PepeM

Care to quote where those agree with your claim? Can't access most of the from home. In particular, it would be nice if you could show the magnitude of the difference in 'efficiency' that a 5-8 rpms cadence change causes because truth is, that's what we're talking about here when it comes to wider gearing spacing. No one is suggesting that pedaling at 40 rpms and 95 rpms is the same thing.

Most studies on cadence I've seen compare, say, 60 rpms to 90 to 120, or similarly large changes. Curiously enough, most find the lower cadence to be more 'efficient' (if I recall correctly, haven't looked into it in a while.)

RollCNY

Thanks. Did you read any of them?

Just take the first study. It never once uses the word "efficiency", but instead conducts experiments against a baseline of "volitional fatigue". It actually concludes that lower rpm can be maintained longer, which is nothing like what you wrote.


Let's look at the second study, which says elite athletes generate more " downstroke power" than amateur athletes. No mention of efficiency, and I don't see anything supporting your post on efficiency.


I'm not going to continue, but let me offer this:


Gearing selection is wonderful for improving efficacy. Efficacy and efficiency are not the same, and I would wager that no one makes gearing selection based upon efficiency. If they did, they would all ride single speeds. We train for endurance, for power, for speed, with the goal of being the most effective cyclist. We pay no attention to efficiency.


If efficiency were the goal, we would never pedal going down hill. If efficiency were the goal, we would never attempt to pedal faster than a tail wind. If efficiency were the goal, the single speed recumbant would be the most common bicycle sold.

RollCNY

When I rode 1x9 with a undamped unpinned chain ring, I had to use a bash guard to keep the chain on. I believe the official one ring stuff uses staggered wide and narrow teeth, and is therefore not a standard Rival/Force ring.

PepeM

Yes, I know the rings are different, but I wonder whether the cranks are different in any way (maybe the location of the ring? It could be somewhere in the middle of where the small and big ones usually sit.) or if slapping a 1x ring in a common crank would yield the same result.

RollCNY

Gotcha. No clue. My 1x9 worked far better on the inside ring position versus outside, but that had none of the new fangled parts. I will say, 46T coupled to 12-25 cassette was a surprisingly pleasant set up.

C9H13N 

Threads like this make me wonder how anyone managed to ride their bicycles in groups back in the days of 2x5 gearing.

Campag4life

If you don't know the answer to this question, you best not participate in conversation. Answer is obviously because back in the day it was an even playing field. Everybody would be competitive on a single speed bike as well as long as gearing worked best for a given group had the best single gear choice relative to body type.

To me Roll is mincing words. His point isn't lost however but more of a semantical nuance. Efficiency may not be the best word. Cars with the best fuel economy don't win the race unless the race is about the longest distance traveled for a given fuel tank size aka available energy. But to me its undeniable that a given cadence provides an ideal balance between cardio...lets call it effectiveness and legs lactating due to fatigue based upon an optimized power output. Power = Torque X RPM. Most of us who have ridden bikes a long time know this intrinsically and why we shift our bikes into an increase in head wind or up a slight grade seeking a higher cadence to put down more watts with the same pedal force. Some like me, lean more on cardio and turn higher RPM to prevent leg fatigue. We are very fussy about cadence to maximize our pedaling effectiveness, i.e. maximize power output relative to a given time interval. Btw, time interval is key. In sprinting, 90-100 RPM isn't going to get it done. Higher RPM is required to create more watts. But we can't sustain this higher RPM without loss of effectiveness over a long ride. Cadence matters. And to me, yes 5 RPM difference matters. Perhaps some care a bit less about this...or they are not in tune with maximizing their power output over a long ride. In fact, I see this all the time on the road. If a guy who is trying to stay up with me is mashing, I know my legs are under less load and because of my cardio, I stand a good chance of doing well. Lance made a living this way...by turning higher RPM than other riders.
So what we are talking about is...being able to dial just the precise pedal RPM to maximize power output throughout a ride by dialing the optimal cadence relative to related pedal force based upon gearing. More gearing options allows each of us to achieve this. I have owned 1 and 2 chainring bikes and and on a competitive group ride, I don't want to be without my double in front to allow for incremental gearing jumps in back with either a 10s or 11s cassette. Btw, I don't notice a big difference between 10s or 11s cassette as generally this can be tweaked by adjusting overall range of gearing that is more tolerable with 2 rings in front versus 1.

I do love the simplicity of one ring in front. But for competitive riding, I definitely want 2 rings with tight gear spacing so I can optimize my watt output over a typical group ride of 30 miles or so pretty much for the simple reason that everybody else has 2 rings in front and trying to accomplish the same objective and physically there isn't much difference between any of us and we are all trying to compete and keep up.

HTupolev

Actually, they *did* compensate for the low gear count by using smaller ranges than you get today. And derailleur design didn't always make it easy to bypass that by using bigger gear separation.

My 3x6 Fuji America from 1979, which is theoretically a touring bike, has a lower top and a higher granny than my 2x11 Emonda ALR 5 from last year.

Or, to put it another way, last week's C&V forum ride featured 160 feet of elevation gain over 36 miles.

C9H13N 

I'm being facetious. But I do think people over-obsess about narrow gearing on this forum and that the ability to vary cadence is becoming a lost art.

