kbarch

Just thought I'd throw this out here: I found the 1x TCX stock gearing (40 up front, 11-42 in back) an excellent bike for a recovery ride this morning. Pretty flat route - 18 miles, only 365', but a couple of short bits approaching 4%, and never had to exert myself. So it may not not have been the bike I wanted for a long ride on the road yesterday, it was a valuable asset for this road cyclist.

12strings

Is the the tcx advances sx (carbon bike, sram Apex 1x hydraulic)???

I've been eyeing that as my next bike...2K, seems enough gearing for road or cyclocross.

kbarch

Yes, gearing is fine for casual riding. Huge, heavy tires make it less than ideal for road if you like to go fast. I managed to keep up on B-level group rides with it, but that was when I had swapped out the chain ring with a 46.

joejack951

A triple could easily give the same low end without sacrificing either the high end or reasonable steps in between shifts. Just sayin'.

WhyFi

Yeah, but we're all looking for reasonable solutions.

joejack951

Reasonable solutions [translated]: new bikes

Doge

FWIW - Likely getting a new $4,200 retail 1X for kid.
Just ordered new narrow wide for other bike.

I mean, I still have two rings in front, but I'm old and slow.

joejack951

Compared to your kid, we're all slow.

Iride01 

Most seem to be making statements based on the tech that you can currently buy. But I still believe that for the average rider, 1x can be a very real possibility with another gear or two on the back cassette. Not superstitious, I'd be okay with 13 sprockets. New tech might make it a real possibility and give us more gears on the back with smoother transitions. I think that will be much nicer than cadence wrecking shifts of the front and back to find the next correct ratio.

Even with my 11 speed cassette 11-32 and 52/36 front, when I am riding 30 plus miles, with slight grades in the 4 to 6 percents range, I can stay in either the big of the small for all of the ride. If I'm in the big, I only wish for one more larger cog for the climbs. If I'm in the small, I only wish for one smaller gear on the descents.

Might be a different story for 10 percent grades. But I intend to find out.

PepeM

I reckon 8 gears is all I'd ever need.

Shinkers

Honestly, if I was in a position of wanting to run a 1x on my road bike (so exclusively flat riding), 1x5 would really be just fine...

Scarbo

The bike I had when I lived in Dallas was equipped with Campy 53/39 & 13-29 (13-29 because I had come from the SF Bay area then). I never had to use more than 4 gears: 53/13-16 (87-107 gear inches) and only used the easiest gear ratio on occasions when I got lazy.

Dean V

If 87" is the lowest gear you need on the flat you are either awesomely fast or not much of a spinner.

Scarbo

I'm not exactly built like a track cyclist or sprinter; but for years I've mixed cycling with a lot of working out with weights (tons of deadlifts/squats). I am more comfortable using bigger gears than I think most people would in similar circumstances (my observation); and, true, I don't tend to spin like a dervish.

Edit: It helped that north Texas is as flat as a pancake. I could get away with this because the only significant topography consisted of the freeway overpasses. ;-)

Doge

Another 2X going to 1X. This one is simple - bought a cross bike and fixing it.

Dean V

Is there a trend with racers that a tightly spaced cassette is no longer important?
Traditionally they always used the tightest they could get away with for the course/terrain they were riding.
No matter how you cut it a 1x setup is either going to reduce your gear range or increase gaps between gears.

redlude97

i think aside from Doge'd kid, the road forum is mostly recreational. Not much talk of 1x in the 33 for example. I agree even with 11speed I want tight gearing for group riding/racing so 2x will always be needed.

Doge

No longer important. Because 11speeds is more than what Eddy M road on and nobody said he was slower because he lacked gears.

I can't speak to trend, but many of the kids who are now full fledged Cat 1 and Pros are not gear heads. They just ride. They can spin 90 or 110 and don't really know what watts that costs them - and I think it does not cost them. A 1X is an 11 speed. That is enough, esp when looking at the overhead of a 2X (or 3X).

Part II:
There is somewhat of a trend (noticed by my spending) of bikes geared to purpose. For example. A cross or MTB is just not going the speeds of a road bike. The road bike is not going as slow as the cross bike/MTB. So both are geared in a range where a front shift isn't really needed.

If a tandem or tourist wants a front triple - fine.

I was talking to my wife recently about my 5th tandem. I was going to go 1X single side drive.

Doge

I didn't think that recreational meant more gears were needed. But a point to consider. Maybe rec riders care more about maintaining cadence. Under higher watts, mixing cadence is one of the better ways to reduce muscle fatigue.

Me...
I'm a rec rider. I'm big, powerful, overweight and 56. I ride mostly flats. I would like closer ratios for flats as I just use a few gears. But I find my "big" ring 46 and the rear 11-32 is fine. I might want a 32 front for a big climb.

Dean V

So all those years we have been "progressing" from a 2x5 set up we were just being sucked in to getting more gears than we needed.
Maybe I will get my fixie out and start riding that again. It must be where all this is ultimately leading too.

joejack951

Bikes have always been 'geared to purpose' but apparently people now use their bike(s) for less purposes than before. I'll stick with being able to climb and descend on my road and MTBs.

Scarbo

+1

This is so true. I've been aware of this for a while, going back to when I was actively racing. These types of concerns, which seem to be the obsession of fora like this, are mostly the province of gear fetishists and rich aficionados. The music world is the same.

HTupolev

What would they have said he was slower than? His competition was running similar drivetrains.

Put an average recreational rider and a top-level pro on the same course, and the recreational rider will need more gears in order to have the same amount of control over cadence.
The slower rider has more speed variance; someone who can ascend twice as fast as me is unlikely to have anywhere near that big of an advantage on non-technical downhill, where aerodynamics compresses power advantages.
More speed variance means bigger range. Bigger range means needing more gears, if you want to maintain spacing.

Also, a typical recreational rider is probably much less likely than a pro to want to reconfigure their bikes between rides to match the terrain.

Doge

That is true. Even rec riders "need" bikes more expensive than pros ride.
For me, that old big guy that fits the profile of so many riders in this forum, if I was doing lots of big climbs I'd have something like a 52/34 up front. Other than that, I just don't see the need.

In the early 80s when I road 400 miles/week and was 20 I thought it was good to find my best cadence and power and not spend any energy. So I sat and spun about 90rpm most of the time. I did a coast to coast ride in 82 and my smallest gear was a 42X18, so I learned to stand, and wow, it was not so bad. Later I started commuting and I commuted on a fixed MASI (by Masi) a couple days, and road bike a couple days. Fixed my rpm was 70-170. Road bike 85-100. I was a bit faster on the road bike, but just a bit. I learned that mixing it up made me feel fresher and I could go longer and faster. And like that picture I showed pages back - I just went 1 as early as the early 90s. I still have 2X, but just because. I can't really justify it.

Doge

Range is not the subject. You can get an 11-45 on the rear now. The argument is gear jump. So shift down front and up two in rear to get the next higher gear. Outside of Di2 sequential shifting people don't do that.
And hardly anyone uses half step where the front shift is between the rear shift. Most shifting is for going up - or going flat/down.

Rather - NOT controlling cadence may clear lactic acid build up more effectively and allow longer distance.