cyccommute 

Just a note on your responses: It's easier to quote you if you use quotes rather than respond like you did. I have to cut and past your responses so that I can quote you correctly.

The 11/42 cassette isn't necessarily "easily replaced". It would depend on the gearing system that the current bike has. The derailer with the capacity for a 36 tooth low doesn't necessarily have the capacity to do a 42 tooth low. I've been down that path myself.

I don't ride 2x systems because of the large differential. I have zero interest in changing from a system with a good selection of gears to a system with a poor selection of gears. Why would I? Again, I don't adopt new technology unless it is better than the old stuff.

The cassettes are only maxed out by the derailer. There is nothing that keeps me from using the same derailer on a 3x system as what is used on a 2x system. I have just that arrangement on my current off-road bike. I have a 10 speed SRAM GX that has a 36 tooth capacity on my YBB with a 44/34/20 and an 11-36 10 speed on it. SRAM will probably tell you that it can't be done but it works wonderfully. The range is dictated by the derailer, not the shifter. I did have a SRAM XO 9 speed rear derailer on the system but it couldn't handle the 10 speed cassette.

On another bike, I actually have an 11-36 9 speed cassette (which are harder to find). It has a Shimano XTR 9 speed rear derailer that will only take a 34 tooth cassette. I added a Wolftooth Road Link (with a fair amount of file surgery to make it fit the Cannondale hanger) to give it the 36 tooth capacity. I could do the same to get a 42 tooth capacity on the YBB if I wanted but a 13" low gear might be guilding the lily a bit too much. A 15" gear is already ridiculously low compared to what Shimano says is possible.

SRAM and Shimano dictate what I can use by saying that I can't do what I have done. They also don't offer what I have done without going to extraordinary measures. For the triple, I have to use old triple fronts shifters and derailers because SRAM and Shimano don't offer those choices.

In fact, one of the things I find odd about current bicycling is that we are in an era when people are putting motors on bicycle to make them easier and/or faster to ride while at the same time making bikes without motors harder and/or slower to ride. From a marketing standpoint, there should be value in offering "normal people" the kind of gearing that I have to cobble together from bits and pieces from here and there and/or modify to make them work.

Happy Feet

I don't feel strongly enough about either system to argue which is superior but am probably more open to experimentation than some so more willing to try different things just because. The thing I like about bicycles, as opposed to sports cars, motorbikes or sailboats is the cost of tinkering is a lot less. As a pastime or hobby I can explore different designs and ideas without too big a cost.

The dropper post is a similar example. Never thought I needed one before, even while old school mtbing ,certainly not on a touring bike, decided to buy a cheap one to try on my fatbike as a sort of proof of concept, like it, tried a good one while mtbing in Moab, saw how valuable it could be and now am very intrigued by their use for off road touring. Yes, there is a weight/complexity penalty for some conditions but also a descent/climbing benefit in others. That's pretty well how I feel about 1x.
As far as the whole derailer/cassette thing goes, I even seen how that system has limitations after riding long grass with the fat bike. It fouls the derailer quite a bit and could even cause a failure in the field. For some situations I would view an IGH as the better solution even though one could argue a cost/weight penalty. Probably one day I will try something along that line.

To me, experimenting with bikes is a low barrier activity.

Leebo

The main reason I got a Krampus was the ability to run a front der. Using sram 2x11, 22/36 front and 46/11 for the cassette. 1x works fine for mt biking, need more range for my loaded bikepacking. My 3x9 works great on the Karate Monkey. YRMV. I like to use what I want, not what some racer or bike maker thinks I should be using.

Happy Feet

Just a note.
I swapped out the 10 speed 11/36 cassette tonight for an 11/42. The bike has a SRAM X5 long cage derailer and I was curious if I would need a wolftooth. So far it shifts through all gears and is ready for a test ride.
Not strictly part of the 1x question but I was excited

Carbonfiberboy 

Cross-chaining arguments have no merits on either side. Not an issue.

1X is the worst possible choice for touring. The limiter when touring is climbing long grades with a load. The thing the tourist wants most on long climbs is close ratio gears, the closer the better. The best answer is the opposite of 1X, namely the triple. And what you want in your triple is the smallest granny ring you can run and still shift well. Usually that's a 24 or 26. The small granny enables you to run a tighter cassette, which will give you the closest possible ratios. My triples have their lowest gears only 3-4 gear-inches apart. That's what you want. Lowest gear should be in the 20-30 gear-inch range depending on how strong you are and what you carry.

