The future of road bikes and it aint pretty?

janwal

I wouldn't go back to two rings.I wanted to convert my Domane disc from Ultegra 34/50 with 11-32 and TRP hy/rd to hydraulic so chose SRAM Rival 1x with 40 front and 11-42 rear.There is nothing not to like.The range of gears is about 12-34 and ideal for the hilly Pennines hills so never short of a gear.I am still first up hills on a lot of rides and down hill doesn't bother me,freewheeling downhill At 30+ Is fine for me! The one finger hydraulic braking is just so nice as well.
I like it so much that I bought a Boardman cx team as a winter bike.This has 42 front 10-42 rear same as about a12-32.
People always say that there are too bigger jumps in gears.I have not found this to be a problem at all.just spin a bit more or push harder,simples, you just stop noticing it.
The teeth on the front chainring and and jockey wheels are also narrow/wide so hold the chain better and you never get a dropped chain to scratch that nice paintwork.Also because of the the sprung clutch of the rear derailleur the chain is always tensioned so no chain slap.Something that used to annoy me more than anything else with the ultegra.As for looks,I prefer it to a double it just looks neater and less cluttered in the flesh.

apreading

The idea is reasonable but making one of the most consumable components that used to cost peanuts (the cassette) into something costing upwards of £50 for 1x11 or upwards of £150 for 1x12 is crazy. And that is after the price has come down a bit from what it originally was. Maybe when they get cheap enough it might make sense.

janwal

Cost is not really a big argument in my opinion.An Ultegra 11-32 cassette is £50.A SRAM 11-42 is £55 so no real difference.Yes the 10-42 is more at £85 because of how it made for the XD driver hub.Not really going to break the bank though.I pay £40 for a tubeless tyre it's just another consumable that you have to pay for as part running a bike.

cycleclinic

i have 1x 11 on my Look 795. 12-27T cassette or a 11-21T. 1x rocks the bike has a green asymmetric chainring too.

the future of road bikes can be pretty. There are pretty modern bikes and ugly ones. 40 years ago there were pretty and ugly bikes too. nowt has changed on the front.

Andymaxy

I don't feel like it would be disturbing. It's like new iPhones. Every time a new iPhone comes out we think it's ugly, after a while it doesn't look that bad anymore

rolf_f

thecycleclinic wrote:

i have 1x 11 on my Look 795. 12-27T cassette or a 11-21T. 1x rocks the bike has a green asymmetric chainring too.

the future of road bikes can be pretty. There are pretty modern bikes and ugly ones. 40 years ago there were pretty and ugly bikes too. nowt has changed on the front.

What ugly bikes were there 40 years ago? Even Shimano kit looked nice then!

jgsi

Rolf F wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

i have 1x 11 on my Look 795. 12-27T cassette or a 11-21T. 1x rocks the bike has a green asymmetric chainring too.

the future of road bikes can be pretty. There are pretty modern bikes and ugly ones. 40 years ago there were pretty and ugly bikes too. nowt has changed on the front.

What ugly bikes were there 40 years ago? Even Shimano kit looked nice then!

We are talking road bikes here , but obviously some people do have very specific views..
https://www.pedalpedlar.co.uk/collections/vintage-bikes
have a good spread of 'older' bikes... I'm pushed to view many as 'ugly' a bit weird maybe , if you eye up the lo-pro ones...

davep1

I hate 1x with a passion! I think the small front ring and dinner plate cassette just looks like a toy bike. I disagree that 1x is better off road too. You need a range of gears, and yes there is overlap with 2x or even 3x, but you can have small gaps between teeth at the back. Maybe if you are racing where the reduced chance of something breaking and stopping your race was important, 1x may make sense. I don't believe the weight thing is a real issue either, I doubt very much you can actually feel the weight reduction.
I'm not really looking to buy a new mountain bike, but subjectively it seems like it is getting harder to buy one with a double, which I think is very very sad.
I think there is still the place for a good triple with a nice close ratio cassette. The control of only one step at the back with the bail out option of a couple of bigger jumps up front. What's not to like?

