I have worked with a CO-OP for the last 5 years. In my current position i am a work night leader. who has the responisbility of the CO-OP and the bikes that are built on my night of service every week.

Since i am in Colorado, Gears are valuable, When we rehab we keep the double or triple on it and if some one wants to make it a 1x? they can pay the extra for the open shop time to do the conversion.

We rehab alot of older mountain Bikes and we keep them as functional and as much of their original components as possible, while replacing with something that is either same quality level or better or about the same and newer.

It is up to the work night leaders to guide the volunteers for what the CO-OP wants them to do. we will build 1x or Single/Fixie's but they are usually either already converted or we get in a bare frame that would work good for the fixie.

As for the things that are being done, I can understand the Fixie/Single speed but i have no interest in owning one.

If I have a problem with 1x? is that the one chainring usually has a massive number of teeth and my knees start hurting just looking at it. Yes, the smaller cogs in the back make up for it, but the same gear ratio seems to hurt me more the larger the front chainring is. I am much more a spinner than a masher.

Maybe this is just me, but this would be something to limit in a co-op. If using 1x?, limit to a certain number of teeth in the front. This is one reason multiple chainrings do have a purpose. You can have a fairly small ring up front, and still have a big one when (and if) you need it.

Just another example of an innovation that gets misapplied. 1x11 is the best solution in some cases, but only if you understand the intended use. I take all front shifting off of our kid bikes because it is really just something else to go out of adjustment or break and they don't need more than one ring on front for their use. I like the fact that I don't drop MTB chains at all anymore. Other than that, no need to change.

You mention the 1x modifications in the context of "fixing" bikes. So what is the story? Do you get someone who says, "My front derailleur isn't working well?"

And do the mechanics "fix" it by removing it and the chainring?

+1 A 42 or 44 ring with a 6 speed corncob fw is pretty perfect where I live, at least for the way I ride. But if it's wrong for the terrain/rider, there is no point to it.

You've never worked at a bike coop, have you? :lol:

Is this something the kids these days are in to?

If the kids that would buy these bikes are looking for a 1x bike, and not buying them because they're 2x or 3x... then it makes sense to do 1x.

There's all kinds of people in this world. I was going thru some old threads and there was someone who thought unicrown forks were beautiful, sleek and cool and that lugged fork crowns were "ugly as hell."

I would second the vote for giving the customers what they want: Do the people who get bikes from this coop need gears so they can lug heavy loads up steep hills? If yes, then leave the 3x on. Are the customers looking for simple bikes and don't need a wide range of gears? 1x is fine too.

So what are the customers like?
Do BFr's frequent Coops to buy bikes or look for parts?

A lot of people I pass by quickly are in too high a gear and have a saddle that is too low. I would not be surprised that they don't understand the value of using those little levers that make so much noise. Reducing the number of levers to one might be a good thing, for them. My experience is that often people find shifting too complicated and just leave it in whatever gear it is in. I have, upon occasion, shifted the bike to a lower gear for them so they will even consider liking the bike! they are intimidated by the complexity of so many options.

Often they are far from mechanically adept and have only driven automatic transmission cars.

Ha! Is it that obvious? I guess I expect all businesses to be run like businesses no matter how big or small or the makeup of its employees or business structure; even charitable, volunteer-led ones.

The bikes that need "fixed" are ones that have been donated. Often times it's a simple tune up with some cable replacements, other times it's a complete rebuild from the ground up.

The ones that have been "fixed" with a 1x have had their working 2x or 3x setups removed to fit the 1x. (Ok, in one case the front shifter was problematic, but it's a VERY easy fix to repair that particular kind of shifter, and we could have done it in 10 minutes.)

That's the thing, we live in moderately hilly area. No huge hills or anything, but we NEVER know who will come in to buy our bikes. Sometimes a person is looking for a simple mountain bike to take on some jeep trails. Other times someone is looking for a commuter. We don't have the luxury to have different bikes in different sizes built for different people. We try to keep them stock (or used to) and let the customer do to them what they will.

If his coop's like mine, there's a big pile of bikes that need triage. We have suburbanites dropping off pristine garage queens, bikes saved from the dump, and inherit (buy or get donated) bikes from local college campuses. A volunteer chooses what to work on, and what needs done, asking the volunteer staff (we call them coordinators) for advice.

