rydabent

My LWB bent has 9 in the cluster in the rear, and my trike has 8 in the cluster. They both have a triple. I probably use my triple different than many do. I scan the road ahead and shift to the granny for hills, the center for most riding, and the big ring for down hill or with the wind. I then shift across the rear cluster as needed. I find the 24 or 27 speeds that I have just fine. I have never had to get off and walk up a hill. FYI on the trike the chain rings are 30,40, and 50, an the cluster is 11 to 34.

Koyote

This is the most interesting exchange in the entire thread.

Ironfish653

And we're all still doing it wrong.

livedarklions

Y'know, for someone who doesn't care about fashion, you sure post about it a lot.

You seem to have dedicated your online life to proving that you're the only person in the world doing cycling correctly.

livedarklions

And?

indyfabz

You know the answer.


Time to put on my $400 bibs and take a ride.

Koyote

You know, you could just wear regular shorts if only you had a recumbent.

Can't recall where I heard that, but it must be true.

Ironfish653

Here's my effort to keep this conversation moving forward, despite the OP's repeated attempts to set it on fire and push it into the weeds:

\

I think we're going to see a lot more expansion of 1X (9/10/11) in the sport / fitness segment, (flat-bar road bikes / 'performance' hybrids) 10 or 11 speeds can provide a pretty useful range, but with the ease of use of a single shifter. I know lots of people who ride frequently, but as part of an overall fitness regiment; they're Runners, or CrossFitters by 'trade,' they ride nice bikes, but front chainring management is like a dark art to them.

TBH, front shifting is easy to explain in concept, but it's hard to teach to a mechanical neophyte, since there's no hard-and-fast rules on how many cassette cogs a given crankset can effectively use on a given bike, with a given FD. 1X eliminates all of that.

ofajen

Quite right. “Not being killed or crippled in a fall from a high-wheeler” was considered a good look, back in the day. 😊

Otto

tcs

They'll never catch on. Recumbent trike, 1874:

Jeff Neese

You can't be serious. Have you ever actually had a big box bike on your workstand? We have friends with a Schwinn and some other bike the brand of which escapes me, that they bought from Walmart. Probably $200-250 bikes. I offered to tune them up so they could ride them, and I went through them pretty thoroughly. I was able to make them roadworthy and safe as they could be, but it's easy to see those things just aren't built to hold up, or for things to stay tight and well adjusted for long. When I was test riding them, I actually didn't feel as safe as I would like. They were fine for our friends though, who really just wanted to tool around their nice paved neighborhood. There was a study that showed the average bicycle purchased at a big box store has a total lifespan of about 76 miles. And so Schwinns and Huffys and Mongoose are built to last about that long. They end up in landfills in great quantities.

That's the opposite of Rivendell bikes. If you like Grant's bikes and buy one, you might have it for 30 years and ride it hundreds of thousands of miles, and then pass it on to your son or daughter who may very well do the same. Rivendell has been making bikes since 1994 (28 years) and I'd be willing to bet that except for those involved in accidents, every one of their bikes ever produced is still on the road.

The Chemist

I do all of my own maintenance and wouldn't consider myself a mechanical neophyte, and I still prefer 1x. There's a lot to be said for mechanical simplicity even if you don't have a problem turning your own wrenches.

base2 

I still think it's funny when 1x biggest proponents claim it's vastly superior because it removes 2x or 3x complications & unnecessary redundancy. It's funny because what that really means is they think (or are admitting) that 1x riders are too stupid or unskilled to grasp the concept of overlap in gear ranges. (Which, sad for humanity, might unintentionally be true. )

But whatever. For wildly changing, variable terrain with the need to vastly change ratio in a short amount of time for a transient situation, 1x is ideally suited. They *could* just say that instead & it would be a lot less disingenuous/pretentious than canned marketing copy spouted with out actual knowledge.

------------------

As for myself, 33 gears from 20-140 gear inches is about right. I mean 700% is near perfect even if I spin-out at 45+ mph once in a while. But I only use the 42 tooth in overdrive on the 8 cogs between 20 & 42 cogs mostly. I see mostly dis-illusioned people with 1x bikes designed around *not* accepting a 3x, adopting the 3-speed cassette hub as the next big thing, per the threads title..

My 514% is really irritating to spin out at 26mph. Internal gears, 14 speeds & functionally near unlimited service life is too expensive & not nearly delicate enough for continued ongoing sales & repairs. So that definitely will not be the future.

