DaveSSS 

If sram were to offer 1X 13 speed for the road, it would most likely start with a 10T, so a 48 chainring wold would provide a top gear that matches a 53/11. Campy already has 13 speed cassettes, with 9-36, 9-42 and 10-46 options. With a 46T chain ring the top gear is a bit taller than a 50/11. A 9-42 or 9-36 with a 42T chainring might be tolerable for road use, but I'd rather stick with my 48/31 or 46/30 cranks, since I ride in the mountains. FWIW, the Ekar chain is even narrower than an axs chain. I bought one just to measure it. It won't fit on a grx crank, like any axs chain will.

https://www.campagnolo.com/US/en/Com...peed_sprockets

msu2001la

The problem with 1x for road is those huge cassettes get heavy. It ends up weighing more than a 2x setup with a smaller cassette, and solves nothing. Chain retention isn't an issue on road bikes. FD's aren't limiting tire clearance or clogging with mud, etc. I don't think SRAM will push 1x for road, but we will probably see 2x13 setups, which would give a massive range of gearing, and if paired with a 9t or 10t low cog could work well with much smaller front rings.

PeteHski

SRAM already offer 1x road starting with 10T. In future, if (sorry when) they go to 1x13 they will surely start at 9T like Ekar. It's the obvious way of getting a wide enough 1x range for fast road. I'm pretty sure I could live with Ekar for endurance road riding on mixed terrain. I was looking at the 9-42 with a 42T or even 40T chainring to replace a Shimano compact double 50/34 & 11-34T cassette.

PeteHski

Like for like, I'm pretty sure 1x is slightly lighter overall but I agree there is not much in it. Although FDs are far more tolerable on road than they are off-road, they are still nasty crude devices that we have just learned to live with. Every now and again they do throw the chain off if you are not paying attention. It happened to me only twice last season and as usual just at the wrong moment. I think SRAM will push both 2x and 1x on a menu pretty much like they already do. Mix and match across their various road/gravel/mtb components. 2x13 doesn't sound very interesting to me. 2x11, 2x12, 2x13 are all much of a muchness to me, but I'm not super fussy about precise cadence. 1x13 on the other hand is genuinely interesting for me and the first serious contender for 1x road gearing.

Psimet2001 

Shimano didn't take into account your expectations. Much to my chagrin.

They went 1x on the road long ago. 1st gen eTap timeframe IIRC. Guys here have been racing is for quite a few seasons. I'm personally not a fan.

Psimet2001 

This is much less true with electronic FD's. Especially with Shimano, who knows how to do front shifting. While SRAM has never been considered a system that shifts well on the front I do have to say eTap has at least smothered some of that lack of refinement through a bit of increased control.

PeteHski

It's still just turd polishing though.

Better if you can do without the big front step change altogether, which I think 1x13 might just achieve for a lot of people. We accept 2x on a bicycle because it's been around for so long, but I doubt you would be very happy if your car or motorbike had 2x gearing. It's the sort of thing you find in farm vehicles.

DaveSSS 

Shimano is way behind sram when it comes to wireless 12 speed. They also failed to support wireless rim brake or mechanically operated disc brakes. I run force mechanical brake, wireless shifting levers with Juin-Tech GT hydraulic calipers. They work great and there's no bleeding. Sram and Campy are likely to have new offerings of some sort long before shimano.

With regard to front shifting, my two force axs bikes have been flawless, with 16 and 17 tooth gaps from shimano grx cranks. Sram chainrings may be to blame, but a lot of the problem is inept owners and mechanics who don't realize how common it is for a FD to rotate a bit when the clamp bolt is fully tightened. If that's not corrected, poor shifting results.

I thought we were talking about potential 13 speed 1x, like Campy already has. The comment was if sram offered 13 speed 1x, what it should look like. If shimano does it, it might be 4-5 years out.

