Sy Reene

Fewer gears, heavier brake systems, wider wheels, heavier frames.. it's a brave new world.

Reynolds 

That's a big gap between 10 and 12.

phughes

Come to Western Pennsylvania, or the Ozarks in Southern Missouri, carry a load, and see how far you get until you're stuck, especially the Ozarks.

GamblerGORD53

I've been seeing some of those 1x MTBs on MUPs. They are going 16 mph in HIGH gear. LOL. Hilarious. The crank is 30T or something equally USELESS.
While I can go 46 mph and 133 miles on a 73 lb tour bike, with my SA RD5w. LOL
They'll take my 1x IGH out of my cold dead hands. LOL

fietsbob

1 ring front & back this one is a 2 speed crank & 3 speed hub..

Reflector Guy

I've seen a few of those on Youtube (I don't know why they keep recommending them). On a bike like that, my ol' legs will be pedalling in a blur just to keep up with Granny and the grandkids out for a ride on the straight and level rail-trails we have around here.

mstateglfr 

'Everyone' was arguing for 11 or 12 in back with a triple up front? Really?!?! Hm...i must have somehow missed all these arguments for such drivetrains...or your perception of reality is based on arguments you created.

This isnt difficult to understand.
- when drivetrains were 5, 6, 7 cogs in back, having a triple up front helped with gear range while keeping jumps small. this helped for touring bikes, mtb, hybrids, etc.
- when drivetrains were 8 and 9 in back, this trend continued because it was still beneficial for touring, mtb, hybrids, etc.
- once compact cranksets and wider range cassettes were introduced, the need for triples on drop bar bikes was reduced, especially since more cogs in back were added which solved the small jumps issue.
- 1x has become more popular for MTB and CX for simplicity. Its a bear to switch left and right shifters as you make a turn and approach a short steep climb. 1x is simply easier to get to the right gear quicker.
- 1x has become more popular for some gravel riding because people are used to it from riding MTB, people use their gravel bike on singletrack, and because a certain drivetrain company has made poor performing mechanical front derailleurs.
- 2x is popuar for road because gear jumps are small and because there is no sudden shifting- you see whats coming up and have time to shift. Same applies for a lot of gravel riding.

As drivetrains moved to 10, 11, and 12 speed, 1x became more viable since wide range cassettes with manageable jumps could be made.



Stop posting incorrect info. People google things, find your ignorant threads, and dont know any better than to think your ignorance is a valid point on an issue.

mstateglfr 

Gambler comin in off the top rope with a body slam to a drivetrain that 95% of cyclists use! He has only 1 move folks, but its always entertaining to see him work hard to pull it off!

satrain18

I’m highly doubtful anybody wants your IGHs or your 73 lb Dutch city bike, let alone, (overly) boast about it.

OldTryGuy

3 on crank, SW 5sp + 3 cog = 45 on my Bassett Racing Cruiser

Phil_gretz

I'm not a fan of triples. I have one on my tourer, though. In normal life, I never use the granny. So a 36/48 or whatever I have makes pretty good sense. In special cases, like carrying gear up mountains, I do use the 24T granny ring. Plenty. But not for everyday riding.

On my other bikes, a double is generally fine. I'm a big fan of taking a compact double and swapping in a 46T outer ring. That gives quite a useful range with today's 11-34T cassettes. I don't worry about spinning out. If I'm descending a large hill, I'm more likely to want to trim speed than to increase. But I'm old(er) and wise(r).

indyfabz

Nice!

AlmostTrick

It sure is nice that nobody has to run a gear system they don't like. Everyone's needs and desires are different, I don't understand why gearing "debates" often get so hot. Who cares what someone else likes. Anyway, a single 46 chain ring is best.

GamblerGORD53

That also describes a SA 3 speed. You would lose NOTHING in reliability or efficiency.
PLUS you would gain 2 gears for up and down hills. It certainly helped me ride all over GTA.
You would gain a LOT actually. Wizzing out is no fun.

cyccommute 

Much as I dislike defending 1x systems, it’s exactly the same gap as the 11 to 13 shift in the double. Both are 5.2m in the meters development.

Chuckles1

I'm liking my 2x9 cyclocross bike with road tires, 39/48 and 11-36. The shift of chainrings isn't nearly as dramatic as my gravel bike with 30/46 and ten speed 11-34. Somehow nine speeds seems like enough, and ten is too many. I have to look down a lot on the ten speed to see what gear I'm in. Not so on the nine speed (with gear position indicator). Maybe if the ten speed had indicators on the shifter it would seem better, but for me, nine is the best number of gears.

Was considering a road bike with 2x11 Shimano 105, but am put off by the number of gears and the 16 tooth chainring gap. I guess the gear position indicators were done away with to make room for hydraulic brake reservoir, but these 10 plus speed bikes would be much better with gear indicators on the shifter! Are you listening, Shimano, SRAM, etc?

mack_turtle

these discussions always give me a laugh. 38x16 on my gravel/urban bike and 34x20 on my mountain bike. I ride all the same stuff that everyone with huge gear ranges ride, but I don't worry about drivetrain technology changes. set and forget. I'm faster than some but slower than most. doesn't matter—I'm having fun and spending less money on maintenance and less time fussing with derailers.

cyccommute 

I disagree. Gearing always seems to have been something that is difficult for manufacturers to understand. Back in the freewheel days, shops had cog boards which allowed the customer to build whatever gearing they wanted. Cassette technology seemed to take that idea to the next level with a much easier way to build gearing. However, someone in Shimano decided that wouldn’t work and stuck us with gears of their choosing.