We have open hours Saturdays, where community members can bring in a bike and work with a volunteer to repair it. This is done because Service to the Community is a coop goal; most of these bikes are the main transportation for the folks who bring them in.

I have been involved in the community bike shop movement for about 13 years. There are certainly very many different organizational models. Generally, though, the organizational structure is pretty minimal. Management is painful, most people aren't good at it, and most volunteers don't appreciate the efforts of people who want things like a strategic plan, fiscal controls, and so on. At my coop, I have watched several waves of people come and try to get things to work better. The organization still works exactly the same way it has for almost two decades.

Hmm. Maybe I'm the problem.

If the MTB is going to have an urban life, its original gearing is inappropriate anyhow. It's too low and the upper ring shift is right in the cruise range. The 3:1 range of the cassette seems like plenty for the street if matched to the right ring. And front shifting is finicky.

My local co-op, of which I like to play unofficial volunteer at, just fixes donations up as is to make them good riders, but stops at that. When people come in if they see something they like, but wish it was slightly different, well that's what the hourly stand time is for and we'll help them make it what they desire, even if it wouldn't be our recommendation. The only things we really push back on are modifications that may be dangerous. Inconvenient? Nah, they'll learn, they'll be back ;) Just the fact someone is interested in bikes prompts me to give blanket enthusiasm first and foremost.

Converting everything to 1x and hoping it's what people want to buy is foolish, 1x itself is not foolish if it's what you're looking for.

I have a spare parts built Trek MTB with 100mm fork and 1x9 gearing. 40T up front with standard Shimano cassette out back and it's perfect for what I was looking for. Low enough gearing to make it up singletrack climbs, high enough for me to cruise to class the next day. Key word though is enough, it's not the perfect solution, but I like it.

I suppose I am becoming a curmudgeon because 1x builds bug me -- not as much as compact double, but I still don't like them. I actually have had two bikes set up 1x10 and in both cases it was entirely sufficient for the use (one was a CX race bike and the other was a commuter), but I didn't like it anyway. The bikes just felt incomplete. I switched the CX bike back to 2x10 and sold the commuter.

My theory is that both compact doubles and 1xN are maladies inflicted on us because indexed front shifting is a bad idea but friction front shifting doesn't fit modern marketing paradigms. My reasoning goes like this:

1. The average rider in hilly terrain wasn't strong enough to live with a 52-39 crankset and the 12-27 cassette that had become the de facto maximum wide-range for 8/9/10-speed road bikes.
2. Indexed triple shifting always worked sporadically when set up by average mechanics and not maintained by riders.
3. Compact doubles were introduced to give non-heroic riders the wide gear range that they needed while simplifying the front shifting set up.
4. Indexed double shifting isn't generally superb, but it is generally acceptable. The move to compact doubles nudging shifting quality down a bit and led to more dropped chains.
5. The jump in gear between a 50T chainring and a 34T chainring leads to unsatisfactory shift patterns.
6. With the advent of 10-speed cassettes it became possible to create wider range cassettes while still maintaining reasonable spacing between gears. This is even more true with 11-speed.
7. With 11-34 cassettes available, it became possible to provide a good range of gears with a simple shift pattern using a 1x10/11 setup.

So all of that is kind of reasonable if you want to keep up with the newest technology, but the problem for a case like the OP's co-op comes in when "1xN is great" becomes an accepted truth and is blindly applied to bikes with a 6-speed freewheel.

Now let me say I am well aware that there were a lot of 1x5 bikes sold back in the day. Let me also say that I even have a bike that once had a 52-36 cottered crank with a 14-34 5-speed freewheel. But let me finally say that this bike was not fun to ride. The traditional 1x5 bikes were, I think, mostly townies -- a natural extension of giving 3-speeds a rear derailleur -- and are perfectly acceptable for that kind of use. However, I don't care what freewheel and chainring combination you're using, 1x6 has no place on a road bike that's going to be ridden as a road bike.

