Tourist in MSN

I did that for a short time on my folding bike. The frame is designed in such a way that a front derailleur can't be mounted.

Bought a used double crankset and tried it, but it was too much of a hassle to stop and shift the front with no derailleur. Went back to a single chainring and put a three speed IGH that also had a free hub on it (Sram Dual Drive) instead.

I do not understand why you see this as preferable to having a shifter. I would think you could add a shifter to the handlebar for your dropper post. Or, if your bike has a downtube shifter boss brazed on it, use that with a friction downtube lever. I am using a front friction downtube lever on my rando bike, it is a lot more convenient than stopping and manually shifting the chain over.

Sorcerer

My basic reply is that as a bike commuter I became tired of shifting the chainrings up front while at the same time became a single speed mountain biker.

​​​​​​I also developed a tendonitis from the front shifter, it was the barcon on the end of a drop bar.

​​​​​​Additionally, and made worse by suboptimal cable routing schemes of the frames I rode, I would have to change the cable, ferrules, and housing more often than I'd like.

We used to tandem road ride a lot too, with a triple, and when it came down to riding a single bike I actually liked the big jumps between gears vs a finer spread.

It is true double chainrings with a front mech are probably the better system overall. At least that's my opinion.

I have to say I am truly considering putting a front derailleur on a bike again.

mstateglfr 

Between using a device designed to cleanly, easily, and quickly move the chain between rings and you stopping the bike, getting off the bike, and physically moving the chain between rings while getting your fingers dirty...yeah using a derailleur is without a doubt a better system. Like not even close.

If you shifted so frequently that you developed tendonitis from a bar end shifter, then your current way of doing things means you are getting off the bike every 200' to change the rings(assuming you shift as frequently as before). Not trying to bring you down or anything, that just seems...odd.
But regardless, if you dont have the bike with poorly routed cables and shifting is easier now, then yeah an FD is for sure good to have.

My Shimano friction shift bar end shifter is really easy to move up and down, and the cable and housing last a long time. I probably dont change it as often as I should, but with friction shifting, its not like poor shifting prompts me to change the housing...poor shifting would be entirely on me.
If you are going to continue to use a 2x system, just get STI shifters. They are incredibly easy to shift(effort/push) and you dont have to worry about tendonitis from a bar end shifter.
Or if you want to consider something slighty different- Gevenalle shifters. I had some for 6 years on 2 different bikes and loved em. They are bar end shifters that are mounted on the brake lever. Super simple, super reliable, and still friction shifting for the front(you can set it for friction on the back too, if you want).

Sorcerer

Yeah poor shifting technique! The way I used to ride like it was race from one red light to another!

​​​​​​As a mountain biker I am very happy with straight or alt bars on most of my bikes and have the requisite 11 and 12 speed stuff on them.

The way I use the manual double ring is keep it in the big ring except for difficult long climbs. We always take a break at the top of passes and long descents and moving the chain only takes as much time as taking out a bottle and drinking.

I try not to hurry anyway. For me, speed is what happens. I try not to force it. I let gravity take me

Tourist in MSN

Photo from my rando bike. I built this up in winter of 2015/2016. Rear shifting is with a Campy brifter, but I did not have a front brifter to use. Was not sure what to use for shifting the front as my end point. Initially, as a temporary measure, I just put a downtube friction shifter on it, but it has been so many years now that I no longer think of it as temporary.



No ferrules, no housing problems. But in my case, the vintage cable head had a different shape than modern road shifter cables, so that was the only hiccup.

ve9vic

11 speed, I had two chain links, took me a little time to adjust everything,but now it is good shifting and I got chainring 46/30 with cassette 11/46

Tourist in MSN

Great.

phughes

None that I can think of. I'm curious as well.

rekmeyata

Touring bikes mostly use three chainrings, with a single chainring drivetrain, you’ll have to sacrifice some high or low gears compared to 2x or 3x making it much more difficult to climb mountain roads on a heavy loaded bicycle. Single chainring setups tend to be best left to light touring loads doing relatively flat tours with some hills, but not mountain grades.

One of the reasons I selected the Masi Giramondo touring bike was due to its gear range, it had the lowest gear range of any touring bike I found, the rear cluster is a 10-spd with 11-36 teeth, the front has 44/32/24T chainrings, which means I have a granny gear, this is so low that if I climbing a steep grade with a heavy load and I can only muster 30 rpms in 36 and 24frt I would be going at around 2.6 mph with 700x38mm tires. So far I haven't had to go down that low on needs bases, I did it for fun just to see, but due to the hill not being great I was spinning out. While trying to climb a steep grade only doing 3 mph would take some time, but you're not blowing out knees or forced to dismount and walk.

