You're not wrong!

Many modern downhill mountain bikes are going to 7 speed rear cassettes but with narrower 11 speed cog spacing. Accomplishing the same thing you are describing. But disc brakes, and not 135mm spacing. But your reasoning is sound, at least according to people wanting to sell new DH bikes :D

Available up to 150/157mm "OLD"

As far as hub spacing, I believe things are mostly getting wider in the dropouts in order to help the chainstays swallow wider tires. AFAIK there really isn't much difference in freehub width between 8 speed and 12 speed. The trend towards wider tires is also driving the popularity of 1X systems since the wide chainstays and tires limit maximum chainring size. That's also why the a few new freehub standards have been invented, so that you can fit a smaller 9 or 10 tooth cog to make up for the limited chainring size.

I don't have any pictures but some folks take beautiful vintage race bikes, spread the rear drop outs to 130, put on a chromium plated 11-34, a derailleur with a 3X long cage, a triple crankset, and then the cockpit is crazy tall like monkey bars.....

At least that bike up there is orange and born that way.

Yeah the font is really similar. It makes me wonder if anybody's around anymore at Olivetti typewriters to complain about copyright.

I know! I had one once (briefly). I used to repair and also flip typewriters, back when I lived in Vermont. I'd been looking for one for a while. I got it because the seller called it the "Valentines" and not the Valentine S" so it wasn't showing up in searches. Not the most money I made on a typewriter flip, but one of the top 5 no doubt. The most money I ever made on a typewriter flip was a 26" wide carriage LC Smith actuarial model, for doing ledger sheets, with small-caps type and decimal tabulator, that I sold to the owner of a local museum. It had yellow spray paint all over it, which I was able to remove with methylacetate to restore the original finish.

I still have 5 or so typewriters, mainly ones I really like or can't possibly sell.

Ha, neat :thumb:

I do that except for the DO spreading and crazy cockpit. Go with a standard GT RD as well.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7bf733c37b.jpg

Yeah, derailleurs that work exceptionally well but aren't pretty are stupid. Holds the chain on in rough terrain? Stupid. Allows for the gear range of a traditional triple with just one chainring, shifter and derailleur? Stupid. Automatically swings out of the way instead of breaking when hit? Stupid.

Modern drivetrains aren't fragile. Mine have proven to be more durable than older designs from the 80's and 90's. Stupid, eh? Also, when I'm riding, they look just as good as old-school derailleurs - 'cause I'm not looking at them.

Obviously not the work of Ettore Sottsass or Mario Bellini.

The fork does have a bit of Ducati Monster to it.

Sliding dropouts aren’t necessary for wide-range cassettes.

you are supposed to have those new custom medial cuneiform ti bone replacements with the outboard bearing and threaded cup.

A truss built to the same stiffness and strength as a cantilever (all typical forks) can be built far lighter. I've had a chance to pick up TiCycles bikes built for off road with truss forks. The front ends weigh nothing. Engineers use cantilevers when they are the only feasible choice or weight and materials used isn't an issue. (The fork isn't the only weight savings. The steerer has almost no structural function and needs only be strong enough to handle the torque loads from the handlebars. (TiCycles has taken the design a step further. The front of the truss ties to the stem at the handlebars. Stem now is also no longer a cantilever. Now headtube can also be lighter since the rider load is transferred directly to the axle through the truss.)

Ben

Because of liability issues, they will only do that surgery for the track crowd. Issue is with threaded cranks. As of now, the pin at the "foot" needs to be threaded into the crank. In a crash a rider will NOT release from that crank. Lawsuits will happen. But the track crowd have been doing bolt-in fastening, double toestraps, toestraps over clipless, etc. for years to prevent accidental un-cleats fixed at speed. Locked in for a crash? That's life. They wouldn't even think about suing.

Actually, I run the triples so I can cover dramatic terrain changes with just one or two shifts of the FD and maybe 1 shift of the RD. Shifting 7-8 times one way then the same back the other way gets old quickly. At least it does to me.

Not stupid drivetrain. Rather serves double use as a wood shaper for balsa core, cloth resin wrapped frame- future DIY bike making when the World has its power shut down.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e5e7bfd5da.jpg

Not that I was advocating for single-ring drivetrains over triples for everyone buuuuut: Put a modern derailleur on that triple and you'd get a quieter drivetrain and eliminate dropped chains.

I run friction barcons for the same reason. On an all day ride, it reduces the amount of physical shifting I have to do when I need to change gears. To be fair, I am never in enough of a hurry to worry about missing shifts.

Jones Bikes makes titanium truss forks kind of like that, because titanium is so flexible it needs the extra triangulation. If that Olivetti fork is steel - I can't imagine why they'd make a truss fork out of steel.

