markjenn

The argument for 1x with respect to chainline is that by having the front chainring in line with the middle of the rear cluster, the worst-case chainline is much better than the worst-case with 2x and the majority of one's riding time is in the middle of the cluster where the chainline is essentially straight. But I agree that this is probably unimportant - there are some good reasons to want to stick with 2x over 1x, but better chainline is not one of them.

- Mark

staehpj1

Okay, I get it. Thanks for the explanation. My thinking was that when in the middle of the cluster any chain line issues were minimal enough to be ignored and when at the extremes you might be more likely to shift the front ring to minimize them. Not sure which is more likely to be the case and indeed it may vary with the rider and the conditions. I figure the issue is minimal enough that for me it doesn't factor at all.

FWIW, I have toyed with converting my MTB to 1X, but the principle of "good enough is good enough" has prevented me from doing so. I could keep making very small incremental improvements to the bike and each would actually be an improvement, but I'd be throwing a lot or time, money, and effort into very small improvements. If I am to look at it honestly, since my racing days are in the past, doing much to it at this point would be going well past the point of diminishing returns.

Tourist in MSN

I know nobody that intentionally cross chains with a double or triple. Everybody I now attempts to avoid cross chaining. If you avoid a couple of the most cross chained gears on each chainring on a double or triple, then a 1X will have more cross chaining, not less.

I came to that conclusion years ago when I built up my folding bike. I can't fit a front derailleur on it, so the bike will always be a 1X drive train. And there are steep uphills and shallow downhills where I want to pedal on my biggest sprocket or smallest sprocket, respectively.

But my derailleur touring bikes and rando bike all have triples and eight speed cassettes. On those bikes with triples, I avoid the two most cross chained gears on each chainring, thus when on the middle chainring I avoid the innermost and outermost sprockets, but those sprockets I use on my folding bike with a 1X drivetrain.

Thus, I disagree with your opinion on 1X systems and cross chaining. If however most cyclists readily cross chain because they are clueless, then your argument would have merit. I do not want this to be a long argument, the link I cited above in post 45 suggested that cross chaining was less of an issue that commonly believed. That article I cited however was based on tests with thin 11 speed chains, I am not sure how applicable that test would be to wider eight or nine speed chains.

My road bike with a 10 speed cassette and compact double (50/34) has redundant gears unless I avoid the three smallest sprockets when on the smallest chainring and the three largest sprockets when on the largest chainring, thus I try to avoid those cross chained gears too. But after reading that article I cited above, I might have to re-think the importance of avoiding those gears.

A side note: I did install a Sram Dual Drive on my folding bike to get wider gearing range, the result is that I cross chain less frequently on that bike, but since nobody is fitting those hubs to gravel bikes, that is not pertinent to the current topic, especially since those hubs are no longer made.

staehpj1

I think it is hard to say what the effect will be of 1x or 2x on chain line and chain life for a variety of reasons.

First it depends on the rider. As I said I have met riders who had toured halfway across the US and didn't understand how their gears worked. I doubt some of them do now 13 years later. Some riders will do MUCH better and will avoid cross chaining. Some don't know or care to learn.

Next there is the question of how much time is spent in each chain position and how much wear it generates. The bad cross chaining positions may be a very small minority of the time, but perhaps may cause enough excessive wear to be a big deal even if only brief. I don't know. It probably depends on how hard the rider is hammering on the gear. Are they spinning it? Lugging hard against a too high gear at a low cadence? It probably matters in how it affects wear.

