Under what conditions would you consider a 1x11??
09-21-16, 10:16 PM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by bonz50
title says it all.
what cassette would you use? what about chain ring??
what cassette would you use? what about chain ring??
I think it's obvious that the answer varies, depending on the individual cyclist. I converted my road bike to a 1x this past winter and have been riding it this season (4,000 miles so far). I purchased a new SRAM Red 2x crankset, removed the original chainrings and replaced them with a single SRAM 50t X-Sync chainring designed for 1x (it has the alternating width teeth to better match the chain). And I'm using an 11-28t cassette. However, I'm still using a 10-speed cassette and rear derailleur so my drivetrain is a 1x10. The reason for the 10-speed is because I'm waiting for SRAM to release a Red eTap rear derailleur with either a medium or long cage (they only offer a short cage now). Once it's available, I'll switch to an 11-speed setup with either an 11-32t or 11-36t cassette.
What conditions prompted me to switch to a 1x setup?
Modern mechanical front derailleurs have problems
First, I'm an older cyclist with many miles on the older friction shifters. I still have my 1985 Fuji with quad-butted steel frame and Suntour Superbe drivetrain. Suntour invented the slant-parallelogram rear derailleur in 1964 that so many other manufacturers have copied since. And Suntour derailleurs were some of the best performing that you could buy back in the 70-80's. Most cyclists with a history of such nice friction-shifting front derailleurs will tell you that no mechanical index-shifting front derailleur has ever equaled the performance of a top-of-the-line friction-shifting front derailleur. Even the addition of variable yaw angle to the index-shifting system could not equal the simplicity and accuracy of a manually-controlled friction-shifting front derailleur because the cyclist can perfectly center the chain-guide regardless of the rear sprocket being used. You have to buy an electronic front derailleur with individual adjustments for each gear combination to equal the front derailleur shifting accuracy of the manual friction system. So I have not been happy with the front derailleurs on modern road bikes.
I never use a second chainring any more
My modern road bike (a composite carbon framed Team Fuji) originally had a SRAM Force 2x10 drivetrain with compact 34-50t chainrings and an 11-26t cassette. I almost never used the 34t chainring and, as my cycling improved and I trained to a higher cadence (80-100 rpm), I discovered that I had stopped using the 34t chainring altogether. So I decided the second chainring was dead weight and made the decision to get rid of it and the front derailleur. I even removed the shift paddle from my left shifter. I ride between 5,000 to 6,000 miles each year and most of that is on well-paved rolling hills on the eastern side of Lake Michigan. So there is often wind. Two or three hills on my daily 35-mile training loop have a 12.5% grade, but they're not very long so I don't have a need for any extreme climbing gears. Plus, I've got fairly strong legs (I used to leg-press 1,000 lbs for 12 reps, carry 65 lb packs all over the Sierra Mountains on 100+ mile backpack trips, and have fairly good endurance). So I've never needed to gear down as far as many other riders. And I find it uncomfortable to do so. For example when I'm spinning 80 rpm in a low gear ratio of 1.786 (50x28t) up a steep hill, I feel like I'm moving so slow that it's difficult to balance the bike. I just don't need to go any lower. So a second, smaller chainring is completely unnecessary for me now.
Choosing a rear cassette
If all I do is ride my familiar training routes near home and ride the usual centuries each year, then I would stay with my 11x28t cassette. It seems more than adequate for my needs with a single 50t chainring. However, I'd like to ride some of the paved western mountain roads near where I used to hike. In preparation for that, I'm planning to switch to an 11x32t or 11x36t cassette just to be on the safe side. But, as I mentioned above, SRAM doesn't yet make a Red eTap rear derailleur with a medium or long cage. The reason I'm migrating to eTap is to have multiple shift points (I use aerobars most of the time and want to be able to shift from both the aerobars and the handlebars). The rear derailleur I need has been promised by SRAM and it will complete my drivetrain upgrade.