DaveSSS 

My current 12 speed 2x setups have at least 15 distinctly different gear ratios and I use every one. 13 speed 1x will work for a lot of riders, but not those who ride a lot of steep hills and/or mountains. My 48/31 crank and 10-36 or 10-33 cassettes cover a lot of range. The most is 557%.

chaadster

Not only that, for those who are fine tuning their effort for maximum output to the wheels, 1x doesn’t work then either. The dream, of course, is continuously variable gearing, with seamless transitions throughout the gear range.

tomato coupe

That's pure nonsense. Campy's 1x13 offers the same gear range as their 2x12, and more gear range than their 2x11. Many, many cyclists have been riding the steepest mountains on Campy 2x11 for more than a decade, so 1x13 is not going to hold them back.

chaadster

One wants the right range from lowest to highest to meet their needs, but it’s the distribution of gears within that range that’s most important. I mean, you can have a huge range but it’s only defined by two gears, but who wants to ride with two gears?

tomato coupe

Yes, but we're not talking about two gears, we're talking about 13 gears compared to 15 or 16 gears. As a concrete example, a 2x12 setup with 11-34 and 50/34 has an average gear spacing of about 11%, whereas a 1x13 setup with 9-42 has an average gear spacing of 13.7%. (Gear ranges are 455% and 467%, respectively.) It's pretty silly to say you can't ride steep mountain roads with a 1x13 setup when the gear range is the same and the gear spacing is only about 25% greater than 2x12, and cyclists have ridden the same steep roads for many years with worse gearing.

Russ Roth

Its still not the same thing, when you're riding a lot in the mountains and spending a long time climbing, having a tighter cassette means less jumps. If you're going to spend the next ten miles climbing I'd much rather drop to a small ring and have a closer spaced rear cluster that has a better chance of giving me a more optimal gear, even better is knowing the jumps to know what the next gear can be. I can remember one 8 mile climb that was fairly steady and just the right incline to suffer on, seemed like every mile and a half I went one gear easier as fatigue was setting in, but the jumps weren't bad so while I had to keep shifting it was never one that was too easy requiring more spinning since I have never been a spinner. Having 4 tooth jumps would have sucked.

tomato coupe

I understand, you like closer gear spacing. A lot of cyclists feel the same way. But, that doesn't mean 1x13 isn't suitable for riding in the mountains -- it works fine for lots of people.

PeteHski

I'm with you on this. I have a Kickr Bike that can accurately simulate any gear combination you can dream up and I've experimented riding compact 2x vs 1x setups on big mountain climbs. Difference is meh. But I do train at a wide range of cadence so I'm not overly fussy as long as I have a low enough gear for 20%+ gradients i.e. 1:1 ratio for me.

I would have no issues riding 1x13 Campy in the mountains. Would probably go for 42 front with 9-42 rear.

GhostRider62

In the hills, a 20% jump in gear inches or ratio is not a problem, but current 1X puts too big of a jump in the cruising gears (11T-15T). Hills linear, wind = cubic. On a Mtb or gravel bike, who cares. The speeds are low. But on a road bike, the simplistic "range" argument appeals to whom? Certainly not those who race on the road. And, I have 17 useable gears on my 2 x 12 AXS setup.

chaadster

No, we’re talking about 13 gears compared to 26 gears, and having more gears makes it more likely and easier to select the gear which best maximizes the rider’s output. Whether that rider wants to maintain a cadence, power, or torque level, having more gears to choose from will make it more likely they have that gear, can get to it more quickly, and be pedaling at peak efficiency sooner.

And that’s true regardless of which ring the rider is using, despite the fact of each range (i.e. is big chainring range and small chainring range) having some duplicate gear-inch combos, which is what you are talking about.

For the highly variable terrain of trail riding which is usually done solo, that’s less important than on the road where the predictability of the terrain and dynamics of group riding make gearing nuance critical to performance.

