Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

1X drivetrain for all-round gravel / touring bike?

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

1X drivetrain for all-round gravel / touring bike?

Old 12-07-19, 07:05 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by saddlesores
no worries. i have skin of thickness, and this is the interwebs.

yes, these are indeed long slogs.........that go on forever..........up to 40km long.
so, sure, that would be 25 miles for the metrically-challenged.

average speed is around 5-6 km/h.....or topping out at 3.7 mph.
i be loving that 16-gi setup where i can "spin" up at 50-55 rpm.

this be in china's yunnan province, in what i guess would be the foothills leading to
tibet and eventually everest. you're following the grade uphill, but as the land is rising
almost as fast as you're gaining elevation, it just never ends.

exhausted, you come around yet another curve, you see a cellphone tower or a road cut
and you think....."haha! i've reached the top"....only to be cheated again and again and
again, when you pass thru the cut to see another wall to cllimb.

and you feel really small and insignificant when you (slowly) pass an elderly couple
pushing a wooden cart loaded with watermelons. up.....hill.

it's cool heading south/east........when you get to blast thru the rice terraces for an
uninterrupted 40km.
Wow, thanks. That sounds very much outside my area of experience and I thought it was pretty broad. A good reminder that the US is just my corner of a bigger world. Sometimes I need that. Glad I asked. I was hesitant because so easy to be misinterpreted here and get into a flame war. These days I try to avoid that if possible.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 07:59 AM
  #27  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
re a 11-42t 11 speed cassette, although I do like cassettes with closer ratios, it is clear that compared to a 11-34 9 speed cassette that I have toured a lot on, and to a 11-36 10 speed cassette on my wifes bike---the % jumps on the 11-42 11 speed are very very similar--so in real life, the jumps are perfectly acceptable to use.

sure, if I was going to set up a 11 spd bike for touring at some point, I would prefer to use a double and use a closer cassette, just cuz its nice when you have closer jumps.

I still feel though that increased chain line and therefore less longevity to drivetrains HAVE to be an issue or factor over the long term, and as mentioned, for touring and easy paced riding, shifting fd's is by no means a hardship or have any downside. Racing mountain biking or cyclocross is one thing, but for all of us doing touring and such, a single chainring really doesnt have any advantages at all compared to the positives.

and yes, I still figure the "one-by" thing is great for manufacturers as they can crank out more parts for more bikes, therefore more profit.
djb is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 08:06 AM
  #28  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve B.
A bit of a thread hijack. I looked at the Diverge E5 Comp, nice looking bike, good component selection, nice price. Was surprised it had no eyelets in the rear for a rack, which rules out credit card tours with panniers and a light load unless you want to invest in a large seat bag, etc.... Ended up on a C-Dale, but found out there's a lot of nice gravel/adventure bikes out there.
Agreed. Most makers will offer 1x and double versions of the bikes. The 1x is probably best suited to gravel and off road where you don’t want to be bothered with double changes. If you are touring I think the closer ratios of the double are probably preferable. Either will get the job done. The issue I have with 1x is chain line and the wear on components.

Last edited by nun; 12-07-19 at 08:10 AM.
nun is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 09:20 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
Originally Posted by saddlesores
...

checking the free interwebs calculators:

26*1.95 tires. 22 ring 34 cog gives a 16.84 inch gear.

50 rpm = 4 km/h = 2.5 mph
56 rpm = 4.5 km/h
62 rmp = 5.0 km/h
If you can maintain 2.5 or even 3.0 mph while staying upright without a lot of turning the handle bars back and forth, I am impressed. I need 3.5 mph to maintain vertical and directional stability on those long uphills. And more speed needed if there are gusty sidewinds. If it is steep enough that I can't maintain that speed, I get off and push the bike.

I pushed the bike all the way up this 13 percent grade hill. There is no way my heart rate monitor would have been happy if I tried to pedal that.

Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 09:20 AM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by djb
I still feel though that increased chain line and therefore less longevity to drivetrains HAVE to be an issue or factor over the long term, and as mentioned, for touring and easy paced riding, shifting fd's is by no means a hardship or have any downside. Racing mountain biking or cyclocross is one thing, but for all of us doing touring and such, a single chainring really doesnt have any advantages at all compared to the positives.
I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say there were no advantages. It is one less cable, one less shifter, one less derailleur and one less chain ring. That equals less parts to maintain, less things to fail, a bit less weight, pretty much no chance of shifting off of the front ring, and so on. I kind of like the simplicity. It isn't much of a big deal, but I also prefer to go lighter when there isn't a penalty for doing so. Whether any of that is important to any given rider is another matter, so like most things it isn't a slam dunk, but rather a personal preference choice. I'd lean that direction if I were buying a gravel bike today even if it were to be my touring bike.

I realized that I would be happy with a 1x after having owned a 2x11 mountain bike for a while, riding it extensively, and realizing that the double was kind of overkill. I think for an adventure/gravel/do-everything bike that would be even more true.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 10:04 AM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
I can see the appeal of 1x for off road and am currently awaiting an 11/42 cassette for my fat bike. It has 2x 11/36 but loaded is a bit too hard to pedal up some steeper off road hills. If I were building for off road from the ground up I would include 1x.

The difference I find between bikepacking/off road and traditional touring is the frequency you shift to meet changing elevation. 1x makes that far more simpler. It's linear with out the need to consider when to bump up or down the chainrings which becomes a consideration with wide ratio cassettes. I've found I want the low end but don't really need the top end as much. The terrain usually doesn't facilitate flat out riding in that range. In the same vein, I have added a dropper post - something you rarely if ever need traditionally touring. Off road it's nice. 1x also facilitates placement of the dropper lever on the left.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is what people describe as gravel / touring conditions. Sometimes it's just a road with some pebbles on, other times it's a logging road.










Last edited by Happy Feet; 12-07-19 at 10:21 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 10:55 AM
  #32  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,093 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
The difference I find between bikepacking/off road and traditional touring is the frequency you shift to meet changing elevation. 1x makes that far more simpler. It's linear with out the need to consider when to bump up or down the chainrings which becomes a consideration with wide ratio cassettes. I've found I want the low end but don't really need the top end as much. The terrain usually doesn't facilitate flat out riding in that range. In the same vein, I have added a dropper post - something you rarely if ever need traditionally touring. Off road it's nice. 1x also facilitates placement of the dropper lever on the left.
When I am climbing, I seldom switch back and forth between chainrings. For the most part, my bike becomes a 1x with 2 auxiliary gears. When I’m going downhill, I don’t shift much between the chainrings either. Multigear bicycles don’t have to be complicated.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Of course, the fly in the ointment is what people describe as gravel / touring conditions. Sometimes it's just a road with some pebbles on, other times it's a logging road.
While I partly agree with your statement, I look at off-road touring through a different lens. I may be riding dirt, gravel, rocks and pavement on an off-road tour. I may be going uphill or downhill with in the span of a few miles. The uphills may be unridable even in a 15” gear and the downhills may be 30 mph nightmares. For example, these are all from the same 3 day tour:

Vail bike path

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

30mph downhill on Shrine Pass

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

The easy part of Hagerman Pass

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

That’s the old rail bed about 1000 feet and 2 miles away from the top of Hagerman

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

The 20 mph railroad bed road

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

and a 40 mph drop down to the Roaring Fork River

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr


There are lots of ups and downs in off-road touring (as there is in road touring) and the 1x systems allow you to either enjoy one or the other but not both. I can range from barely able to stay upright 3 mph to 30 mph on my off-road bike. No 1x system can match that range...even an 10-50 system.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 11:32 AM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
When I am climbing, I seldom switch back and forth between chainrings. For the most part, my bike becomes a 1x with 2 auxiliary gears. When I’m going downhill, I don’t shift much between the chainrings either. Multigear bicycles don’t have to be complicated...

...There are lots of ups and downs in off-road touring (as there is in road touring) and the 1x systems allow you to either enjoy one or the other but not both. I can range from barely able to stay upright 3 mph to 30 mph on my off-road bike. No 1x system can match that range...even an 10-50 system.
I never said multi gear bikes were complicated, just that 1x is more simplified. I've ridden 3x mtb bikes all my life but can still recognize that.