Gearing on the flats doesn't particularly matter as one simply rides at a speed that gives a decent cadence at a decent speed. Not a race. Climbing is another story.

Happy Feet

Wonder what the difference is between a 1x derailer and 1x IGH. You know, like taking the gear range afforded by a wide range cassette and stuffing it into a hub propelled by a single chainring...
Seems a lot of people get along just fine using them for touring.

Pros of doing it via IGH: compact design, less likely to damage.
Cons: Cost more, heavier, can't repair easily in the field.
Similarities: Both are 1x systems.

Tourist in MSN

I have toured on a IGH (Rohloff) bike and on several derailleur bikes with triples and eight speed cassettes. I am not really sure what your questions might be, but I probably have either the answers or an opinion.

A few years ago someone on this forum asked my opinions via private message about touring on a Rohloff. Later I put those private messages into a single post on this forum later, that post is here and describes what it is like to tour on a Rohloff for someone that is used to touring on derailleurs:
https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/1...l#post21144689

A few things I did not mention in that post.

- The Rohloff uses an eight speed chain, but i think that some have used a single speed chain with no ill effects. I think chain life is better with a Rohloff than with derailleur systems because your chainline should be better and is always constant.

- Rohloff is not maintenance free, you need to change the oil every year. Oil is not cheap, but I bought the 250ml bottles, that is good for a decade of oil changes. Other than that, minimal maintenance other than chain lube and cleaning. I have not needed to do a lot of adjustments on my derailleur bikes either, so I would say that maintenence effort and time is similar to both bikes.

- My bike uses an eccentric in the bottom bracket shell for chain tension, I do not have a cage hanging down from a derailleur. For road touring that generally is not an issue, but you occasionally hear of a derailleur cage that went into the spokes or impacted on a rock for mountain biking or off road touring. Photo with the eccentric is above in post 19 in this thread.

- Rohloff was designed by a guy that went mountain biking one time where there was a lot of loose dry sand, perhaps beach sand. That totally clogged up his derailleur system, so he decided that a IGH was needed instead. He then got to work designing the Rohloff hub. Thus the Rohloff hub was originally designed for mountain biking, not touring, but I suspect most Rohloff users use them for touring.

- A 1X derailleur system, if you are unhappy with your range of gears on your cassette, maybe you can get a different cassette with a different range. The gears in a Rohloff are what you have, you can only change a chainring to move the entire range up or entire range down.

Yeah, the Rohloff is heavier, but when you are touring, does it matter that much?

Happy Feet

Interesting stuff. What did your Rohloff cost? I would like to try one one day, or perhaps one of the newer SA's.

I suppose my question was somewhat rhetorical though as others were suggesting 1x to be poor touring choice. Somehow, if it drives an IGH it's ok, with many expedition grade bikes using them, but if it drives a cassette it's not? I dunno, seems like a disconnect there somewhere.

Tourist in MSN

I ordered my Rohloff from Germany in 2013. I think I paid a bit under a thousand USD, the paperwork I have on the order is in Euros and I do not recall the exact exchange rate at that time. Occasionally the German sellers stop selling Rohloffs to USA customers, not unlike when Ortlieb quit selling to USA customers because the USA Ortlieb distribution system complained that their profits were undercut by the low cost European sellers. My only point here is that it might be an unreliable source if you suddenly decide to buy from Europe. All the paperwork in the box was in German, but the instructions are on line so that was not a problem. I think I saved about $500 USD by buying from Germany. I expected to have to pay customs duty but I was pleasantly surprised that I did not. If you buy one, make sure that the wheel builder reads the instructions, for example they specifically tell you not to use 3X lacing.

I made a point of my chain tension being a bottom bracket eccentric. Many people that put a Rohloff on a frame that was not designed for it need a chain tensioner that looks very much like a derailleur, it is best to get a frame that does not need that for chain tension.

As I noted, for touring if my gears are as low as I want them for steep hills, then I lack the higher gears and spin out on the shallow downhills. My point here is the total range, which for a Rohloff is 526 percent. And when the designer of the Rohloff designed it, he put in a lot of effort to make sure that each up shift increased your gearing about 13 percent, so each gear change will increase or decrease your cadence by a very predictable amount, it is difficult to do that with a cassette.

The first post in this thread described a 1X system as 11/42, that is a range of about 382 percent. And that only used 11 gears.

My 14 gears on my Nomad with a 36T chainring and 16t sprocket are shown in the following graph. This is the gearing I use for touring or mountain biking, based on a 57mm wide 26 inch Marathon Extreme tire. A gear of 16.2 gear inches gives me a speed of 3.5 mph with a cadence of 72. I need about that much speed to maintain vertical and directional stability, but I spin out on the shallow downhills because I lack the highest gears.



