Darth Lefty 

robertorolfo

I guess that depends on a person's definition of cross-chaining. If you really wanted to get crazy about friction loses, then a 2X will be superior.

DrIsotope

Absurd. Only the most fervent acolyte of marginal gains would ever put friction based on chain angle up against something like rolling resistance. And even if they did, the 1X chainline would only be more extreme in maybe 4 gears-- the top two and the bottom two. In the top two, friction doesn't matter because the hill is too steep, and it matters even less in the bottom two, because we have to ride our bikes in the atmosphere. The same soft argument could be made that 1X is superior to 2X because it's lighter-- no FD, no cable, just one chainring. My bike isn't 1X for weight. I don't care about the weight. Never been bothered by the chainline, either.

tyrion

I'd say cross chaining is inevitable with one ring, unless you avoid the outer 4 cogs.

robertorolfo

Relax, dude. I was just saying, as Lord tyrion said above, that if you consider "cross-chaining" to simply be larger chain angles, than you can indeed cross-chain in a 1x, and will end up doing it more often than in a 2x. If you don't care about friction losses, than that's fine. But as this thread has made so clear, everyone is a little different. No, nobody in here is going to be racing in the Tour next year (although some feel the need to post their strava stats, for whatever reason), but some of us genuinely enjoy and appreciate the mechanical side of the device known as the bicycle, and we might like knowing we are operating the bike efficiently, even if said efficiency isn't the key to winning a race.

tyrion

I thought drivetrain wear was the concern (more so than efficiency) when cross-chaining.

DrIsotope

If that's the case then it isn't a concern at all. Aside from an oddly poor showing by a SRAM XX-1 chain, I get 500-800 more miles per chain on the 1X than the 2X. Cassettes last longer too, though I think that has more to do with being beefy, non-lightened things than any sort of magic. An Ultegra 6800 cassette barely lasts two chains. I haven't worn out a big (10-42 or 11-42) cassette yet.

pressed001

I love the triple, on my road bike. My mountain bike has a double 44/28 with 11-36 cassette. Handles everything.

I never really understood the 1x set-ups because the range just wasn't there. You're either struggling up hill in too high a gear, or unable to achieve a decent speed in the flats. That however changed with the new boost systems which have a 10t cog. Boost is the only system that rivals that of a triple concerning range. Only down side is the big steps between gears.

For me, set up of the front derailleur on a triple is simple, it is the long cage rear derailleur that can be tricky.

Steve B.

You can also get issues with chain rub on the middle and large ring while using the granny, if you are trying to use smaller cogs. Recall that some folks just don't like to shift the front. Of course your ability to use small cogs is limited by the rear derailleur capacity, but a lot of folks just don't pay attention to such mundane stuff.

1x seems perfect for folks who find the range of an 11-46 is good for the terrain they ride, don't mind huge gaps between shifts and like the concept of making things simpler by eliminating the front derailleur and shifter. I'd rather have smaller gaps in the cogset and find the cadence I want. I'd also rather have XT Di2, but Santa is not likely to get me that this year (or next). Than I'd get a double crank and let Synchro Shift do it's magic.

tyrion

I like triple cranks - I like the range and just don't find much in the way of downsides. But 1x clearly has advantages. If you look at the Dirty Kanza winners' bikes: all 1x.

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/gear/ar...ro-bike-52378/

Dannihilator

Ok guys, keep it civil.
dannihilator
forum moderator

robertorolfo

Meh, some of those giant rear cogs look worse to me than a "dork-disc."

L134 

tyrion

But they win races.

LesterOfPuppets

Except for one XC race Van der Poel raced last year. His derailleur clutch failed, so he started running a faux front derailleur to keep his chain on just in case.

Darth Lefty 

Steve B.

It's mostly the upper end. An old XT 9 spd has its upper range as 17-20-23-26-30-34, so 3 and 4 tooth jumps. An XT 11-46 has 21-24-28-32-37-46, so 3-4-4-5-9. SRAM Eagle 10-50 is worse still, 24-28-32-36-42-50, 4-4-4-6-8. This is what folks refer to and most folks run Shimano or SRAM. It's why I would run a 2x11 and a tighter rear.

At the end of the day it's whatever works for you. I'm such a woos and never ride big hills just fast short rollers, so prefer tight clusters, using every cog on a 11-34 9 spd and my middle ring mostly. For where I predominantly ride, I'm certain I could find a 1x that would work great.

TricycleTom

This is an appalling trend. The efficiency of a chain drive drops off very steeply below 15 teeth. In addition, the smaller front chainring operates with more chain tension. This increases the power-robbing deflection directly, and wear as the square of the forces.

Kapusta

TricycleTom

Usually the small chainring is only used when nothing else will do. I can feel the whole drivetrain go soft when I halve my ratio. Most of the time, I can ride the big rings instead of living with a bad compromise all the time.

tyrion

That's another issue I imagine with road 1x - if you have a chainring around 42t, you will be spending a lot of time in the 11t cog. So you have a wear and efficiency penalty.

Kapusta

SlowJoeCrow

From experience with MTB and CX bikes, I'd say a triple for off road is pointless because you never need that wide a gear spread and either 1x or 2x are the optimum. My current MTB is a 2x9 with a bash ring in place of the outer triple chain ring and I rarely run out of gears on top, but regularly grab the granny ring. For CX single ring with good retention makes a lot of sense since any hard climbs will be a dismount and run up anyway. Also the newer 11 speed MTB groups have more than enough range for average conditions with a 34-36T front ring and that both removes a failure point and provides a convenient spot for the dropper remote.
I don't see the value of 1x for road use yet since the higher speeds combined with climbing necessitate 2 rings for enough range, although the advent of wide range 11-30 and 11-32 road cassettes obviates triples except for heavy touring bikes and tandems.

fietsbob

I think this years UCI cross country MTB race ( I saw on cable ) they ran 1 by and Full suspension 29ers..

break out that credit card , give it a workout.






....

TricycleTom

I'm a road rider, but lived for years with such extreme terrain that I used two speeds and coasting most of the time. The bike was built with 13-16-19-23-28 and 52-47-26, for a near-perfect half step 10, and then 3 granny full-steps. Now it has a 14-28 5 speed rear 'cause I'm cheap and only riding locally. Even though the top granny is a full step below the 47/28, I will accept a lower cadence in that gear than any other, to avoid the spongy feeling of the granny range.
My point is that one can save energy and wear by always riding in the largest available cogs to get the ratio you want.