Number of sprockets
Because of my long history, I spent many years riding with a 2x5 or 2x6 drivetrain. My 1985 steel-frame Fuji has a 2x6 speed setup with 42-52t chainrings and 14-30t cassette. I just don't see the need for 11 sprockets on the rear. Folks who think the jump in sprocket size for a 1x11 setup is too big are crazy. In my opinion, an 11-speed system still has plenty small-enough steps between sprocket sizes---even on an 11x40t cassette.
I think this move to more and more sprockets has been largely a marketing ploy to sell new bikes and new drivetrains. I have no desire to go beyond a 10-speed cassette but I'll be forced to go to 11-speed when I switch to a Red eTap rear derailleur because that's the only speed it is designed for.
Bottom line
Each cyclist needs to analyze their own riding and needs. If you find that you never use your small chainring any more, then you are a candidate for a 1x system regardless of the kind of cycling you do. If you expect to ride on some rough surfaces like gravel roads or roads with poor pavement, then you should use a rear derailleur with a roller bearing clutch like SRAM and others make for their 1x systems because it does a better job of maintaining a uniform chain tension over rough terrain. Without the chain slap of a standard rear derailleur, you'll have less opportunity to slip a chain. However, if you only ride smooth roads like me, then a standard rear derailleur will work fine as long as its cage is long enough to accommodate the largest sprocket in your cassette.
Kind regards, RoadLight
09-21-16, 10:24 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 2,632
Bikes: 2015 Trek Emonda SLR, 2002 Litespeed Classic, 2005 Bianchi Pista, 2016 Devinci Hatchet, Some BikesDirect MTB I never ride.
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 636 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times
in
80 Posts
Still no good reason posted to go to 1x on the road, other than for foul weather. That's the exact same reason I went with my 1x gravel grinder. Frankly, if you ride with purpose, the spacing problems on super wide cassettes and 1 chainring are obvious. Too many gaps, abrupt shifting, and it's hard to stay in the optimal cadence and power. It's fatiguing. A 1x might be fine if you just use it to tool around, but there's a zero percent chance 1x will ever be popular with pros, or really anyone who races and trains hard on varied terrain.
09-21-16, 10:40 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 2,632
Bikes: 2015 Trek Emonda SLR, 2002 Litespeed Classic, 2005 Bianchi Pista, 2016 Devinci Hatchet, Some BikesDirect MTB I never ride.
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 636 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times
in
80 Posts
Originally Posted by RoadLight
Hi bonz50,
I think it's obvious that the answer varies, depending on the individual cyclist. I converted my road bike to a 1x this past winter and have been riding it this season (4,000 miles so far). I purchased a new SRAM Red 2x crankset, removed the original chainrings and replaced them with a single SRAM 50t X-Sync chainring designed for 1x (it has the alternating width teeth to better match the chain). And I'm using an 11-28t cassette. However, I'm still using a 10-speed cassette and rear derailleur so my drivetrain is a 1x10. The reason for the 10-speed is because I'm waiting for SRAM to release a Red eTap rear derailleur with either a medium or long cage (they only offer a short cage now). Once it's available, I'll switch to an 11-speed setup with either an 11-32t or 11-36t cassette.
What conditions prompted me to switch to a 1x setup?
Modern mechanical front derailleurs have problems
First, I'm an older cyclist with many miles on the older friction shifters. I still have my 1985 Fuji with quad-butted steel frame and Suntour Superbe drivetrain. Suntour invented the slant-parallelogram rear derailleur in 1964 that so many other manufacturers have copied since. And Suntour derailleurs were some of the best performing that you could buy back in the 70-80's. Most cyclists with a history of such nice friction-shifting front derailleurs will tell you that no mechanical index-shifting front derailleur has ever equaled the performance of a top-of-the-line friction-shifting front derailleur. Even the addition of variable yaw angle to the index-shifting system could not equal the simplicity and accuracy of a manually-controlled friction-shifting front derailleur because the cyclist can perfectly center the chain-guide regardless of the rear sprocket being used. You have to buy an electronic front derailleur with individual adjustments for each gear combination to equal the front derailleur shifting accuracy of the manual friction system. So I have not been happy with the front derailleurs on modern road bikes.