Graph below shows my gearing with a 44T chainring instead of 36, that is what I use for around home as i do not need the super low hill climbing gear when the most weight I put on the bike is my gym bag and a grocery pannier.



For comparision as I mentioned above I also tour with a derailleur bike, a triple (46/42/24, half step plus granny) and eight speed cassette (Sram 11/12/14/16/18/21/26/32). I avoid the two most cross chained gears on each chainring, thus I have a total of 18 gears that I use. The graph below does not show the redundant cross chained gears, only teh 18 that I use. Chainrings are color coded, the key is on the right. This is with a 40mm wide Schwalbe Marathon 26 inch wheel. This gearing gives me a full range of 558 percent, this is slightly wider range than my Rohloff. I do not load this bike down as much as my Rohloff bike, thus the lowest gear can be a bit higher. And the half step gearing gives me a lot of close gears in the middle range where I spend most of my time. My lowest few gears are much farther apart, but I spend so little time down in those gears I do not need more choices. I probably spend most of my time when touring with a load on beefy tires in the mid 50s to mid 70s for gear range, this gearing gives me lots of gears in that range.



My Lynskey Backroad has an identical drive train to the above, but that has 700c wheels, so my gearing on that bike is nearly identical but slightly higher that the plot above.

And since I am plotting up gears, my rando bike, below, which never carries more that a pannier or two of groceries can have even higher gears since I never have to carry a heavy load up a hill, this uses the same eight speed 11/32 cassette as my derailleur touring bikes, but uses a road triple with 52/42/30 chainrings that are one and a half step. On this I also avoid the most cross chained gears, thus only use 18 gears. This gives me some higher gears that I can use to build up momentum on the downhill side of a valley and carry part way up the other side. But this only has 504 percent range from lowest to highest gear. I spend most of my time on my rando bike between low 60s to high 80s for gear inches, so this gives me a wide choice of gears in that range.



I have never seriously looked at a Pinion bike, but the 18 speed Pinion has a total range of 636 percent, so they have a much broader range of gearing.

When you compare my plots above between the Rohloff and the triple eight speed cassette systems, one point that is apparent once you think about it is that my Rohloff does not have as wide a choice of closely spaced gears in the gear ranges where I spend most of my time. That is a disadvantage of the Rohloff bike. And that is why some tours that i go on are with a derailleur bike. My Florida tour where everything was flat (other than bridges), I probably used about four gears for varying windage, but with my Rohloff bike would likely have only used one or two gears.

The 11/42 11 speed 1X system mentioned in the first post has a range of 382 percent. My road bike with a 50/34 compact crank and an 12/29 cassette has a range of 355 percent that is not much narrower than the 1X. And I certainly notice how narrow that range is in hilly terrain.

So, in my opinion, the big disadvantage of the 1X system is the narrow range.

When I came home from a five week tour this past summer where I only shifted my Rohloff which has one sequential shifter and started riding bikes with triples again, that took a while to get used to. But I see that as probably the biggest plus of a 1X system, like my Rohloff it is a single sequential shifter and you do not have to think about which shifter to use when you want to shift, you only have one.

I have never damaged a derailleur from hitting a rock or other object that is close to the ground, but that I am sure is a limiting factor on how big a cassette can get. And I do not have to worry about derailleur damage when I am in the middle of nowhere.

I use chains, not belts on my Rohloff, but some Rohloff users would say that one more advantage of a Rohloff is that you can use a belt.

In the photo below of my Rohloff bike, I am using the 44T chainring as a bashguard on the crankset, chain is mounted on the 36T chainring. And there is no derailleur to damage.

djb

the more I think about this topic, the more I figure that if I'm going to use newer groupsets with more speeds, and most likely a certain amount of less drivetrain life (not a huge deal as others have mentioned, within reason)----heck, I want to take advantage of smaller jumps between shifts.

saving X 100 grams or a pound or whatever just isnt an issue, and I'm not racing offroad.

having biked so much with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 speed systems, and sometimes having slightly or more than slightly annoying percentage jumps between certain shifts, heck I want to have nicer closer shifts, especially on a heavy ish bike.
Its easier on the legs, easier on the knees and nicer to ride and getting older, I'll take any advantage I can get.