All that said I still don't really find it a big factor for me since I get satisfactory enough chain wear on all my bikes that I never really thought of chain wear as a big worry. I will just swap chains when they show wear, it is an infrequent enough thing. So if it is reduced by some incremental percentage I am not too concerned. If I had seen the kind of wear and replacement intervals that I see some folks post about I may feel differently, but my chains have always held up well.

djb

thanks for those articles by the way, were interesting to look at.
I do however think that there is a sizeable percentage of people who cross-chain because they are simply not aware of it, dont care, or just dont get it, so for Joe or Janet, a 1x for a regular person riding now and again will be a good idea.
I've never cross chained throughout my regular cycling decades simply because you can hear the increased sound when you do it, and maybe feel the diff too, but the sound thing, ie more rubbing, just is common sense to avoid--IF one cares or notices, but again, I think the majority of casual riders do not--which realistically is the vast majority of people who buy and ride bikes once in a while.

re the article and a 11 spd chain and how the difference in resistance is very small--I very much suspect that in a perfectly clean environment this is great, but in real life, with gunged up chains like most people I know have, there will be more rubbing and wearing---which brings us back to the unanswered question of how in real life, do these systems wear out stuff faster than with other systems?
I suspect yes, but I also suspect that the diff is not that much. I have a friend with a newish but low end hybrid, 7 speed stuff, and she wore out her chain surprisingly early--but I'm sure it was a classic case of -never lubing cleaning chain
-putting too much lube directly on dirty paste already on chain
-using the small ring most of the time riding around, ie very frequent use of small/small combo, as she just doesnt get how to use chainrings properly and never thinks of it

in other words, stuff that a lot of Joe and Jane riders do, so in her case, a 1x would probably be great----BUT she would gasp at how much it would cost to replace her chain and cassette

which brings us right back to the age old balance point for TOURERS, finding that cost/performance/gear range balance point--BUT I'm not naive enough not to realize that touring bikes are a blip in the bike sales numbers, and gravel etc is certainly the new selling thing, let alone just regular old bikes that regular people want to use to occasionally use.

and as Staep put rather smartly, what decides what is sold in a market does come down to us, ie what people buy, so if 1x are selling fine, then the market will make them and put them on more bikes, and as always, the costs of parts will come down.

djb

Staep, just saw your last comments--good points, and I tend to agree on the wear thing. Especially how that a lot of times, the extreme cross chaining wont be happening that often time wise, ie not that much wear going on.

for me, from a touring view and someone who admittedly is quite the gearing nerd, my concerns will always be
-a range of gear inches that works for me for the given application (type of riding, terrain, weight of bike+load)
-the percentage jumps between shifts (again, depending on type of riding, terrain, bike weight--and making percentage compromises to a CERTAIN point if a wide gear inch range is needed)

Tourist in MSN

Perhaps i am not aware of how many clueless people there are that are regularly cross chaining their doubles and triples. I worked in a bike shop before getting my engineering degree, built up all but one of my bikes from parts, analyzed my gear ratios with various chainrings and cassettes, etc. Thus, I think about the mechanical aspects of the drive train. The other cyclists that I know and regularly ride with also try to avoid cross chaining, thus perhaps the population of bicyclists that I know are far from typical.

I do have a clueless neighbor that commutes on her bike in summer, she only uses the middle ring on her triple, shifting the front confuses her so she does not shift it, only shifts the rear. Maybe there are lots of others out there that are not quite as clueless as she is, and therefore attempt to shift both front and rear.

One of the reasons I prefer bar end shifters over brifters is that when I put my hand on the bar end shifter, from the position of the lever I get that mental feedback that tells me if my chain is on the small sprockets, big sprockets, or somewhere in between. That makes it a lot easier to avoid cross chaining. I have a brifter on my rando bike for the rear, I find myself occasionally cross chaining that bike because I do not get the feedback when I put my hand on the shifter the same way that I do get feedback on my bar end shifters.

I did a 20 mile bike ride for exercise yesterday, rode my rando bike with the rear brifter. Occasionally glanced down to the cassette to see where the chain was when i was on the big chainring to avoid cross chaining. But the last several miles were in total darkness and did not look at the cassette. Plus, my hands were getting numb in the cold, thus I was not thinking about drive train efficiency as much as I typically do. Thus, I might have cross chained it a few times in the dark without knowing it.

