on-one codeine.

cubedean

http://www.on-one.co.uk/news/products/q ... oming-soon

I really like the look of this, rumours of a 650b version too (which would suit my shortness.

cat_with_no_tail

You can ONLY run it 1x?
And for that reason, I'm out.

Kowalski675

Ed Oxley's had a prototype one for a while. He seems to like his. I haven't got the legs for a single ring transmission myself, lol.

cubedean

Kowalski675 wrote:

Ed Oxley's had a prototype one for a while. He seems to like his. I haven't got the legs for a single ring transmission myself, lol.

I'm about to give it a go with a 32t ring.

njee20

Weird choice on a bike of that ilk.

Kowalski675

2 x 10 would seem more sensible.

lawman

The 1x revolution is coming soon. For the kind of riding the Codeine is for, the AM/trail/Enduro/riding a bike whatever you want to call it, it makes a huge amount of sense. As soon as Sram bring the 10-42t cassette down to x9/x7 level and Shimano bring out their own take, it will become standard on the majority of bikes. It's not just a drivetrain thing, it benefits frames in so many ways. Chainstays can be made shorter, stronger and stiffer, seat tubes won't have those god awful looking Direct mounts on them, suspension designs can be optimised for a single chainring (and lets be honest, the majority of FS bikes on the market exhibit a change in characteristics when you change the ring size), dropper post remotes can be placed in the perfect place and there is less cable clutter to deal with, take out a shifter and front mech and bikes become cheaper, lighter. Bottom line, it will lead to better performing, simpler bikes and frankly imo the sooner it happens the better

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

The 1x revolution is coming soon.

No it isn't. It's too expensive.

As soon as Sram bring the 10-42t cassette down to x9/x7 level

SRAM say that it can't be manufactured cheap enough to bring it lower down that level. X01 was meant to be the "more affordable version", but while £940 is technically more "affordable" than £1080, I'm pretty sure it's still beyond the reach of the vast majority of customers...

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

The 1x revolution is coming soon.

No it isn't. It's too expensive.

As soon as Sram bring the 10-42t cassette down to x9/x7 level

SRAM say that it can't be manufactured cheap enough to bring it lower down that level. X01 was meant to be the "more affordable version", but while £940 is technically more "affordable" than £1080, I'm pretty sure it's still beyond the reach of the vast majority of customers...

Sram are taking the trickle down effect to it's maximum, if they can sell X01 to loads of people at it's current price why would they offer a cheaper version straight away? It took a year for them to bring it down to X01 level, this time next year we'll be talking about X91 and how many bikes it's appearing on. I'm pretty damn sure Sram have the know how to make the cassette cheaper, because atm, that's the really expensive part of the groups. Just from browsing around, I reckon you could equip most bikes after market with X01 tomorrow for just over £500 using your existing cranks and using an aftermarket narrow/wide ring, still a fair lump of money of admittedly. Once the technology trickles down, as it will do over the next year or two to lower groupsets, the prices will drop.

The benefits of 1x are imo too much to ignore, I love it and given the choice for the CCC2CC I'd rather have X01. Simple as. Imo Mountain bikes are still drawing too much from road bikes, geometry, gearing, how to attach wheels to frames etc. They're still developing and as they do a lot is going change and I bet there will be some seriously innovative bikes over the next couple of years.

Kowalski675

Wishful thinking. If it ever becomes affordable, it's not going to be any time soon. The rear cassette takes 3 hours to machine from solid (the only way to make it strong enough). You may as well wait for a top of the range Arai crash helmet (for example) to become cheap. Plenty of us don't have the legs for a single ring setup anyway - they still don't cover the same spread of ratios as 2 x 10, even with that huge rear cassette.

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

Wishful thinking. If it ever becomes affordable, it's not going to be any time soon. The rear cassette takes 3 hours to machine from solid (the only way to make it strong enough). You may as well wait for a top of the range Arai crash helmet (for example) to become cheap. Plenty of us don't have the legs for a single ring setup anyway - they still don't cover the same spread of ratios as 2 x 10, even with that huge rear cassette.

I think the biggest issue is the torque the 42t ring places on he freehub, if you were to machine say the top 3 rings from a single piece rather than the whole lot, and then pin the remaining gears to that cluster, I see no reason why it wouldn't work, hell current cassettes use similar processes and have few issues. It's going to happen, Leonardi make various adapters for Shimano and Sram 10 speed cassettes that have no apparent issues, and they're even working on a 10-40t 10speed cassette that fits on the XX1 freehub.