Almost all technical mtbs now, that do the steepest up and down hills, are going 1x. It's not just a fad, it just works, especially with wide range cassettes. Now that we can go into 12cog 11-50 range modes the need for another complete system of gear shifting up front becomes redundant.

It's the same with dropper posts. There was a time when no one used them, rode all the trails successfully without them, but after using one on serious up and downs it's a no brainer that they make riding easier. Doesn't mean conventional posts are necessarily too hard.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 12-07-19 at 01:56 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 11:54 AM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
I never said multi gear bikes were complicated, just that 1x is more simplified. I've ridden 3x mtb bikes all my life but can still recognize that.
....
Fully agree, when I get home after a month touring on my Rohloff bike with a single 14 gear sequential shifter and start riding some of my derailleur bikes with triples again, it takes a bit of time to get used to the two derailleur shifting again.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 02:20 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
Fully agree, when I get home after a month touring on my Rohloff bike with a single 14 gear sequential shifter and start riding some of my derailleur bikes with triples again, it takes a bit of time to get used to the two derailleur shifting again.
Yep. Same with getting off a 1x mtb and going back to triples.

It is a question of compromise though. Wide range 1x is simpler and can cover most of the gear range but loses a little on the top end and the jumps are bigger.

In contrast, 2x or 3x allows a bit more top end but to do that uses a completely duplicated shifting system. It also allows closer gaps within the gear range but some/much of that is redundant gearing. I can run the upper cassette range in large, the lower range in small, and the whole range in mid chainring with my triple or the whole range with a 1x system.

What has changed is the cassette. Bitd the standard was 11 or 12 to 28 or 34, 36 was low low for climbing. That didnt allow much range with 1x. Depending on the chainring chosen you could climb or go fast but not both. Now a 22 chainring and 11-40 to 42 is common and that can be expanded up to 10-50. It's crazy how steep and fast that makes an pff road bike go.

Could a double or triple add more range? Sure. but at some point good enough is good enough and the rest can be seen as complexity. Consider that 1x by 11 has more gears and range than most 2x by 5 road touring bikes did in the early 80's.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 12-07-19 at 02:23 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 03:47 PM
  #36  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
certainly interesting points guys, and I can see both views.
-I come from a motorcycle background (instinctively knowing what gear you are in by memory) and my brain works very methodically for knowing what gear Im in, so using triples is like breathing, as in I dont even think about it.
-like cycco, I see a triple as the best of all worlds, I also dont change chainrings, Im climbing steep stuff in the granny, most of riding in mid ring, and downhills tailwind in large ring, so chain remains straighter and I really dont change back and forth much up front
-I really do think a straighter chain is a happier chain, for all the reasons we know
-I spread my chainring wear all around, sharing the use of all three chainrings, so probably is good for long term wear
-straighter chain must mean longer chain life
-in all my years riding, Ive practically never had any cable or fd or shifter issues, so the complexity more simple tihng doesnt appear to me as an issue
-weight issue, meh, not sure if its really an issue
BUT
-certainly can see how less stuff weight can be nice
-certainly as I mentioned, percentage jumps are reasonable and perfectly fine to use with more speeds
-am I over exaggerating chain and chainring wear by the increased chain angle that IS going to happen a LOT more with a 1X?? Maybe Im wrong....
-from my small mtb stuff, I can clearly see how a 1x is simpler to use, and how a dropper post lever would be set up fine on left

-still not convinced on cost of parts though
-and still know from riding bikes with closer ratio cassettes, that I would love a higher speed count bike like 11, but using at least a double so I could have both a good low and a good high, AND have some pretty nice closer % jumps. I'm thinking a 11-34 or 36 11 spd must have pretty good jumps compared to my old 9 speed 11-34, and would be nice to ride on simply cuz of the closer jumps.

-I acknowledge though that I havent ridden a 1x 11 speed, but do know from knowing gearing % jumps very well, it would be ok.
Would I be happy paying a lot more for 11 spd chains that dont last as long, or more expensive cassettes? ---I guess as with all things bike, prices go down and longevity probably gets better and better.....