But, thanks to about page 3or so of this thread, it is nice to see Shimano doing the in di2 form. 'Cause everyone knows the autoshift was a market mover & totally not a flop by any stretch. It's pretty clear that because "Shimano" it'll definitely be how our grand kids will do things & will most likely be the actual future.

Racing Dan

Auto shift is like 3D television. It pops up now and again, then disappears. However Shimano is at it again. XT + DI + Auto Shift. Here we go! :-)

https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/news/shimano-introduces-an-all-new-range-of-xt-di2-drivetrains-for--s.html

https://youtu.be/e1MdXuE8oDs

mstateglfr 

How is what you do significantly different from how many others use a triple?
Your way of using it seems pretty common, at least it is for the few that still have triples.

My commute/touring bike has a triple on it- Its a 48/38/26 on crank arms from the 80s and I use it pretty similarly to how you use yours. I use the large ring more frequently, but otherwise its the same. I am not interested in shifting front and rear at the same time to run 27 gear ratios in proper size order.

mstateglfr 

My wife doesnt like 2x on her road bike- she doesnt ride frequently enough to put in the time to figure out which ratios are best in the big before dropping to the small and then vice versa. I have never considered her too stupid, just not interested enough to learn. So she would fall in the 'unskilled' category you so kindly added to that sentence. I think a lot of low use recreational riders are in that boat and 1x simplifies things. She comments, unprompted, about how much she likes her 1x MTB setup.
When she rides, we arent climbing mountains(or even significant hills) and we arent averaging over 15mph. 1x would be perfect on the road bike.

I dont think any of this is sad for humanity though. This doesnt need to be a commentary on humanity, actually. Its just a hobby and simply shows how people are invested at different levels in the hobby. You choosing to apply that to all of humanity is odd.

GhostRider62

84 and still thinking about gearing choices?

Total respect.

The rest of you? Go to your rooms.

GhostRider62

A 1x straight block with a planetary gearing up front would be nice but heavy

1x12 with 48T and 11-34, 11-36, 11-39 is what I am currently using. The 48x11 can be a little shy. 1x14 might be perfect if I could add a 10T and a 44T to the existing setup. It is pretty clear 1X is where we are going.

Rolla

That's absurd. Just because people prefer simplicity doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding complexity, and no one but you is suggesting otherwise. Between the straw man in your first sentence and the ad hominem attack in your third, your post is little more than a demonstration of rhetorical fallacy and weak argumentation. Do better.

base2 

Stupid==uninterested in learning. There's lots of things I'm stupid about. Fishing reels, for one. Pokémon, or baseball cards, stamps, coin collecting, the list is endless. So what? Most of humanity is uninterested in learning (stupid) about bicycles.

FWIW: I've showed dozens of interested people how 2x, 3x works with graphs, charts, diagrams, actual demonstrations in the workstand & outside in the parking lot, etc...about a third still just can't grasp the concept. They don't have the mechanics in their head to do so. Without judgement, that's just an acknowledgement of reality. Make of that what you will.

It's almost like I didn't type the bolded paragraph at all.

Do better. If 1x advocates changed their approach so as to not mean their users are too stupid to use multiple chainrings, and better present 1x's actual intended use case, they might have a few more converts.

Rolla

Weak arguments don't improve with repetition.

Kapusta

I am mostly ambivalent about 1x on a road or gravel bike.

But for MTB, the move to 1x is a major improvement. Not so much from a user perspective (although some really appreciate that) but from a DESIGN perspective. Eliminating the FD and the extra ring frees up a lot of space, and has allowed wider rear tires and shorter chainstays. It also allows suspension designers to only have to focus on a chainline within a narrow range.

My current 140mm FS bike has 29” wheels, 425mm chainstay, and can clear 2.5” tires (maybe even 2.6). Thats not happening with a frame designed to accommodate 2x.

Paul Barnard

That lends support to my comment that there needs to be real world gearing for the majority who are NOT mashers. Factoring in a fairly normal 80-100 cadence, the gearing that I wrote about serves most very well. It only starts losing out when people want or need close spacing ot they want to pedal beyond 33 MPH...probably downhill.

rydabent

Actually I look for what is logical. Carrying around the weight of 36 gears or more, is not logical to me. Beyond that it is a free country yet, and anyone can have what ever number of gears they like.

Koyote

I've never seen a bike with "36 gears or more." Please show me an example.