Doge

It is hard for me to see in this video how many are on 2x, but in others, 1X seems to be the thing - because it makes the most sense.

Doesn't matter if it is 99% have 2x. It is that chains drop on 2x. A point made way up at the beginning of the thread.
Eliminating that is a reason to run 1x.

redlude97

Then why mentioned it like he was the only one tunning 2x? 1x doesn't eliminate dropped chains, watch Zeven again and see Ellen Noble drop a chain running sram 1x with a clutched rd and lose 10 places

Doge

I think Ellen Noble is not in the men's race. I only watched the men's race.

It does not eliminate chain drop. It reduces it. Am I wrong?

Repeating, that is not the only reason 1X is nice, but it is a reason.

redlude97

I don't know, which one is it?

Doge

Eliminating is a reason. It is the goal, a reason for doing it.

That it does not eliminate it is a fact.

That should not be confusing.

tomato coupe

Why in the world did you have to revive this thread? The title of this thread is "Are 1X the Future of Road Cycling?" and yet your latest example is from cross racing. It doesn't strengthen your case.

HTupolev

Is cycling on the road the future of road cycling?

Doge

Apparently not.

Doge

I wish I had seen this at the beginning of the thread.
Just found it. Good stuff.

tomato coupe

Proponents of 1X systems often emphasize the equivalent range of gearing but downplay the issue of gear spacing. 2X advocates, of course, do the opposite. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you should really compare a 1x11 setup to a 2x8 setup, as those setups give you almost identical gear range, gear spacing, and number of unique useable gears. The decision really comes down to this: are you willing to effectively jump back 20-30 years (in terms of gearing) in order to get rid of that front derailleur?

Figure 1: 2x8 setup vs. 1x11 setup
Figure 2: 2x8 setup vs. 2x11 setup

Doge

I think I mentioned I used to use "half step". I'm pretty sure that was on a 5 cog, maybe 6 cog rear.

"half step" is when each front ring shift is right between a rear shift. It is easy to remember and on the old rings a 49-52 shift was generally easier than a 42-52 shift. The chain angle thing was still an issue. Really nobody needs this much as rides that are mostly up or mostly down folks just run small up and big down. But it does fill in the gaps and for coastal rollers gives a nice range.

Anyway as chains do handle angle better and these gaps increase - a 10-41? Maybe someone will try half-step gearing again.

Sullalto

Half-Step would be interesting with a smart Di2 system. Make it braindead easy.

Doge

I was thinking the Di2 made the other/current alpine system easy with the sequential shifting, while the half-step is already easy. I don't think most experienced riders think about shifting. They just do. I really haven't thought about that so much, just seems like how it is - they shift. This sync stuff could surprise a rider changing the front vs the rear and people pedal differently for those shifts. I don't expect the Di2 sync to stick.

For me, I'm more interested in the physiological aspects of what makes the rider go. For this, is a 5 RPM jump required or can the 10 RPM work as well - or better.

Trakhak

Since human legs evolved to be efficient at running, it might be worth considering equating gear selection to stride length adjustment. Competitive runners seem to maintain essentially the same pace (in strides per minute); thus, they have to make small adjustments in stride length over varying terrain.

That would seem to argue in favor of smaller rather than larger changes in cadence being more efficient in bike racing.

In noncompetitive settings, there's probably no compelling reason to worry much about cadence. Still, it seems unlikely that larger changes in cadence would be better than smaller changes under any conditions.

kbarch

I wonder how much of a difference it makes that when running one can adjust stride length in two ways - by more or less forcefully pushing off to extend one's time off the ground more or less (the activity that makes it running), as well as by extending ones legs more or less as we would when merely walking (although when walking, it's the other way around - we tend to adjust cadence, not stride length). In cycling, we can't adjust the circumference of the pedal stroke; I wonder what it would be like if we could.... Of course, from a mechanical perspective, changing the size of the chainring accomplishes this, but it's not our legs that are making the adjustment. Does one ever wish that one could make the crank arms longer or shorter in order to accommodate some bio-mechanical purpose the way one opens up ones stride in order to run faster? I don't imagine it would work very well because of the constraints inherent in being seated, but imagine if you could shift to longer crank arms when standing up ....

Doge

Efficiency and what makes someone faster are two different things. There are other reasons to get out-of-the-saddle and break cadence.
Muscles are building up waste and eliminating it at different rates as repetition and resistance (force) change.
When the legs are burning at 110rpm a shift to 95RPM can reduce burn and maintain power.
At the same power, changing the force on pedals, or the length of the power stroke (10 degrees vs 15), or the time of the stroke all affect how much waste is generated and how much is eliminated.
I don't know what is best. I then to think it is an individual thing but I don't even know that. I do know that varying the above changes fatigue rates.
Even within the same cadence the force being applied in a stomp vs smooth motion affects power and fatigue.

