Why don't people use single chainrings?
Split Cylcing
Posts: 20
Hi,
I'm an engineer and a cyclist, I've noticed that single chainrings aren't quite hitting the market as well as they should?
In theory a in-between gear will provide a suitable range of rotations at the cassette to provide a perfect gear.
I'm considering manufacturing and testing gears of different cam's to find out which is the best.
I wan't to know why it hasn't caught on yet?
I'm an engineer and a cyclist, I've noticed that single chainrings aren't quite hitting the market as well as they should?
In theory a in-between gear will provide a suitable range of rotations at the cassette to provide a perfect gear.
I'm considering manufacturing and testing gears of different cam's to find out which is the best.
I wan't to know why it hasn't caught on yet?
0
Comments
-
Front single chain rings have been mainstream in the MTB world for years, SRAM have just released them for and they seem to have been to have been available for roadies for a good while.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Thanks for your response,
I really don't see why it hasn't took off yet. I believe that it will become mainstream in the future, thats why Im considering manufacturing a conversion kit.0 -
Hi,
I'm an engineer and a cyclist, I've noticed that single chainrings aren't quite hitting the market as well as they should?
In theory a in-between gear will provide a suitable range of rotations at the cassette to provide a perfect gear.
I'm considering manufacturing and testing gears of different cam's to find out which is the best.
I wan't to know why it hasn't caught on yet?
It hasnt caught on because people want the greater range of ratios provided by multiple chainrings. I prefer triples myself. A single front ring wouldn't provide a great enough range of gears for me especially as I cycle a lot of hills.0 -
Because you wouldn't have a low enough gear for the hills, nor likely to have a big enough gear to stop spinning out on descents.0
-
Went to the Alps with a mate riding SRAM X1 with a 38t and 11-32. He gave up after the first day.
I'm guessing you live somewhere flat?English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0 -
I do in comparison to the alps
I just don't see why there isn't a perfect gear that is suitable for the range required for a general ride.0 -
Because what is suitable for one ride isn't suitable for another and people don't want to be changing chain rings every time they go for a rode.
For instance, I may go out and do a hill session on the Friday, a flat rolling session on the Saturday and a TT on the Sunday - all need different gearing but given a double up front and ten on the back all covered.
If I ran a front chain ring geared for hill work on the TT I'd spin my legs off. If I ran TT gearing on a hill I'd die.
Its all about options, which is why the derailleur and multiple chain rings came about.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
It makes sense on TT machines for flat courses (particularly if you only use 3-4 sprockets like Dangerfield did), but you're a gambler if you run single ring without a chain keeper of some sort, and the easiest choice is just to put a front mech on. Yes, it gives you a narrower Q, but I don't see why that one positive remotely outweighs the many negatives in most cases.0
-
TBH my first road bike was a triple with a 42 middle and I only ever used that when riding normally. Touring and trips to the lake district did see some action for the granny ring but most of the time I would have been happy with just the 42. BUT, it's not a huge disadvantage to have a 2nd (or 3rd) chainring and it can be a big advantage to have those options.0
-
I do in comparison to the alps
I just don't see why there isn't a perfect gear that is suitable for the range required for a general ride.
Because everyones "general ride" is different.0 -
I couldn't keep up with the group on a small ring.
I'd burn out on the climbs in a big ring.
I couldn't do either in a compromise.
A compromise just means you haven't got both considerations as good as they could be.
Pretty much what everyone else is saying.
If you live in a flat area going at your own speed then a single ring would be perfect.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19766933#p19766933]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:It makes sense on TT machines for flat courses (particularly if you only use 3-4 sprockets like Dangerfield did), but you're a gambler if you run single ring without a chain keeper of some sort, and the easiest choice is just to put a front mech on. Yes, it gives you a narrower Q, but I don't see why that one positive remotely outweighs the many negatives in most cases.
David Millar is a huge fan of a single ring with no chain keeper on TT bikes.
I would run a single on mine except that there's no real aero advantage and I need the 42 for climbing the hills to get to the start of half the courses out there.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0 -
Thanks for the advice everyone.
This is what I was hoping I could find.0 -
Also, I'm shocked I could generate this sort of response so close to christmas 0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19766933#p19766933]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:It makes sense on TT machines for flat courses (particularly if you only use 3-4 sprockets like Dangerfield did), but you're a gambler if you run single ring without a chain keeper of some sort, and the easiest choice is just to put a front mech on. Yes, it gives you a narrower Q, but I don't see why that one positive remotely outweighs the many negatives in most cases.
David Millar is a huge fan of a single ring with no chain keeper on TT bikes.
I would run a single on mine except that there's no real aero advantage and I need the 42 for climbing the hills to get to the start of half the courses out there.