I never use a second chainring any more
My modern road bike (a composite carbon framed Team Fuji) originally had a SRAM Force 2x10 drivetrain with compact 34-50t chainrings and an 11-26t cassette. I almost never used the 34t chainring and, as my cycling improved and I trained to a higher cadence (80-100 rpm), I discovered that I had stopped using the 34t chainring altogether. So I decided the second chainring was dead weight and made the decision to get rid of it and the front derailleur. I even removed the shift paddle from my left shifter. I ride between 5,000 to 6,000 miles each year and most of that is on well-paved rolling hills on the eastern side of Lake Michigan. So there is often wind. Two or three hills on my daily 35-mile training loop have a 12.5% grade, but they're not very long so I don't have a need for any extreme climbing gears. Plus, I've got fairly strong legs (I used to leg-press 1,000 lbs for 12 reps, carry 65 lb packs all over the Sierra Mountains on 100+ mile backpack trips, and have fairly good endurance). So I've never needed to gear down as far as many other riders. And I find it uncomfortable to do so. For example when I'm spinning 80 rpm in a low gear ratio of 1.786 (50x28t) up a steep hill, I feel like I'm moving so slow that it's difficult to balance the bike. I just don't need to go any lower. So a second, smaller chainring is completely unnecessary for me now.
Choosing a rear cassette
If all I do is ride my familiar training routes near home and ride the usual centuries each year, then I would stay with my 11x28t cassette. It seems more than adequate for my needs with a single 50t chainring. However, I'd like to ride some of the paved western mountain roads near where I used to hike. In preparation for that, I'm planning to switch to an 11x32t or 11x36t cassette just to be on the safe side. But, as I mentioned above, SRAM doesn't yet make a Red eTap rear derailleur with a medium or long cage. The reason I'm migrating to eTap is to have multiple shift points (I use aerobars most of the time and want to be able to shift from both the aerobars and the handlebars). The rear derailleur I need has been promised by SRAM and it will complete my drivetrain upgrade.
Number of sprockets
Because of my long history, I spent many years riding with a 2x5 or 2x6 drivetrain. My 1985 steel-frame Fuji has a 2x6 speed setup with 42-52t chainrings and 14-30t cassette. I just don't see the need for 11 sprockets on the rear. Folks who think the jump in sprocket size for a 1x11 setup is too big are crazy. In my opinion, an 11-speed system still has plenty small-enough steps between sprocket sizes---even on an 11x40t cassette.
I think this move to more and more sprockets has been largely a marketing ploy to sell new bikes and new drivetrains. I have no desire to go beyond a 10-speed cassette but I'll be forced to go to 11-speed when I switch to a Red eTap rear derailleur because that's the only speed it is designed for.
Bottom line
Each cyclist needs to analyze their own riding and needs. If you find that you never use your small chainring any more, then you are a candidate for a 1x system regardless of the kind of cycling you do. If you expect to ride on some rough surfaces like gravel roads or roads with poor pavement, then you should use a rear derailleur with a roller bearing clutch like SRAM and others make for their 1x systems because it does a better job of maintaining a uniform chain tension over rough terrain. Without the chain slap of a standard rear derailleur, you'll have less opportunity to slip a chain. However, if you only ride smooth roads like me, then a standard rear derailleur will work fine as long as its cage is long enough to accommodate the largest sprocket in your cassette.
Kind regards, RoadLight
I think it's obvious that the answer varies, depending on the individual cyclist. I converted my road bike to a 1x this past winter and have been riding it this season (4,000 miles so far). I purchased a new SRAM Red 2x crankset, removed the original chainrings and replaced them with a single SRAM 50t X-Sync chainring designed for 1x (it has the alternating width teeth to better match the chain). And I'm using an 11-28t cassette. However, I'm still using a 10-speed cassette and rear derailleur so my drivetrain is a 1x10. The reason for the 10-speed is because I'm waiting for SRAM to release a Red eTap rear derailleur with either a medium or long cage (they only offer a short cage now). Once it's available, I'll switch to an 11-speed setup with either an 11-32t or 11-36t cassette.