DaveSSS 

Rather than speak in generalities, I made a side by side gear ratio comparison of an Ekar 1x13 with my sramano 2x12. A 42T chainring with a 9-42 cassette compares most closely. You'll find that with a 2x12, there will be two lower gear ratios available, below the 42/42 that Ekar offers. That shouldn't be surprising, since the Ekar 9-42 range is only 467%, compared with the 557% or 506% with a 10-36 or 10-33 cassettes and 48/31 crank. If you don't need that much range, then 1x13 might be great. 1x12 not so great - less range and/or larger jumps.

tomato coupe

Agreed, 1x13 doesn't have a lot of appeal in road racing, and it may not ever catch on with road racing. But the "simplistic range" argument was only meant to refute the ridiculous statement that "13 speed 1x will work for a lot of riders, but not those who ride a lot of steep hills and/or mountains." Many people find 1x13 very useable in the mountains.

You have a 2x setup with 26 useable, distinct gear ratios? Awesome, I want it!!!!

You need to look outside your own little bubble.You may need a 557% gear range in the mountains, but many cyclists do not. Most cyclists have been riding for decades with 2x setups that have 350-400% ranges, and 450% ranges have only recently become common on road bikes.

DaveSSS 

It's hard to post anything here without being nitpicked and misinterpreted. Cut me some slack. I know full that the young and powerful can get by without the lowest of gears, but 2x offers far more options. I never said that nobody can use 1x in the mountains. I ride to Estes Park 3 times a week in the summer with 3000 feet of climbing in the first 22 miles. I can do the whole thing in my 48 and a 10-28 sprocket range, even at age 68. That's only a 280% range. The key is that none of the slopes exceed 6% and I can ride that standing in my 48/28. If I go up through Glen Haven, there's one steep section where I can stand in my 31/24 or 32/28 or choose to sit and spin in my 31/33. It's nice to have options. The narrow minded can't imagine needing low gears, but they don't know what lies ahead as they age.

After 2-1/2 years back on the bike I got my cycling legs back and ditched the 10-36 for a 10-33. If I had a limited range sram 48/35, I'd still need the the 10-36. Give me a wide range crank.

tomato coupe

Ummmm ... you sure did:


Tell me how that sentence has been misinterpreted.

Psimet2001 

This... almost has no response...but it wouldn't be the internet if I didn't try:
1. Who cares. I do not want wireless nor 12 speed.
2. uh - they have a wireless front end with a wired rear on the latest groups - which is a marked improvement over a wireless system. The battery running their system is way beyond what SRAM has been doing and delivers amazing performance at both derailleurs.
3. This is like saying, "Oh yeah? They don't have the bad features that you hate so they aren't as good."

This is incorrect. They specifically are keeping the R9000 levers on hand and making them compatible with the new generation wires so that those who want mechanical brakes/rim brakes still have an option. Again though, like above, this is a door that should have been shut though. I love rim brakes as much as the next guy but somewhere there's a car enthusiast who still loves mechanical drum brakes I'm sure.

As a professional mechanic I can assure you that SRAM is much worse than Shimano at front shifting. They have greatly improved their front shifting over the years. eTap has taken it even much further in performance. It has brought them to "almost" as good as Shimano front shifting is at it's worst. Agreed that most people are clueless when it comes to setting up a front derailleur properly. Eliminating that as a variable SRAM is worse.

Psimet2001 

...and I'll toss this one in. 1x is great for mtb and cross. On the road it's a step backwards IMHO. Electronic front shifting has returned so much elegance and control to front shifting that it combined with synchro shifting will most likely cause one of these companies to bring back out triples. I am not joking. The reasons we eliminated triples are actually being addressed and the possible marketing memos for why now is the new era of triples practically write themselves.

SRAM will not be the ones offering triples though. They need to optimize 2x shifting and existence first.

chaadster

Well yeah, I’ve got a SRAM Force AXS drivetrain with a 48/35 crankset and 10-33 cassette, and I roll either 35c or 42c rubber, so none of the gear combos actually move the bike the same distance per revolution (i.e. in terms of inches of development) they are all distinct, and that’s what’s important.

Sure, a couple of the gears are very close— in terms of gear inches, only 2 ratios are “the same” w/ 35c (or 25c, for that matter) and none are the same w/ 42c— but that’s entirely the point of having many gears, the ability to fine tune gear selection to maximize the rider’s effort.