Kimmo 

It seems to apply to governments more than anything.

But bikes? Let's see... Cartridge bearings, creaky out of spec BBs, squeally dragging brakes, more chordal action in drivetrains, far less choice of ratios in spite of the growth in cog counts... But the rest is good. It's swings and roundabouts same as all the other tech.

Electronics are far more capable but you have to wait for the ridiculous complexity to boot up, etc...

PeteHski

Not going to happen. The less chainrings the better for me. 1x setups are the future and already the present on MTBs and for good reason. For road a compact double is okay, but it’s a close call and I can imagine 1x taking over eventually.

PeteHski

The only snobbish toxic BS I read was your post ranting about bike industry development.

Oh and your BS comment about nobody riding slower than 10 mph up hills.

Kimmo 

Of course it'll happen. I've half a mind the industry's long range plan is to lead us down this blind 1x alley before ostensibly and belatedly waking up to the fact it results in a crap ratio spread. And given that so many tech developments are necessarily about realising efficiency gains, and that most improvements in efficiency have already happened, cogs smaller than 13t are waiting for the axe. Everybody with more than a passing interest has seen the graph.

Unless you think that one day all bikes will be e-bikes, this is the writing on the wall. The industry is taking ratios in the wrong direction for efficiency. Good front shifting became a thing, and I'm pretty sure slightly better front shifting can become a thing too. Electronic syncro makes managing the combos a non issue, so the only barrier is milking the 1x fad first.

PeteHski

Do you think this inevitable return to triples will happen with MTBs too or just road bikes?

IMHO front shifting - however smooth - is not a great solution with its step changes. For me the evolution to 1x drivetrains for mtb was a big step forward over previous triples and doubles. I can’t say I’ve ever wanted to go back on that. For road use it is more marginal, but I don’t like the idea of a triple there either.

I also don’t believe the “industry” really has any cynical long range plots. It’s just normal evolutionary engineering development and the bike industry is actually pretty conservative compared to many. It’s only in the last couple of decades things have really started to move and the resistance to change has been relatively high.

Sy Reene

Some of the irony IMO that exists with where bike tech is heading, is the fact that things such as electronic shifting, disc brakes and tubeless, require a modicum of additional maintenance, knowledge, and mechanical ability. At the same time, we're seeing the small bike shop struggling to remain in existence because of the changing manufacturers' distribution preferences to larger but fewer retailers.

PeteHski

I’m seeing a few smarter small shops starting to focus more on quality servicing rather than new bike sales. Obviously this is likely to vary by region, but a lot of the bigger shops here have terrible service departments, so there is an opportunity to fill that gap. I know of one high end shop who doesn’t even bother retailing big brand bikes, but will service any bike, along with custom builds and bike fits etc. They also have decent coffee and cakes!

big john

A single front ring on a mountain bike solves issues regarding complex suspension design and short stays with 29" wheels. Also, front derailleurs suck in muddy conditions, a one by is much better in mud.
The range isn't a problem, for me at least. If I'm going fast on my mtb I'm usually coasting downhill. I never (rarely) spin out unless on the road.
On a road bike I see no advantage to a single ring. Shifting isn't a big deal, I don't mind it.

colnago62

1x had a disastrous debut in the pro peloton. One team tried it and none since. when the Trek team went to SRAM, I remember reading that the company quietly designed a more standard crank for the team. As with tubeless, the industry is finding out that some things that work great for mountain biking may not be as effective on the road.

Chandne

Depends on your terrain and strength level. I live in Colorado- most of what we do is climb and descend bigger passes. I'm older now and I don't crank out big power. I'm not averaging 250 watts on a 3-4 hour ride with 3K-5K off climbing. Some do but I can't. So I run 50/34 and 11-28 + 11-32. I know a few guys here who run standard setup but they are almost always really strong ex-racers who push way more watts on average than I can. That type of gearing (54/30 with 11-25) keeps my HR too high and my cadence too low, and I am too old for that.

I like my 2x setup since I have to deal with altitude (6,000-12,500 ft...sometimes up to 14,000 ft elevation) and steep terrain that usually ranges from 6% - 15% and the climbs are 5-15 miles at a time. They feel relentless. If I lived on flat land or places with shorter punchy climbs, I'd prob run a standard 2x setup with 54/39 and 11-25.

I keep a 1x setup (32 and 11-46) on my mountain bike though I would prefer a 11-50 next time. The terrain is usually a bit steeper than road and I like to "rest" on some long climbs so I can enjoy the scenery, of which we have a lot.

terrymorse 

A single ring on a road bike is problematic. The speed range of a road bike is too wide.

The smallest single chainring that allows a reasonable cadence at speed is about 50t. And if you want the low climbing gears that are now popular, you'd need to pair it with a 50t rear cog.