The argument for not not having the legs is a flawed one tbh, if you don't have the legs to push up a 28 or 32t with a 10-42t cassette chances are your not going to miss the 38t or 44t you would have with a double or triple, you would be missing, as you wouldn't be fit enough to use it on anything but the road. If you do ride a lot on the road, I can see the limitations of 1x, but for pure off-road riding qx is the future

Kowalski675

If you have deep pockets and big legs...

lawman

Hardly, I'm not the fittest person by a long shot and cope fine with 1x10. With 30t chainring and a 10-42t cassette you get pretty much the same gear range as 24-32t double and an 11-36 cassette, which is a pretty standard setup for many riders. The benefit of 1x is you get that range in a simpler format and all the benefits I mentioned before. The only way to get fitter is to push your limits, you stick within your comfort zone and you won't get any fitter. 1x can make you push harder and I've noticed I've got fitter and stronger since switching from a double.

Have you tried a 1x system yourself?

Kowalski675

Nope, I'm not rich, lol. It costs more than my whole bike. But I can calculate gear ratios...

lawman

You don't have to be rich Easy task to convert any bike to 1x. Getting the full benefits of XX1/X01 will cost you, but current 1x systems are cheap to put together, potentially less than £50 for a narrow/wide chainring and some short chainring bolts. You won't have the range like you get with XX1, but it'll give you a damn good idea of what it'll be like. I've run a 34t chainring and 11-36t cassette for the last 2 years and it's been great.

lawman

cyd190468 wrote:

The thing I would miss with 1x as compared to 2x10 is the ability to drop from the 38 to the 24 while going up the cassette at the back. If you come round a corner and face a climb you didn't know was there you can go from 38/28 to 24/32 in one go. To get the same big drop in gear ratio with 1x would require several changes.

I've never, ever got that argument. You can see if there's a bloody big hill in front of you, they don't just suddenly jump out at you and shout "BOOOOOOOO!" More likely it'll be a short, sharp climb and just hammer up it. If it's a long, climb, you'll more than likely have time to change a few gears, most triggers for rear mechs have 4/5 shifts in one throw of the lever, it's hardly a chore.

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

You don't have to be rich Easy task to convert any bike to 1x. Getting the full benefits of XX1/X01 will cost you, but current 1x systems are cheap to put together, potentially less than £50 for a narrow/wide chainring and some short chainring bolts. You won't have the range like you get with XX1, but it'll give you a damn good idea of what it'll be like. I've run a 34t chainring and 11-36t cassette for the last 2 years and it's been great.

1 x 10 without the wide ratio cassette of XX1/X01 is pointless. All it does is give you a really narrow range of ratios, for the sake of saving a few grammes. Carrying the extra weight of a shifter, front mech and second chainring (offset by not needing the weight of a chainguide) is a lot easier than trying to manage without the gear ratios you (I) need.

BigAl

I'm with lawman on this; it will trickle down to the lower groupsets, though it may take a little time. It's not surprising SRAM claim it's too expensive too produce - at the moment they have a winning product with no competition

Granted it's never going to be 'cheap' but nor does it have to remain very expensive

I run 3x9 on both bikes currently but if and when I upgrade I would seriously consider 1x10/11. I very rarely use the granny ring (I'd rather walk!) and the big ring is for road sections only. I don't think I'd really miss either.

Kowalski675

cyd190468 wrote:

Around here the bush is very dense.

Fnaar fnaar...

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

You don't have to be rich Easy task to convert any bike to 1x. Getting the full benefits of XX1/X01 will cost you, but current 1x systems are cheap to put together, potentially less than £50 for a narrow/wide chainring and some short chainring bolts. You won't have the range like you get with XX1, but it'll give you a damn good idea of what it'll be like. I've run a 34t chainring and 11-36t cassette for the last 2 years and it's been great.

1 x 10 without the wide ratio cassette of XX1/X01 is pointless. All it does is give you a really narrow range of ratios, for the sake of saving a few grammes. Carrying the extra weight of a shifter, front mech and second chainring (offset by not needing the weight of a chainguide) is a lot easier than trying to manage without the gear ratios you (I) need.

You get a lot of benefits, it's lighter as you say, it's simpler as there are less moving parts, it's cheaper, a single chainring costs £30-40, 3 brand new rings for a triple you set you back at least double that, that's before you factor in not needing a shifter or mech, running a narrow/wide chainrings and clutch mechs you can pretty much eliminate dropped chains even without a top guide, it'll get you fitter as you have to push yourself... Many, many benefits out there already and that's before we get to the benefits it can make to frame design.

Designers face huge packaging problems on 29er's around the bb/chainstay/seat tube, largely because of the space taken up by the front mech. Take that away and that opens up a lot of possibilities in that area alone. We're in the early stage of this developing, it takes time for the changes and benefits to fully take effect.

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

and that's before we get to the benefits it can make to frame design.