What then is the main advantage of these newfangled 1x setups? Is it mainly to prevent chain drop? Does it help with chain suck? I'm also wondering about these super low gears. What is a 32/50 useful for? That'd be about an 18.5" gear on a 29er. I haven't ridden a gear that low since tricycles... Seems like that's low enough that staying upright would take some effort. I can only imagine it's for getting traction on very very short very steep little hills and bluffs with lots of mud. Or is it for trials type stuff?

I'm not really a mountain biker, though I ride off road. No judgments, just wondering.

If I had a bike like that, I would want a larger front sprocket.

1X got popular when there was a trend towards super-short chain stays. That made a front derailleur a pain. Now that there is at least some movement away from super-short chainstays, MTB are still stuck with 1X

1x.....
 

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a493569c96.jpg
50T Front.
10-42 rear.

Yes, modern 1X rings use narrow-wide chainrings that effectively hold on to the chain better, since every other tooth is wider so that it matches the different widths between links of chain. This helps prevent the chain climbing up over a tooth on the inside or outside and falling off.

Absolutely! Most 1X specific rear derailleurs have clutches in the pivot of the cage that prevent excessive and sudden movement forward of the derailleur cage. This helps keep the chain tension tight and helps to minimize chain slap.

It's for climbing very steep terrain. On my 29er MTB, I run a 30x42 and often wish for lower gears so that I can sit and spin a bit more. It can be tough to stay upright, but that's just a given on some terrain anyways :D

:thumb:

Were you able to use a single standard chain?

Aside from what I’ve covered already the Main things are the clutch and the gear range. The chain can’t fall off (mostly) and no chainsuck either, particularly with a narrow wide chainring. Although chainsuck hasn’t hasn’t been a problem for the last ten years plus anyway.

Ditching the front d is a big plus for mountain biking. Fewer gears to keep track of, room for a dropper post lever on the bars and no issues with chain suck and botched front shifts. Less bashing chain rings as well.

The gearing is, well, personal preference. With a wide range 12-speed you can get over a 500% difference which allows for low gears for super steep and tech climbs while leaving good gearing for hauling ass out to the trails on the road. Simple for the manufacturers as well as one setup can accommodate everyone.

Personally, I have an 11-42 10-speed with an oval 32 up front (niner wheels) and it’s excellent for Vancouver Island technical mountain biking, particularly when you’re grinding up a super steep fire road or technical single track or you already have a couple hours of hard riding in your legs. Next cog stack will go to 45, I don’t want a 50. It’s hard to stay up going that slow, but it can save you from walking on super tech, super steep climbs and when you’re blown during long rides and also let you sit and spin so you have something in the tank for later. And a LOT of mountain Bikin is about it being “hard to stay up” for various reasons.

Hills.

https://i.imgur.com/ZVMNFif.png

Mostly not about traction. If anything, traction is often easier to come by in higher gears, since higher gears make it easier to avoid delivering torque spikes to the rear wheel that might cause the tire to slip from your pedaling forces. The main time that might stop being true is if you bottom out your gearing and start riding lumpy because you fail to stay on top of the higher gear.
When climbing super-steep gravel roads, if you need to stop, it's often a good idea to shift to a gear a few steps higher than what you were riding at. It means you'll need to push with a lot of torque to get rolling again, but you're less likely to have to fight rear wheel slippage, or running out of downstroke on first pedal stroke.

Like with low gears in general, super-low gears like 32-50 are mostly about not bottoming out your gearing. Sometimes it's also about being able to accelerate: bikes get jostled around more easily at lower speeds, so when you've got a rough patch on a steep climb, sometimes the easiest solution is to power through it with a brief speed burst.

No. In your hypothetical situation, we're looking at about 4.4mph at 80rpm. Even bottomed out all the way down to 50rpm, it's still 2.8mph. If the riding isn't technical, those aren't difficult to speeds to ride at. Riding on flat ground at 2.8mph usually feels very weird, but that's because the normal pedaling cycle is part of our bicycle balance, and you aren't going to be pedaling with normal force and cadence if you're doing 2.8mph on flat ground.

That's about what is recommended for fully loaded touring. Most die-hard world tourers won't like a 1X setup because they are conservative and tend to prefer proven/readily available technology. But you see the technology a lot on long-distance randonneur bikes.

http://i.imgur.com/CiJwzKx.png
(Link)

Yeah, we should all be running Campy NR derailleurs with their cracked pulleys and narrow range, just like Eddie did!

Yeah, 1 x 11 is just stoopid.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...586e85502.jpeg