**makes for interesting discussion though--as I always say, all bike stuff is neat, and neat to talk and learn about new technology. I just think it still merits being pragmatic about how stuff really works and how real life costs can be a factor also, and how long in real life does stuff last vs older tech
djb is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 03:53 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Sure. but at some point good enough is good enough and the rest can be seen as complexity.
Words to live by IMO. Seriously, I think we far too often lose sight of the fact that good enough often is actually good enough. I am not necessarily thinking about this topic, but more just about everything in general.

I find that I use those exact words to talk myself and others down from the ledge when I/they start looking for overly complex solutions to problems with simple answers.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 04:16 PM
  #38  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
I just did a quick look at 11 spd parts
seems that chains are just a bit more than 9, 10 spd,
some cassettes though are pricey, from 100-200-300 clams each

here's a question--does 11 spd stuff chains, etc, last a LOT less than 9 spd stuff?
We only have one 10 spd bike in the family, so dont even have that experience yet, not replaced the chain yet.
Ive generally gotten about 5000kms out of 9 spd chains, similar or a bit more for 8 spd, similar or a bit more for 7 spd---but of course, drivetrain cleaning, maintenance, how you ride, how strong you are, how heavy you are, ---- ALL play a huge factor in this

-how much does chain angle affect chain life--although Im sure chain condition, ie clean or not, plays a big part here too.

and to finish, I still see my triple 9 or 10 spd as the perfect setup for touring WITH A GOOD LOAD. Mid ring for most of riding, large ring for downhills tailwinds, and granny for climbing.
I use all speeds in back regularly, I use all three chainrings regularly (but not changing chainrings so often its a pain in the rear)
the cost of replacement stuff is not expensive
the few extra pounds (if that) of an extra cable, fd, fd shifter and two more chainrings IN MY CASE, being a light little bugger, is nothing....especially nothing compared to how I use my bike, ie loaded up for long trips, carrying extra food, water etc
djb is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 04:43 PM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
saddlesores's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Thailand..........Nakhon Nowhere
Posts: 3,652

Bikes: inferior steel....and....noodly aluminium

Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1053 Post(s)
Liked 339 Times in 228 Posts
what is the weight difference between cassettes?

9-spd 11:32 and an 11-spd 11:50 ???

shirley those massive steel cog boat anchor will outweigh
a couple of aluminium rings and a front derailleur.

plus cable and shifter, what's the average total system
difference? couple ounces?
saddlesores is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 04:56 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
I don't know about wear but on the SunRace site (for example)

a 9 speed 11-36 is 436gm
a 10 speed 11-42 is 494gm
a 12 speed 11-50 is 586gm

so it seems 150gram's or 5 ounces to go from 9:11-36 to 12:11-50.

I can only assume Shimano, while maybe not having the same numbers, would have a similar equivalence in variation.

But I would not argue one or the other systems based on weight difference. As noted, that's a bit of a red herring.To me it's more about how it meshes with the KISS principle. What is the simplest form I need to accomplish the task successfully. Off road that now seems to be (personally) 1x. It's also why I look to mechanical disc but don't feel I need hydraulic. Some would argue Hydro is better (true) but I don't need it and can work on the simpler form of mechanical in the field easier.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 12-07-19 at 05:11 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 05:47 PM
  #41  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,093 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
I never said multi gear bikes were complicated, just that 1x is more simplified. I've ridden 3x mtb bikes all my life but can still recognize that.

Almost all technical mtbs now, that do the steepest up and down hills, are going 1x. It's not just a fad, it just works, especially with wide range cassettes. Now that we can go into 12cog 11-50 range modes the need for another complete system of gear shifting up front becomes redundant.
The problem I see with 1x system isn’t that they are simple but they are simplistic. I’ve been riding mountain bikes for 40 years but my mountain bike riding has been more like gravel riding than what is currently in fashion for mountain bikes. I like to range further than most. A 20 to 40 mile mountain bike ride is more along the lines of the type of riding that I do rather then the shorter more technical single track riding that most people do now. I’ve overheard conversations where some mountain bikers were discussing a 12 mile ride as a “long” ride.

