Gonzo Bob

Yeah, I agree. But it's not because 1x has technical superiority. It's because triples are seen as wimpy just like 650C wheels are seen as wimpy, so it's all about perception.

GhostRider62

OP did not say he was on an Mtb.

He listed the 1X gears. I was responding to that.

Ever wonder why TdF TT racers mount 58 ring and 13 or 14 cog instead of 43 and 10 cog

There is a thread over on Paceline right now about 1X and pretty much anyone using 1X on the road hates it.

Phil_gretz

I've found that I'm perfectly happy (on paved surfaces) with a range between 40 and 90 gear inches. I don't really need to pedal beyond the speed where I spin out 90 g-i. At that point, I'd be coasting anyway. And, there are few inclines (that I encounter routinely) where I can't turn 40 g-i to climb steadily.

Phil_gretz

True story. My wife and I were riding a few weeks ago along a tree lined residential roadway, chatting. Suddenly, I feel and hear a "clunk" from an acorn that had fallen onto my helmet. Wife: "What was that?" Me: "Acorn on my head. What are the odds?" I'd never had that happen to me.

30 seconds later, my wife has a clunk of her own, on her head, too. The likelihood of this must be small. But it happened to us both during the same ride.

Herzlos

Triple front's made a lot of sense when you had small rear cassettes (like 5 or 6 speed) but result in an awful lot of overlap, so that 18 speed might only really give you, say, 10 different gearings.

When rears got more speeds and more range, the 3 at the front quickly became obsolete, and 2 would do the same job but would be slightly simpler.

You'll probably never get the same range out of a 1x unless you go for something nuts like a 42x 10-51.

I did like my 3x because I could essentially just leave the rear in the middle and jump between 3 pretty big increments, but now I've got a 2x on the road bike and 1x on the mountain bike (using the other lever for a dropper post) I can't imagine me going back to 3x because it gives me nothing in return for the extra hassle.

GhostRider62

i'm happy with a 39 x 32 low gear, what is that about 33 inches? I rarely use it but it is nice when it is needed. I have been trying to make a 1x work on paper for one of my bikes but it won't work to the range AND small steps at wind fighting speeds, not to mention the relatively high frictional losses with say a 45 x 10. Some bikes are faster than others but I cannot imagine anyone liking XPLOR 11-44 cassette on the road, it goes 10, 11, 13, 15....no 12 and no 14 tooth cog....what a massive hole

Maelochs

I have been staying out of this thread .... profitless.
@rydabent has his unique mode of expression. Attacking his oddities is sort of like harassing the handicapped ... (not saying he is differently abled, but he is different ... )

As for gearing .... wow. Different set-ups suit different conditions better or worse than some others. Who'd have thunk?

Not me. I don't think, thank, or thunk.

I do like riding my bikes, though.

indyfabz

No. Starting variations on a theme is his MO. Not sure why BF tolerates it.

https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...e-gearing.html

Maelochs

Yeah, his litany of rotating anti-cloud shouts ....... He's old and rides a bent, cut him some slack.

nomadmax 

Unless you're willing to ride old equipment and do the work that comes from riding non current components (ie finding/procuring), you ride what's available. I started a vociferous campaign against Shimano Indexed Shifting (SIS) in 1984 because I was convinced that no one would/could NEVER need anything but Campagnolo Super Record, friction shifting, a straight block freewheel, non areo brake levers or chainrings of the 42/53 variety. Heck, I even had/have a Campagnolo logo tattoo for good measure. Despite my arguments, that whole indexed shifting thing kinda took off.

From that, I learned a couple of things. No manufacturer cares about what I think, they care about people who are ready to spend some money on something that's new, better and/or will make them "faster" or their experience "better". Cycling lifers represent just a small portion of the bike/component buying public. Catering to them would be akin to Harley Davidson continuing to market to older riders who are aging out of riding or dying off, in the literal sense. I also learned that sometimes I'm wrong, wrong about what people will or won't buy and wrong about what is or isn't a useful improvement. At this very moment, I'm about to go ride one of my steel bikes with Campag Ergo Power shifters, 34/50 chainrings and a rear cassette the size of a pie plate compared to what I rode decades ago when I was a young, roaring lion. Whatever the future brings, I will do whatever is neccessary to ride on two wheels, even if that means riding something "I think" I'm fundamentally against. What I know for certain is that if you want to cycle for a lifetime you will do it on what's available, new or otherwise. Spending time going on about why things can't stay the same is a monumental waste of time, with no reward as far as I can see.