Tourist in MSN

That is exactly why I set up my two derailleur touring bikes with half step gearing (plus granny), in the mid range where I spend most of my time I have closer gears with the "half steps". That was quite apparent from how flat the curves are in the mid range on my graph above for my derailleur touring bike.

After I wrote my exceptionally long post above, i was curious how big the jumps would be on that 11/42 11 speed 1X system. So, dug out the calculator. If each gear shift was of equal size in percentage terms, up shifting from one gear to the next would increase your gearing by 14.3 percent if each gear change was equal. They obviously won't be equal because the small number of teeth on each cassette, but they are likely close. The average size of those shifts at 14.3 percent on the 1X system are slightly bigger than the 13 point something percent shifts on a Rohloff, probably close enough you might not notice the difference between shift size on the 1X vs the Rohloff.

But I really want the wide range too, close gears are nice but a wide range for the total system means you are less likely to be struggling up hills or spinning out downhill.

Happy Feet

What I have enjoyed about this thread is that, no matter where one places a value, some interesting points of consideration have been discussed.

For me, a narrow range cassette isn't as attractive as a wide range. More than feeling a lack or being able to find the perfect gear on tours I more often wish for a lower gear on long sustained climbs. Paired with a decent high end I jones for as low as I can go.

Riding a few different bikes, from FG, SS to 1x5, 1x8, 2x10 and 3x8, I'm used to using whatever gears are there. I'm not that fussy so anything over one gear to me is a blessing. I never desire 10 or so tightly clustered in the mid range. But, of all the things I've done on bikes I never raced competitively so that instinct to find the perfect cadence isn't very developed.

I also like things I can fix myself and, as with every sport or pastime I've undertaken, I have a keen interest in simplicity of design, so that is always attractive to me, whether it's minimal camping, vintage equipment diving or alpine climbing. Less is more, while still being practical is my motto.

djb

Hey hap, good take on it.
while the percentage jumps on my 11-34 9 speed are fine, the 10 spd 11-36 on my wife's bike has just slightly closer shifts at times, so I figure a 11 spd 11-34 or 36 will even be a bit closer... certainly not tight spaced, but for me it would be fun to have.
But as you say, lots of interesting views here but I admit I'm a nerd with this stuff, so enjoy the blah blah always.

cyccommute 

Your desire for a low gear and a high gear are the very reasons I rail against the 1x and 2x systems that we are stuck with today. They simply don’t offer what works well for “normal” people. I

I have a good low gear (15”) and a good high gear (115” and 108”, depending on the bike) on all of my loaded touring bikes...as well as many of my other bikes. SRAM and Shimano say that we can have the gears we want because they don’t think that we even need those gears so I have to go to extraordinary lengths to get those gears. I’m currently using...and collecting...cranks with 94/58 BCD from the 90s because they aren’t made anymore. I’ve even modified Shimano 104/64 BCD cranks for 20 tooth inner chainwheels to get those gears. I haven’t gone to 42 tooth cassettes because they weren’t available when I started doing this and they won’t mate up with the shifters I use...flat or drop bar...anyway.

Shimano used to offer across platform compatibility but they removed that possibility long ago. It’s a shame. SRAM offers across platform compatibility but they don’t offer shifters which will do what we touring cyclists may want to do. Another shame. Both will tell you that want I have is “impossible”. It’s not. It just requires a bit more work and ingenuity.

DropBarFan

Sorry for the late reply: It's the Shimano GRX BL-RX812 Sub Brake Lever, only $130/pair !

Tourist in MSN

Better late than never.

I am content to stay with cables for shifting and braking. It works, is reliable, easy to fix with a minimum of tools. I can see the advantages of hydraulic for competition, but touring, I am not competing with anyone. I have had dust and mud cause some friction in cable systems, so I admit that there is another advantage to hydraulic systems. One day I had so much mud clogging up my rear V brake, it stopped releasing, so maybe there are rare times that a hydraulic system is more reliable?
If hydraulic systems work great for others, that is great. But, I am sticking with cable.

Last weekend at a swap meet, I picked up a used pair of interrupter brake levers for 31.8mm bars for $5 USD.