Tourist in MSN

A new youtube video just came out that compares 1X and 2X systems. This thread mentioned a few points not on the video but the video mentioned a few points not in this thread. I found it interesting.

Happy Feet

Actually a pretty honest comparison between the two. I liked it.

It touched on the shifting question off road that I wanted to express earlier but didn't quite hit.

On road, my shifting is very predictable because the inclines and declines are gradual and usually I go slowly through the range but off road the variation in grades are often faster and more pronounced so I am double shifting or more. Those bigger jumps are one circumstance when a 1x system is nice (for me) because it's just a linear up and down the cassette. With a 2x or 3x it's a little more complicated and one reason some people may unintentionally cross chain. Off road I want to concentrate on terrain and the lines through it and not a lot about shifting. Of course, those considerations are aimed at the off road spectrum or touring and not road or even groomed gravel touring.

Also like the 60kph upper limit for 1x. Uh... I can say I'm never trying to continue pedaling once I hit 60kph on a tour bike

Tourist in MSN

GCN hires former racers for some of their youtube videos. Does not matter what kind of bike, I never hit 60 km/hr on any kind of bike because my brakes were already getting hot a much lower speeds. But I am not surprised if they do.

markjenn

This is a good video - the guy who does them (and another guy he's often with) really do a great job with the narration. But while comprehensive and very fair, it fails to directly discuss the #1 reason I like 1x - simplicity in shifting. I have 1x, 2x, and 3x bikes in my stable, and I simply much prefer to have a single control for shifting. With non-1x systems, I have to pay attention to what chainring I'm using and whether the upcoming terrain suggests changing into another chainring that will avoid double-shifting or cross-chaining. It's not a big deal and I've done it my entire cycling career without complaint, but with 1x it all goes away and I love that it all goes away. YMMV.

- Mark

nun

I stopped using triples when I realized how little time I spend in the big ring. I hacked up a 42/26 in a triple using just the middle and inner rings and adjusted the BB cartridge to get the optimum chain line; that was a nice thing about screw threaded BB cartridges.

I was further convinced that you don’t need many gears when I toured in the UK on a bike with a single 40t chain ring and 23t and 16t freewheels on the back - I had to flip the back wheel over to change gears.

Now I find a 46/34 compact chainring and a big mountain cassette on the back is a good combo. I’m careful not to cross chain and the feel and certain noises tell me when to shift down. But I have dropped the chain in my 2x and I like that the 1x eliminates that. I hate having to stop usually on a hill and sometime pry the chain free from between the crank and the bottom bracket. I’m not sure tourers should worry too much about cadence and gear steps and I’m leaning towards a 1x Diverge for my next bike basically for the simplicity and to avoid chain dropping

DropBarFan

Shimano now makes GRX 1X & 2X hydraulic drop-bar levers & even an exotic inline cross lever but continues to neglect the touring market. No hydraulic 3X drop-bar shifters at all let alone a 3X9 that would let drop-bar tourists take advantage of the wide gear range of MTB drivetrain components. So we often resort to bar-end shifters yet Shimano doesn't make hydro "singlle-speed" drop-bar levers either.

cyccommute 

My point is that Shimano and SRAM have decided. There are very few triple cranks or the shifters to shift them still available. There are zero...and very few doubles... in the SRAM line. You have to start scraping the bottom of the barrel to find them in Shimano's components. Shimano and SRAM have decided for everyone what gearing we are going to be allowed to use. It's not up to the person pedaling the bike, it's dictated by the component companies. More specifically, it is dictated by the needs of the racing part of the bicycle companies.

Happy Feet

I don't think that's true.
With the advent of the internet, international on line sales, and small independent manufacturers the bicycle tourist has more choice then ever before. One example, the Wolftooth rear derailer extender that allows normally restricted systems to use 40T+ cassettes. In the old days you could not buy a solution like that (the extender or the wide ratio cassette).

Sure, perhaps the large companies offer only certain product line but they are under no obligation to serve every persons needs. And they don't have to. With the market as it exists a person wanting to go 1x 2x or 3x can do so if they really want.