I also disagree with your statement about front shifting becoming redundant. It depends on what kind of range you are satisfied with. I know that I’ve got a range outside of the norm but it’s still possible. 1x just can’t get to the same range. For example my 44/34/20 with an 11-36 ranges from a 16” low to a 105” high. A 1x with a 44/11-42 has the same high but a significantly higher low (27”). That’s a really tall low for a loaded bike. On the other hand, a 24/11-42 has the same low but it spins out below 20 mph. That may be good for trail riding but it would get old over a 30 or 40 mile downhill. A good high gear 10-50 system or a good low range 11-50 system is better but still suffers from a similar problem. Not as great but it’s still there.

And, let’s not forget that any gearing that can be had with the 1x system I can match or exceed with a triple by simply using their cassette.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 06:12 PM
  #42  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,093 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by staehpj1
Words to live by IMO. Seriously, I think we far too often lose sight of the fact that good enough often is actually good enough. I am not necessarily thinking about this topic, but more just about everything in general.

I find that I use those exact words to talk myself and others down from the ledge when I/they start looking for overly complex solutions to problems with simple answers.
Who decides what is “good enough”? Shimano and SRAM have decided that 2x and 1x are “good enough” and the rest of us just go along. What may be good enough for an elite racer may not be good enough for the average Joe. An elite racer is racing on tracks where they know every twist, turn, rock and root. They know when a hill is coming and when they need to shift for either up or down. Seldom do they every go racing somewhere where than don’t know the terrain.

Compare that to the average Joe or Janet who is traveling from point A to point B but may never have been there in their life. They have no idea what is coming around the next corner and they may not be in the same shape as an elite racer. That goes for uphills and downhills.

Yes, keeping things simple is generally good but complexity has it’s place as well. Cassettes with 11 gears and a cassettes cog from 11 to 50 teeth, the chains, derailers and shifters are themselves all rather complicated.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!



cyccommute is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 06:57 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked 488 Times in 291 Posts
How about chain life? This discussion has been very thought provoking. Have people noticed a difference in chain life between derailleur set ups and 1 x 11?
Pratt is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 07:05 PM
  #44  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
re chains--I have never damaged a chain in my life (frantically touching wood), a friend of mine who rides a great deal anecdotally has told me that he started meeting folks with broken chains more as things went to 10 speed

do any of you regulars know first hand if this is true, and if 11 is more susceptible, or last a lot less than earlier speed chains?

I'm genuinely curious.
I figure it can't be that bad, and especially for someone like me who is both lightweight and not strong and who keeps on top of drivetrain maintenance, it wouldnt be a real issue--and even if slightly less chain life, to have 2 more speeds compared to my 9 spd bikes, ie, closer shifts for the same cassette range and or wider range , that would be fine for me.

I'm certainly not a poo-poo-er of new technology, and it makes sense to me that stuff must be long lasting, if not it would quickly become known and talked about.....

(now costs of parts and availability of parts IS something I would take into account---and clearly this is my view like Happys', about "good enough being good enough"--this is why I am fine with 9 spd stuff on my Troll used for various touring trips. The 11-34 cassette and mtb triple 44/32/22 work fine as is. Instead of obsessing about stuff, I do get out there and do trips, so thats fine with me. I'd quickly switch the Troll to 10 speed however, as my freehub can easily take 10 spd cassettes, and I may be able to switch my shifters to 10 using some Microshift shifters taken off my wifes bike.
djb is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 07:31 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
I was looking for something with some google searches and found a very interesting article comparing friction on a 1X and 2X system. Not directly comparable to the discussion here, the 2X system had 53 and 39T chainrings. But, some very interesting results on how much cross chaining and sprocket size and chainring size affected friction losses. Both systems were 11 speed. One big result was bigger chainrings and bigger sprockets were more efficient. We all knew that already, but to some degree it was more important than cross chaining which surprised me.

In the big picture, I do not think the friction losses would be noticeable to a non-racer, I certainly can't feel the difference in losing a few watts by having my dynohub powered lights on compared to off. So, if one gear consumed a few more watts than another, I doubt I would notice it. But, I still found it interesting.