What conditions prompted me to switch to a 1x setup?
Modern mechanical front derailleurs have problems
First, I'm an older cyclist with many miles on the older friction shifters. I still have my 1985 Fuji with quad-butted steel frame and Suntour Superbe drivetrain. Suntour invented the slant-parallelogram rear derailleur in 1964 that so many other manufacturers have copied since. And Suntour derailleurs were some of the best performing that you could buy back in the 70-80's. Most cyclists with a history of such nice friction-shifting front derailleurs will tell you that no mechanical index-shifting front derailleur has ever equaled the performance of a top-of-the-line friction-shifting front derailleur. Even the addition of variable yaw angle to the index-shifting system could not equal the simplicity and accuracy of a manually-controlled friction-shifting front derailleur because the cyclist can perfectly center the chain-guide regardless of the rear sprocket being used. You have to buy an electronic front derailleur with individual adjustments for each gear combination to equal the front derailleur shifting accuracy of the manual friction system. So I have not been happy with the front derailleurs on modern road bikes.
I never use a second chainring any more
My modern road bike (a composite carbon framed Team Fuji) originally had a SRAM Force 2x10 drivetrain with compact 34-50t chainrings and an 11-26t cassette. I almost never used the 34t chainring and, as my cycling improved and I trained to a higher cadence (80-100 rpm), I discovered that I had stopped using the 34t chainring altogether. So I decided the second chainring was dead weight and made the decision to get rid of it and the front derailleur. I even removed the shift paddle from my left shifter. I ride between 5,000 to 6,000 miles each year and most of that is on well-paved rolling hills on the eastern side of Lake Michigan. So there is often wind. Two or three hills on my daily 35-mile training loop have a 12.5% grade, but they're not very long so I don't have a need for any extreme climbing gears. Plus, I've got fairly strong legs (I used to leg-press 1,000 lbs for 12 reps, carry 65 lb packs all over the Sierra Mountains on 100+ mile backpack trips, and have fairly good endurance). So I've never needed to gear down as far as many other riders. And I find it uncomfortable to do so. For example when I'm spinning 80 rpm in a low gear ratio of 1.786 (50x28t) up a steep hill, I feel like I'm moving so slow that it's difficult to balance the bike. I just don't need to go any lower. So a second, smaller chainring is completely unnecessary for me now.
Choosing a rear cassette
If all I do is ride my familiar training routes near home and ride the usual centuries each year, then I would stay with my 11x28t cassette. It seems more than adequate for my needs with a single 50t chainring. However, I'd like to ride some of the paved western mountain roads near where I used to hike. In preparation for that, I'm planning to switch to an 11x32t or 11x36t cassette just to be on the safe side. But, as I mentioned above, SRAM doesn't yet make a Red eTap rear derailleur with a medium or long cage. The reason I'm migrating to eTap is to have multiple shift points (I use aerobars most of the time and want to be able to shift from both the aerobars and the handlebars). The rear derailleur I need has been promised by SRAM and it will complete my drivetrain upgrade.
Number of sprockets
Because of my long history, I spent many years riding with a 2x5 or 2x6 drivetrain. My 1985 steel-frame Fuji has a 2x6 speed setup with 42-52t chainrings and 14-30t cassette. I just don't see the need for 11 sprockets on the rear. Folks who think the jump in sprocket size for a 1x11 setup is too big are crazy. In my opinion, an 11-speed system still has plenty small-enough steps between sprocket sizes---even on an 11x40t cassette.
I think this move to more and more sprockets has been largely a marketing ploy to sell new bikes and new drivetrains. I have no desire to go beyond a 10-speed cassette but I'll be forced to go to 11-speed when I switch to a Red eTap rear derailleur because that's the only speed it is designed for.
