1 by vs 2 by

shewy

Guys not really sure how you work this out but how does a one by compare bottom end and top end on the following?
44t 10-42
50/34 with an 11-32

Thinking of going 1 xx and was wondering if there is a huge difference at both ends, I understand that there will be a bigger jump between gears

akh

This is the best online gear calculator I've found. Plug the numbers in there and see what you think.

http://www.gear-calculator.com/

Only you know your preferred cadence or average speed

minnnt

Hi there Shewy. I thought I’d add my 2 penneth on this subject. I have both. Both are Boardman bikes, one is carbon (2x10) and one is aluminum (1x11). Both are nice and I can’t say I notice much if any difference between the two. I kinda like the simplicity of the 1x setup, it just works for me and it works well. I’ve never ridden a 34-32, but I think the 44-42 is pretty close to a 34-28 though.

fat_cat

I have 2 bikes with a similar set up.

Carbon - Spesh Roubaix running 50/34 11/32.

Aluminium - Planet X London Road running 42 11/42

Biggest difference as the OP says is the gaps between the gears that take some getting used to. With the lower (easier) gears the 1x set up is actually easier but the gap between the bottom 2 sprockets is quite large. In other words, you can be grinding in the second largest sprocket, and then spinning a bit too quick in once you shift down to the largest.

What you loose most is top end speed, as I can find myself spinning out on 42/11 on false flat downhills / tailwinds, whereas I rarely run out of gears on the Compact set up.

debeli

This is a question that each of us must answer for him or herself.

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.

But that is slightly o/t.

With a big spread on a cassette you lose that joyful close-ratio click-click-click as you gain speed....

But with a right cassette and a single ring up front you lose range....

If you have BIG CLIMBS and BIG DESCENTS, I would counsel a 2X set-up. More for the descents than the climbs. Struggling at low cadence on a climb can be good for the soul, but it can be annoying to spin away on a fast descent in the biggest available gear and make no positive contact with the driveline.

For flattish or slightly lumpy sites go single - but avoid too wide a spread of sprockets.

For landscape with big lumps to double... and 50 plus for the larger ring.

shewy

Thanks for the replies, never run out of gears downhill as to scared! As long as the gears grinding uphill are sufficient I think I'll go for this, just want 1 do it all bike with 2 sets of tyres for simplicity.

minnnt

I have the Boardman Team CX with the 10-42 and it’s a pretty hard bike to beat. I picked mine up second hand for £700 with a set of Schwalbe Rapid Robs and a pair of Continental GP4000s ii. Absolutely amazing piece of kit imo unless you’re a brand snob

chippyk

Debeli wrote:

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.

Freedom? How does the front mech shifter hinder your riding in any way? 1x is a fad, something for the manufacturers to shift because with a compact or a semi compact and an 11-32 or 12-32 Shimano Ultegra you’ve everything you’d ever need. Disc brakes I can see the advantages, ditto electronic or wireless shifting, 1x, sorry no.

cycleclinic

I get 1x. If you rarely use the inner ring then you might as well get rid of it. some people like a limited choice of gearing. my 1x has a 12-21T cassette on currently. The bike I am assembling currently and should sell has a 53/42T rings and 13-18T 6 speed freewheel. The gearing is so perfect I might have to keep it, it also fits me perfectly and is a pretty.

debeli

ChippyK wrote:

Debeli wrote:

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.

Freedom? How does the front mech shifter hinder your riding in any way? 1x is a fad, something for the manufacturers to shift because with a compact or a semi compact and an 11-32 or 12-32 Shimano Ultegra you’ve everything you’d ever need. Disc brakes I can see the advantages, ditto electronic or wireless shifting, 1x, sorry no.

Freedom may be the wrong word, but it does describe the feeling. To those like me (mid-50s) the double chain ring is not what we started out with.

My "best" road bike runs 53/39 and I simply love it. I also have various hardtail MTBs running triples, but for all that there is a sort of grace and benign minimalist functionality to limiting the number of choices, cables, levers and so on.

