a 1X with a FD / guide is too likely to drop a chain. I've switched to narrow-wide 54T 1X for the TT bike and the hill bike (44T) and would do so on a cobble RR. Chain drop can really mess up a ride and the narrow-wide seem to work better to me, although I'm comparing to derail-er rings. Some 1X rings just have longer teeth.

I think the range in cross, at least from the equipment I've seen is less, than MTB. As the same UCI 6.8kg weight limit applies I see benefit is dropping weight (where most road bikes are under that), and dumping a FD, and extra ring seems like a good way to go. Esp when the speed range is less.

At collegiate (5% pros) MTB nats there were hardly any 2X setups. Almost everything was the narrow-wide 1X front ring. Shimano was the neutral support and while there were lots of their pedals, shoes, brakes - most the front cranks were some narrow-wide variant. I associated that to it is preferred and Shimano does not have the patent. the patent part is fact, the reason is my opinion.

Last edited by Doge; 11-12-17 at 04:39 PM.
Doge is offline  
Reply