Bottom line
Each cyclist needs to analyze their own riding and needs. If you find that you never use your small chainring any more, then you are a candidate for a 1x system regardless of the kind of cycling you do. If you expect to ride on some rough surfaces like gravel roads or roads with poor pavement, then you should use a rear derailleur with a roller bearing clutch like SRAM and others make for their 1x systems because it does a better job of maintaining a uniform chain tension over rough terrain. Without the chain slap of a standard rear derailleur, you'll have less opportunity to slip a chain. However, if you only ride smooth roads like me, then a standard rear derailleur will work fine as long as its cage is long enough to accommodate the largest sprocket in your cassette.
Kind regards, RoadLight
09-22-16, 02:11 AM
#54
pluralis majestatis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: you rope
Posts: 4,206
Bikes: a DuhRosa
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
cyclocross/trail/gravel bike...prefer it with internal hub to look clean
commuting bike only 1 gear needed
commuting bike only 1 gear needed
09-22-16, 04:18 AM
#55
Senior Member
Originally Posted by RoadLight
For example when I'm spinning 80 rpm in a low gear ratio of 1.786 (50x28t) up a steep hill, I feel like I'm moving so slow that it's difficult to balance the bike.
09-22-16, 05:58 AM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere in TX
Posts: 2,266
Bikes: BH, Cervelo, Cube, Canyon
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by RoadLight
Hi bonz50,
Modern mechanical front derailleurs have problems
First, I'm an older cyclist with many miles on the older friction shifters. I still have my 1985 Fuji with quad-butted steel frame and Suntour Superbe drivetrain. Suntour invented the slant-parallelogram rear derailleur in 1964 that so many other manufacturers have copied since. And Suntour derailleurs were some of the best performing that you could buy back in the 70-80's. Most cyclists with a history of such nice friction-shifting front derailleurs will tell you that no mechanical index-shifting front derailleur has ever equaled the performance of a top-of-the-line friction-shifting front derailleur. Even the addition of variable yaw angle to the index-shifting system could not equal the simplicity and accuracy of a manually-controlled friction-shifting front derailleur because the cyclist can perfectly center the chain-guide regardless of the rear sprocket being used. You have to buy an electronic front derailleur with individual adjustments for each gear combination to equal the front derailleur shifting accuracy of the manual friction system. So I have not been happy with the front derailleurs on modern road bikes.
Modern mechanical front derailleurs have problems
First, I'm an older cyclist with many miles on the older friction shifters. I still have my 1985 Fuji with quad-butted steel frame and Suntour Superbe drivetrain. Suntour invented the slant-parallelogram rear derailleur in 1964 that so many other manufacturers have copied since. And Suntour derailleurs were some of the best performing that you could buy back in the 70-80's. Most cyclists with a history of such nice friction-shifting front derailleurs will tell you that no mechanical index-shifting front derailleur has ever equaled the performance of a top-of-the-line friction-shifting front derailleur. Even the addition of variable yaw angle to the index-shifting system could not equal the simplicity and accuracy of a manually-controlled friction-shifting front derailleur because the cyclist can perfectly center the chain-guide regardless of the rear sprocket being used. You have to buy an electronic front derailleur with individual adjustments for each gear combination to equal the front derailleur shifting accuracy of the manual friction system. So I have not been happy with the front derailleurs on modern road bikes.
I never use a second chainring any more
I almost never used the 34t chainring and, as my cycling improved and I trained to a higher cadence (80-100 rpm), I discovered that I had stopped using the 34t chainring altogether.
09-22-16, 08:40 AM
#57
On Your Left
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 8,373
Bikes: Trek Emonda SLR, Sram eTap, Zipp 303
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3004 Post(s)
Liked 2,430 Times
in
1,184 Posts
Originally Posted by cthenn
Still no good reason posted to go to 1x on the road, other than for foul weather.