haydenm

DaveP1 wrote:

I hate 1x with a passion! I think the small front ring and dinner plate cassette just looks like a toy bike. I disagree that 1x is better off road too. You need a range of gears, and yes there is overlap with 2x or even 3x, but you can have small gaps between teeth at the back. Maybe if you are racing where the reduced chance of something breaking and stopping your race was important, 1x may make sense. I don't believe the weight thing is a real issue either, I doubt very much you can actually feel the weight reduction.
I'm not really looking to buy a new mountain bike, but subjectively it seems like it is getting harder to buy one with a double, which I think is very very sad.
I think there is still the place for a good triple with a nice close ratio cassette. The control of only one step at the back with the bail out option of a couple of bigger jumps up front. What's not to like?

This is why it's better, plus the noise when you are hammering down a proper track is worse than riding an Orange...

It's so much better on gravity related mtb, don't really mind on a road bike

lettingthedaysgoby

janwal wrote:

1x with 40 front and 11-42 rear

That would give a maximum of just over 25mph when peddling at 90rpm. Not enough, for me anyway.

thomasmorris

I quite like the look of the removal of the front mech. looks less cluttered in my opinion.

I like the idea of 1x on my MTB. The range is almost as good and with mtb the speed and cadence is variable you tend to just grind / spin through minor alterations. In many ways I find that closer ratios on a mtb just made it slower to get to a gear I wanted.

However, on the road I do really like to keep a steady rhythm, and with a close block you can really flick through the ratios and keep a very consistent cadence. If there is a gear missing on my road bike I do notice it. I'm not saying it's critical, but you do sometimes get stuck in gear 'limbo' (I run 12-25 and 52-36). However, if I could run 11-34 12 speed and 50t I reckon I would be happy.

The discs on the other hand... well they're the opposite in terms of looks. From a visual point of view I much prefer the appearance of an integrated rim brake. However, from my mtb day I do appreciate they would bring much better braking feel (even if grip limits maximum stopping power). I also like the side benefits of improved tyre clearance and not wearing down expensive carbon rims.

So I'm not completely convinced, however it certainly isn't the look of the bike that's putting me off.

Alex99

It can look nice. But whether it's even vaguely acceptable is another question.

It depends on:
-Gear range and where you live. I live in the Chilterns. I have a semi-compact with 12-27 or 12-25. I use the full range on most rides. I would hate to lose any of that range.
-Gaps. On both of the 12-25 and 12-27 I have no 16 sprocket. Maybe it's personal, but having bigger gaps would be a pain. When I finally go 11s, I'll have 12-25 so I have a 16. Going the other way is unfathomable for me.

Other issues:
-Chainline. Poor chainline = energy loss. 5% loss in the worst case. No thanks.
http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (admittedly with a Shimano 27 speed setup, not the latest and greatest 1x)
-You throw away more power as sprockets get small. No thanks.

Finally, why? Just why?

lettingthedaysgoby

I just don't see how 1x can give me the range I want. I just run a standard compact 50/34 front and an 11/32 at the back.

Any 1x system would involve a compromise at either end, surely? I'd either lose the 34/32 that gets me up any hill no matter how knackered I am, or I'd start spinning out at higher speeds.

Or am I missing something here?

janwal

You don't lose your range of the 34/32. A 40/42 is actually a slightly better climbing gear if you need it giving about a 34 rear gear equivalent.The 42/42 again is slightly better. But not massivley so. I just don't get this hang up that people have with wanting a close ratio all the time. Like I said just spin more or pedal harder I just don't regard it as a problem. I have no problem leading my mates at a steady 20mph if needed,we rarely go much faster when on a run anyway.Though that might be the 60+year old legs we all have! I rarely use the 10 or 11 at the rear as I prefer to spin more and I hardly ever pedal down hill.They are for freewheeling down!

burnthesheep

Lots of road and hybrid bikes under $750 or so still come in 7 or 8 speed rear cog. 11 speed has been out since what? 2012? So 5 years later and it's still a big price hump to get from 10 speed to 11.