The spread of ratios now available on a 10 or 11-sprocket cassette makes the move to 1x seem quite sensible. In a similar vein one no longer specifies overdrive on the driveline of cars... they have plenty of spread in the gearbox.

kirkee

ChippyK wrote:

Debeli wrote:

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.

Freedom? How does the front mech shifter hinder your riding in any way? 1x is a fad, something for the manufacturers to shift because with a compact or a semi compact and an 11-32 or 12-32 Shimano Ultegra you’ve everything you’d ever need. Disc brakes I can see the advantages, ditto electronic or wireless shifting, 1x, sorry no.

Agreed, if you require a good spread gears for your riding 1x does not make sense to me either. If you dont req a spread of gear ranges go 1x. IMO 2x offers more versatility.

cycleclinic

And more hear changes. It comes down do larger changes in cadence bother you or do you prefer a steady 80-100rpm in which a double is needed.

It should not be to difficult to understand that 1x will suit some folk more than it suits others.

Anyway 1x is 10 gear to many. I like single speed.

keezx

minnnt wrote:

but I think the 44-42 is pretty close to a 34-28 though.

Ask your money back from school.

minnnt

Keezx wrote:

minnnt wrote:

but I think the 44-42 is pretty close to a 34-28 though.

Ask your money back from school.

Ask your grammar teacher for some back too!

davep1

Debeli wrote:

ChippyK wrote:

Debeli wrote:

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.

Freedom? How does the front mech shifter hinder your riding in any way? 1x is a fad, something for the manufacturers to shift because with a compact or a semi compact and an 11-32 or 12-32 Shimano Ultegra you’ve everything you’d ever need. Disc brakes I can see the advantages, ditto electronic or wireless shifting, 1x, sorry no.

Freedom may be the wrong word, but it does describe the feeling. To those like me (mid-50s) the double chain ring is not what we started out with.

My "best" road bike runs 53/39 and I simply love it. I also have various hardtail MTBs running triples, but for all that there is a sort of grace and benign minimalist functionality to limiting the number of choices, cables, levers and so on.

The spread of ratios now available on a 10 or 11-sprocket cassette makes the move to 1x seem quite sensible. In a similar vein one no longer specifies overdrive on the driveline of cars... they have plenty of spread in the gearbox.

You what?! I'm in my 50's and bikes have ALWAYS had doubles or even triples.

And to me, the simplicity of a double is that you have big changes with your left hand and smaller ones with your right; coarse and fine. I'm with Chippy K, 1x is a marketing fashion and the sooner it dies the better. Why restrict yourself?

haydenm

As long as you aren't racing in a peloton you'll be fine. Don't think I'd bother on a summer/race bike but it certainly has it's place elsewhere. People said the same about disc brakes, the benefit is debatable on a race bike but handy on winter/gravel/cx/mountain bikes. It's not a fad if used in the right application

superlightweight

I'm currently putting together a 1x11 winter bike. Last winter I probably spent 99% of my riding in the 39 ring with a 12-28 cassette so I thought I might as well go 1x for this build to simply things. I've gone for a 44t ring with 12-32 cassette which comfortably covers my gear range from last year (and adds some top end) without having to opt for a wide range cassette and the associated jumps between gears. So for my situation I'm hoping that it is a good solution, but I appreciate that it may not work for others. Now to finish building the damn thing......

shimanobottombracket

Debeli wrote:

This is a question that each of us must answer for him or herself.

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.
.

I prefer the incarceration and complexity of an extra lever. I like having a double or triple. I once hired a HT with a single front cog and I didnt mind it, but I would have preferred a double. More range is what I like. I know they say less is more, but for me this only applies to how much toilet paper I use.

I know this may sound like a stupid question, well it is a stupid question but why dont they have 8,9,10 or 11 cogs at the front and only 1, 2 or 3 at the back?

JesseD

HaydenM wrote:

As long as you aren't racing in a peloton you'll be fine. Don't think I'd bother on a summer/race bike but it certainly has it's place elsewhere. People said the same about disc brakes, the benefit is debatable on a race bike but handy on winter/gravel/cx/mountain bikes. It's not a fad if used in the right application

This!