09-22-16, 08:41 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by sugarbaker
Believe it or not, I can even pedal on flat ground...
Originally Posted by SpeshulEd
I bet the same people were saying the same thing about going from 3x to 2x a few years ago...
Originally Posted by RoadLight
I'm waiting for SRAM to release a Red eTap rear derailleur with either a medium or long cage (they only offer a short cage now).
You're welcome
Originally Posted by RoadLight
In my opinion, an 11-speed system still has plenty small-enough steps between sprocket sizes---even on an 11x40t cassette.
I also did a 67-mile fun ride last weekend at 17 mph. I had no additional fatigue or problems locking in with folks in pacelines there either. It felt essentially just like my old 2x system, except better to me.
Originally Posted by RoadLight
Each cyclist needs to analyze their own riding and needs. If you find that you never use your small chainring any more, then you are a candidate for a 1x system regardless of the kind of cycling you do. If you expect to ride on some rough surfaces like gravel roads or roads with poor pavement, then you should use a rear derailleur with a roller bearing clutch like SRAM and others make for their 1x systems because it does a better job of maintaining a uniform chain tension over rough terrain.
A lot of tri racers I ride with have switched to 1x setups as well. They are the ones that got me thinking about it for the road. One of them did a 4:15 century a few weeks back on a 1x setup. It's not for everyone, but clearly some people are enjoying it.
09-22-16, 08:50 AM
#59
On Your Left
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 8,373
Bikes: Trek Emonda SLR, Sram eTap, Zipp 303
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3004 Post(s)
Liked 2,430 Times
in
1,184 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarrett2
09-22-16, 08:51 AM
#60
Senior Member
Originally Posted by oldnslow2
I don't disagree, but there is a use on a TT bike if the route is fairly flat.
09-22-16, 08:53 AM
#61
On Your Left
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 8,373
Bikes: Trek Emonda SLR, Sram eTap, Zipp 303
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3004 Post(s)
Liked 2,430 Times
in
1,184 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
But what is the utility of it? As far as I can tell, you are only losing functionality by going 1x. You gain nothing and lose very little weight. And if the use case is flat roads, the weight doesn't matter anyway.
09-22-16, 08:55 AM
#62
Senior Member
Originally Posted by oldnslow2
I "think" it has to do with the 1x chainring has better engagement with the wide/narrow teeth.
09-22-16, 08:57 AM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
But what is the utility of it? As far as I can tell, you are only losing functionality by going 2x. You gain nothing and lose very little weight. And if the use case is flat roads, the weight doesn't matter anyway.
Triples rule!
09-22-16, 08:58 AM
#64
On Your Left
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 8,373
Bikes: Trek Emonda SLR, Sram eTap, Zipp 303
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3004 Post(s)
Liked 2,430 Times
in
1,184 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
Forgive me for being dense, but how does that improve one's performance? Are people dropping chains even when they aren't shifting?
09-22-16, 09:00 AM
#65
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Jarrett2
One little change and this statement becomes 10 years old
Triples rule!
Triples rule!
Anything else:
Seriously.
09-22-16, 09:02 AM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by oldnslow2
Is that offered by Sram or was the cage swapped by the shop?
Made me consider going eTap 1x. I will likely at some point, but it only cost me $275 to convert to 1x and the parts are new. I'll ride these a few thousand miles then decide what's next.
09-22-16, 09:03 AM
#67
Senior Member
Originally Posted by oldnslow2
09-22-16, 10:31 AM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Madison, IN
Posts: 1,351
Bikes: 2015 Jamis Quest Comp
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I ride a triple now, 59/39/30...plus a 11-28 cassette. While I definitely use the small ring on climbs, I NEVER use the big ring except going downhill. Even in a 25mph pace line, I'm generally in 39/12 or 39/11. You tech heads can figure out what cadence that is, but it works for me. I don't grind!
I spend 90% of the time in the middle ring, and it would be more if I could use the biggest cogs for climbing without the front derrailer rubbing.