We forget that the market is not predominantly racing bikes with bleeding edge tech. It's the folks buying thousands of commuter and comfort bikes.

Other than gravel/CX, I don't see 1x and an 11-42 rear cog in 12 or 13 speed really being a "thing" for a least another 10 years in a price point bicycle that someone like me would consider.

jgsi

burnthesheep wrote:

Lots of road and hybrid bikes under $750 or so still come in 7 or 8 speed rear cog. 11 speed has been out since what? 2012? So 5 years later and it's still a big price hump to get from 10 speed to 11.

We forget that the market is not predominantly racing bikes with bleeding edge tech. It's the folks buying thousands of commuter and comfort bikes.

Other than gravel/CX, I don't see 1x and an 11-42 rear cog in 12 or 13 speed really being a "thing" for a least another 10 years in a price point bicycle that someone like me would consider.

It's already here matey,,, you can get a Boardman Hybrid Commuter with the aforementioned fugly 1x at that pricepoint.

Alex99

janwal wrote:

You don't lose your range of the 34/32. A 40/42 is actually a slightly better climbing gear if you need it giving about a 34 rear gear equivalent.The 42/42 again is slightly better. But not massivley so. I just don't get this hang up that people have with wanting a close ratio all the time. Like I said just spin more or pedal harder I just don't regard it as a problem. I have no problem leading my mates at a steady 20mph if needed,we rarely go much faster when on a run anyway.Though that might be the 60+year old legs we all have! I rarely use the 10 or 11 at the rear as I prefer to spin more and I hardly ever pedal down hill.They are for freewheeling down!

You can spin, or pedal harder on a single speed.

The hangup is generally from people that spend at least some time making hard efforts. Finding the right gear when you're pushing hard can feel like a very crucial thing.

Alex99

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

I just don't see how 1x can give me the range I want. I just run a standard compact 50/34 front and an 11/32 at the back.

Any 1x system would involve a compromise at either end, surely? I'd either lose the 34/32 that gets me up any hill no matter how knackered I am, or I'd start spinning out at higher speeds.

Or am I missing something here?

You'd be missing one and a bit gears at the end, and you'd have some big gaps. A 10-42 cassette is like this:
10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42
That's a two tooth jump from 10 to 12, 20%!!! A similar shif on a cenventional set up is 12 to 13t, or 8%. 4 tooth jump from 24-28!

burnthesheep

JGSI wrote:

It's already here matey,,, you can get a Boardman Hybrid Commuter with the aforementioned fugly 1x at that pricepoint.

"Googles your post...........I'll be........damn, there it is". :shock: He's right.

Alex99

JGSI wrote:

burnthesheep wrote:

Lots of road and hybrid bikes under $750 or so still come in 7 or 8 speed rear cog. 11 speed has been out since what? 2012? So 5 years later and it's still a big price hump to get from 10 speed to 11.

We forget that the market is not predominantly racing bikes with bleeding edge tech. It's the folks buying thousands of commuter and comfort bikes.

Other than gravel/CX, I don't see 1x and an 11-42 rear cog in 12 or 13 speed really being a "thing" for a least another 10 years in a price point bicycle that someone like me would consider.

It's already here matey,,, you can get a Boardman Hybrid Commuter with the aforementioned fugly 1x at that pricepoint.

My daughter's hybrid has a 1x8 (11-32) and works great for her. Loads of kids bikes do now. It's fine, just not something for road bikes in my opinion.

mamba80

an industry desperate to sell us something new, that's all, the modern bicycle is pretty much perfect given the uci design constraints.

hopefully, 2x 11 and rim brakes will still be about until i pack it all in.

janwal

It must just be me.That"20%" jump just doesn't feel anything much in real life,you just carry on pedalling after the first time it just feels normal.Obviously to some extent it must also be my style of riding. Myself and the group of mates I ride with don't do hard balls out rides.Being retired we ride three or four times a week anything from 25 to 100+ miles at a time so the 1x just suites what I do. Still can't see why people think it is ugly it's just set of gears!