DropBarFan

Can't beat the price. Actually I think hydraulic brakes make as much sense for touring bikes as racing bikes. Tourists ride long hours, have more weight to stop plus we're usually older so the finger-tip ease of hydro could be much more comfortable on descents. Additional cost for a potential touring groupset to include hydro is low, maybe $100-$200. I would guess that touring bikes with hydraulic brakes will be common 10 years from now; it took a long time for cable disc brakes to become standard on touring bikes.

dwmckee

I would not stretch a 105 to a 36 tooth cassetet unless maybe with a Wolftooth to lower the derailleur. That is quite a stretch and I do not think that cage is designed to get low enough to fit under that big cog. Oy touring bikes have 30-34 as lowest gear and I live in PA and find taht plenty low. I am 60 years old too.

dwmckee

This appears to be beyond reasonable stretch limits. Your derailleur pulley is right up against the cassette and that will make for poor shifting. You need to lengthen the chain and drop the derailleur down with a Wolftooth link if you ride this way.

mstateglfr 

Perhaps you feel the need to state that it is recommended to stay within the established parameters shimano set because you own a shop. If that is the case, you should say so.
If that isnt the case, then you are just giving terrible advice and it should be noted it's terrible advice since people google these thing and read responses.

A 36t cog works perfectly fine on a shimano 105 5900, r7000, and rx8000(or whatever the tension one is) rear derailleur. It has been done over and again on bikes that are steel, carbon, aluminum, qr, ta, and anything between. It's well established and has been replicated on all sorts of brands.

36t is just 2 more cogs than the officially stated limit and shimano rd's are historically able to handle more than the stated limit for both overall capacity and cog size. 2 more teeth not only isnt a big deal, it isnt even a small deal. It's a non-issue.

Perhaps the B screw will need to be adjusted.
Perhaps a longer B screw is needed.
Perhaps a Roadlink is needed(hey, you got something right).

Usually it's the first, sometimes it's the second, and rarely it's the third.

I actually used a Roadlink on my gravel setup for a few years with an 11-36 cassette and 5800 rd, until deciding to drop the Roadlink. It continued to shift perfectly without even needing a longer B screw.


As for you being 60 and only needing a 34t cog- congrats man. It's great to hear what works for you when you are touring. Please understand that what works for you may not work for everyone. In those cases, they can use an 11-36 without issue.

Happy Feet

No I don't. That was done a while ago and it shifts and rides fine. I havent been on my road bike since fall and ride this one regularly off road, mtbing and on gravel.

Trevtassie

I don't get along fine with mine, I ended up putting an internally gear front crank on my bike to widen the gear range. My partner is slower up hills so I need lower gears to keep pace with her. When rolling down the other side I needed higher gears so I could pedal to overcome the freewheel drag from the IGH, otherwise she'd roll right on by me. So the bike is even heavier. At some stage I'd like to try the Pinion system, nearly did this year, but they are expensive and I'd need to mod the frame to suit.

Trevtassie

Just on the matter of gearing, her bike is 20 30 40 front and 11 40 rear. 9 speed, so something like 726% gear range,mine is 830%

Tourist in MSN

That is huge range. The widest total range I have ridden was with a road triple with an after market 24T granny gear (52/42/24) on my 11/32 eight speed cassette on my derailleur touring bikes before I switched to half step gearing. Total range was 630 percent, on my 26 inch wheel bike the highest and lowest gears were 121.9 and 19.3 gear inches.

I decided the highest gears, although nice on long shallow downhills were not used enough to keep them, thus switched to half step for more mid range gears. That change dropped the total range to 558 percent.

Happy Feet

I was thinking that's a huge range too.

On my old touring bike I had 42/32/22 with an 11-36 and the fat bike had 36/22 and 11-36 as well. What most people would consider good enough but I added both an 11-40 and 11-42 respectively. Mostly I find I don't want for a higher end gear when out touring nor do I find I miss lots of gears in the middle (maybe because I ride an eclectic mix of bikes including a FG and am just used to whatever I have). Because I tend to ride hilly terrain all day with few stops the downhills are more of a break than a chance to max out speed. What I find I notice most is the lower end, especially with a load, and wish I could just drop a little lower when doing steep hills.

I guess, my point is, while one may wish for a large range cassette or a pinion drive or internal gear front crank that doesn't really represent the majority of people out touring on stock builds. So many people tour on straight up IGH's that I think one could say they get along well enough just as they get along with the standard gear range of a touring cassette and crankset.

I'm not pushing for 1x for most road builds as there really isn't a need for the benefits it provides. The shifts are more discreet and further spaced apart (time wise) to allow working the front crankset up and down as well as the rear. But for some people, there is a beauty in the simplicity that it affords when shifting a lot, or focusing on trails, or working a dropper post (for example). In those cases I almost always either keep it in the large chainring (on flat ground or downhill) and go up and down the cassette, or the small ring (on up hills) and go up and down the cassette. I rarely bounce back and forth on the chainrings while also going up and down the cassette looking for smaller jumps.