Originally Posted by cyccommute

I'm with you. 1x systems may have a place in a closed circuit where the rider knows what to expect and doesn't need a lot of range. But out in the real world, there are ups that need a very low gear and downs that are way too long to just coast down. I don't have a 1x system and I'm not going to go to one anytime soon because, on paper, they just look horrible. The gear train in the article offers this compared to a "normal" 9 speed triple. Similar low but there's no high end.

At the beginning of time, the highest gear available for mountain bikes was a 44/14. This is an 83" gear and was frustratingly low. I found myself spinning out less than 30 mph and having to spend way too much time coasting.

The problem...on paper, at least...I have with 1x is the "either/or" nature of them. You can have a high gear or a low gear but not both. Why is that better? I can, and have, taken that triple and pushed it lower. Add a 36 tooth cassette cog or lower the inner ring on the crank to a 20 or both. That way I can climb anything and not have to coast for miles and miles on downhills. Plus I have lots of choices in between.

I (somewhat) get the simplicity thing but I feel that most people's problems with front derailers have more to do with the mechanic than with the mechanicals.