Originally Posted by
Iride01
The big thing though for me is too many readers are not realizing that their 50/34 2x system would show just about the same numbers as the 1x system when compared to the 53/39 that was tested.
The way I understand it, as observed in other tests, larger rings are more efficient. So a 42 ring (perfect single replacement for a compact double set) would be more efficient than the 34, and less efficient than the 50... in other words a wash.
If the reviewers had simply added a 50/34 to the mix, then it would have kept some perspective that it's just the current state of 1x and not what 1x might be when road derailleurs can handle the range of gears on the back that will be needed to match the ratios given by the 53/39 they tested.
Plus, not everyone wants or needs to match the range of a 39/53 system.
That for me is the real reason to run 1x. Keep close ratios within a narrower range. Why carry extra gears, complexity, and weight you don't need?
Originally Posted by
redlude97
Some of that is the chain,
and some is the RD, the tension on a Sram Force 1x is by my estimation double the tension of a shimano 6800 RD in low tension position(stock position). You can increase the cage tension by moving the spring mount location to reduce chain bounce in rough terrain at the cost of increased friction
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...lleur-overhaul
I don't see a reason to run a high tension RD on the road. None of my 1x's have one. It seems a narrow/wide chainring does the job of chain retention just fine, and doesn't add any friction to the system.