The Rookie

My commuter has run as a 1x9 for the last 7 years, 44T up front and an 12:28 out back suites the commute just fine, I've popped an 11:34 MTB cassette on for the odd hilly ride. Saves over 1/3Kg off the bike weight as well.

haydenm

ShimanoBottomBracket wrote:

Debeli wrote:

This is a question that each of us must answer for him or herself.

I love the freedom and simplicity of a single gear lever. I also run fixed and s/s and love the feel of having no choice.
.

I prefer the incarceration and complexity of an extra lever. I like having a double or triple. I once hired a HT with a single front cog and I didnt mind it, but I would have preferred a double. More range is what I like. I know they say less is more, but for me this only applies to how much toilet paper I use.

I know this may sound like a stupid question, well it is a stupid question but why dont they have 8,9,10 or 11 cogs at the front and only 1, 2 or 3 at the back?

I'd guess it's because the front in 1,2 or 3 can give you all the range you could physically use and more chainrings would just give you lots of overlap. Don't quote me on the second part though!

I don't mean to call you out but the hardtail you hired must have had a reasonably small range on the rear cassette, in which case I'd rather have a double. They started doing 1x setups because of the drawbacks of having a front mech in tough conditions on mtb, but it's been a 'staged' process in making cassettes to match and give you the range you'd have been missing. My downhill bikes a few years ago had 1x but a rubbish range on the back which was pretty useless for going uphills (not that it mattered). You can now get a Sram Eagle 12 speed cassette with a 10-50 range which is frankly ludicrous, you can winch yourself up anything. Range isn't really the debate now the hardware has caught up, it's more about the gaps between each gear which could be an issue for close proximity racing.

I like the simplicity (and can stomach the look of the huge cogs on the back), and for the sort of mtb racing I do (enduro) you need your bike to withstand all conditions of downhill racing but also be able to pedal back up and feel as fresh as possible for the next downhill stage. You can't buy a mid/top end enduro bike without a 1x setup these days either. The 1x12 Eagle setup is also used on their top level XC bikes but I have no experience of that, it seems to work. A bit like disc brakes and through axles, it's interesting to see what bits of mountain bike* tech are actually useful on road bikes and whether it is worth the benefit for the weight penalty (although I guess the minimum weight limit gives some scope for marginally heavier tech).

*I say mountain bike tech as that is where they are getting their ideas from, I am aware that disc brakes aren't solely used on mountain bikes

Ted Mason

JesseD "I know this may sound like a stupid question, well it is a stupid question but why dont they have 8,9,10 or 11 cogs at the front and only 1, 2 or 3 at the back?"

No such thing as a stupid question the simple answer is weight, the cogs at the front would need to be bigger and also gear ratios would be wider apart, aside from the chain run problems

Alex99

I must have some kind of Stockholm syndrome for my extra chainring and front mech. I'll continue to shun the freedom of fewer gears.

Alex99

Ted Mason wrote:

JesseD "I know this may sound like a stupid question, well it is a stupid question but why dont they have 8,9,10 or 11 cogs at the front and only 1, 2 or 3 at the back?"

No such thing as a stupid question the simple answer is weight, the cogs at the front would need to be bigger and also gear ratios would be wider apart, aside from the chain run problems

...and you've seen the trouble that some people have managing two chainrings!!! Imagine a 4x5 setup :shock:

It would also make the whole thing a bit too wide at the front, and anyway, 2x works so very nicely.

haydenm

Alex99 wrote:

I must have some kind of Stockholm syndrome for my extra chainring and front mech. I'll continue to shun the freedom of fewer gears.

For what sort of bike?

davep1

The Rookie wrote:

My commuter has run as a 1x9 for the last 7 years, 44T up front and an 12:28 out back suites the commute just fine, I've popped an 11:34 MTB cassette on for the odd hilly ride. Saves over 1/3Kg off the bike weight as well.

So, 300 grams?!

Alex99

HaydenM wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

I must have some kind of Stockholm syndrome for my extra chainring and front mech. I'll continue to shun the freedom of fewer gears.

