HTupolev

It's related to it. That's why I finished with: "Bigger range means needing more gears, if you want to maintain spacing."

Shift pattern doesn't really change my point. Although most 2x11s only get maybe 14-17 distinct and useful ratios, whereas a half-step would be good for 20-22 (depending on how comfortable you are with cross-chaining), either way you end up with tighter spacing than a 1x11 drivetrain of the same range. In the half-step case it's because you're splitting each gear jump on the cassette in ~half via shift pattern, in the typical case it's because the cassette is tighter.

What do you mean by "controlling cadence?"

I like tight spacing specifically because I can fine-tune how much I'm pushing up against my body's various thresholds, which feels like it helps me maintain a given intensity over longer distances.
Like, if I'm doing 100rpm and my upper legs feel like they're creeping toward an explosion from too much torque, jumping all the way to nearly 120rpm to back off the torque might not be worth the spinnyness. Letting my cadence lift by a smaller amount might back the torque off sufficiently to be sustainable without blowing other parts of me up.

Doge

Shifting so your RPM stays pretty close as you go that desired speed. So if you have a perfect 2X you can keep cadence say 90-95 and if you had a 1X you'd have to go 88-99.

Similar I noticed that in a long sprint if I changes cadence mid sprint (electronic shifting) I could hold high power much longer. So out of the saddle @ 100 rpm my legs were burning, shifting while standing to 85rpm I had a new kick before max pain took over.

There was enough there to convince me that holding an ideal rpm for max power produced less average power than changing rpm - at the top end.

San Pedro

On my commute I feel similar. I'm on the 50 until the wind is pushing 20mph into my face. If you don't get serious headwinds our have tough climb is there even a need for wife ratio in the back, especially if you have a smaller chain ring in the front?

Doge

This argument needs to go one way or the other.
One argument - recreational riders don't need to be concerned about the nuances and small details - as it doesn't matter for rec riding. My response would be then use a 1X, you don't need the extra parts, cost, maintenance and you can adjust to the rpm change, who cares if you are 5 rpm off ideal.

The other argument - recreational riders are not trained for such variation in rpm. That they have a narrow band in which they can correctly ride. Then I'd say, get a 1X and broaden your cadence opportunities. Stand up, sit, spin and lug. As it is recreational riding - nobody cares. Not that they care if it is racing either.

The -33 is recreational racing too FWIW. Pros don't BF.

joejack951

What's this about 'more expensive' bikes than pros? Even my expensive bike 'only' has Chorus on it. To go 1X with Campy likely would have cost more than just accepting the stock double. It is only for your Di2 situation where 1X actually saves any money (currently, and that could change).

And is there really no middle ground for between what you normally ride (whatever that is) and 'doing lots of big climbs'? What about lots of short, steep climbs? Or one really big climb? Or....millions of other scenarios where having a wider range of gearing with smaller steps than 1X can offer might be preferred.

This discussion is beginning to go the way of most BF gearing discussions: It works for me so it must work for you, too. The same argument has been made regarding cassettes and cranks since I joined this forum 13 years ago, back when anything other than a 53/39 crank and 11-23 cassette was considered only for newbs and old farts. And it's still just as tiresome even though it's evolved as more and more pros have decided to embrace lower gearing (somehow making it then ok for amateurs to use it, too). Your effort standing in a 42/18 might be just as difficult as me standing in my 34/29. But neither of us knows that. Maybe your hills are less steep, maybe I'm a slow wimp, maybe you are recalling the past incorrectly

joejack951

Only for a narrow range of builds is 1X going to be cheaper. Most of my minimal maintenance is at the rear end of my bikes anyway.

I can do all of that on my current bikes without changing a thing, if I so desired. With 1X, I'm forced to do it, all the time, with no easy way out. Is that what you want for me?

Doge

The Mfgs know this. They are selling 1Xs now. SRAM/Shimano have rings designed not to derail. That was not the case I recall even 5 years ago. So there is a change. Just like discs are options now. There is a market because it fills a need of a buyer.

I know what I use and I know what works for many racers - mostly kids. But that is discounted as they are racers. So I go to me, rec, like the rec on this forum. I also know it would work for the other 50 rec riders. But most bikes come with a 2X up front, so folks don't change, as it would cost more, they already have a 2X.

Where the 2X is needed is where ratios are significantly different and you essentially need two 10 speeds. That is going up, and going down. Otherwise, I argue from experience other than my own that a 1X 11speed can cover most situations just fine.

Banzai

It makes sense that SRAM pioneered the 1x drivetrain...