Alex99

janwal wrote:

It must just be me.That"20%" jump just doesn't feel anything much in real life,you just carry on pedalling after the first time it just feels normal.Obviously to some extent it must also be my style of riding. Myself and the group of mates I ride with don't do hard balls out rides.Being retired we ride three or four times a week anything from 25 to 100+ miles at a time so the 1x just suites what I do. Still can't see why people think it is ugly it's just set of gears!

Yes, maybe style of riding. Also some people like me, are probably over sensitive flowers.

svetty

We're all different - what I don't get is people who compromise on function for form/aesthetics. Hey-ho...

stevie63

What is interesting about these kinds of discussions is that 8-10 years ago on here there would have been a daily thread on here about compacts vs triples. I see this compact vs 1x as the same kind of thing and so maybe it will be the future of road bikes. For me I don't race, I'm not that fast and I can happily pedal at a cadence of anywhere from 70 to 100 rpm which means the jumps aren't really that big of a deal.

I already run a CX 46/36 chainset which was a great decision. No huge jumps between the chain rings and the smaller big ring means I can sit on the big ring for most of the time. So probably something like a 44 front with an 11-36 would give someone like me all the range I could ever need. However we are all different and have different abilities and needs. I think what is good is that never before have we had so many options as to what to use.

lettingthedaysgoby

stevie63 wrote:

I think what is good is that never before have we had so many options as to what to use.

Absolutely.

daniel_b

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aqua-blue-sport-to-compete-on-3t-strada-disc-bike-with-1x-drivetrain-in-2018/

ZMC888

Once you've ridden MTB narrow/wide single front ring you soon get used to the idea of a single front ring, but it just isn't practical on the road, no matter how ugly a front mech is, you'll be left without gears at the most interesting parts of your ride. I was riding today and I was spinning out on a mild downhill with a tailwind on a smooth road 56-58 km/h still pedalling, but not enough power to really effect anything on my 50-11. Yet with over 20% mountain gradient I need a 34T 11-32 minimum. Yet there are places in the world that I've ridden where 1x or 46T could be enough, but please don't apply those conditions to everyone, and I'm not saying it's fitness, it's all about terrain.

For me the future would be a double, maybe 53-36 with an 11-40 or 11-42 cassette 12speed or more. Then you'd have a mega lightweight 4 pot hydraulic caliper on the front with a disk brake, and then maybe a rim brake on the rear for lightweight simplicity.

Certainly I love the balanced mechanical simple appearance of a single front ring, and front and rear hydraulic disks, it ticks all the photo-shoot aesthetic boxes, but just doesn't make practical engineering sense in its current form.

neeb

Question - one of the arguments I've seen for 1x is that it's lighter - is it?

A front ring weights maybe 30 or 40g and a front derailleur is about 70g. I guess the front cable is a few more grams. How much weight is added by the extra sprockets and the longer rear derailleur on a 1x with the same range of gearing and reasonably close spacing between the largest sprockets? I assume you would need at least a 50T front chainring for a decent top gear as you can't go smaller than an 11T sprocket, so that's going to need several pretty big sprockets at the back to get low gears equivalent to those on (say) a 36 / 27.

Also, could there be downsides to shifting the balance of weight more towards the rear (bikes are already relatively back-heavy)?

cycleclinic

Of course with rose tinted specs every 40 years ago looked good but there was plenty of rubbish also. 1x works on hilly rides. Slowly my of my bikes will be converted. Next is the trek 2300 i have a 46T narrow wide chain ring for that and it will have an 11-30T 10 speed cassette.