SO...I would be very happy with a 39/30 combo, or maybe 42/30...OR with a 40t single ring with a 11-34 cassette. If money was no object, I might try that...but it's not a big enough deal to go throwing money at.
I spend 90% of the time in the middle ring, and it would be more if I could use the biggest cogs for climbing without the front derrailer rubbing.
SO...I would be very happy with a 39/30 combo, or maybe 42/30...OR with a 40t single ring with a 11-34 cassette. If money was no object, I might try that...but it's not a big enough deal to go throwing money at.
09-22-16, 01:26 PM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 595
Bikes: Bianchi Oltre XR4 Celeste, De Rosa SK Pininfarina, Giant TCR SL, Giant Revolt Advanced Revolt 0 Gravel Bike, Trek Madone SLR, Cervelo R5 Disk
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times
in
64 Posts
I have a 24lbs, 1x11 (120/100 travel) mountain bike and have noticed same people I out-climb on my road bike (50-34, 11-28) beat me up a steep, long hill, with my mountain bike.
09-22-16, 01:39 PM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 791
Bikes: Many bikes in three states and two countries, mainly riding Moots Vamoots, Lynskey R265 disc and a Spot Denver Zephyr nowadays
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bonz50
title says it all.
what cassette would you use? what about chain ring??
what cassette would you use? what about chain ring??
Two of them are travel bikes with S and S couplers, so the 1x drivetrain simplifies breakdown and reassembly considerably.
I run a 42t x 11-42 (11sp) on one and 40t x 11-42 (10sp) on the other.
The smaller chainring also makes it easier to pack in the suitcase without having to remove the crankset like I used to when both bikes had compact doubles.
The third bike I have that set up on has short (405) chainstays and I could not get the FD adjusted to access the full cassette from either chainring without rub, so I switched it to 1 x 11 (42t x 11-42) and it's been flawless.
I've never dropped a chain on any of them even though the 1 x 10 is a Salsa Vaya Travel set up for and used for offroad touring.
FWIW I've heard that electronic shifting makes travel bike packing and unpacking even easier, but I'm not excited about having battery issues while on a long trip or tour.
09-22-16, 02:46 PM
#73
Senior Member
I don't get the benefit of 1x for most bikes with the following exceptions:
1. Cross bikes that are being used exclusively for cross racing
2. Most any type of MTB being exclusively used for racing, especially enduro and DH
3. TT bikes set up for a flat course
4. A single speed or kids bike (obviously)
On most any other type of bike, a 2x or 3x offers significant benefits with few drawbacks. I think SRAM sees 1x as a differentiator and has decided to market the hell out of it.
1. Cross bikes that are being used exclusively for cross racing
2. Most any type of MTB being exclusively used for racing, especially enduro and DH
3. TT bikes set up for a flat course
4. A single speed or kids bike (obviously)
On most any other type of bike, a 2x or 3x offers significant benefits with few drawbacks. I think SRAM sees 1x as a differentiator and has decided to market the hell out of it.
Last edited by Hiro11; 09-23-16 at 08:51 AM.
09-22-16, 02:58 PM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,061
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2838 Post(s)
Liked 1,999 Times
in
1,250 Posts
Run on sentence:
If the weight and gear ratios were the same and the derailleur system shifted the FD so all you had to do was push an up or down button to move between every gear, would you even care how many rings were on front or cogs in the back?
If the weight and gear ratios were the same and the derailleur system shifted the FD so all you had to do was push an up or down button to move between every gear, would you even care how many rings were on front or cogs in the back?
09-22-16, 03:51 PM
#75
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 10,329
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3105 Post(s)
Liked 4,172 Times
in
2,104 Posts
A friend recently had a 1X11 built up because he wanted a very light bike. It's a Cannondale frame and SRAM components. 40t rear and 40 or 42 front. He seems happy with it and it only weighs 12 lbs. It's pretty hilly here, I think light weight was his priority. He rides lots of miles but I don't think he obsesses about gear steps, cadence and all that.
