Building new road bike.. thinking of 1x 50, 11-36T. Simplicity over cadence?
 

After some research on forum threads here I wanted to ask for current opinion on the relatively new, one by systems for road cycling. For some background, I'm a casual cyclist with a 10yr old entry level road bike. Commute 20mi/day via fixed gear. Looking to upgrade my road bike and do more group rides. More interested in fitness and long distance than racing events, at the moment.

I'm thinking of 50 w/ a 11-36 cassette, which gives me the range (37-121 gi) I would prefer for cycling in the hills around bay area, CA (many routes w/ 7-10% avg, inconsistent grades, up to 15% for small stretches). I'm wondering, how important is it to have a tighter gear range? Here's a comparison chart against a similar range at 50/34 11-25.

What are your opinions on sacrificing steps (16% jump from 22 to 19cog) for simplicity?

It's just me, but if I were going to a single setup, I'd look at a 46T for the front. A 50/12 and a 46/11 are the same ratio-- and you'll almost never use the 11T with a 50. I never did. I only use it with my 48T when descending. You'll still have to use some grunt for the steep grades-- very little seated climbing above 6-7% unless you're some kind of locomotive.

Agree. Go with the smallish chainring if you are doing a 1X setup, such as a 42t chainring.

Going from a singlespeed to a 1x11 setup will be a luxury. I think what these guys suggested as for the chainring size is the way to go. 42 sounds good to me with an 11-32. You can always change things up later if you feel it needs to change.

Thanks. I was leaning towards 42 or 46 - 11/32, but was just worried about spinning out on descents

That's a balance you will have to decide on. I would rather have more gearing for the up-hill.

This option is about to get a lot more popular in 2016.

Sram leading the way...12 speeds, monster pie plate in the rear. I built a bike with 1 x 10 and liked it overall. Would never substitute for my fast group ride bike tho. I want a 50t in front with tight cog spacing in the back with 2 chain rings in the front...small ring for climbing.

This is a great setup.

11-36th cassette? No thanks.

To me the 1 x with 11-36 works 'ok'...just isn't optimal. Further, 1 x's run greater X-chain at extreme's. For max performance of a given rider when pushed...say in a fast group ride, in my experience 2 x's work better. Tight gear spacing matters and lack of X-chain matters on some level.

SMH.... What's the gearing on your FG? What sort of hills are you comfortable on with that now? If you're used to riding around fixed, I imagine the jumps in gearing would mean less to you than they would to folks who haven't adapted to the alternative.
It seems to me that tight gearing is important if you're trying to maximize efficiency, cruising along at or near FTP, and highly sensitive to cadence. If the groups you end up riding with ride that way, (i.e., fast) it might be an issue, but otherwise? Not so much.
Unless you have really easy gearing on your FG now, your first guess was probably right - I'm sure you'll be happy with a larger cog - 50t may be too big for climbing around the bay area (unless you're already used to it with 48/15 fixed :) ) but if you go with the 42t, you may have a hard time keeping up with the fast group on the flats, and even the 46t may be sort of miserable if you want to go far without taking all day.

I would hate not having close gear spacing for group rides, where someone else is dictating the pace. You may find yourself using and uncomfortable cadence a lot. I also don't see the simplicity argument, since modern and front derailleurs work great.

Rchung, why do you see this taking hold? I see it is, but I don't get it.

To me it looks like disc brakes on road bikes - a (marketing) solution in search of a problem. FWIW, I'm not a Luddite, I ride DI2.

Can't really help apart from telling you that I am considering going the same way. 46T or 48T up front and then have two cassettes, a tall, tight spaced one for races and fast group rides and a wide one for hilly stuff and general riding. Don't really care much for FDs and I think I could live with wider gear spacing just fine as I feel ok at a wide range of cadences.

you won't spin out, it is has a freewheel, you won't be fixed anymore :beer:

What rings and cogs are you using on your 10-year-old bike now? Is your current low low enough? When you shift on the rear, do you ever make a jump of more than a couple of teeth, and does that bother you? If it doesn't then the 16% jump in your proposed setup probably won't bother you either.

Personally, I don't think large gaps are especially annoying, but I also don't think having two chain rings is especially annoying either. I think these choices are mostly personal preference so the experience or opinions of others (including mine) has limited value. Here's more experience of limited value: I've gone up Lomas Cantados, and Moeser and Marin from the Circle up to Spruce in my 36/26. The block of Marin between Santa Barbara and Spruce is around 24%, and that was kinda grim. If I'd had something lower I probably would've used it, but I don't so now I avoid going up that block of Marin, and I don't feel like that limits my riding much. Your proposed low of 50/36 is numerically the same as my 36/26.

SRAM 1x is a awesome drivetrain, and its going on my next bike(gravel type road bike) with either a 38 or 40 chainring and a 10-42 cassette. I'd much rather have nice low gears for high cadence climbing than top speed gears.

Obviously with the release of a 12 speed, 10-50 cassette it is becoming easily possible to have a 1x setup, but have you seen any development of a 12 speed cassette ending at, say, between 36 and 40 teeth? That would allow for some pretty tight spacing with 12 speeds, at least tight enough for me. I know there isn't any way to use SRAM's new group on road yet, but I am sure it is coming down the line, and obviously Shimano and Campy will have to respond eventually. I can't wait for a Shimano version, although the SRAM has gotten pretty good "first ride" review.

My old trek has a triple that I never use the small ring for. To be honest if I never did any research I would've just gone taller with 50 11-36, since I'm used to shifting with my legs. Then I read about cadence, matching with faster group rides, the backlash to sram 1x, and I began to worry about gear spacing. Less about the practicality now but also about the social anxiety of being on 1x in a group

My winter bike is a 1x7 42x11-28, friction shifter. I could deal fine w/ 1x5 with the same range. Tight gear spacing is an issue for riding in groups, so if you are not doing much of that I wouldn't sweat it.

Social anxiety? In post #1 you wrote:
If those are the kinds of groups you're planning to ride with then it's almost surely not an issue. There will already be people riding different chainring-cog combinations so not everyone is in cadence lockstep anyway. There are reasons to get 1x, and reasons not to, but worrying about the cadence nazis isn't one of them. Get what you want.

I have commuted many times with 1x7 on a road bike, 20 miles/day. Nothing at all wrong with it if you're willing to give up a little at top and bottom gearing.

lol

1. Any cassette with a two tooth jump before the 19 cog is unsuitable for road cycling on flat terrain. It can work the same way a 20 year old Honda suffices although driving something nicer is more enjoyable.

2. With pins, synchronized shift gates, and a chain catcher front shifting is fast and reliable. With brake/shift levers it's easy to make the compensating cog change at the same time you swap rings, especially with Campagnolo levers that can go 3 cogs larger or 5 cogs smaller with one lever actuation.

Coming from riding a 46/16 SS bike on my commute for years, going to a cross bike with a 46T big ring and a 11-28 cassette often leaves me yearning for that 16T on the back, which skips from 15 to 17. I'd say tight spacing matters, but I imagine you can get used to anything. If you do those same hills on your fixed gear, maybe consider that as a baseline and try and design around it.