For what sort of bike?

Road bikes.

janwal

Shewy please aware if you go for 10-42 you need a wheel with a non splined xd river body for the cassette not a standard splined one to accommodate the 10 cog . 11-42 uses a standard cassette body. They are not interchangeable. The 10-42 is equivalent to about a 12-32. I have 1x on two bikes and love it. Down hill speed doesn’t bother me I can freewheel plenty fast enough! Don’t really notice the big gaps between cogs, just push harder or spin more. I have no problem leading out my mates on compacts uphill and on the flat, as I said downhill doesn’t bother me.On a compact you have a lot of duplicate gears anyway. As for looking ugly I just don’t see it. It’s only a set of gears,just get on and ride it.

debeli

DaveP1 wrote:

Debeli wrote:

ChippyK wrote:

You what?! I'm in my 50's and bikes have ALWAYS had doubles or even triples.

And to me, the simplicity of a double is that you have big changes with your left hand and smaller ones with your right; coarse and fine. I'm with Chippy K, 1x is a marketing fashion and the sooner it dies the better. Why restrict yourself?

You are very lucky... I was on singlespeed until I got an S/A 3-speed at about right or nine and my first Simplex 5-speed at about 13. My first 10-speed, comverted very inexpertly by me at about sixteen on cottered hubs with parts from my LBS, was a disaster.

I was 19 before I bought my first 'from the factory' double, which I think had a very fancy 6-speed freewheel.

As to triples, that was a rigid-fork Marin MTB in the late 80s.... I do not think I was rare in barely riding a double until my late teens... and I was more 'bikey' than most at that age.

If you were on double or triples from the outset and are now in your fifties, I salute you. But I was not and am still drawn back to the relative simplicity of a single shifter.

haydenm

Alex99 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

I must have some kind of Stockholm syndrome for my extra chainring and front mech. I'll continue to shun the freedom of fewer gears.

For what sort of bike?

Road bikes.

Stockholm syndrome in road cyclists is hardly unheard of...

davep1

Debeli wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

Debeli wrote:

ChippyK wrote:

You what?! I'm in my 50's and bikes have ALWAYS had doubles or even triples.

And to me, the simplicity of a double is that you have big changes with your left hand and smaller ones with your right; coarse and fine. I'm with Chippy K, 1x is a marketing fashion and the sooner it dies the better. Why restrict yourself?

You are very lucky... I was on singlespeed until I got an S/A 3-speed at about right or nine and my first Simplex 5-speed at about 13. My first 10-speed, comverted very inexpertly by me at about sixteen on cottered hubs with parts from my LBS, was a disaster.

I was 19 before I bought my first 'from the factory' double, which I think had a very fancy 6-speed freewheel.

As to triples, that was a rigid-fork Marin MTB in the late 80s.... I do not think I was rare in barely riding a double until my late teens... and I was more 'bikey' than most at that age.

If you were on double or triples from the outset and are now in your fifties, I salute you. But I was not and am still drawn back to the relative simplicity of a single shifter.

My first bike (a racer!) was a second hand Raleigh Hustler, with that engineering thing of beauty, the Sturmey Archer 3 speed. I had a few years off at uni then travelling, and then in the mid eighties got the bug again. Mountain bikes were becoming popular, and a shop was selling a Specialised with a triple for 60% of the retail price so I went to have a look, thinking it was an MTB. I got there and it was an early hybrid, a drop handle barred road bike, with a triple chainset (the oval ones, remember them?!). I nearly walked away, but had another look, and a test ride round the block, and bought it anyway. Did loads of miles on it, and still have it on the wall in the garage, may restore it some day.

Back to my original point, which I didn't make that well. Bikes have had doubles and triples for years, so I think your experience is rarer than most. I really don't get the arguments for 1x drivetrains, they all sound like lame excuses to justify some alternative way of changing gear and for manufacturers to get us to keep spending. They aren't that much lighter, I just can't get my head around the idea of their simplicity, front shifters and derailleurs are hardly unreliable etc etc. To me, any 1x drive train is a bigger compromise than a double or triple.