If you are doing offroad touring, you "might" be better off with a single front chain ring for reliability. While you could be climbing steep grades, very few offroad people will pack more than 45 pounds of gear, with most around half that, whereas a road tourer will be packing at least 50 pounds, I pack around 60, most people I've run into pack around 75, a few will go upwards of 110! I can't imagine hauling 110 pounds around; so, on a road bike touring with more weight and encountering steep grades you will need 3 ring gears up front. Of course, a road touring person could go ultralight like an offroad bike camper would do, then the need for 3 rings wouldn't be necessary.

I never knew I was below the average carry weight till last year, I thought I was running on the heavy side of average because some stuff I have is not expensive ultralight stuff, just average priced stuff. My tent weighs 5 pounds, most people's tents weigh 2.5! I also have a heavier mat than what a person can buy. Everything else I use is probably on par with other people's stuff, but other road tourers will carry panniers front and rear, plus handlebar bags, I only have rear panniers and a handlebar bag. I guess I just carry a bit less stuff than most. I said all of this so you can see the weight potential and what you could be facing so you can hopefully decide on what gears would best suit you.

To be safe I would suggest having more gears than you think you might need because you never know when you might wish you had them.

chief9245

There's no right answer to this. There's way too many variables. You have to figure it out yourself what works best. What type of fitness do you have? Do you have a lot of hills where you live or plan to go? Etc., Etc. I'm 58 and never did a tour of any type in my life, not even a weekend thing. I did a 10,520 mile perimeter tour of the US last year for 323 days on a 1x11, 10-42 cassette and a 38 tooth chainring running a 650b dynamo wheel set with 47mm WTB Byways. Went through the Adirondacks, the Rockies, and the Cascades with no problem. Pacific coast highway is stunningly beautiful with perpetual up and downs, had no problem. The flats in the desert and the plains states, I had more than enough gears to cruise right along. Through trails and technical sections, the simplicity was key. The simplicity of a 1x is definitely a bonus, plus there's a little weight savings.

djb

hey chief, how often did you change out the chain? I know chain life depends on lots of factors and can vary quite a lot from rider to rider and specifics (lots in rain, on dirt roads, fenders or not, how well you keep drivetrain clean and lubed), but I'm curious to your 1x11 experience, as that is a heck of a lot of kms, 17,000 of em.

rekmeyata

VeloNews has lab tested the resistance of both 1X and 2X drivetrains, and the conclusion is clear: "2x is the most efficient across all gears (96.2% vs 95.1% drive efficiency). The main reason for the higher resistance is greater chain angles from the chainring to the cassette, which results in the chainplates scraping harder on the cogs."

You can read about this stuff here, but there is word of caution when you read this article I'll post. And that word of caution is "marketing". The market forces want us to buy the newest and greatest thing, so they'll push that extremely hard and make everything else sound like junk in comparison. And in this article I going to give you it will say what I posted above, but it will also say this: "2x chains wear out faster than 1x chains. You’ll have to replace the chain, cassette, and chainrings more often." Did you catch a problem here yet? In one statement they say that the greater chain angles will result in chainplates scraping harder on the cogs, then says in 2x you have to replace the chain, cassette, and chainrings more often, well which is it? One of those statements is a marketing lie, and that is the last statement! Anyone with half a brain can see that a chain with only a 1x setup twists more to reach either extreme in the rear cluster, and twisting is more harder on a chain than riding closer to a straight line would be, it would also mean that as the chain goes into those more extreme angles the smaller and taller cogs will wear out faster, and the chainring will wear out faster as well because it has to deal the deflection of the chain. What I said agrees with the first statement that this article says, so here is the article:

1X Vs 2X Drivetrain: Pros and Cons - Where The Road Forks

While on a MTB a 1x would be more durable but that's because you'll be banging it like crazy, a bit different thing going on with MTB vs a road bike. Even with that, you will still get accelerated wear on the chain, cluster, and chainrings. So you have to weigh out which is more important, one less fail point when riding hard, or components last longer, if you're not doing downhill racing I don't really see why someone would want a 1x setup unless you have issues with chain drops due to very rough off road conditions such as downhill racing.

They have been using 2x and 3x on touring bikes for a very long time, and people rarely have a problem with the front derailleur.

But read the site I gave, decide which is best for you.

djb

Preaching to the converted. I've always been rather aware of chain angles, probably mostly because I'm more of a mechanically sympathetic driver, motorcycle rider, cyclist, and I've been riding triples for eons and don't cross chain out of habit.