As far as 1x setups being more suited for strong riders, that may be true with mountain bikes, but I suspect the reverse is the case with road bikes. If someone chooses 1x on a mountain bikes, it's usually because they have decided that 30x32 is a low enough gear and they don't really need the 22x32 that the mortals use. On a road bike, however, the decision is usually not just that 42x34 (or whatever) is low enough, but also that 42x11 is high enough. Applying that to a 6-speed freewheel bike and deciding that 42x13/14 is high enough has taken you decidedly out of the realm of strong riders. As I said above, a bike like that is starting to look an awful lot like a townie.

I like the points you make

I agree with the post above mine. A lot of good points here. But one thing I don't get is this.

When was indexed front shifting considered unsatisfactory? Both... actually... ALL of my indexed front shifting bikes (2 roads, 2 mtn) work fine. Both of the roads shifts are snappy and the one mountain is... ok, but I wouldn't want to try friction on the mountain when I need to drop a chainring in a hurry. Sometimes (because the bike is involved in many falls) the front shifting gets off, but a bit of adjustment brings it back. I certainly wouldn't COMPLAIN about it, even with the cheap parts I'm using.

I never knew people considered indexed front shifting bad? I mean, sure, I LOVE friction front shifting, but indexed isn't... bad, by any means. Provided it's kept in adjustment.

Front indexing is sort of like a necessary evil in MTBing. Damn right I don't want to be using friction shifting if I need to dump rings for a climb, but more than once I've been burned by missed shifts on a bike that was pretty well set up at the start of the ride. I guess it's part of why I like my 1x on the trails, definitely not ditching rings on all my bikes though.

Well, that's one of the things I hear from people when they explain why doubles are better than triples. Until very recently I had a triple on my commuter, which I basically treat like a rented mule. It eventually gets into a state where the shift from the small ring to the middle ring is slow and requires a little extra nudge, but I generally only do that once a day so I let it go.

The thing that I personally don't like about indexed front shifting -- even with a double -- is that it's no where near as good as friction front shifting. Yes, when it's properly tuned indexed front shifting works like a switch and the higher quality groups have enough trim settings to keep the front derailleur off of the chain in any gear I'd use, but friction shifting is perfect, as in I can always put the derailleur exactly where I want it, even if it's been a really long time since I last tuned up the bike.

I don't get the thing about friction on a mountain bike. Admittedly, I haven't done this with a flat bar set up on a mountain bike, but perhaps my absolute favorite thing about the Gevenalle shifters on my CX bike is the way I can throw the chain where I want it with a sweep of the lever. If the lower limit screw is properly adjusted I swing the shifter all the way to one side and the chain goes onto the small ring and without the "whack" of indexed shifters. Now moving to the middle ring could be an issue if you had to do it quickly. I'm not really a mountain biker, so maybe I just am not picturing the critical scenario.

I think going to single fronts simply gets a higher volume of safe bikes out the door. They're not catering to customer choice.

Things get easier. It's harder to verify that all rings on a triple front work flawlessly with a freewheel or cassette. You don't have to deal with clamp diameters, the myriad of BCD's or chainwrap calculations or capacities of front gears or even stocking front shifters. Spindle widths are easier to deal with. Given that most co-ops have limited expertise across the gamut of volunteers, it makes sense if your goal is to get people in need on the road quickly and cheaply.

That's what I was thinking about (still am) when I decided to turn my Bianchi Limited into a "Tipo Citta."

It's still in the works as I mess about with different wheel and tire configs to get it all to come together with skinny fenders, tight clearances, a custom rear rack and a chain guard. It's being a fun project, but the 1x setup is making it really clear the least I can live with is the 11-36 9-speed cassette I started out with on back. Everything else doesn't seem to give me enough high or low end.

I don't know but do what you want with your own bike. I am an old school guy and grew up in the 70's/80's. My idea of a perfect bike is something from that time frame. So I am totally a C&V kinda guy. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen something on CL and said oooh I want that. Then read it is now a fixie.... As fast as I got that gonna get a new (old) bike rush, it leaves me and I just continue to look at the ads that don't have altered bikes. The fixies sell so somebody knows what the market wants.

Max Bryant

Most casual riders never use the 52t chain ring of a double crankset. If you don't use it, you can get rid of the front derailleur, and the chain stops rubbing.