It's only if one assumes the role of passive consumer looking to the major makers to feed their whimsy that one feels controlled by an industry. Otherwise, the variety and creative expression of bicycles today is mind blowing. I'm currently intrigued by the fact that someone can buy a bike like this off the shelf: https://salsacycles.com/bikes/archiv...borow_gx_eagle

Tourist in MSN

I am not sure what you meant by "exotc inline cross lever", example please?

***

I am running a brifter on the back on my rando bike, when I built up the bike I was unsure what I wanted to do for the front shifter so I temporarily fitted a vintage friction downtube shifter. Now that I have four years on that temporary friction shifter, it is not so temporary any more, I am beginning to think it will be permanent.

More and more we are seeing group sets that are designed to work as a package from all the major component manufacturers. And a lot of bikes used for touring over the years could easily be fitted with components that were not original to that group set when replacement parts are fitted, but could instead be fitted with different components. But, with the newer group sets, that will be less likely in the future.

And there are some of us that built up our own bikes from parts, often mixing and matching to get exactly what we wanted. It will be harder to do that in the future with many of the newer parts being part of a group set that was not expected to work with parts from other group sets or manufacturers. It is not just triples that are becoming an endangered species, a lot of other components that played well with other parts are getting more rare.

My rando bike that I built up in 2016 for an example has:

- Campy road triple, square taper, Mirage, 52/42/30.
- Campy bottom bracket.
- Shimano M752 rear hub, 36H. (I built this wheel in 2004 for a different bike.)
- Sram eight speed 11/32 cassette.
- Campy Veloce 10 speed brifter for rear.
- Shimano M739 XT rear derailleur.
- Campy Veloce front derailler.
- Huret (vintage brand for those of you that are not historians) friction downtube
front shifter. (The Huret bolt did not have the right thread for the frame down
tube shifter mount, instead am using a plain M5 bolt.)
- Tektro brake lever for front brake, older model that visually is nearly identical to
the older Campy Ergo brifter levers.
- KMC eight speed chain.
- SP PV8 front hub.
- Tektro CR720 canti brakes front and rear.

It was pretty easy to mix and match these parts from seven different manufacturers into a well functioning bike with an excellent range of gears. But it is getting to the point where parts are getting a lot less interchangeable. Now, seat posts, spokes and rims are about the only things left that are interchangeable with other component manufacturers.

A few months ago I bought a spare triple and bottom bracket to set on the shelf for when they get harder to find.

cyccommute 

The Wolftooth extender doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't even address the problem. A 1x with a 40 tooth small cog is still going to be limited to a fairly narrow range of gears.

If you go with old technology, you can do what you want. If you use new technology you are limited to 1x systems that don't have range or 2x systems that have gaping holes in their shift patterns. Good luck on finding a 3x system using modern components.
​​​​​​​

Okay. That's a good example. With the stock 30 tooth ring, the low is on that Salsa is close to the low I have on my triple set up. But the high is an incredibly low high. The bike is basically coasting at any speed over about 25 mph. At 120 rpm...which isn't easy to maintain for long...the bike can go 30 mph. I can pedal my triple up to that speed comfortably and can pedal it up to 40 mph if I increase to 120 rpm. That means I don't have to coast as much and my legs don't get as stiff when the road inevitably turns upward. The worst thing to have to do is to climb after a long coasting downhill.

There is also the issue of cost. Cassettes are consumables. They will wear out. Replacing a 9 speed 11-34 or even a 12 speed 11-34 costs $20 to $45 respectively. An Eagle cassette is $200 or more. Do they last 10 times longer? I kind of doubt it.

Tourist in MSN

It is intriguing, but I would never want a bike with a 30T chainring for 100 percent of the time. Bigger rings mean longer life.

Those of us that have triples all have a 30T ring or smaller for a granny gear, but we are only using those small rings for the minority of the time when we are on steep hills. That is why I have never worn out one of my 24 or 30t granny gear chainrings, although I put a lot of tension on the chain when I use it, I use it very rarely.