Article here, second link is a blow up of the graph:
https://www.velonews.com/2019/05/bik...etrains_493185
https://s27394.pcdn.co/wp-content/up...08.29-AM-1.png

Originally Posted by djb
I just did a quick look at 11 spd parts
seems that chains are just a bit more than 9, 10 spd,
some cassettes though are pricey, from 100-200-300 clams each

here's a question--does 11 spd stuff chains, etc, last a LOT less than 9 spd stuff?
We only have one 10 spd bike in the family, so dont even have that experience yet, not replaced the chain yet.
Ive generally gotten about 5000kms out of 9 spd chains, similar or a bit more for 8 spd, similar or a bit more for 7 spd---but of course, drivetrain cleaning, maintenance, how you ride, how strong you are, how heavy you are, ---- ALL play a huge factor in this

-how much does chain angle affect chain life--although Im sure chain condition, ie clean or not, plays a big part here too.

and to finish, I still see my triple 9 or 10 spd as the perfect setup for touring WITH A GOOD LOAD. Mid ring for most of riding, large ring for downhills tailwinds, and granny for climbing.
I use all speeds in back regularly, I use all three chainrings regularly (but not changing chainrings so often its a pain in the rear)
the cost of replacement stuff is not expensive
the few extra pounds (if that) of an extra cable, fd, fd shifter and two more chainrings IN MY CASE, being a light little bugger, is nothing....especially nothing compared to how I use my bike, ie loaded up for long trips, carrying extra food, water etc
My two derailleur touring bikes and my rando bike all share the same Sram eight speed 11/32 cassette (11/12/14/16/18/21/26/32), Rando bike has a road triple with stock rings of 52/42/30. The derailleur touring bikes started with the same road triples, but I changed the inner and outer rings so it is now half step plus granny, 46/42/24. I built up those three bikes, so the component choices were mine alone.

On those three bikes I use the six (out of eight) sprockets that are least cross chained with each chainring, thus each of those bikes has 18 gears, I do not use the full 24 that mathematically exist. And when I built up the bikes I ran the numbers to make sure that all 18 gears were useable and non-redundant without any big gaps.

I am totally happy with 18 gears, do not need more. My folding bike also uses the same eight speed cassette, helps keep my inventory of spares much smaller. (And my Rohloff bike uses the same eight speed chains, makes inventory even more manageable.)

My two year old road bike has a compact double and 10 speed cassette, I bought this bike complete, so I did not chose any of the components that came on it. But I made one change, it had a 13/29 Campy 10 speed cassette, I wanted a slightly higher high gear for downhills so I fitted a Miche 12/29 cassette instead. When you remove the redundant and cross chained gears you end up with about 14 usable gears, the upper seven are on the big ring and the lower seven gears are with the small chainring. I like the bike, I like the ride, I like the gearing, BUT, for the two brevets I rode this year, instead of the road bike, I used the rando bike that I built up with the eight speed cassette and triple because the wider range on that bike works better on the hills on the brevet routes. I also find that the high range of big ring gears and low range of small ring gears on the road bike means if I am in that middle zone which is a slight uphill, shifting the front derailleur means that I then have to make lots of shifts in the rear.

You raised lots of questions on what lasts longer and which is more efficient. Other than the article I cited above I have an observation from a tour I did a couple years ago. When I was touring in Florida which is flatter than a pancake, I think I was on the 16 and 18T sprockets 95 percent of the time. Around home where there are more hills, that probably drops to 80 percent of the time I am using those two sprockets. Thus, an eight speed cassette the way I use it might not last as long as a cassette with more sprockets because if I had more mid range sprockets in say a 15 to 19T range I would spread the wear across more sprockets. Bottom line, six of my sprockets will have a lot of lifespan left when I have to replace the cassette because two sprockets were badly worn.

Last edited by Tourist in MSN; 12-07-19 at 07:34 PM.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 07:38 PM
  #46  
Junior Member
 
Fred123141's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Clean item

Raw uncut
Fred123141 is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 07:42 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Bolding is mine.