Because they could hardly manage front shifting anyway.

woodcraft

COL (chuckle out loud)

joejack951

I'd argue that it all just helps sell bikes. I'm a fan of discs but if they weren't an option, I'd still be riding a bike meaning discs are a want for me, not a need. People get excited about new/different stuff and justify

What folks could get by with if forced to accept a subpar solution and what they'd actually prefer are different. Like my situation with disc brakes.

2X (or 3X) is better than 1X any time you want a wide(r) range with small(er) steps. Easy as that. When someone wants that option is totally up to them to decide.

redlude97

I think other than you and a handful of others, both recreational cyclists and recreational racers don't experience chain drops or have problems shifting the front on the road. So 1x will continue to not be a necessary sacrifice to save weight at the cost of jumps and versatility. Just because they used to race on 2x5 doesn't mean I don't like the close spacing of 2x11 whether I'm a racer or not, and then is coming from someone who owns 2 1x dropbar bikes. They have their place for specific applications, but those are purpose built bikes. The average recreational road cyclist has a single bike, and a 1x do it all bike just isn't appealing.

Doge

I wonder what the average bike is. I thought it was a 3 speed in my day. Lots of 1 speeds around here.

Dean V

I have recently got a gravel bike that is 1x and must say that I miss being able to just shift to the big chainring when cresting a hill to get a big jump up through the gear range. Same in reverse when coming to the bottom of a hill climb. Di2 would be a bit better as you could just hold your finger on the button but still I prefer to swap chainrings.
Front shifting is very slick nowadays and I also very rarely drop a chain.

bonz50

just my .02, I'd say the average bike is a low end flat bar "mountain bike" that never leaves the pavement much less the neighborhood.

Doge

I'm learning I need to qualify more.
What is the average bike that is owned by the BF poster in the Road Cycling Forum?

joejack951

Start a poll.

Doge

I have for other things. I don't need to for bikes so much. I have a pretty good idea the profiles in the forums I visit.

Abe_Froman

I guess my view is that I just don't see the drive behind 1X. My intuition tells me it is largely (if not all...) aesthetics driven.

Seems like a lot of engineering and re-designing to solve a problem that never really existed in the first place. Getting rid of a derailleur just to add a clutch mechanism in the rear derailleur, getting rid of chainrings just to add sprockets in the back.

A lot of engineering just to try to achieve the same performance a 2X system delivers.

Panza

Honestly, I only use my little chainring on steeps 8% or higher and in the last 3 largest cogs. Even at gradients 10% and higher, I often choose to cross chain and grind it out.
Bring on the 1x system!

joejack951

A 'pro' time trial setup with a 53-54T big ring and a tight cassette looks good. An amateur setup, that any of us might ride, with a 42-46T 'big' ring and an 11-36/42T cassette looks ridiculous, to me. I'd much prefer that same tight cassette plus a double crank up front.

I get it. If I never had to shift up front and gave up nothing, and I mean nothing, I'd run a 1X. But that's simply not the case today. No current 1X can replicate a 50/34 double and 12/25 11 speed cassette, both range and shift spacing. A 1x17 could, though. Then again, my triple setup on another bike would be that much more difficult to match.

Abe_Froman

Plus the increased likelyhood of a dropped chain with no derallieur up front. Though i dont have much experience with new 1x's. With the different chainring tooth sizes, are they more or less likely than a deraillieur baike to drop a chain? I dont think it really matters for the road...but maybe for MTB.

fietsbob

Marketing in the Future?

redlude97

Chain drop likelyhood high: 1xnormal chainring>1xNW+normal RD>2x+normal RD>1xNW+clutched RD>1xNW+clutched RD+chainguide:low likelyhood

In my experience. Mainly with 2x for road, and 1x for mixed road/gravel and cyclocross racing. I personally use a 1xNW+clutched RD+chainguide for my race bike. Mud accumulation can push the chain off a NW chainring without a guide during a race. It is a lot hard to get back on compared to a 2x dropped chain too.

Colnago Mixte

I hear there are engineers experimenting with a revolutionary new setup, where you have still 2 chainrings, but you are only allowed to use the "small" chainring if you pay the manufacturer a hefty licensing fee, good for one hill only.

Iride01 

I think I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again. You all are basing your bias on what you know components will and won't do with currently available for purchase.

But if the new technology gave you the possibility of:

• gear ratios between 4.82 (53F11R) and 1.06(36F34R)
• what essentially boils down to one tooth transitions for commonly used range and two to three tooth transitions at the extremes
• only one shifter
• no issues greater than todays issues with noise and chain drop (I don't drop chains on my 11x2)

Wouldn't you want that?