He's also well known for an incident involving a dropped chain.
(Yes, I know he wasn't running single ring at the time)0 -
I thought that was the time.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19766949#p19766949]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19766933#p19766933]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:It makes sense on TT machines for flat courses (particularly if you only use 3-4 sprockets like Dangerfield did), but you're a gambler if you run single ring without a chain keeper of some sort, and the easiest choice is just to put a front mech on. Yes, it gives you a narrower Q, but I don't see why that one positive remotely outweighs the many negatives in most cases.
David Millar is a huge fan of a single ring with no chain keeper on TT bikes.
I would run a single on mine except that there's no real aero advantage and I need the 42 for climbing the hills to get to the start of half the courses out there.
He's also well known for an incident involving a dropped chain.
(Yes, I know he wasn't running single ring at the time)The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It was...English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
It depends on your fitness, strength and where you ride. I do xc mountain biking in remote places and a 2 x 10 setup gives me close gear ratios and i can get up very steep trails as well as speeding down faster trails. The same is true on my road bike which is 2 x 11. For me 1 x 10 doesn't suit my riding.0
-
I was thinking of the Giro in '08, though thinking about it the chain snapped rather than dropped.0
-
In theory a in-between gear will provide a suitable range of rotations at the cassette to provide a perfect gear.
Bad theory. Because there is no perfect gear. Either end of the gear range will be compromised whatever gear ratio you choose.I'm considering manufacturing and testing gears of different cam's to find out which is the best.
Best at what ? There is no best.
Dont waste you're time. 0 -
I say all of this as a lover of single chainrings, preferably with a single cog at the rear (ridden 10500km on fixed this year so far). I have 4 bikes that have a single chainring.
Single chainrings are great for utility bikes. My commuter has 8 gears at the back and a single chainring - it's great for London, though even then, I don't think gears 1,2,7 or 8 ever get much use!
But on the road, it's just not going to happen, the jumps are too big to keep a comfortable cadence. Fast, light touring maybe. But not for typical road cycling.
It will remain niche, though a slightly expanding niche as this whole gravel bike thing goes on.
But, yes, brilliant for utility cycling, but less so for hard road cycling.0 -
For general use you cant beat a double but on my daily commute i only use my 53 with a 12-25 cassette and frankly would be more than happy to remove the front and associated cabling etc (i tried but lost the chain too many times).
I am in the process of looking for a new commuter and ideally wanted a single set up but so far few decent bikes have come up so i am being forced into a double (canyon roadlite 7) seems best so far, for specific tasks a single is great, i love it on my mtb, would be good on my commuter, but my summer road will always be a double, a trip to the alps this year and a few local 20% grades kinda make it essential.0 -
Went to the Alps with a mate riding SRAM X1 with a 38t and 11-32. He gave up after the first day.
I'm guessing you live somewhere flat?
i ve friend, a mtb er who runs single speed no sus on his Jones steel bike, sometimes puts on a single chain ring with gears 10-40 cassette, he he races - but he is exceptional.
for most people, we need gears and lots of them
your mate needed the 10-40 lol!0 -
The issue with that is it's an absolutely massive spread of gears. I's fine on an mtb, but when you're trying to maintain a comfortable cadence on the road it's beyond grating.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
I do in comparison to the alps
I just don't see why there isn't a perfect gear that is suitable for the range required for a general ride.
Because everyones "general ride" is different.
I find the 'perfect' gear is 50 x 18 - big enough to not spin out when keeping up over in a group e.g sections of 20mph +, and small enough to get up all of the hills round where I live.0 -
53x19 is sooooo much betterEnglish Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
The issue with that is it's an absolutely massive spread of gears. I's fine on an mtb, but when you're trying to maintain a comfortable cadence on the road it's beyond grating.
Thats what i find. I think some people suit a single chainring due to how and where they ride. Others suffer trying to convince themselves it is a good idea.0 -
53x19 is sooooo much better
I can't cope with that extra 0.3 inch 0 -
Surely its only perfect envelope on a certain gradient? 1% change and the cadence would no longer be perfect?I do in comparison to the alps
I just don't see why there isn't a perfect gear that is suitable for the range required for a general ride.
Because everyones "general ride" is different.
I find the 'perfect' gear is 50 x 18 - big enough to not spin out when keeping up over in a group e.g sections of 20mph +, and small enough to get up all of the hills round where I live.
Do you only ever cycle on frozen lakes?0 -
If 50/18 is perfect for the "hills" where you live, I would suggest that where you live has no hills. Or, if it really does, and you can scream up anything with 50/18 I would suggest you call Trek Factory Racing as allegedly they are looking for a GC contender.0