Campag4life

You seem to be less facetious. There is no art to vary cadence. The art and skill to bike riding lost on the masses witnessed everyday on roadways is, the inability to select gearing to stay within a zone of cadence to optimize power over a long distance. That is the art. The opposite of what you write. More gearing options aka with a 2 ring set up with very tight gear spacing in back allows a given rider to achieve this. In fact, it is the underlying reason why cassettes have evolved from 5 to 11 cogs in back. If larger gearing gradations didn't matter, there would have been no evolution to tighter gear spacing in the rear. Same premise for automobiles and motorcycles. Some cars have 8 speed automatic transmissions now affording a larger range of gearing improving not only efficiency but acceleration.

C9H13N 

I'm quite unable to take you seriously after the "African cyclists" thread from last year.

Campag4life

You neither advance here or there any substantive position. I never took you seriously.
Maybe you know something about basket weaving...then again, maybe not...lol.

RollCNY

. Not only is it not the best word, it is the wrong word. If you tell someone that they are most efficient at 90 rpm, you are telling them that they create the most output for a fixed amount of input. But the amount of input isn't fixed, and you don't care if it is fixed. You care if it is sustainable.

That may sound like semantics to you. It doesn't to me.


Absolutely, and I think a few of the studies listed above make the point that cyclists produce the most power at the cadence they train to produce the most power. So there are wonderful reasons to hold cadence in a tight band. But I think people need to realize that the target cadence may vary by individual, and the allowable deviation to that may also vary. And that optimal cadence is optimal for power generation, which may or may not matter to an individual at that given moment.


I agree with the builk of your post after what I quoted, and I personally see no allure to an 11-42 cassette, or whatever #'s are being thrown around. But I also think comments like Drew's "everyone must have a 16T" are equally based on personal preference. All of these statements suggest absolutes, in a place where absolutes don't apply.


Just my thoughts.

therhodeo

All this because SRAM sucks at making front derailleurs.

DXchulo

FDs can be a pain to install, but once set up properly how often do they give you problems? I've had them freeze up in the snow, but that's it.

So you give up some of your useful gears, but what do you get in return? I could understand if 1x setups were a lot cheaper than 2x, but they're not.

kbarch

But I'd rather have a crappy SRAM front derailleur (or a 1x) than idiotic Shimano shifters.

Duo

Actually we were happy.

I started out on a broken 3 speed after years of a single speed, and was glad to have a 2x5 back in the 70's. When more gears came out, it was amazing and we wondered why we needed them. My 9 speed bike front deraileur broke, so i am back to the good ole days. It works ok, but yeah i miss the use of a triple up front.

Out here in the flat lands, a 1 x 12 would probably be ok. For many though, a compact double would be better.

noodle soup

Pretty much. I wonder if SRAM will ever figure out hydraulic discs.

Carson Dyle

Makes a lot more sense for a mountain or CX bike than a road bike, IMO. That simplicity can pay dividends when the bike is being dragged through the muck. Eliminating the front derailleur on a road bike doesn't buy you much beyond a few grams in weight savings.

pressed001

I can see the attraction for a 1x11 setup. It has a decent range although the steps are not so great and is "easy," comparatively. After reading this thread, the conclusion seems to be: for those that are competitive and/or care about maintaining our "efficiency" or "efficacy," should stick with a double. For those that want a bike that is simple, functions and has decent range, then a 1xZ setup is totally OK.


FD setup can be a pita, like @DXchulo said. So I understand the attraction of a 1xZ setup. But I, being somewhat an odd-ball it seems, just built myself a triple crankset using an adapted inner chainring for a standard double 130 BCD crank, and I also ordered a Rotor 3D+ triple crankset.


With all this evidence regarding cadence and efficiency (I know, there's a better word out there and some Physicist or Physiologist knows what it is), how it is that the triple is so overlooked? No one even mentions it even though the double is highly regarded.


I enjoyed maintaining my 80-90 RPM cadence while making my 800m climb yesterday. When that was over, I switched over to the big chainring and did some pretty fast downhill, never coming close to maxing out at 53/12. Then when it came to the flats I had 2-8% stepping between gears.


Even from an engineering standpoint it makes more sense to increase your gearing by multitudes by adding one gear up front. Where adding one more cog in back yields you just one more gear. You are also putting more weight where you are more likely to feel it: along a larger diameter on the rear wheel. All of this just because, what? No one likes using their left hand?


But, whatever. To each their own. I could dig a 1x11 setup for sure. But for where I am, I want one bike that can do it all whilst keeping me competitive.



no kidding

Campag4life

My view is 1, 2 and 3 chainrings are great if not preferred depending on circumstances. Have owned all of them and enjoyed them for different reasons. If living in the mountains, to me a triple makes a lot of sense and maybe preferred for some riders.

digibud

Yuk. I'm not strong enough for a 50 tooth and 11-36 but regardless of the chainring, 11-36 would be too wide for me to enjoy it. I kept with a triple up front when I was on a 10 speed rear because I needed an 11-28 for our local "hills". When I went to 11speed rears I was willing to go to a compact and 11-32. When I hit a head wind and need a slight change in cadence, wider ranging rears are just a miserable thing. Being able to be in a good cadence is, for me, really important and 11- 32, given 11 cogs, is as wide a gearing space as I'm willing to put up with on a road bike.

kbarch

Hmm. I'm starting to think that on "wide range" cassettes, the jumps in the middle might be kept down and just the jumps to bailout gears were just made wider. I mean, when you're on the little ring already and you need something bigger than a 24t cog, you're probably not cruising along, or particularly sensitive to cadence.