Triples have never been about keeping the jumps small. Only people racing want small jumps between cogs so that they can fine tune the gearing for races. Tourist and mountain bike riders wanted wider ranges for climbing up hills in conditions that most road racers would never encounter. The problem was that manufacturers were afraid of pushing the range of their derailers and gearing. That could be carrying a load or riding up steep, loose trails. Suntour experimented with a 38 tooth cog on a freewheel for a while in the late 80s with 5 speed systems but Shimano never seemed interested and thus keep the largest cog on their cassettes limited to 34 teeth. Suntour also offered micro drive which allowed for a 20 tooth inner but, again, Shimano never was interested in going below 22 teeth on their cranks. We were stuck with 22/34 gearing or about a 17” gear for ages. The Suntour system would have resulted in a 14” gear.

What really make Shimano change their minds was SRAM and 29ers. The same 22/34 combination on a 29er results in a 19” gear which is way too high most mortals to climb much of anything.

Simple but also simplistic. People have pooh-poohed triples for decades. It’s most a macho thing. I’ve had triples for all those decades and never found them to be “sluggish” on shifts, especially after the advent of ramp and pin chainrings. Downshifts require a slightly different riding style...less pressure on the pedals during the shift...but having a wide range with a decent high and a decent low has always been worth the effort.

The range of 1x is limited in most cases. For touring, there are lots of situations where being able to climb a hill is a positive but that climb is usually followed by going down another hill. 1x is too limited to allow for a really good low and a really good high. You have to choose one or the other. Triples allow for both. Doubles do too but more on that later.

I will agree that Shimano has issues with their front derailers. Their springs are too weak most times and their expensive front derailers are too clever. All the bells and whistles that Shimano puts in their high end stuff don’t do what they think they do. SRAM’s front derailers are far superior to Shimano’s but Shimano’s low end stuff is excellent.

The problem with front derailers is the way that they work. If the companies turned them around and made them high normal, the derailer would work much better. In a high normal mode (Suntour made some of these back in the 80s as well), the cable drags the chain off the high gear to the low gear under slow speed, high torque situations...just like a high normal rear derailer does. Under the low normal mode, the spring needs to knock the chain off and it has to be very strong to do so...which is why SRAM’s front derailers work better. Shimano got RapidRise exactly backwards and really missed the boat.


Gear jumps within a range (rear shifts) can be small but a triple has the same small steps as well. The jumps between ranges are where the problems arise. The shift from the outer to the inner ring results in a large cadence change on the double. A middle ring makes for smaller jumps and a more progressive shifting system with smaller cadence changes.

If all you are worried about is “manageable jumps” then 1x is viable. But if you want wide range, 1x is less viable. And, if you want “manageable jumps”, 2x falls flat on that score as well.

I don’t agree with ryanbent nor am I agreeing with him here. I abandoned the idea of bicycles having “more gears” or the concept of “10 speed”, “12 speed”, or “27 speed” gearing long ago. The number of gears a bike has is marketing and it’s lazy marketing...as well as deceptive...at that. It’s a positive that bike companies have moved away for total number of gears to a range but, especially in the 2x case, they’ve done it in the worst possible way and the result is every bit as deceptive as “27 speed” gearing.

mstateglfr 

Of course you do.

People don't want small jumps in gearing on a triple? Of course they do. Having wide jump reduces the need for a triple, so if someone seeks out a triple, its because they want smaller jumps.
My touring/commute bike has a triple for this very reason- it gives me a wide range while also giving me small jumps.

What nobody would want is a 2x6 where the freewheel is 13-17-22-28-32-36. Instead, use a triple and the jumps are smaller, which is why I said that is appealing.

I'm not getting into your gesr inch rant about 17" not being low enough for most people. Thats as deleted as what I actually deleted from your post because its too subjective to get into with you.

shelbyfv

cyccommute 

Oh, so disagreeing is only something you get to do? Silly me. Here I thought this was a discussion group.

The steps and the distance between them depend on where they are being used. The steps between gears on the back are exactly the same in a 3x, 2x, or 1x. Most people when they are discussing wanting even steps are talking about the rear cassette. If they wanted even steps in the front, they certainly wouldn’t be using a wide range 2x system. I do agree that I use a triple because it has smaller steps between the chainrings but that’s not usually part of the discussion when people are talking about having gears with smaller jumps.

I’m not sure if your list was supposed to be a link. It doesn’t work as one. All I get is my computer trying to make a phone call. Here’s a link using those gears with a old style mountain bike gearing in both a double and triple. Yes, there is a giant whole in the shifting pattern from the large ring to the inner ring on the double. But that same hole exists if you add 4 more gears. As a bonus, however, you only have to shift once on the back after shifting on the front to get to a reasonable gear instead of 2 to 3 times.

But I have to say that your 6 speed gearing isn’t all that bad for gearing. Modern gearing has concentrated on small steps between the higher gears. This might be good for racing but for the rest of us, we spend a lot more time in the middle range and/or using the lower range. Having gears that are closer together on the low end would be more beneficial than having large gaps at the low end.

Shimano has the MegaRange gearing in 7 speeds which displays the concentration on the high gearing. I would propose a sort of MegaRange in reverse. It would give the rider more choices in lower gears while ignoring the high range.

Your sentence needs a bit of editing. Let’s just say that for many years, the 17” low was standard on World Class race bikes ridden by World Class athletes. Joe Newbie or even Joe Weekend Warrior would find a lower gear a bit handy.

Mulberry20

Well get ready for 13 speed in one or two with a radical new tuneable derailleur technology using curved indexing.

Campagnolo is pretty close to launching.

The Chemist

I currently have a double up front, but my front brifter has broken and can't downshift. Realistically, Shanghai is so pancake flat that I'm not going to bother replacing it - I'm just going to remove the front derailleur and the shifter cable and run with just a single up front, since I rarely used the smaller front chainring even when the brifter was working properly anyway.