Originally Posted by
cyccommute
There were full(ish) groups for touring bikes in the 80s. They got used on mountain bikes. Shimano and SRAM really screwed the pooch when they decided to change everything. Shimano going to Dynasys was just stupid and SRAM’s fascination with 1x drives me up the wall. I have 9 and 10 speed systems in both brands and I really like the way SRAM works but I’m not going to 1x.
That said, the lack of a coherent group for either I see as a plus. I push the limits when it comes to gearing range and being able to mix and match enables me to do things with gearing that Shimano never envisioned.
Although it’s hardly a news flash, I really hate wide range doubles. Yes, they have the range of a triple but they have a giant hole in the middle of the range that requires a lot of jiggering after a shift between rings to get the gear you want. It’s all herky jerky where a triple is nice and smooth. It’s almost like the people who design 2x systems have not idea how gears work on a bike.
I’d stick with the triple, use a 9 or 10 speed, and forgo that extra gear or two. The gearing is tighter and more useful over a wider range of terrain.
SRAM going 1x isn't hard to figure, their front derailleurs where never that great and maybe that was down to patents but probably down to SRAM just not really wanting to have a proper FD.
Yeah with any set up you can have gaps but I do like 1x in certain situations obviously long distance touring, no thanks but it does have a place. It will not have all the gears and that can suck but it also makes the ride interesting. A wide range 2x isn't so terrible but yes not quite as smooth as a 3x but it can be a bit simpler and still be workable. Maybe with STI levers it might not be as fun but thumb or trigger shifters aren't so bad.