My question to this fellow was just to see what real life 11 spd 1x chain life is like, although I'm very aware that that completely depends on how one treats their drivetrain.

rekmeyata

Unless a rider rarely uses the extreme ends of the gear cluster, no matter how one treats their drivetrain and use all the gears you are going to wear out the chain and gears much faster, it's about the chain stress, and that stress being applied to the gears. You could be the most careful rider in the world and you are not going to overcome that problem UNLESS all you use is the middle portion of your gears

Tourist in MSN

Some people do not worry about wear or chain life, etc. To them simplicity in operation is the deciding factor. A 1X system has one shifter, you sequentially shift up and down without having to think about which shifter to use or how to avoid cross chaining.

I am not one of those people.

That said, I have a Rohloff touring bike and two derailleur touring bikes. Four years ago when I came home after a five week tour on my Rohloff bike with it's sequential shifter for all 14 gears, it took me several long rides on a derailleur bike with a triple to get used to thinking about using two shifters and how to avoid cross chaining again. That takes a bit more mental effort that I am happy to do myself, but some would prefer to avoid that.

People that do not care about wear or lifespan of components do not need to think about cross chaining. To them every possible gear is there to be used. And those people may be happiest with a sequential shifter, provided it gives them the range of gears that they desire.

And I think one thing we can all agree on, most bicyclists that tour on a bike do not replace chains and cassettes themselves, they hire a bike shop for that kind of maintenance. And many of those people are the same people that would prefer a single sequential shifter. Until they find out how much a new cassette and chain costs, when a mechanic replaces them, at which time they wish they had a 2X or 3X system.

Thank you for the link on 1X vs 2X or 3X systems.

djb

also think of it this way -- a 1x is going to also put a lot more chain time on just a few cogs, on top of the chain angle being more. I have a friend who bought a 1x bike a few years ago, and would wear out the chain and cassette too, mostly because the 11 and 13t cogs were used so often. I generally go 4 chains before a cassette change is needed .

On a triple, we tend to used the half way to smallest cogs with the big ring, the mid ring uses most of the cogs except the extreme ends, and the small ring again uses the biggest cogs to maybe the middle-- so the cassette gets used more evenly, in my opinion and experience.

but this is why I was curious about this 1x 11 spd setup, given the guy did a million kms. I have read that newer chains are better for life, but again, why I was asking.

I also have friends who treat their drivetrain like crap, so on any bike, even in relatively good riding conditions, if you let your chain and everything get gummed up with dirty grinding paste, stuff is going to wear more quickly, it aint rocket science.

djb

and despite what Ive written, if a 1x works great for a type of riding, thats great. I love mine on my fat bike with the slow speeds and challenging riding in such fast changing surfaces and gradients.
Personally for what I do, a nice double with a 11 speed would be great, taking advantage of a tighter cassette with smaller jump percentages between gears, but still giving a good wide range of gear inches that works for me in all my real life riding.
I also dont mind a friction front shifter, in fact I like using friction for front shifting, its quiet and elegant with a nice tactile feel in use.
I also love using sti's and trigger shifters, so there you go, I like all kinds of bike stuff, so I'm not a complete grouchy old bastard.

I don't however have a ton of disposable income, so can be happy riding on stuff that is old but rather cheap to run.

Tourist in MSN

I find that on a tour, I am using a lot of the cassette sprockets on my 3X8 systems, the extra weight on the bike means I am using the lower gears more than I do with an unladen bike. But my smallest cogs only get used on shallow downhills, which is rare. So it is the other six sprockets that get a lot of use on a tour.

But, on my randonneuring bike with a 3X8 system rarely carries more than one bag of groceries for weight, I wear out the two middle sprockets (16T and 18T) first. I use Sram 8 speed cassettes, I wish they sold extra 16T and 18T sprockets.

I can see your point on a 1X system, with 11 or 12 sprockets you probably are wearing out 3 to 5 sprockets long before the other sprockets see much wear. The vast majority of my time on my Rohloff bike on a tour is in gears 8 through 11.

rekmeyata

People that I have spoken out in the real world while I was touring and bike camping, we would get together at camp grounds to pick each other brains, and they are all against 1x setups, some were even against the belt drive system due to more complication for repairing flats, but after I taught them how to fix a flat without having to take off the wheel they were a bit more at ease. You would be surprise as to what you learn talking with others, I learned a lot by doing that over the years. Even on forums, which can be questionable because I get the feeling that some people in forums are fakes, but I digress, you will get a larger response in favor of 3x, or belt, but even with belt they say you are limited to gears.

Also, something I failed to mention in my earlier comments, is that if a person is young, strong, no joint issues, a 1x could work, thinking back when I was first racing all we had was 10 speed systems and we climbed mountains using corncob gearing!! I wouldn't dream of doing that now that I'm 70 even on a unloaded bike! Also some people have joint issues and they need a lot of gears with very low ratios. It's easier to climb stairs one step at a time vs two steps at a time.