I wonder what my chain life would be if I used a 30T chainring all the time? You are putting a lot more tension on the chain with that setup.

Happy Feet

That bike was just an example of the diversity of off the shelf builds available today. I would imagine the lower gearing is largely due to it being a pseudo off road cargo bike. My fat bike has a 22/36 low gear and loaded it's hard to pedal up some hills.

But to the point of limited gear ranges today. In the video linked above the GRX groupset has a double with 48/31 and a narrow range 11-34 cassette. By simply adding a more reasonable lower geared cassette for touring you basically eliminate the need for a triple chainring. In some ways the triple is becoming a redundant technology because of the advances in cassette/derailer capabilities.

The cost of an occasional chain or ring is a bit of a red herring IMO. That small, infrequent expense would never influence a decision for me on what technology to use.

Tourist in MSN

I understand your reasoning, but even with only an eight speed cassette, I have lots of gears with a triple. I try to only use the six least cross chained gears for each chainring, thus instead of 24 I only have 18 gears, but they are well spaced non-redundant gears. Have been using eight speed with a triple for a decade and a half, still quite happy with it. Call it personal preference.

tyrion

Conversely, by simply adding another chainring you eliminate the need for a wide range cassette.

Happy Feet

Heck, if you add 18 chainrings up front you eliminate the need for a cassette at all and can ride a single speed.


I'm not pro one way or the other and don't have stock in the single crank set market... just saying 1x isn't that off the wall for some applications.

I think it's partly how one enjoys the pastime too. I like to ride my bikes but am quite interested in some of the technology being developed and exploring how it can fit into various scenarios. It's why I initially bought some bike packing kit after reading Max the Cyclist's (past member) posts on the subject and ventured into a fat bike as an off road tourer.

Of course, I could have continued touring with the same old traditional 4 pannier set up that served perfectly well, just as I could continue to use the same old triple crank set that also works perfectly well - but seeing how new stuff works is also interesting to me and you can't really do that if you always choose what worked in the past. There's a whole world of suspension, drive train and wheel sizing out there to be adapted to touring for those who want to explore it. It's just fun.

In reality, I pretty well had a serviceable tour bike nailed when I converted my early 90's rigid mtb with stock drivetrain. That bike did, and still could, go almost anywhere I wanted to take it.

cyccommute 

So your fat bike is overgeared. There are ways to fix that by using a lower gear...oh, wait! Shimano and SRAM have determined that you don't need those gears 'cause their racing team doesn't need them.

Herein lies the problem. The 48/31 with an 11-34 has a similar range to the outer two gears in a 3x system but range isn't everything. Look at a comparison of that set up to the same cassette with a 48/36/22 triple. The 2x suffers from the same problem that all wide range 2x suffer from. It's two different drivetrains with little overlap. Consider the 21 tooth cog on both systems. In the 2x system, there is a 22 gear inch gap and a 10 mph speed differential between the two rings. In the 3x system, there is a 15 gear inch gap and 7 mph differential. The transition is smaller in the 3x and feels more natural.

But the big problem is that the 48/31 2x system doesn't even come close to a 3x system for range because the 3x is so much lower. To get the same range as the 3x system, the 2x would have to change to a 48/22 which makes the gap even worse. Of course, you could go with a smaller outer ring but then the range is much smaller. You have the choice of having good low gears or having good high gears but you can't have both. And, considering your first paragraph, your 22/36 is too high, how does having a 25" low instead of a 16" low make anything "better"?

But, you might say, you can change to a larger range cassette. Sure. But what is keeping me from doing the same with a 3x system?

You are offering a bit of a red herring yourself. I didn't address the cost of a chain or chainring. I agree that those are fairly inexpensive and just part of riding a bike. The cost difference of the cassettes is an entirely different matter.

