Industry gearing fads

Vino'sGhost

if youre buying from a shop get them to change it. Simples.

if you're getting from a shop and you want to beat them down to the point of no margin then expect to pay

Or buy a frame and build it with exactly the kit you want. Where is the problem?

CitizenLee

DaveP1 wrote:

Thanks for the (patronising) reply.

lol, any time

DaveP1 wrote:

Is it necessary to try something to have an opinion?

To have have an informed opinion, it kind of is, yes... otherwise it's just baseless assumptions.

I always assumed black pudding would be hideously disgusting until I tried it :P

DaveP1 wrote:

Whatever gear system you have, there will be a compromise somewhere. For me, a 1x set up is a compromise too far over a double (or shock horror even a triple). To get the range of a double, you need a cassette with a massive spread of gears, and possibly a couple of different chain rings to swap in or out depending on where you are going. You then also have big jumps between each cog on the cassette; in my experience when you are climbing off road you want them to be pretty close to each other.

Yes, everything comes with it's own compromise, 1x, 2x and 3x - some just have more compromises than others.

My 1x10 is limited in it's top speed ability, but that's a trade off I'm happy with for everything else it offers. I'm certainly never in a position where I'm thinking "damn, I wish I had more chainrings"... I just get on with it and if it bothered me that much I'd just buy a chainring with a few more teeth. Or I could upgrade to 1x11 or 1x12 and have more range at both ends.

As I said, put the numbers into a gearing calc. Your current gearing vs a modern 1x11 or 1x12.

DaveP1 wrote:

I have read extensively about the so-called benefits of 1x systems, and they all seem like vague/sketchy justifications for change. "much less weight" you say, how much less? 500g? 2kg? "Less clutter"? Even my ancient hardtail has brake and shifters combined. "Less to go wrong/maintain"? The amount of times I have a problem with my front mech compared to the rear mech is negligible. Yes it is fiddly to clean a front mech, but in terms of cleaning a whole bike that has been off roading (or even on the road) in the winter, not that big a deal. "Less expense"? Are you sure about that? Retail costs for groupsets I just looked at SRAM Force 1x the RRP is more than SRAM Force 2x. Yes there are deals where 1x is cheaper but not that much. "No chain drops"? Again, if you ride on bumpy terrain I just don't believe that. I know with my front mech, if the chain comes off the front I can get it back on again using the shifter more times than not. I don't have a chain guide or tensioner either.

The weights of most parts are readily available online. If you need to know the exact difference then you're free to add them all up... but a crankset with only 1 ring will obviously weight less than a crankset with 2 or 3 rings + shifter, mech and cable.

We're not talking ancient hardtails or cheapo bikes though, we're talking about modern bikes, where most will not have combined brake/shifter as these tend to be exclusive to the lower end groupsets. You're losing a cable too, which on modern bikes is a benefit as most will likely have a dropper post button/lever in place of the front shifter, so yes - less bar clutter.

Less expense as in when a chainring wears out you only have to buy one, not two or three... and there's no front cable to snap/stretch/replace, no front mech or shifter to break and replace, so no associated cost replacing parts that aren't there. Obviously if you're converting to a 1x there will be a cost but then long term costs will be less due to less parts. Same if you're buying a new bike that comes with 1x.

I have hand on heart never had a single chain drop on my MTB since I fitted the narrow wide ring and clutch mech a few years back. Not a single one. Some of the trails I ride as used for the Scottish Downhill Association races so can definitely considered "bumpy". Additionally, as former BMXer one of my favourite activities on my bikes is throwing myself off jumps and drops, so if the chain was going to come off then it would have by now.

As I said in my previous reply - it just seems that 1x isn't right for you... which is fine, but you're only seeing it from your own perspective which isn't based on actually using a 1x equipped bike. You could counter that by saying I am doing the same from my PoV but I've owned and tried 1x, 2x and 3x plus the fact that it has become the standard on the majority of bikes means that there are clear benefits to the majority of riders. It's not all just evil marketing nonsense to part us from our money, I hate that b/s too (don't get me started on MTB wheelsize!). Some change is good, no matter how much people are resistant to it.

Go try it

kajjal

Strangely on my 2 x 11 MTB I found the range of gears for climbing really good but for accelerating fast the gaps between the gears were sometimes to too small so I ended up jumping a couple of gears. Didn't find this as a problem on my 2 x 10 MTB which had a lower range cassette which I am assuming is the cause.

1x does not work for me as well on the natural trails I ride but I could see it being very useful at many trail parks.

roger_merriman

I have 3 bikes, a older MTB that is my commute bike, had been 3x9 now 1x9 for it's now use, ie heavy bomb proof transport that works well, mainly because your not swapping chainrings ie being stuck between gears.

I have a gravel and MTB both doubles, I ride natural stuff, can't say I miss 1x or want it on those, they both will happily use the full cassette on either chain ring, unlike a triple say.

In terms of extra maintenance? Derailleurs generally last for years, cables aren't terribly expensive, I can see less clutter if you have dropper posts etc, would be attractive.

I actually use the chainrings on the MTB, to quickly drop gearing as I hit a steep ramp etc.