Trakhak

Agreed. I should have known better than to refer to bike racing as if it invariably involved a monolithic effort.

Still, the same riders who do bursts of effort with sudden changes of cadence in pelotons ride time trials with as consistent a cadence as possible. Racers do what they have to do to break away or close gaps or win sprints, but they always do those high efforts knowing that they only have so many matches to burn.

Doge

TT riders often finish in something less than most efficient (mechanically) pedaling because they can go from aerobic to anaerobic and pay it back when they are done. Track is hard to tell/use because they have only 1 ratio.

While maintaining the same power, is a switch from 110RPM to 95RPM "worse" for the rider's performance than a switch from 110RPM to 103 RPM?

I don't know, and I've watched and followed a bunch of bikie stuff that if it were obvious - I'd know. But, like non-round rings, and crank length - it is one of those things that no-one (I know of) has shown it matters.
I do know the switch does cause a change in waste handling. I think 110->95 generates more "relief". But if 110 is optimum, should the rider stay at that, or switch it up?

So until I know it matters, I don't see a point in being concerned about it. As such, the 1X and bigger jumps and simplicity are compelling.

Dean V

I can't see how the forced used of larger gaps between gears with a 1x drivetrain can be an improvement.
Even with the argument that changes in cadence are beneficial it doesn't help.
With tighter spacing you have more control of your cadence weather you want to keep it constant or vary it.

Doge

How is it worse?
I have no evidence one way or the other.
As I posted varying cadence/force-over-arc does make a difference on muscle fatigue, but nothing I have seen shows holding an "ideal" cadence matters.

I'm trying to ignore the track thing because it is extreme. 40 to 150 RPM. Does it matter? We don't know.

Conclusion - do what you want.

kbarch

No doubt they are a future of road cycling - they are a current actuality - but clearly the jury is still out regarding their eventual ubiquity. It wouldn't make much difference to me - unlike the question of disc brakes and tubeless tires, which I wish had never seen the frame of a road bike.

kcblair

Ok, great debate and info. After running some analysis, using Sheldon Browns Gear Calculator, I see the practicality of a 1x10 speed for myself. Using my 8 speed, 34/50 and 11x32 cassette, my usable gears (GI) ranges as follows;
28-32-37-43-50-55-63-73-88-101-120. Now I need to loose one gear. that would be the 120, now I have 10 useable gears. I very seldom use a 88 or 101, as I'm coasting past 18mph.

Now with a 1X10, using 36T chainring and 11x34 cassette, the new gear range is; 28-34-38-41-45-50-56-63-73-86.

All usable gears. That 86 GI, would still not be used much, if at all. At age 70, I'm mainly focused on low gearing.

I now can see where a 1X system would work for me. No need to use a 1X11, as conversion would be too much $$. The biggest expense would be the 10 speed RH shifter. My Claris 8 speed RD should work by adjusting the stop screws. Also, there is enough adjustment on the B screw to handle the 34T cog. And I can always get a RoadLink attachment.

Next I need to look at 36T Chainring options and mounting.

Thoughts ?? Thank you. KB

Doge

Too much classic stuff there for me to know what to say on shifters. But as I mentioned way back I did this about 25 years ago on my friction system. I just removed the FD.
Still I think indexed systems are better.

I do like the Wolftooth offset rings. They put the ring more in the middle and are solid. That and I had noticed that the modern DA (maybe Ultegra too?) cross chain much better than chains of old. So in 1990 I would get more noise on big/big than today.

beermode

I only think 1x will be a thing on road cycling because they can't let the balloon burst. It's like the TV business. HD, flat panels, FullHD, LED's, 4K, 4K HDR and so on.
As soon as everyone has disc brakes, integrated cockpits, e-shifting, through axles, aero inspired designs on all purpose frames, they will need another must have to sell.
But I think it will backfire. The big three component makers won't fully commit, they will probably have a road bike only 1x kit offered as a side show never taking place of their 105 and up lineup.
1x is the 3D glasses of road bikes.

Doge

I'm a product marketing guy - I appreciate the look at that angle.
But for many 1X is fewer parts, not more. On my old bike I just removed a FD, ring, shifter and cables. On current bike I removed Ring, Di2 FD, bought a Wolf tooth and bolts. Net savings ~$200.

Unlike discs and TVs, I'm struggling to see the marketing ploy selling fewer parts.