Happy Feet

You seem to be over complicating things by trying to suggesting some choices come with compromises as if others do not. All choices come with pros and cons. It's just up to the end user to determine which pros and cons best suit their needs/wants.

Bolding is mine.

Once again, no one said your choices, for you, were wrong.

cyccommute 

Yes, you could. But you would introduce more problems then it would fix.

Of course, 1x works for some applications. Those applications are for short courses where you don't travel very far and/or know the terrain. Most mountain bike riders don't range over hundreds of miles of differing terrain. For example, this tour ranged over 130 miles and up to 12,000 feet with grades as high as 25% (at 11,800 feet). There were places that I rode at walking speed (or even walked) and others where I was doing up to 40 mph. A 1x system would have allowed me to have a good climbing gear or a good descending gear but not both. A 2x system would have the same limitation but slightly better.

I have no problem with new technology nor with adapting to it. But it has to be an improvement over the old technology. I don't adopt something just because it is new. I adopted threadless headset technology very early because it was a vast improvement over threaded headsets. I adopted front suspension because it was a vast improvement in control...comfort is only secondary...over rigid forks. External bearing bottom brackets are far superior in ease of installation over ISIS bottom brackets which are superior in stiffness over square taper.

I also have zero problem with aluminum (or titanium) bikes when it comes to touring. My Cannondale is vastly superior to the steel Miyata it replaced. It handles better and rides better than the Miyata every did.

On the other hand, there are many things that I've rejected over the years are not being an improvement and only fads or as only minor improvements not worth the investment. U-brakes, for example, were something that I rejected as soon as I saw them. I saw the positioning of the rear brake under the chain stay as a nightmare as soon as I saw it. I haven't seen the "improvements" in braking technology as being all that much of an improvement. I still have bikes with cantilevers as well as linear brakes and discs. I cannot say that one is a vast improvement over the others. All of them stop any bike I ride in any condition. The only brake improvement I reject is hydraulics because my experience with them has been that they are far to grabby for my tastes.

I haven't embraced the 29er movement either. I don't see how making a bicycle wheel larger and thus making the low gear higher as well as increasing the energy needed to spin up a heavier, larger wheel as an "improvement". The growth of the 27.5er is tacit admission by the manufacturers that going to a 622mm rim was a bad idea. I suspect that any day now we are going to see the introduction of the new and improved 559er.

And, frankly, I've not really been all that keen on suspension when it comes to off-road bikes. Yes, my bike packing bike is a Moots YBB but the rear suspension provides only a little movement and even that can be a little annoying at times. My other dual suspension bikes are Specialized Epics which are by far much better than the first dual suspension mountain bike I owned. That one inchwormed so much that it was actually tiring to ride for more than a few miles. If the Epic could carry more stuff, I'd use it as my bikepacking bike.

Again, there is no problem with exploring new technology but it has to be enough of an improvement to be worth the investment. Otherwise, it becomes expensive to be a test bed. I'm picky about what I use and I've got enough experience with being burned by new tech to make a pretty good assessment of if it will work well or not for my applications. Take bikepacking gear as an example. For off-road touring, it's the best option of the three...bikepacking bags, panniers and trailers. I've done all three...and gotten burned in the process. Panniers, as in this example,

Rollins Pass, 8/10/85 by Stuart Black, on Flickr

worked okay but they tended to fly off at inopportune times. Newer connection systems would work better but even those are kind of floppy when the going gets rough. A trailer

DSCN0027 by Stuart Black, on Flickr

will get the job done but it has several downsides when it comes to handling. It pushes the rear up when braking...which isn't good on steep downhills...and it pushes the rear off line in corners which isn't good at speed. Over all, in my opinion, it's the worst of all choices...and the most expensive.

Bikepacking gear

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

is better for off-road but it has its own problems. I've biffed my head when I crashed on a steep downhill because I forgot how high and front heavy the system is. From a smooth road touring standpoint, I certainly wouldn't choose bikepacking gear nor would I suggest it for that kind of application.