Keep in mind that touring on 1x vs 2x or 3 could also depend on the terrain, if you know all you have to deal with is flat land and rolling hills then you could be fine, but if someday you want to go beyond that area where you might encounter steep grades and mountains, then your bike should be ready to handle that now instead of later having to buy another bike to do it because you failed to plan ahead, or cancel doing such a trip because you didn't plan for such an event...unless you're independently wealthy and buying another bike is a non issue.

Tourist in MSN

My Rohloff bike is chain drive, not belt, but I can't imagine that removing my rear wheel would be much harder if I had a belt drive. The belt would be under tension where my chain is not, so it should be a bit more difficult. But I would be surprised if that was a problem for wheel removal. The guy with the Cycling About website runs his belt quite loose. If I had to carry whatever tool they use to set the tension, I certainly could do that.

I turned 70 last month. At the gym my wattage level on the exercise bikes is clearly less than it used to be. Going there shortly, I anticipate today will be the same.

My Florida tour, I never used the granny gear on my triple, the only hills were bridge approaches. This past spring, Natchez Trace, the first several days were where hills were pretty flat, did not use the granny gear for several days there too. Fully agree on terrain. Later it got steeper and needed the granny gear.

rekmeyata

I'm not 100% sure if the bike machines at gyms are accurate on their watts, if you have a way of measuring your watts on your personal bike than go to the gym and compare it would be interesting to see if they match up. Or you could go to a different gym and ride a different brand of bike and see what the watts read out will be. I go to a private gym, and my Silver Sneakers paid for it, but it's cool because the number of people at my gym is less than 1 or 2% of those that show up at the franchise gyms, and this is a good size facility, not as huge as franchise operations, but they have duplication of all the weight machines and a lot of duplication of various cardio machines, along with free-weights, boxing, swimming etc. I never have to wait for a machine to clear, and I don't have to pay a dime! The indoor pool they have is sort of weird they only allow a person to swim the width not the length, and they keep everyone out of the deep end, I guess in case some old person drowns the lifeguard doesn't have to tread deep water to try to get a person out? Not even sure why they built the pool with a deep end since I haven't ever seen it used, but I don't like swimming in pools, oceans yes, pools no, so I haven't used it, plus they keep it very warm, at 92 degrees, again maybe for old people with joint pain?

But I would strongly suggest those watt meters are not correct, they're just a guide, they'll be correct at the fault level so you can track performance and watch your gains, but not correct enough to give you your exact wattage outputs. I had to go to physical therapy due to an injury about 3 months ago, they started me out on hand cranking thing, it showed wattage, it showed me putting out 25 watts, no big deal because it's my arms, I got to the gym and now I always start with my hands/arms, the one at the gym shows 45 watts, I seriously doubt I made a 20 watt improvement, it was a variance in the accuracy between one and the other, and I doubt either one of them is correct, so I have no idea what my actual wattage output is for my arms, but I can track gains which is all I care about, besides the arm thing is just a warm up thing I do for 20 minutes going 5 in one direction than 5 the other, the physical therapy people taught me to warm up that way first, whether they're right or wrong I just do it.

Sure, as we get older the watts will taper downward, but I bet your actual wattage is higher than the machine is indicating.

Tourist in MSN

I never trust the wattage on exercise bikes to be highly accurate. But my personal HRM (on my wrist, not their machine) is accurate.

I looked at the maint manual for the stair master, their computer assumes a generic body weight for the stairmaster, so that is really far off because I weigh more. Thus, with each step I am lifting more weight than their computer thinks I am.

The gyms that my health plan will pay for in my community are pretty minimal in what they have. But early afternoon they are never crowded.

rekmeyata

What so HRM do you use that keeps track of wattage being used?

Tourist in MSN

It does not track wattage. At the gym I occasionally (each time I change the effort level) glance at wattage from a curiosity standpoint, but I look at the heart rate closer which is why I wear an HRM at the gym. HRM is a basic one, only gives me the current number, nothing else.

chief9245

I thought I responded to this, must have been a different thread. I went through three chains. Cassette needs to be changed out now, that was a 10-42 SRAM XG-1150 and the chainring was a 38t Wolftooth that definitely needs changing.
I love the arguments and all the data people throw out with 1x, 2x, 3x, belt drive, and Rohloff hubs. There's so many variables...age, fitness, mechanical ability, etc. I did three mountain ranges, hundreds of miles of trails, sand, dirt, rock, tarmac, and hundreds of miles of desert, the whole gamut. The PCH is tougher than a lot of mountains out there, but what a treat! I did grades of up to 14-16% for over ten miles. And I'm 58. Ride what makes you happy, don't let anyone tell you x is better than y. Touring is about the experience, whether good or bad, and a learning experience. This was the first tour I ever did, and for the next, I wouldn't change a thing, I love my 1x setup.