That said, give it a go if you want. You might be better at stopping "progress" than I was.

indyfabz

We have evidence of neither.

seypat

Personally, I think triples will make a comeback. The primary reason is we are running out of room around the rear hub. If electronic FD shifting becomes the norm, more specifically, a computer takes over FD shifting, you will see 3 maybe 4 in the front and less in the back. That will take the rear DO spacing back around 110-120 and give them room to further advance drivetrain/braking systems. It makes more sense than a 1x 14-15 system. Just my .02, I could be wrong.

Edit: From a profit making standpoint, I could be wrong.

Reflector Guy

Could maybe evolve into a sort of light-duty bicycle version of the CVT transmission that so many new cars are coming with now.

Reflector Guy

Now would be a good time for him to post a picture. He claims to be old..... But I don't recall ever seeing a picture of his recumbent.

Yelbom15

I believe a lot of it, especially new bike owners, want the peace of mind of less mechanical hassle. Besides rear derailleur hangers breaking, front derailleurs as a whole tend to be fussy.

Now I’m not saying 12 speed is greatly better because one barrel adjustment off on a 12 speed and you ruin it but if it means you have one less component to worry about and a more “spacious” cockpit without the shifter, a lot of people are going to like that.

PeteHski

I was merely pointing out that was an mtb cassette, never intended for use on a road bike. So it would be strange if the OP was talking about road bikes with that sort of gearing.

I am able to work out for myself whether or not a 1x would work for me on the road. It was definitely marginal only last year, without resorting to a bodged road/mtb setup. But there are a couple of new 1x options that would actually suit my road riding really well. For example Campag Ekar with a 44T chainring and 10-44T cassette. It wouldn’t work for everyone, but would suit my local roads perfectly.

You can get all obsessed with gear efficiency if you like, but it doesn’t really make any difference in the real world. If I was using a 10T in the rear I would be soft pedalling down a long hill anyway.

indyfabz

RecembentS. He claims to own two. One a trike.

livedarklions

At least he stopped calling everybody who says they have a comfortable saddle liars. That was some serious flat earth conspiracy theory stuff.

BobbyG

I've got one triple, two doubles and one 1x.

My triple (3x7) has the the highest and lowest gearing of my bikes and there's always a "right gear".

My doubles (2x6 and 2x8) have a large front cog for higher gearing and a much smaller cog for much lower gearing. While the wide ratio spread is nice, I sometimes can't find the "right gear".

This year I bought a 1x7 20" folding bike. I bought a very wide gear set for the back (11x48). The eleven was absolutely necessary for the hills out here in Colorado. The other six gears are more closely spaced, so I usually have a "right gear" for hi-speed to mid speed cruising. But going up hills, there is a big gap between the Granny gear and the next lowest gear.

Based on my personal experience, I think I would be happy with a 1x13, 1x12, or possibly even a 1x11 if there was a wide enough spread of ratios, with some closeness of the highest two or three ratios, and some closeness of the lowest two or three ratios.

What I thing would be really great is a wide-ratio CVT (Continuouslky Variable Transmission), like the NuVinci, but with equal or higher mechanical efficiency than current conventional bicycle transmissions, and equal or lower weight.

livedarklions

Maybe someone should just start a sensible thread about triples. 3x vs. 1x is a ridiculously pointless "argument" or whatever this is supposed to be.

OP seems to be arguing 1x shouldn't exist. Is that even worth talking about?

PeteHski

I don't know why I bother with these train wreck threads. People should just work out what gearing they actually need and not worry about everyone else.
They are just gears on a bicycle, not some f****** religion!

Germany_chris

What’s higher end?

I have a TA Carmina coming in tomorrow with a 64/104 spider, I’m going to run it as a double but it’s a triple. There’s various spiders available in just about and BCD you want.

https://www.peterwhitecycles.com/carmina.php

Phil_gretz

Wait! This isn't a religion???

INFIDEL!!!

ThermionicScott 

OP just needs to get a job. Too much time on his hands.

seypat

Maybe he could get a job working at Paradise Theatre.