MisterMuncher

An overlooked benefit of larger chainrings is that it tightens up the gaps in ratios a little, although that depends how you feel about varying your cadence.

I'm pretty happy with 52/36-11/25 on my road bikes for now, and I do live in a pretty mountainous area.

haydenm

DaveP1 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

In my experience of what the vast majority of UK based enduro racers do, 1x is better.

Admittedly I said 2x was rubbish on mountain bikes in general which is a bit of an over statement, in some circumstances it's a bit less rubbish

UK based enduro racers? The population of UK off road riders is way bigger than that!

Obviously I know that :roll:

I was just pointing out that there are people who very much like it whether you are convinced or not. You said you weren't convinced in any format. But anyway, 1x is by far the most popular for most off road riding these days

davidof

kirkee wrote:

52 36 cranks another industry invented new fad that doesn't make any sense,

friend of mind bought them "Pro Gearing innit" he told me at the bottom of the col du Chat. He didn't seem quite so pro when he finally made it to the summit.

florerider

It's the 11 tooth that gets me, use 12 27 10 speed, would want 12 29 not 11 28 for 11 speed, and I want the 16 tooth.

Can't see 52x11 getting much use. Maybe be a reason for a new Colnago with Campag..

kajjal

davidof wrote:

kirkee wrote:

52 36 cranks another industry invented new fad that doesn't make any sense,

friend of mind bought them "Pro Gearing innit" he told me at the bottom of the col du Chat. He didn't seem quite so pro when he finally made it to the summit.

Having unhelpful gearing when doing a climb that just keeps getting steeper is a harsh learning experience.

DavidJB

The main thing that pisses me off is Aero bikes that come with compact chainsets

svetty

Kajjal wrote:

davidof wrote:

kirkee wrote:

52 36 cranks another industry invented new fad that doesn't make any sense,

friend of mind bought them "Pro Gearing innit" he told me at the bottom of the col du Chat. He didn't seem quite so pro when he finally made it to the summit.

Having unhelpful gearing when doing a climb that just keeps getting steeper is a harsh learning experience.

It's not unhelpful gearing but unwilling legs

keef66

paul64 wrote:

Is there a technical reason why we don't see 36/50?

When I started riding it was on 42/52 and I appreciated the transition between chainrings and 2 clicks to adjust gears. Over time I moved from 21 to 23 to 25 to 27 on cassettes and from 42/52 to 39/52 to 34/50, I still love to ride in my 50s but my body and knees especially appreciate the ease of gearing. These days I have 2 bikes with 34/50 and one with 36/52 and all have a 29 sprocket for those 1 in 5 or worse short climbs on my routes.

Ideally I would have 36/50 so that a 14 tooth jump on the front that is technically better, unless I am mistaken. Or perhaps the evolution of derailleurs over time solved it anyway.

My experience exactly. (How in god's name did I get up Ditchling in 42/21??)
Now I'm technically into my 60s and I'm keeping my 105 50/39/30 triple going for as long as possible on the best bike. Nicer jumps between chainrings and closely spaced cassette so I can always find the right gear for what's left of my muscles and joints.
And on the wet weather bike I have a 46/36 CX chainset; again a comfy jump between chainrings and TBH I don't miss the top end speed.

Could you perhaps fit a 50t chainring on a CX chainset to make your 50/36?

MisterMuncher

DavidJB wrote:

The main thing that pisses me off is Aero bikes that come with compact chainsets

TT bikes with compacts as standard. Trek Speed Concept, for one.

Stuart46

52 - 36 gives you a really wide range of gearing, it wasn't done before because, such a big jump made changes difficult with better tech now it's possible.

taon24

DavidJB wrote:

The main thing that pisses me off is Aero bikes that come with compact chainsets

Why?
A 50x34 with a 11-32 will get you to 40mph at sensible cadence. I think you'd need to be seriously into racing to need more than this. The lower gear at the bottom 34 v 36 or 39 will be of more beneficial to the vast majority of bike owners and people still want to get over mountains
If you are racing and using higher level groupsets I'd hope there would be some flexibility when buying a new bike (Offered either a choice or a 52/36)
I still think that sora/claris level bikes should be offered with sub compact (48x32 or 46x30) as standard as people will do much better not walking up the steep hills in the UK than being able to pedal at 40mph.

roger_merriman

taon24 wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

The main thing that pisses me off is Aero bikes that come with compact chainsets

Why?
A 50x34 with a 11-32 will get you to 40mph at sensible cadence. I think you'd need to be seriously into racing to need more than this. The lower gear at the bottom 34 v 36 or 39 will be of more beneficial to the vast majority of bike owners and people still want to get over mountains
If you are racing and using higher level groupsets I'd hope there would be some flexibility when buying a new bike (Offered either a choice or a 52/36)
I still think that sora/claris level bikes should be offered with sub compact (48x32 or 46x30) as standard as people will do much better not walking up the steep hills in the UK than being able to pedal at 40mph.

Quite, my gravel bike has 48/32 it takes a big hill for me to spin out, and I gain low gearing for those steep off road climbs.