Originally Posted by cyccommute
...I also disagree with your statement about front shifting becoming redundant. It depends on what kind of range you are satisfied with. I know that I’ve got a range outside of the norm but it’s still possible. 1x just can’t get to the same range. For example my 44/34/20 with an 11-36 ranges from a 16” low to a 105” high. A 1x with a 44/11-42 has the same high but a significantly higher low (27”). That’s a really tall low for a loaded bike. On the other hand, a 24/11-42 has the same low but it spins out below 20 mph. That may be good for trail riding but it would get old over a 30 or 40 mile downhill. A good high gear 10-50 system or a good low range 11-50 system is better but still suffers from a similar problem. Not as great but it’s still there.
The first part is what I said so I don't think we disagree. Just that we have different priorities. If I were riding groomed gravel I could just use my road/endurance bike with gravel tires or even a 650b wheelset to get fatter tires.That's a compact double 11-36 and a second wheelset could have 11/40. Actually, that's my real goal for that bike. One bike that covers that side of the spectrum well enough with good range and speed. I wouldn't really want to build yet another bike that replicates that basic ability.

For a dedicated gravel bike I want something that extends further towards the other end of the spectrum, having road covered. I want a bike that can do rougher gravel and is trail/technical capable. In that regard, low is what I want, not extended high range. We can talk about 20 mph being slow but off road 32 kph (how I think of it) is pretty darned good. Seldom am I cranking logging roads at that speed unless I'm going downhill or being chased by a grizzly bear.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that I can see a place for 1x on certain builds.

And, not to flog a tangent, but if a dropper is in the future you want real estate for the lever on the bar that's easily accessible. I didn't really understand what the fuss was about until this last trip to Moab. It became apparent how important it was to be able to activate the dropper with the hands on the bars instead of taking them off to reach the remote some place other. A small thing that might not matter to most but it's all part of the overall system.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 12-07-19 at 07:59 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 05:14 AM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
Who decides what is “good enough”? Shimano and SRAM have decided that 2x and 1x are “good enough” and the rest of us just go along. What may be good enough for an elite racer may not be good enough for the average Joe. An elite racer is racing on tracks where they know every twist, turn, rock and root. They know when a hill is coming and when they need to shift for either up or down. Seldom do they every go racing somewhere where than don’t know the terrain.

Compare that to the average Joe or Janet who is traveling from point A to point B but may never have been there in their life. They have no idea what is coming around the next corner and they may not be in the same shape as an elite racer. That goes for uphills and downhills.

Yes, keeping things simple is generally good but complexity has it’s place as well. Cassettes with 11 gears and a cassettes cog from 11 to 50 teeth, the chains, derailers and shifters are themselves all rather complicated.
Who decides? Each and every one of us do by purchasing a given tech or not. I don't think it is anywhere near a slam dunk which choice people should make between 1x and 2x. I don't think 3x is even going completely by the wayside although I see way less argument for it these days.

BTW, not sure I buy the argument that the elite racer wants/needs/benefits from the simplicity more than Joe or Janet does. While neither want to botch a shift the pro can handle the complexity better. I'd argue that Joe and Janet are more likely to want a more relaxed low key ride and that 1x tends in that direction.

Believe it or not I have met folks on long tours who had toured at least half way across the country and really still didn't understand how their 2x systems worked. You could argue (and I'd agree) that they should have been shown how to use them, but a 1x would have been great for them. They are about as far fro pro racers as you can get and still be serious riders.

My good enough is good enough comment really wasn't about simplicity and wasn't really even about this topic other than as a reaction to Happy Feet's comment. In fact if applied to this topic I'd probably use it to say, " good enough is good enough " and I should just ride the bikes I already have foregoing getting a new gravel bike with either 1x or 2x. How long I'll take my own advice on that remains to be seen.

Last edited by staehpj1; 12-08-19 at 05:29 AM.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 01:53 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,160
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
I'd probably stick with the double, if only for chain line reasons.
In my opinion, this is the least important reason to not use 1x. Averaged over the way each drivetrain is typically used, I think chainline is improved in 1x.

- Mark
markjenn is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 04:28 PM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by markjenn
In my opinion, this is the least important reason to not use 1x. Averaged over the way each drivetrain is typically used, I think chainline is improved in 1x.

- Mark
Not sure why chain line would be improved, but I agree that chain life isn't a big reason why I'd choose one or the other. I get good enough chain life that I don't consider in incremental impact on it to be a big issue.
staehpj1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.