That's totally irrelevant - you're talking about altering a bike already designed for a 2 (or 3) x 10 setup to a home brewed 1 x 10. The disadvantages outweigh the small weight loss (and it will be small, once you've added a chain device).

Even your "it'll get you fitter" argument is pretty ridiculous. If you want to "push yourself" you can always try running a gear higher than you're comfortable with on a 2 or 3 ring setup, but you've still got the gears you really need for when you can't manage that gear. If you've not got the ratios you need you're more likely to get off and push up the hill, or just get so fed up of riding the thing that you won't go out anyway, neither of which are going to make you fitter.

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

and that's before we get to the benefits it can make to frame design.

That's totally irrelevant - you're talking about altering a bike already designed for a 2 (or 3) x 10 setup to a home brewed 1 x 10. The disadvantages outweigh the small weight loss (and it will be small, once you've added a chain device).

Even your "it'll get you fitter" argument is pretty ridiculous. If you want to "push yourself" you can always try running a gear higher than you're comfortable with on a 2 or 3 ring setup, but you've still got the gears you really need for when you can't manage that gear. If you've not got the ratios you need you're more likely to get off and push up the hill, or just get so fed up of riding the thing that you won't go out anyway, neither of which are going to make you fitter.

I think you're missing my point a little. My original point was that wide-ratio 1x systems will become mainstream because of the benefits they can give you. At the minute, you won't get all the benefits in all cases, perhaps On One were thinking ahead, knowing what the drivetrain manufacturers are going to be producing for the next one or two model years, 2015/2016. Manufacturers are already thinking that far ahead, they will know what Shimano/Sram are going to release for example and they can go ahead and build the bikes around what they will have at their disposal at the time of release. Right now there might not be the perfect kit for it, who knows by the time it's release there could be.

You can still enjoy some of the benefits of 1x now, as I said before there's a lot more to it than just losing a bit of weight. If you haven't tried it, give it a go, you might be surprised at how you get on with it

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

My original point was that wide-ratio 1x systems will become mainstream

I think you're wrong. For the forseeable future, anyway.

I'd try a proper 1 x 11 setup, if someone else was paying for it, but not interested in a flawed home-brew halfway house.

cubedean

Can we try and get back on topic about the frame and not whether 1x is better than 2x etc...

Hob Nob

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

My original point was that wide-ratio 1x systems will become mainstream

I think you're wrong. For the forseeable future, anyway.

I'd try a proper 1 x 11 setup, if someone else was paying for it, but not interested in a flawed home-brew halfway house.

You forget to say for you it's flawed, as you're not fit enough to handle it, as may be others. Doesn't mean it's flawed design though.

There are plenty of other people who are, who find the 1x development great.

lawman

cubedean wrote:

Can we try and get back on topic about the frame and not whether 1x is better than 2x etc...

People questioned the frame being 1x specific so I tried to explain the benefits of both I think On One are lookin ahead to the next two/three years and looking at how a lot of people are setting bikes up these days. A long travel 29er designed for enduro riding and racing, such as the codeine is likely going to be fitted with a single chainring now, despite the full benefits of wide-ratio 1x systems being widespread. But the frame is prepared for when it does.

DCR00

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

You don't have to be rich Easy task to convert any bike to 1x. Getting the full benefits of XX1/X01 will cost you, but current 1x systems are cheap to put together, potentially less than £50 for a narrow/wide chainring and some short chainring bolts. You won't have the range like you get with XX1, but it'll give you a damn good idea of what it'll be like. I've run a 34t chainring and 11-36t cassette for the last 2 years and it's been great.

1 x 10 without the wide ratio cassette of XX1/X01 is pointless. All it does is give you a really narrow range of ratios, for the sake of saving a few grammes. Carrying the extra weight of a shifter, front mech and second chainring (offset by not needing the weight of a chainguide) is a lot easier than trying to manage without the gear ratios you (I) need.

Its not all about weight. I like the simplicity of 1x10.

Reality is that you don't need 20 gears.

Once you ride 1x for a while, you realise this.

supersonic

What gearing is best for an individual is personal preference. There is no best system, all have advantages and disadvantages.

Northwind

Kowalski675 wrote:

That's totally irrelevant - you're talking about altering a bike already designed for a 2 (or 3) x 10 setup to a home brewed 1 x 10. The disadvantages outweigh the small weight loss (and it will be small, once you've added a chain device).

Most bikes are designed to pedal best in the middle ring anyway. And no need for a chain device ime- thick/thin ring has proved more reliable than my old chain device.

Having said that while 1x has benefits, I'm not sure what the benefits to making this frame 1x are supposed to be- if you can fit a chain device, you can fit an e-type mech surely?

The Northern Monkey

Head angle looks very steep... is that why the picture is taken at an angle?

cubedean

I'm sure I read somewhere the head angle is 67°.