So the rear cassette would need to be an 11-50. Thank you, I'll stay with my double chainring.

PeteHski

I agree, but it’s a close call if you are not racing. I would consider something like a 44T chainring and 10-42 cassette for a lot of general road riding. I don’t have a problem with wide range cassettes.

colnago62

This is the true answer to most things; It depends on a person’s needs.

PeteHski

I'm pretty much with you on this. 1x has been a no-brainer for me for mountain biking since 2014 - basically ever since I first tried it. My first 1x drivetrain was a 30T front with an 11s 10-42 cassette. Current bike has a 30T front with 12s 10-50 which is even better.
I'm open-minded to trying a 1x road setup and will certainly consider it on my next bike. But I'm pretty happy with compact doubles on the road too.

big john

I'd be curious to try a one-by on the road, I just don't think I'd like to buy one yet. I've seen riders out in the mountains with high end bikes and single ring, but they were much younger and/or stronger than I am.

10 Wheels

Little Rider Big Ring

Kimmo 

About the only time I see folks agreeing with me that close ratios are desirable, they're talking about getting to a sustainable cadence in a pack.

That's not my use case; my thing is I like to go fairly fast, but I'm lazy. Also, my terrain is flat, and most of my riding has been done in street clothes, so I'm not after a really wide range. Getting on top of a slightly higher gear is harder if you're not in lycra, so I'm pretty well attuned to noticing what's efficient. I've always been prepared to sacrifice one or two cogs on the either edge of the cassette that I would occasionally use if I had them, for cogs I'll use often.

I invite anyone who's both sceptical of the value of close ratios, and who has a power meter and/or heart rate monitor, to have a go at skipping a gear while they watch how hard they're working.

The thing is, we shouldn't have to choose between close or wide these days; we could have like 30 efficient ratios to choose from, although there'd be some minimum overlap dictated by maximum jump between rings. It could shift just like a normal triple but with syncro, and then if you wanted a half gear within the overlap zone you could double tap the shift button. Wide, and super close.

But nooo, front derailer bad (when they've never been better), triples extinct.

SoSmellyAir

I don't understand how the extra 52T chain ring changes the upward curve of the cassette range with one tooth jump into a straight line?

Kimmo 

From the link in my tag. There's still an upwards curve, but it's half as steep, and closer to a straight line. Ideally, the line would curve the other way. I tried a fair few chainring tooth counts, and only this combo got the line this flat without inconsistent steps.

Red is 39/53 for comparison, green is 38/50/52 shifted normally without half-stepping, blue is the half-step. X is gear number, Y is ratio.

Bald Paul

I dunno about that!

Chandne

I absolutely go under 10 MPH when the grade is 10% or over on extended climbs so my cadence is slow. My friend just did a 1X setup with a 50T. He can spin a lot faster than I can at those grades and it is much easier on his knees. I'll be interested to see how the 1x road gearing develops but I'm quite happy with my 2x, especially since I recently swapped the 11-28 for a 11/32. I have dropped a road chain twice so I sort of see the draw of the 1x and the simplicity but I'm going to be a slow adopter of this one (till I get a new bike, I suppose).

PeteHski

Most people do in reality. A quick calculation for me (80 kg rider) shows that I would need to be putting out 457W to maintain 10 mph on a 10% slope. I can do that for about a minute and then I'm done! At a more realistic 250W I can climb a sustained 10% slope at around 5.5 mph.

People climb a lot slower than they think!

Racing Dan

You need a less than 1:1 gear if you want to do anything resembling spinning on a 10% incline, - unless you can do monster watts. 3W/kg makes you go about 5.5mph. To go that "slow" at, say, 75RPM you need a 30t ring and a 34t cassette (!)

Chandne

Yeah, for sure. I see people stopped or just hanging their heads grinding it out on those. I just don't bother trying to stand or my HR goes way up. I find it easier to sit and grind it out on those steeps. I go anywhere from 5-7 or I'll blow up. We always know when flatlanders show up since at 10,000 feet, a 10% climb can be a shock. I often stop and chat, just because I know first-hand how demoralizing that can be on a hot day. I have pulled a few up the pass after that. Company in suffering, is only panacea you need on those. People have done it to me when I first moved here.

PeteHski

Exactly. But as soon as you mention a 1:1 or even lower gear many people assume (incorrectly) they would be spinning out in such a "ridiculously" low gear. I'm doing a Sportive in a couple of weeks time in the Peak District. 3500 m of tough climbing, with some of the slopes north of 20%. I'll be grinding away in a 34/34 gear, while many will be rocking up with considerably bigger "man" gearing. There will be plenty of people walking and some seriously low cadence grinding! Ideally I would go even lower than 1:1, but it is what I have for now at least and I definitely won't be walking. However slow I ride I've never been overtaken by someone walking their bike up a hill.